Social learning inside and outside transition projects : Playing free jazz for a heavy metal audience

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

NJAS

-

Wageningen

Journal

of

Life

Sciences

j ou rn a l h o m e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c om / l o c a t e / n j a s

Social

learning

inside

and

outside

transition

projects:

Playing

free

jazz

for

a

heavy

metal

audience

Pieter.

J. Beers

a,∗

_,

_Frans

_Hermans

b

_,

_Tom

_Veldkamp

c

_,

_Jules

_Hinssen

d

a_Education_and_Competence_Studies_Group_/_Knowledge,_Technology_and_Innovation_Group,_Wageningen_University,_P.O._Box_8130,₆₇₀₀_EW_Wageningen,

TheNetherlands

b_Knowledge,_Technology_and_Innovation_Group,_Wageningen_University,_P.O._Box_8130,₆₇₀₀_EW_Wageningen,_The_Netherlands

c_{ITC–Faculty}_of_{Geo-Information}_Science_and_Earth_Observation,_University_of_Twente,_P.O._Box_217,₇₅₀₀_AE_Enschede,_The_Netherlands

d_Telos,_Tilburg_University,_Postbus_90153,₅₀₀₀_LE_Tilburg,_The_Netherlands

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received3May2012

Receivedinrevisedform11October2013

Accepted11October2013

Availableonline13November2013

Keywords: Sociallearning Innovationexperiments Transitions FieldofChange

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Accordingtotransition science,systeminnovationrequiresexperimentation andsociallearningto explorethepotentialofinnovationsforsustainabledevelopment.However,thetransitionscience lit-eraturedoesnotelaboratemuchonthelearningprocessesinvolved.Senge’sFieldofChangeprovidesa moredetailedapproachtotheroleoflearningandactionininnovation.WelinkedtheFieldofChange totransitionmanagementliteratureinordertoexploresociallearninginanagriculturalinnovation experimentintheNetherlandscalledthe‘NewMixedFarm’.Ourﬁndingsshowthattheprojectpartners focussedprimarilyonthelevelofactionanddidnotlearnabout(thevaluesprevalentin)their envi-ronment.Ouranalysissuggeststhatsociallearningaboutaproject’senvironmentshouldbeorganised speciﬁcallytoaverttheriskofaprojectignoringitsenvironment.Furthermore,therelevanceofsocial learninginrelationtosocietalcontextisshown:aninnovationexperimentthatdoesnotorcannotlearn aboutitsenvironmentisunabletorespondtomountingsocietalpressuresandthereforepronetofailure. Finally,theresultsshowthattheFieldofChangecanberelatedtotransitiontheoryinordertoprovide amoredetailedapproachtolearninginsysteminnovation.

1. Introduction

Innovationandlearningareoftenseenastwosidesofthesame coin[1].Thisisparticularlytrueforsysteminnovation,whichisnot aboutimprovingacurrentsystem(doingthingsbetter),but struc-turallychangingit(doingbetterthings)[2,3].Systeminnovation requiresexperimentationandlearningtoexplorethepotentialfor sustainabledevelopmentofnewtechnologies,newwaysofdoing thingsandnewproduct-marketcombinations.Systeminnovation isnotaprocessthatcanbemanagedororganised,butitdoesseem possibletocontributetotheconditionsthatfavourchange.Many scholarsintheﬁeldofsysteminnovationhavethereforeargued thatworkingtowardssysteminnovationrequiresdifferentforms ofbothlearningandaction[e.g.,1-4].

Traditionally,innovationwasoftenregardedasalinearprocess ofresearch,development,communicationandimplementation[5].

Abbreviations:ADA,AgriculturalDevelopmentArea;NMF,NewMixedFarm.

∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+31317482484.

E-mailaddresses:pj.beers@wur.nl(Pieter.J.Beers),frans.hermans@wur.nl(F.

Hermans),veldkamp@itc.nl(T.Veldkamp),j.p.p.hinssen@uvt.nl(J.Hinssen).

Thisconceptualisationhasbeenespeciallysuccessfulwhenapplied toinnovation for systemoptimisation. However, it doesnot do much justicetothemorecomplexsocialand societalprocesses suchaslearningthatformanintegralpartofinnovationprocesses [6,7].Theseprocessesareespeciallyimportantforsystem innova-tion,whichinvolvestransformationratherthanoptimisationofa system.Thelinearmodelofinnovationthereforeisnotwellfitto thestudyofsysteminnovation.Thefieldoftransitions[8]focuses specificallyonsysteminnovation.Inthisview,theorganisationof innovationexperimentscanteachusaboutpreferablepathwaysto thefuture[2,9,10].

Whatshouldbelearntintheseinnovationexperiments?A suc-cessfulinnovationexperimentpresumesasociallearningprocess, inwhichmultiplesocietalparties(e.g.,business,NGO’s,science, government)usetheirknowledgeandresourcestofosterthe inno-vationanditspotentialforstructuralsocietalchange:themultiple partiesusetheirdifferencestoeachothers’benefit[11]. Scientifi-cally,theoriesonsociallearningareespeciallywell-knowninthe fieldofnaturalresourcesmanagement[e.g.,12-14].Leading the-oristsinthefieldoftransitionsalsoemphasisetheimportanceof (social)learningprocessestofosterchange[e.g.,8,9].However, thesetheoreticalcontributionsdonotelaboratemuchonlearning processes,andempiricaldataaboutsociallearninginthecontext

(2)

ofsysteminnovationisratherscarce.Moreimportant,however, is that theliterature onsocial learning pays scant attentionto thelearningoccurringonthecommunicativeinterfacebetween innovationexperiment andtheoutside world,mostlyfocussing insteadonspecificprojectgroupswhoenterawell-defined trajec-toryofsociallearning[15].However,sociallearningforinnovation requiresabroadanddynamicnetworkwhereparticipantsareoften includedintheinnovationcoalitiononatemporarybasis[16,17]. Innovationprocessesthataimatmakingchangesatthesystemic levelareparticularlypolitical,wherecommunicationwiththe out-sideworldisveryimportant[18].Insuchadynamicenvironment, innovationprocessesoftenhavetodealwithconflictingnarratives anddiscoursesthatcomeoutofdifferentvaluesystems[19,20]. Inthispaperwethereforefocusoninternallearningprocessesin aninnovativenicheandhowtheseprocessesrelatetotheoutside world:

1.Howdoessociallearningoccurbetweenanicheexperimentand itsenvironment?

