Imaginaries of Road Transport Automation in Finnish Governance Culture—A Critical Discourse Analysis

Abstract

As transport automation technology continues to emerge, there is a need to engage in the questions of its governing—to find a balance between unreflective enablement and rigid control. An increasing body of literature has begun to address the topic, but only a few studies have examined discourse and culture as central components of the related governance processes. This article aims to analyse the discourse surrounding self-driving vehicles in the Finnish context by drawing from the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries. The critical discourse analysis framework is applied to study a comprehensive set of documents published by Finnish national-level governmental bodies from 2013 to 2020. The analysis identifies four imagined ways of implementing self-driving vehicles into the Finnish transport system and a large set of mostly positive anticipated implications. Moreover, the analysis illustrates the transport automation imaginary’s cultural and spatial detachment, most obvious in the lack of detail and the disconnection between the imagined implementations and the anticipated implications. The findings are convergent with findings from other governance contexts, where discourse has been largely characterised by an unjustified optimism and strong determinism related to the wedlock with the automobility regime. If left unaddressed, such lack of reflectivity will not just lead to a plethora of undesired implications for Finnish society at large but will also signify a failure in developing an adaptive governance culture needed to face challenges of the 21st century.

Connectivity, centrality, and adaptation: The coproduction of political space in China’s standardization of autonomous driving technologies

“…Empirically, it adds to recent findings that China's different national goals for digital infrastructure development may compete with each other, reducing the country's potential to coherently connect with the world on its own terms (Huang & Mayer, 2023). Further research could explore China’s ICV standardization and spatiality from a more practice-oriented perspective, linking up to recent work on the negotiation of autonomous driving imaginaries (Olin & Mladenović, 2022) and pathways to “democratizing” innovation (Stilgoe, 2020), as well as to work on China’s practices of standardization negotiation and cooperation (Fuchs & Eaton, 2021; Nanni, 2022).…”

Experimenting with automated driving for technology or for the city? A matter of governance cultures

“…The term governance culture underlines cultural meanings and values in relation to acceptable purposes and appropriate mechanisms of governance practices (Rogge and Reichardt, 2016;Paulsson et al, 2017;Olin and Mladenović, 2022). Therefore, it allows for an account of the broader cultural context (e.g., operational assumptions, modes of thought, related practices, and organizational mechanisms) in which these actors and institutions are embedded (Mladenović et al, 2020).…”

Identifying, nurturing and empowering alternative mobility narratives

“…Thus, contemporary mobility language focusses our attention while limiting their imagination, which is both a wider characteristic of organizational decision-making, and a particular characteristic of mobility-related institutions ( Bevir, 2011 ;Olin & Mladenovi ć, 2022 ; Rindova & Martins, 2022 ;Ruhrort, 2022 ). The underlying choices that shape this language hold great power over individual thinking and organizational decision-making, that is to say, they hold power over which problems are identified and which are not, which solutions are invented and which are not.…”