Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change

Abstract

What theories or concepts are most useful at explaining socio technical change? How can – or cannot – these be integrated? To provide an answer, this study presents the results from 35 semi-structured research interviews with social science experts who also shared more than two hundred articles, reports and books on the topic of the acceptance, adoption, use, or diffusion of technology. This material led to the identification of 96 theories and conceptual approaches spanning 22 identified disciplines. The article begins by explaining its research terms and methods before honing in on a combination of fourteen theories deemed most relevant and useful by the material. These are: Sociotechnical Transitions, Social Practice Theory, Discourse Theory, Domestication Theory, Large Technical Systems, Social Construction of Technology, Sociotechnical Imaginaries, Actor-Network Theory, Social Justice Theory, Sociology of Expectations, Sustainable Development, Values Beliefs Norms Theory, Lifestyle Theory, and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. It then positions these theories in terms of two distinct typologies. Theories can be placed into five general categories of being centered on agency, structure, meaning, relations or norms. They can also be classified based on their assumptions and goals rooted in functionalism, interpretivism, humanism or conflict. The article lays out tips for research methodology before concluding with insights about technology itself, analytical processes associated with technology, and the framing and communication of results. An interdisciplinary theoretical and conceptual inventory has much to offer students, analysts and scholars wanting to study technological change and society.

User decision-making in transitions to electrified, autonomous, shared or reduced mobility

“…Stern, 2000). Certainly, some psychological theories, such as the Value-Belief-Norm model (Stern et al, 1998) which has been very influential in environmental psychology, do not endeavour to explain 'external' factors, instead focussing on internal processes or on behaviours that may be relatively unconstrained by institutions or infrastructures (Sovacool & Hess, 2017). Nevertheless, to understand behaviour and decision-making in relation to mobility requires attention not only to norms and meanings, but also to structures and relations that prescribe and proscribe travel (Anable et al, 2006;Axsen & Kurani, 2012).…”

Exploring the Disruptiveness of Cryptocurrencies: A Causal Layered Analysis-Based Approach

“…This study was set out to explore (i) whether the diffusion of cryptocurrencies represents a disruptive change, and (ii) what is the potential magnitude of this change? To meet this objective, we built on disruptive innovation theory [15,17] (Christensen 1997;Christensen et al 2018) to scrutinize cryptocurrencies as an instance of sociotechnical change [13,[20][21][22] and employed Causal Layered Analysis [23,26] to conceptually examine its disruptiveness.…”

“…As a result, the research question this study addresses is two-fold: (1) does the diffusion of cryptocurrencies represent a disruptive change, and (2) what is the potential magnitude of this change? To this end, we build on disruptive innovation theory [14][15][16][17] to scrutinize cryptocurrencies as an instance of socio-technical change [18][19][20][21][22] and conceptually explore its disruptiveness through the Causal Layered Analysis [23][24][25][26].…”

Conspicuous diffusion: Theorizing how status drives innovation in electric mobility

“…The diffusion of certain technologies, like electric vehicles (EVs), solar panels, or zero-energy homes, are arguably key to the low-carbon transition of society as well as having several important cobenefits such as public health improvements (von Stackelberg et al 2013;Jacobson et al 2013). Many have sought to understand how these technologies diffuse, particularly by focusing on sociotechnical processes of decarbonization (B. K. Sovacool and Hess 2017;Geels 2012;Rogers 2003). However, only a few of these studies have discussed diffusion or transition theory in the scope of EV adoption (Geels 2012;Zhang, Gensler, and Garcia 2011;B.…”