2.Howcanwefostersociallearninginthecontextofaniche exper-iment?

Weanswerthesequestionsbyanalysinganinnovation exper-imentfor sustainableagriculture calledthe“New MixedFarm” (NMF).TheNMFappliesprinciplesfromindustrialecologyto agri-culture[21,22].Itisanexampleofan‘agro-park’:itcombinesa pig-farm,achickenfarm,amushroomgrowerandagreenhouse cucumber grower [23,24]. The experiment promises intensive animalhusbandrybutwithoutmanyofitsenvironmental disad-vantages.Atthesametime,however,intensiveanimalhusbandry isatopicofhotpublicdebate[25]andthatmakesthe communi-cationwiththeoutsideworldespeciallyrelevantforthistypeof innovationproject.

Thispaperbeginswithareviewofsociallearninginthecontext ofsocietaltransitionsinSection2.Subsequentlyweintroduceour caseinmoredetail,aswellasthemeanswehaveusedtogatherand analyseourdatainSection3.Section4presentsananalysisofthe sociallearningprocessintheNewMixedFarmproject.Thepaper endswithimplicationsforsociallearningtheoryandthepractical relevanceforinnovationprocesses.

1.1. Analyticalframework:Sociallearningforsocio-technical transitions

Transition scientists study long-term processes of profound societaltransformationthat“involvemutuallycoherentchanges inpracticesandstructures[.Thesetransitions,]becauseoftheir multilayerednessandinevitableentrenchmentinsocietyand cul-tureatlarge,areverycomplexandcomprehensivephenomena” [26,p.3].Formulatedslightlydifferently,transitionscanbedeﬁned asfundamentalchangesinsociety’sstructure,cultureandpractices [2].Thismeansthattriggeringatransitionisaninherentlypolitical processthattriestoinﬂuencealltheseelements.

“Managing”atransitioninvolvesiterativecyclesof(1) prob-lemstructuring,establishingthetransitionarena;(2)developing sustainabilityvisionsandtransitionpathways;(3)initiating and executingnicheexperimentsand(4)evaluating,monitoringand learning[paraphrasedfrom2,p.198,alsosee27,p.172].These stepsareknownasthetransitionmanagementcycle[2,27].The complexity involved makesit very difﬁcult tomanage or steer transitions.Asaconsequence,experimentationandlearningare importantaspectsoftransitions[2,28].

Nicheexperimentsareusedtodevelopinnovationsthathave thepotentialtotriggeratransition.Fraughtwithuncertainty,niche experimentsonlyhavealimitedviewofwhat’sahead,andahigh levelofuncertaintyabouttheoutcomesofdecisionsalongtheway.

Therefore,conductingoneismuchlikegoingonanexpedition:you knowwhereyouwanttoendup,butyoudon’tknowwhatyou’re upagainstonthewaythere.Steeringismostlylimitedtopreparing aswellasyoucanandtolearningalongtheway,drawinglessons frompastexperiencesinordertomakebetterdecisionsforfurther action[29–31].So,howcannicheexperimentsdrawtheselessons? Whatlearningdoesittaketoconductanicheexperiment? 1.2. Sociallearningfortransitions

Theconceptoflearning,asusedin transitionscience,begins withtheassumptionthatlearningoccursandknowledgecanbe createdthrough conversations and interactions between stake-holders. The scholarly concept of “social learning” [e.g. 11-13] appliestothistypeofprocess–newideasarenotnecessarilythe workofonebrilliantindividual.Instead,manynewideascome fromapplyingexisting ideasina newsocial context, orbythe recombinationofexistingideas[32],whichstimulatescreativity and innovation.Here, we definesocial learning asa process in whichpeoplealign,shareanddiscusstheirideastogether,withthe outcomethattheydevelopnewsharedmentalmodels,formnew relationships,and developthecapacity totakecollectiveaction andmanagetheirenvironment[cf.11,33,34].Sharedvisionsthus becomeanimportantdriverfortheprocessoftransitions[35].Itis importanttonotethat,inourconception,sociallearningisa nat-urallyoccurringprocess.Itcanbenefitfromactivefacilitation,but thisisnotanecessaryconditionforsociallearningtooccur.Onthe otherhand,bringingdiversepeopletogetherisnotaguaranteefor sociallearning,becausediversitymaywellbeasourceofconflict insteadofmutualbenefit[14].

Innovationprojectsarealwayssetinaspeciﬁcsocietal environ-ment.Somenichesarespatiallyratherlocalised,meaningthatthe regionalenvironmentcanbevitalfortheproject’ssuccess.Other nichesconcernentireproductionchainswhichmayreachbeyond thenationallevel.So,theexternalenvironmentcanvary consider-ablyfromprojecttoproject.Theinternalsoftheprojectaremore clearlydelimitedbythesharedaimstowhichtheproject mem-berswork.Regardingthecommunicationbetweentheinnovation projectanditsenvironment,Wals,VanderHoevenandBlanken [36]usethemetaphorofajazzensembletodescribesociallearning thatoccurswithinaproject,connectedwiththesociallearningthat takesplacebetweentheprojectandtheaudience.Inasimilarvein, Sengedistinguishesbetweenexternallearningprocessesinterms ofchangingsocietaldiscoursesandinternallearningprocesses[1]. Valueorientationsplayanimportantroleintheselearning pro-cesses[e.g.,13,14].VanEeten[37]hasshownthatastrongconﬂict between valueorientations can result in a stalemate in which partiesceasetolisten,andonlylearntostrengthentheirown argu-ments.Themetaphoricaljazzensemblecanplayallitlikes,the audiencehavecollectivelypluggedtheirears.Ontheotherhand, thereneedstobeatleastsomeinnovationornoveltytointerestan audienceatall[cf.38].Thissuggeststhatitisespeciallyrelevant torecognisedifferentvalueorientations,andtointegratethemintoa processdesign[39,40].Ifweaccepttheinterconnectednessofactors andtheiractivitiesinasocietalcontext(e.g.infoodsystems),then theunderlyingvaluesystemsofsocietalactorsbecomerelevantfor (theprocessdesignof)aninnovationexperiment.

