Filtering by
- All Subjects: Sustainability
- All Subjects: Institutional Analysis
- All Subjects: Chytridiomycosis
feedback control models of social-ecological systems (SESs), to inform policy and the
design of institutions guiding resilient resource use. Cote and Nightingale (2012) note that
the main assumptions of resilience research downplay culture and social power. Addressing
the epistemic gap between positivism and interpretation (Rosenberg 2016), this dissertation
argues that power and culture indeed are of primary interest in SES research.
Human use of symbols is seen as an evolved semiotic capacity. First, representation is
argued to arise as matter achieves semiotic closure (Pattee 1969; Rocha 2001) at the onset
of natural selection. Guided by models by Kauffman (1993), the evolution of a symbolic
code in genes is examined, and thereon the origin of representations other than genetic
in evolutionary transitions (Maynard Smith and Szathmáry 1995; Beach 2003). Human
symbolic interaction is proposed as one that can support its own evolutionary dynamics.
The model offered for wider dynamics in society are “flywheels,” mutually reinforcing
networks of relations. They arise as interactions in a domain of social activity intensify, e.g.
due to interplay of infrastructures, mediating built, social, and ecological affordances (An-
deries et al. 2016). Flywheels manifest as entities facilitated by the simplified interactions
(e.g. organizations) and as cycles maintaining the infrastructures (e.g. supply chains). They
manifest internal specialization as well as distributed intention, and so can favor certain
groups’ interests, and reinforce cultural blind spots to social exclusion (Mills 2007).
The perspective is applied to research of resilience in SESs, considering flywheels a
semiotic extension of feedback control. Closer attention to representations of potentially
excluded groups is justified on epistemic in addition to ethical grounds, as patterns in cul-
tural text and social relations reflect the functioning of wider social processes. Participatory
methods are suggested to aid in building capacity for institutional learning.
Three dilemmas plague governance of scientific research and technological
innovation: the dilemma of orientation, the dilemma of legitimacy, and the dilemma of control. The dilemma of orientation risks innovation heedless of long-term implications. The dilemma of legitimacy grapples with delegation of authority in democracies, often at the expense of broader public interest. The dilemma of control poses that the undesirable implications of new technologies are hard to grasp, yet once grasped, all too difficult to remedy. That humanity has innovated itself into the sustainability crisis is a prime manifestation of these dilemmas.
Responsible innovation (RI), with foci on anticipation, inclusion, reflection, coordination, and adaptation, aims to mitigate dilemmas of orientation, legitimacy, and control. The aspiration of RI is to bend the processes of technology development toward more just, sustainable, and societally desirable outcomes. Despite the potential for fruitful interaction across RI’s constitutive domains—sustainability science and social studies of science and technology—most sustainability scientists under-theorize the sociopolitical dimensions of technological systems and most science and technology scholars hesitate to take a normative, solutions-oriented stance. Efforts to advance RI, although notable, entail one-off projects that do not lend themselves to comparative analysis for learning.
In this dissertation, I offer an intervention research framework to aid systematic study of intentional programs of change to advance responsible innovation. Two empirical studies demonstrate the framework in application. An evaluation of Science Outside the Lab presents a program to help early-career scientists and engineers understand the complexities of science policy. An evaluation of a Community Engagement Workshop presents a program to help engineers better look beyond technology, listen to and learn from people, and empower communities. Each program is efficacious in helping scientists and engineers more thoughtfully engage with mediators of science and technology governance dilemmas: Science Outside the Lab in revealing the dilemmas of orientation and legitimacy; Community Engagement Workshop in offering reflexive and inclusive approaches to control. As part of a larger intervention research portfolio, these and other projects hold promise for aiding governance of science and technology through responsible innovation.
My first study investigates how the presence of private infrastructure, such as groundwater pumps, affects the provision of shared infrastructure, such as shared tanks or surface reservoirs. I examine whether formal institutions, such as water pricing instruments, may prevent under-provision of the shared tanks. My findings suggest that in the absence of rules that coordinate tank maintenance, the presence of private pumps will have a detrimental effect on system productivity and equality. On the other hand, the combination of a fixed groundwater fee and a location-based maintenance fee for tank users can improve system productivity and equality.
The second study examines the effect of power asymmetries between farmers, caused by informal institutions such as caste, on the persistence of political institutions that govern infrastructure provision. I examined the effect of policy tools, such as non-farm wage employment and informational interventions, on the persistence of two types of political institutions: self-governed and nested. Results suggest that critical regime shifts in political institutions can be generated by either intervening in formal institutions, such as non-farm wage employment, or informal institutions, such as knowledge transmission or learning mechanisms.
The third study investigates how bureaucratic and political corruption affect public good provision. I examine how institutional and environmental factors affect the likelihood of corruption and infrastructure provision. I demonstrate that cracking down on corruption is only beneficial when infrastructure provision is poor. I also show that bureaucratic wages play an important role in curbing extralegal transactions and improving infrastructure provision.