Tosumup,theoriesonsociallearningdistinguishbetweenthe learningwithin aproject(the metaphoricaljazzensemble)and society-widelearning(inthemetaphoricalaudience).Especially forthelatter,itisimportanttotakeintoaccountdifferentvalue orientationstocreateaneffectivelearningprocess.However,this doesnotyettelluswhatthesociallearningshouldbeabout,orhow weshouldfacilitateit.

WeadoptPeterSenge’sFieldofChange[1]toconnectthe con-ceptofsociallearningtotransitionsliterature,andtobeableto

(3)

Innovations in infrastructure Guiding ideas Theory, methods and tools Skills and capabilities Awareness and sensibility Attitudes and beliefs Domain of Action Learning Cycle

Fig.1.TheFieldofChangeafterSengeetal.[1].

more closely considertherelationship betweentheniches and theiraudience.Hisapproachoffersaframeworkforexperiments forsysteminnovation,whilealsoincludingspeciﬁcnotionsabout learning.

AccordingtoSengeet al.[1](see Fig.1)innovation involves acyclicalprocessthatconsistsofaLearningCycleandaDomain ofAction.Thedomainofactionconsistsofaguidingvision, ade-quatetoolsandmethodsandaninnovativeinfrastructureinwhich newinnovationscantakeplacethatleadtoatransitionofthe sys-tem.Theguidingvisionconcernsthoseideasthatarethecoreofan innovation.Thetheory,toolsandmethodsarenecessaryto imple-menttheguidingvision.Theinnovationsininfrastructurearethose innovationsthat theinnovationdepends on, but arenot under directcontroloftheinnovators.TheLearningCycleincludesthe attitudesand beliefs withintheproject, theskills and capabili-tiesoftheprojectmembers,and awarenessof,andsensibilities forexternaldevelopments andactors.Especiallyawareness and sensibilitiesdirectone’sattentiontodifferentsocietalvalue orien-tations,althoughvalueorientationsarenotexplicitlyincludedin thelearningcycle.

1.3. AFieldofChangeperspectiveonnicheexperiments

ApplicationoftheFieldofChangeperspectivetoniche exper-iments illuminates how various actors collaborate within a sociotechnicalnichetodevelopthetransitionpotentialofan inno-vation,suchasanewtechnology/socialpractice,andhowitmight beabletoyieldsomekindofrevenue.Inthecaseofsustainable development,suchapropositionconcernsanincreased sustaina-bilityperformancecomparedtobusiness-as-usual,whichcanbe operationalisedbyitseffectonpeople,planetandprofit-criteria [“triplebottomline”;3,41,42].Inotherwords,howthenew tech-nology/socialpracticeyieldsvalueforsocietyatlarge(people),for theenvironment(planet)andfortheentrepreneur(profit).Inthe caseoftheNewMixedFarm:closingnutrientloops,improved dis-easecontrol,in-houseslaughtering,andon-siteenergyproduction areallpropositionsaimedatincreasingpeopleandplanetvaluesat thesameprofit,ascomparedtobusiness-as-usualinintensive ani-malhusbandry.Hereweregardthetransitionpotentialofaniche experimentasaguidingideaintheFieldofChangesense.

Theprocessofdevelopinganicheexperimentrequiresspeciﬁc tools,methodsandtheories. Inthecaseof theNew MixedFarm, one might think of the technology needed to generate energy frombiogas,orthelegalknowledgeabouthowtoacquirebuilding permitsforaslaughterhouse.Variousinnovationsininfrastructure areneededduringtheprocessofconductinganinnovation exper-iment.InthecaseoftheNewMixedFarm:gettingpermitstobuild anewfacility,designingallfarmbuildingsandtheinfrastructure

in-between,establishingcontactwithotherentrepreneursinthe sameneighbourhood,buildinganenergynetwork,etc..Theseare aspectsof innovationinfrastructure inthesenseoftheFieldof Change.

When compared to the theory of transition management, Senge’sFieldofChangeoffersamoredetailedperspectiveonthe interplaybetweenlearningand action.Moreover,itofferssome startingpointsforstudyingtherelationsbetweenaniche exper-imentanditsenvironment.Inthedomainofaction,innovations ofinfrastructureplayanimportantroleforthenicheexperiment while being mostly under controlby the outside environment. In that sense, changes in infrastructure constitutea direct link betweenanicheexperimentanditsenvironment.Inthelearning cycle,awarenessandsensibilitieshavean“object”outsidetheniche experiment–theyalwaysconcernanawarenessof,orsensibilityfor someoneorsomethingoutsidetheproject,suchasvalue orienta-tionsinsocietyandhowtheyrelatetothegoalsandactivitiesof theproject.Awarenessandsensibilitiescanthereforealsobeseen asadirectlinkbetweennicheexperimentandenvironment.

TheFieldofChangeyieldstwoinsightsaboutsociallearningin innovationexperiments.First,thedomainofactionhighlightsin broadtermswhatthelearningprocessshouldbeabout.Second, thelearningcyclehighlightsvariousaspectsofthesociallearning process.Forthesereasons,theFieldofChangeappearstobeagood startingpointforstudyingsociallearninginthecontextof innova-tionexperiments.Wethereforeappliedtheﬁeldofchangetothe NewMixedFarmcase.Themainresearchquestionswere:

1.Howdoessociallearningoccurbetweenanicheexperimentand itsenvironment?

2.Howcanwefostersociallearninginthecontextofaniche exper-iment?

2. MaterialandMethods

Document analysisand interviews were used asa basis for informationaboutthecase,theNewMixedFarminnovation exper-iment.

2.1. Caseselection

TheNewMixedFarmprojectwassubsidisedbyTransForum,a Dutchinnovationplatformthataimedtotriggertransitionstoward sustainableagriculturaldevelopmentthrough experimentswith promising agricultural innovations [3,43; www.transforum.nl]. TransForumwasactivefrom2005to2010.TransForum’s portfo-liosportedawiderangeofprojects,includingabout35innovation experimentsandabout25scientiﬁcprojects.TransForumreceived DutchgovernmentfundingundertheBSIK(Knowledge Infrastruc-tureInvestmentSubsidiesDecree)schemetodevelopinnovations for sustainable development and to ﬁnd ways to improve the Dutchagriculturalknowledgeinfrastructure.TheBSIKschemeused matchedfunding,whichmeansthatprivatepartnershadtomatch governmentfunding.TransForumprojectsreceivedjustshortof50 percentoffundingfromthegovernment.

TheNewMixedFarmwasselectedforitsspeciﬁcproject his-tory.IthadbecomeoneofTransForum’smostcontroversialprojects because of rising tensions between the project, its local envi-ronmentandnationalpublicdebatesaboutlarge-scaleintensive farming.Theprojectwasaclearexampleoftheimportanceof learn-ingbeyondtheprojectboundariesforthechancesofsuccessofan innovationexperiment.

(4)

2.2. Data

Weusedprojectdocumentationinsofarasitwasavailableat TransForumtostudythesociallearningwithintheproject.Atotalof 16ofﬁcialprojectdocumentswereusedintheanalysis.Tostudythe externalcommunicationoftheprojectwithitssocialenvironment andespeciallytheroleofdifferentvalueorientationsofthemain actorsinvolved,weconductedeight semi-structuredinterviews withatotaloftenpersons.Intervieweesincludedoneofthe farm-erswantingtostarttheNewMixedFarm,amemberofthesteering groupsupportingtheNewMixedFarm,ascientistinvolvedinthe developmentstagesoftheinitiative,thelocalaldermanandacivil servantofthemunicipalityGrubbenvorst,aprovincial administra-toroftheprovinceofLimburg,amemberoftheTransForumproject team,a civilservantfrom theMinistryof Agriculture,and two membersofthelocalactiongroup“BehouddeParel”(inEnglish: “SavethePearl”,inreferencetothelocalvillageofGrubbenvorst) whoopposedtheestablishmentoftheNewMixedFarmintheir neighbourhood.Theintervieweesthusincludedsomeofthemost importantactorswithknowledgeofthehistoricaldevelopmentsof theinitiative.Furthermore,theyhadgivenvoicetotheconﬂicting argumentsandvaluesonintensivehusbandrythatclashedinthis particularcase.

Thesemi-structured interviewswereconductedbythesame twointerviewersusingalistoftopicsfordiscussionfocussingon theroleofattitudes,beliefs,awareness,sensibilitiesandvalue ori-entationsoftheintervieweesandofotheractorsinvolvedwiththe NewMixedFarm.Topicsdiscussedincluded:1)therespondent’s ownbackgroundandpersonalinvolvementintheproject,2)the identiﬁcationofthedifferentstakeholdersandtheroletheyplayed inthedevelopmentoftheinitiative,and3)thedifferentdiscourses andvaluesystemsofthesestakeholders.Finallytheexisting bar-riersfortheimplementationandtheirpreferredsolutionofthe existinggridlockwerediscussed[44].

2.3. Analysis

WeusetheFieldofChangeasananalyticalframework.Tothat end,weadapteditbydeﬁningthefollowingcodingcategories: • GuidingIdeas:Theleadingideasthatinspiredtheset-upofthe

project.Guidingideascanbeabstract,butinpracticetheyalso canbequiteconcrete.Someguidingideasmaynotbeexplicitly availabletotheprojectpartners.

• InnovationinInfrastructure:Thechangesininfrastructure neces-saryforthedevelopmentoftheinnovation.Infrastructurewas usedinaverybroadsensetoincludeaspectsoflaw,knowledge, logistics,energyandotherresources.

• Theory,MethodsandTools:Theinsightsandmethods,etc.thatare usedtobringabouttheinnovation.

• AttitudesandBeliefs:Attitudesandbeliefsreﬂectourgeneral incli-nationstowardsacertaintopicortheme,ourconvictions.There issomeoverlapbetweentheoryandbeliefs.Wechoseto distin-guishbetweengeneralandabstractinsightsthatwereheldto beimportantfortheproject(codedtheory)andpersonalbeliefs andconvictionsthatwerenotnecessarilyheldtobetrue(coded beliefs).

• AwarenessandSensibilities:Everyinnovationexperimenttakes placein a wider societalcontext. Awarenessand sensibilities concernknowingthecontextanditssensitivities,andhowthey relatetotheinnovationexperiment.

• SkillsandCapabilities:Whatapersonoractororagroupisableto do.

Thecodeswereappliedusinganopencoding[45]strategyin a phenomenographical sense[46,47].Thismeans that,for every

document,allconceptuallydifferentaspectsoftheprojectwere coded, for each of the categories guiding ideas,innovations in infrastructure, theory-methods-and-tools, attitudes and beliefs, awarenessandsensibilitiesandskillsandcapabilities.Thisresulted inalistofqualitativelydifferentdescriptionsoftheaspectofthe innovation project. The ﬁrst author applied the codes to each available projectdocument. The third author then veriﬁedthe analysis.The analysts discussed and resolved all differences in opinionabouttheanalysis.

Theinterviewdatawasmainlyusedtoaddtothe interpreta-tionoftheanalysisbyincludingthevalueorientationofactors aroundtheNMFinitiative(theaudience,asitwere).Furthermore, theinterviewdatawasusedtocorroboratethedocumentanalysis, byapplyingthesamecodingcategories.Theinterviewanalysisdid surfaceadditionalcodesfortheanalysis.

Learningwasassumedtobereﬂectedinchangesinthedomain ofaction and/orthelearningcycle.Structuralchanges ineither weretakenasevidencethattheprojectenteredanewphase,and asanindicationthatlearningmighthaveoccurred.Smalladditions thatwereinlinewiththerestoftheprojectwerenottakenas evidenceforanewphase.

2.4. Casecontext

Inthispaper,weanalysedaninnovationexperimentfor sus-tainableagriculturecalledthe‘NewMixedFarm’anditstroubles inestablishingitsinnovativeconceptina‘designatedagricultural developmentarea’,orADA,nearasmalltownintheNetherlands.

TheinitialideafortheNMFwasinspiredbythinkinginindustrial ecologyandindustrialsymbiosis[21,22].Fourentrepreneurs:a pig-farmer,achickenfarmer,amushroomgrowerandagreenhouse cucumbergrower,decidedtotryandintegratetheirproduction processes,savingenergyandre-usingthewasteoftheirrespective productionprocessesasinputfortheothers’productionprocesses. Theinitiativepromisesintensiveagriculturalproductionbut with-outitsmanyenvironmentaldisadvantages.Howevertomakethe projectﬁnanciallyrewardingthescaleoftheprojectsmeansa sig-niﬁcantenlargementoftheamountofanimalstobeheldwithin onelocation.Theinitialplansincludedtheaccommodationof3,700 sows,9,700pigs,19,700hogs,1.2Millionchicksand74,000 chick-ens.

Afteraparticularlybadepidemicofclassicswinefeverinthe mid-1990stheDutchgovernmentdesignedanambitiousnew pol-icy aimed at restructuring both the intensive animal breeding sectorandthecountrysideforsynergeticeffectsonsocial, envi-ronmental and economic criteria. The ‘Reconstruction Act’ was decentralisedandlefttotheprovincialauthoritiesand municipal-itiestoimplement.Thereconstructionincludesthreeareatypes. Theextensiﬁcationareasarelocatednearvaluableorfragilenature conservationareas.Theseareascannolongerhostintensiveanimal breedingandexistingfarmsneedtorelocate.Thesecondzoneisan areawherenatureandintensivepiggeriesare‘weavedtogether’, andwheretheycanco-exist.However,thepiggeries’sizeis maxi-mizedandnoadditionalpigsareallowedtobeproduced.Inorder fortheagriculturalsectortomaintainitsfutureperspective,the thirdtypeofzoneisestablishedandthisistheagricultural develop-mentarea,(ADA;inDutch:LandbouwOntwikkelingsGebied).The ADAsalsoservesasadestinationforthefarmsrelocatedfromthe extensiﬁcationareas.

Grubbenvorstisasmalltown(4790inhabitantsin2007)located intheSouthoftheNetherlandsintheprovinceofLimburg.This townhistoricallyhashadastrongagriculturalsectorandan inten-siveanimalbreedingpopulation.Accordingtoalocalgovernment ofﬁcial,40%ofthelocalemploymentdependsonagribusinessand thatwasoneofthereasonstodevelopanADAinthemunicipalityof Grubbenvorst.Thelocation‘Witveldweg’waschosenasthefuture

(5)

siteoftheADAandeventhoughitisintendedﬁrstandforemost forthe(re)locationoflocalintensiveanimalhusbandry,italsohas leftopenfromthestartthepossibilityofthelocationofnew busi-nessesundertherequirementthatthenewbusinessisoperating bothinnovativelyandsustainably–aperfectlocation,therefore,for theNewMixedFarminitiative.

3. Results

Wedistinguishedthreedifferentphasesintheprojectbasedon theanalysisoftheprojectdocumentsandtheinterviews.Foreach phase,ﬁrstthehistoricaldevelopmentsoftheprojectaredescribed. ThentheFieldofChangeisapplied,afterwhichwereﬂectonthe sociallearningprocess.

3.1. Phase1–2004-2006–Startingup

Ouranalysisbeginswiththeyear2004,whentheNMFapplied forTransForumfunding.Atthattime,theNMFconsistedofa pig-farm, a chickenfarm, a mushroom producerand a greenhouse cucumbergrower. Thiscombinationof enterprisesoffered vari-ousoptionsforenvironmentalvaluecreation.Theopportunities identiﬁedincludedproducingmushroomcompostfrommanure, electricityproductionfrombiogas,andproductionofwarmthand CO2forthegreenhousegrower.

Table1summarisestheproject’sFieldofChangefortheﬁrst phase.Theprojectpartnerswereawareofbothlocalandbroader societal sensitivities about intensive agriculture, and intensive animalhusbandryinparticular.Theywereaware thatintensive agriculturewassufferingfromabadimage.Theirattitudetowards these sensitivities waspositive: the projectmembers regarded themasvalidandthoughtthattheyshouldbeaddressed.Theywere convincedthatthesustainabilityelement(closedgreenhouse con-cept,betteranimalwellbeing)wassostrongthatitshouldoverrule otherconcerns.Fromtheirpointofview,theNMFintheformatits inceptionwasavalidanswertosocietalconcernsaboutintensive agriculture.Asaconsequence,theyexpectedtheNMFtomeetwith widespreadsocietalapproval.

Thetheory,methodsandtoolswerepredominantlytechnical innatureandtheplannedinnovationsininfrastructurewereall gearedtothephysicalandlegalrealisationoftheproject.Inthis phase, a lot of thelearning processes within the projectwere directedattechnicalities.Emergingquestionsconcernedissueslike howtoventstables,howtopreventstench,andwhatmaterialto useforstableﬂoors.

Althoughthepartnersbelievedthattheycouldmeetopposition fromlocalactors,theydidnothaveanyideasormeanstoaddress ormeetsuchopposition.Thiscanbeseenasamisﬁtbetweenthe project’sawarenessandbeliefsontheonehand,anditscapabilities regardingcommunicationontheother:onewouldexpect commu-nicationtobeanimportantlearninggoalfortheprojectmembers. Inotherwords,thelearningprocesswasverymuchorientedatthe ‘inside’oftheproject:thedomainofaction,andnotsomuchatthe worldoutside.

3.2. Smallchangesin2004

Theprojectunderwentvariouschangesbeforeactuallytaking off.Thebiggestwasthatthegreenhousefarmerlefttheprojectout offearofbecomingtaintedwiththenegativeimageofindustrial farming.Atomatogrowertemporarilytookhisplace,butleftsoon after.Theremainingprojectmembersthendecidednottohave onespeciﬁcgreenhousefarmerintheproject,buttomakeuseof theproximityofanearbygreenhousecluster,whichcouldalsobe suppliedwithCO2andheat.

Anotherchangeintheprojectwasincreasedmodularisation. Theinitialplanentaileddirectexchangeofresidualflowsbetween thebusinessesinvolved.Thiswaschangedtotheinclusion ofa separatefacilityforbiorefinerytoproducebiogas,CO2,heatand energy.Thischangewasadirectreactiontothedepartureofthe greenhousegrowers.Oneentrepreneurleavingtheprojectcould notbeallowedtoendangertheprojectasawhole.Additionally,the entrepreneursfoundoutthatpumpingmanurebetweendifferent legalentitieswasnotlegallyallowed.Thismeansthatthefunctions fortheexchangeofresidualflowsneededtobetakencareofbya separateentity,andnotbyallthepartnerstogether.Therefore,the plannowincludedaseparatebiorefinery.

Analysis-wise, thesechanges werenot interpretedas a new phaseintheNMFproject,becausetheydidnotco-occurwith struc-turalchangestotheguidingideas,theinfrastructureorthetheory, methodsandtools.Infact,itisinterestingtoseethatwhenthe greenhousefarmersleft,theremainingpartnersdidnot change theirattitudesandbeliefsregardingtheimageoftheNMFandhow theytoomightbecometaintedbytheexistingnegativeimageof theintensiveanimalhusbandrysector.Theyonlyconcludedthata modularset-upwasmoreimportantthantheythought. Nonethe-less,themovetowardincreasedmodularisationcanbeseenasa clearlearningresult,stemmingfromtheexperienceof howthe departureofaprojectmembermightharmprojectcontinuity. 3.3. Phase2–2006-2009–Communicationandtheshockof societalopposition

Atthebeginningofphase2,thepartnerswerebusybuyingland andapplyingforpermitswiththelocalgovernment,meaningthat theprojectfinallygotunderway.Furthermore,theproject set-uphadchanged again,now alsothemushroomfarmerhadleft theproject,becauseoffinancialproblems.Afterthat,theproject includedthreepartners,whoeachhadtheirowncompany.Two partnerswerefarmers,andthethirdpartnerwasatechnical com-panythatwouldbuildthebiorefinery.Theideawasthattheother partnerswouldbuythebiorefinerylater.Partofthelegalprocess involvedanEnvironmentalImpactAssessment.

Thesecondphaseoftheprojectwasmarkedbytheadditionof amonitoringmechanism:anindividualfromoutsidetheproject wasaddedsolelytomonitorthelearningprocessandprogressof theproject.Theprojectmonitor,bythen,hadbecomestandard procedureforTransForuminnovationexperiments,toimproveand speedupsociallearning.Themonitordidsobyofferingreﬂections onon-goingeventsandbyholdingreﬂectionmeetingstogather anddocumentthelearningresultswithintheproject.Thiswasa clearchangetotheproject’sCapabilities.Themonitorhelpedthe projectpartnerstoincreasetheirawarenessofthesocietalcontext butnochangesoccurredintheprojectitself(Table2).

3.4. Societalopposition

Until2006,theprojectpartnershadnotcommunicatedwiththe neighbours,despitetheirexpectationsoflocalopposition.Although theyhaddeveloped acommunication plan,it hadnotyet been carriedout.Also,theyhadhiredacommunicationfirmfor com-municationwiththeneighbours.However,thefirmturnedoutnot tofitwellwiththeprojectpartners,andintheendthefirmwas dropped.Themainprogressintheprojectseemedtoberelated toovercominginternalproblemsregardingthebiorefineryandits ownership,andtoalesserextenttotheinteractionwiththe gov-ernment aboutpermits. Thisis indicativeof thepredominantly technicalorientationoftheentrepreneursandtheirrelativeblind spotfor(non–technical)valueorientationsinsociety.

Meanwhile,theprojectdidmeetsocietalopposition,triggered bythelegalprocedureofestablishinganagriculturaldevelopment

(6)

Table1

TheNewMixedFarmaccordingtotheFieldofChange2004-2006.

GuidingIdeas Theory,Methods,Tools InnovationinInfrastructure

Sustainability,throughproﬁt,lowenvironmentalimpact, andmeetingsocietalconcernsaboutintensive agriculture.

Theory,methodsandtoolshailfromtheﬁeld ofIndustrialEcology,andincludeeconomic aspectsofloop-closure,the“closedstable” conceptandthe“closedgreenhouse”concept.

Spatialclustering,alegalinfrastructuretodeal withpermits,andanagrarianknowledge infrastructurefortechnicalissues.

AttitudesandBeliefs AwarenessandSensibilities SkillsandCapabilities

Intensiveagricultureisunsustainableformanyreasons. Intensiveanimalproductionhasavery negativeimage.

Theentrepreneurshaveagoodregional networkthatincludessupportivelocal governmentofﬁcials.

TheNewMixedFarmcanbehinderedbythegovernment andbylocalcitizensandfarmers.

Sustainableagriculturerequiresup-scalingofagricultural business.

area(ADA)withlegaldesignationforintensiveagricultural activ-ities.It had becomeknown that theinitiative of theNMF was tobe realised within the ADA, nearby the highway A73 in an areacharacterisedbyanopenlandscape.Contrarytothepartners’ expectations,theinitiativebecameassociatedwiththenegative connotationsofintensivelivestockagriculture.Thebeliefthatthe NMFwouldmeetsocietalapprovalturnedouttobedemonstrably false.

Communication about the NMF ﬁnally took place over the courseof 2006and2007.Theprojectmembers startedsending outanews letterand organisedinformationmeetings. Further-more,theprojectwascloselyfollowedbyaregionalnewspaper andreceivedalotofattentionfrompoliticalopponents,especially fromtheSocialistPartyand theafﬁliatedactiongroup“Behoud theParel”.Opposingplayersalsoorganisedinformationevenings tocommunicateaboutNMF.FortheNMFprojectmembers,the focusofthesemeetingswastohearexpertopinionsofopponents andproponentsoftheNMF,andtotrytoaddresslocalconcernsof neighbours.

Theinterview datashowthattheNMFinitiativebecamethe focusofanationaldebateaboutverylarge-scalefarms.Acoalition ofalocalactiongroupandnationalenvironmentalorganisations fundamentallyquestionedtheadded sustainabilityvalue ofthe NMF.Thiscameasasurprisefortheentrepreneurs.Thiswasnot adiscussionabouttechnologicaladvantagesoftheNMFbutrather afundamentalclashofvaluesystems:theentrepreneurs’ convic-tionthatupscalingwasnecessaryformoresustainableagriculture, versustheopponents’questioningwhetherlarge-scaleagriculture couldbesustainableatall.

Froma learning perspective,it isstriking that,by this time, stillnochangeinattitudesandbeliefsoccurred.Althoughsociety clearly had a negative image of the NMF by then, theproject memberswere unable toalign theirattitudes and beliefs with this development.Instead, theyfelt misunderstood and

under-appreciated. Misunderstood, because in their eyes, the public clearly did not understand that the NMF was very different fromtraditional intensiveanimal husbandryand that itoffered sustainabilityadvantages.Itwasbeyondtheentrepreneurs’ under-standinghow anyone couldbeagainst that. The entrepreneurs feltunder-appreciated,becausetheysincerelybelievedthattheir projectwouldaddressmanyifnotallofthepublic’sconcernsabout intensiveanimalhusbandry.Thislackoflearningisevenmore sur-prisingconsideringthat,bythistime,anexternalprojectmonitor isalreadyfacilitatinglearningprocesseswithintheproject.

Incidentally,itdoesseemparticularlyjarring that,according totheinterviewdata,severalnewintensiveanimal farmswere realisedduringthisperiod,inthevicinityoftheNMFlocation.This wasdonewithinthelegalpossibilitiesofthephysicalplanning sys-tem,butwithoutanysustainabilityadvantages.Thesenewfarms decreasedthequalityoftherelativelyopenlandscapeand con-tributedtotheupscalingofintensiveagriculture,butreceivednone oftheoppositionthattheNMFwasconfrontedwith.

3.5. Phase3–2009-2011–Polarisationandsurvival

Confronted with the public opposition, the entrepreneurs decidedtostopcommunicatingwithlocalactorsandsocietal oppo-nentsfrom2009onwards.Theyjudgedthatthelegalprocedures (e.g.,environmentalimpactassessment,buildingpermits)werenot helpedwithanongoingcontroversy.Theconfrontationwith differ-entvalueorientationshadcostenergyanddidnotcontributetothe project(Table3).

3.6. Inclosing

Fromtheinterviewdata,itisclearthatlocalauthoritieswere justassurprisedastheprojectmembersbythepublicreactionto theNMFinitiative.Inanattempttoovercomethepublicscepticism, Table2

TheNewMixedFarmaccordingtotheFieldofChangephase2006-2009.

Continued:beliefinthesustainabilityadvantagesofthe initiativeandtheeconomicproﬁtability.

Continued:IndustrialEcologyorientation supportedbyaknowledgesurrounding.

Opposingvaluesystemsconﬂicting: “Theydon’tappreciateourinitiative.” Bridgingcapabilitiesbetweenvaluesystemsare

notorganisedwithintheproject(blindspot withintheproject).

-Beliefintechnologyandrationalityofeconomicsofscale versus

-Animalwelfareandpublichealthconcerns Non-recognitionofothervaluesystems,tryingto convinceratherthantolisten.

Fromtryingtoconvincetopolarization.1

(7)

Table3

TheNewMixedFarmaccordingtotheFieldofChangephase2009-2011.

Continued:beliefinthesustainabilityadvantagesofthe initiativeandtheeconomicproﬁtability.

Continued:IndustrialEcologyorientation supportedbyaknowledgesurrounding.

Conﬂictingvaluesystems Continuednon-recognitionofothervalue

systems.

Nofurtheradjustmentstotheinternallearning capacity.

Choicetofollowstrictlegalprocedures,survivallevel.1

1:MaindifferenceswithPhase2initalics.

theyasked for an independent sustainability scan, which indi-catedthattheNMFhadabettersustainabilityperformancethan standardagriculturalpracticeofthesamescale.Furthermore,the localauthorityformulatedspecificconditionsforhowNMFshould fittheexistinglandscape,whichwasafirstforDutchagriculture. However,theseactionsdidnotswaytheopponents.Theirconcerns werenotsomuchorientedatthespecifictechnologicalfeatures of the NMF, but rather concerned the underlying values. The interviewdata showedthat nationalopposition derivedmainly frombeingopposedtotheideaoflarge-scalefarmsandtheimplied necessityofexportingand/orproducingmeatfortheglobalscale. Theinterviewdatasuggestthatlocalactorsmainlyreactedtoan accumulationofactivitiesintheregion(Floriade2012,tradeport development,asandexcavationproject),whichgenerateda land-scapeimpactthatmadeGrubbenvorstvillagersfeelthreatenedin theiridentityandnottakenseriouslybygovernmentlevels.

Despitealltheoppositiontheprojectendured,ithasnotbeen calledoff.Indeed, atthetime ofthis writing theproject mem-bers haveacquired permitstostart building. It isnot yetclear whethertherewillbeaNewMixedFarmintheend.Theproject membersappeartobeoverwhelmedbyprojectinternals,which requiresomuchattentionthatthereisstilllittlelearningdirected at theoutside world.As a result, the project’s chancesof sur-vival are to an important extent at the mercy of government ofﬁcials.

4. Discussion

Themainresearchquestionswere:1)howdoessocial learn-ingoccurbetweenanicheexperimentanditsenvironment,and2) howcanwefostersociallearninginthecontextofaniche experi-ment?Withregardtothefirstquestion,theanalysisshowsthatthe projectpartnersfocussedprimarilyontechnicalandlegalissues. Specifically,the analysis suggests that thecomplexities associ-atedwithconductinginnovationexperimentscanoverwhelmthe projectmembers,whichresultsinalackofattentiontolearning andtocommunicatingwithneighbours andotherstakeholders. Furthermore,theprojecthistory,inparticularthemounting soci-etaloppositiontotheprojectinphasetwo,showstherelevance ofthelearningcycleandofawarenessandsensibilityespecially: ifaninnovationprojectisunabletolearnaboutitsenvironment, itcannotrespondtoachangingsocietalcontext.Inanswertothe firstresearchquestion,theseobservationsshowthatitis impor-tant thatprojectmembers not onlyfocus theirlearning efforts inward,onrealisationofthedomainofaction,butalsooutward, onthe“audience”,toincreasetheirawarenessofandsensibilities fortheirsocietalenvironment.Italsoshowsthat,atleastinthe caseoftheNewMixedFarm,suchalearningprocessdidnotoccur byitself.Thecaseevidencethusshowsthatsocial learning pro-cessesininnovationprojectsareelusiveandthatprojectmembers areeasilydistractedfromissuesintheirproject’senvironment.For innovationprojectsinthecontextofsocietaltransitions,ourresults

suggestthatsocial learningprocessesshouldbeexpressly orga-nisedtomitigatetheriskofaninnovationprojectthatdoesnot learnaboutitsenvironment.

Theremaybesomereasonstoqualifythisconclusion.The con-ﬂictthat emergedbetweentheNMFinitiativeand itslocaland nationalopponentstookshapeasa “dialogueofthedeaf”[37]: theopponentsinsuchadialogueareverymuchconcentratedon strengtheningtheirownpositionswhilenotpayingattentionto theother’s position.In thecase of theNMF, theentrepreneurs havegonegreatlengthstoexplainthesustainabilitygainsofthe NMF,whiletheopponentsconcentratedonissuesofpublichealth, landscape and natural resources. Applyingthe Field of Change frameworkwefoundthatthedomainofactionisrelativelystable. Thisisnotexpectedinanenvironmentwithopposingvaluebelief systems.Althoughaninterfacewasorganised,thiswasnotableto breakthroughthetechnicalorientationoftheentrepreneursand thesupportingknowledgeenvironment.Whenconfrontedwiththe negativereactions,theentrepreneursshiftedtheirattitudetowards polarisationandsurvival.Theirmaingoalinthethirdphasewas simplytoobtainthenecessarypermits.Inotherwords,boththe projectmembersandtheopponentslearnedalot,buttheydidnot learnfromeachother.Ratherthanthemetaphorofajazzensemble andanaudience,thissituationbringsupthemetaphoricalimage (andsound)oftwojazzensemblesplayinginthesameroom, with-outanyaudience.

Thespecificqualifierthatneedstobemadeisthatitisunclear whetherarenewedfocusonlearningfromtheoutsideworldcan helpaprojectescapefroma“dialogueofthedeaf.”Theproperway, withsociallearning,wouldbetoarriveateitheraconsensus,orat leastanagreementtodisagree,andasolution.However,inthis spe-cificcasetheunderlyingvaluesweresodifferentandsostrongthat evenconsensusaboutasolution(asopposedtoconsensusabout theunderlyingvalues)mayhaveneverbeenpossibleatall.If,in aspecificpracticesituation,oneisconvincedthatsociallearning amongopponentsispossible,thenitshouldbepartoftheproject rightfromthestart,especiallywhenrelateddebatesoccurin soci-etyatlarge[cf.35].Ifoneisnotsoconvinced,thenthequestion iswhetheritiswisertofocusonwinningapoliticalorlegalbattle insteadoftryingtosociallylearnone’swayoutofadeadlock.

Withregardtothesecondresearchquestion,ofhowwecan fos-tersociallearning,theadditionoftheprojectmonitorwasanotable changetotheprojectintermsoflearningcapabilities.Theanalysis doesnotsuggestthattheadditionofthemonitortotheNMFproject hasimprovedtheproject’slearningcapabilities.Thismaybedue totheratherlatetimeatwhichthemonitorwasadded.Also,the projectmonitormighthavehadmoreimpactwithamorespeciﬁc task,suchashelpingtheprojectmembersengageinunderstanding differentsocietalvaluepositions.Nevertheless,theadditionofthe projectmonitorcertainlyisinlinewiththeconclusionthatsome aspectsofsociallearningmayneedtobespeciﬁcallyorganisedto preventthataninnovationprojectonlyfocusesoninternal mat-ters.ThismayalsohavebeenanimportantreasonforTransForum toaddtheprojectmonitoratthattime.

(8)

Giventheroleoftheprojectmonitor,theconclusionappears tobewarrantedthatorganisationalandprocessdesignsdooffer opportunitiestofostersociallearning.However,theyareno guar-anteeforsuccess.Asthesayinggoes,youcanleadahorsetowater butyoucannotmakeitdrink.Theresultsregardingthedialogue ofthedeafthat steadilyevolveddo offersomefurtherstarting pointsforprocessdesignofaninnovationexperiment.TheNew MixedFarmcase givesastrongindicationoftheimportanceof relatingtoexistingsocietalvalueorientations,theirrelationtothe innovationexperiment,andtheirdevelopmentovertime.Theuse oftheprojectmonitorinTransForumwasmainlyorientedatthe nicheexperimentitself,asakindoforganisationaldesign. How-ever,themonitoralsooffersthepossibilitytoimplementsome processdesigntostrengthentheinterfacewithotherstakeholders and othervalueorientations. While indeed theactual develop-mentsintheNewMixedFarmdonotsuggestastructuraleffectof theprojectmonitor,theydosuggestthatlearningcapabilitiesare important.Furthermore,thefactthattheprojectmonitorbecame anacceptedprojectaspecttotheinitiatorsofthenicheexperiment itselfsuggeststhataprojectmonitoratleastisafeasible,ifnot nec-essarilyeffective,wayoforganisationallyinﬂuencingthelearning capabilitiesofanicheexperiment.

Withregard tothetheoreticalframework, itseemsfromthe analysisthat somerelations can bedrawn betweentransitions theoryand theField of Change. Most elementsin the Field of Change(i.e.,guidingideas,theoriesmethodsandtools,attitudes andbeliefs,andcapabilities)appeartobe(mainly)underthe con-troloftheinnovationexperiment.Theycanbeseenaspartofthe “experimenting”stepinthetransitionmanagementcycle. How-ever,innovationsininfrastructurearemostlybeyondthecontrol oftheinnovationexperiment.Furthermore,theproject’s aware-nessandsensibilitiesappeartobeorientedatsocietalconcernsand perspectivesandhowtheyrelatetotheinnovationexperiment.It wouldseemthatawarenessandsensibilities(inthelearningcycle), andthatinnovationsininfrastructures(inthedomainofaction)are attheinterfacebetweenthenicheprojectanditssocietal environ-ment.

Scholarlyarticles about social learning have rarelyincluded learningeffectsbeyondtheprojectlevel[15].ThecaseoftheNew MixedFarmclearly demonstratesthat oneprojectcanresultin learningat multiplelevels.However, inthis speciﬁc case there wasnolearning betweendifferentlevels, rather,two opposing learningprocessesoccurredatdifferentsocietallevels.The ﬁnd-ingspresentedheresuggestthatsociallearningresearchcanbe enrichedwiththenotionthatsociallearningshouldalwaysinclude theawarenessandsensibilitiesofthosebeyondtheprojectlevel. Ifnot,thentheprojectproceedsblindedtotheoutsideworld,with markedlylesschanceofsuccess.

5. Conclusions

Thefindingsfromthecurrentcasestudyshowthat,without sup-port,sociallearningprocessesmaybefocussedoninternalproject mattersonly,neglectinglearningabouttheproject’senvironment. Thislowerstheproject’schanceofsuccess.Therefore,social learn-ingaboutaproject’senvironmentshouldbespecificallyorganised inordertoavertthisrisk.Furthermore,thecasestudyhasshown thattransitiontheorycanberelatedtoSenge’sFieldofChange.This suggestsaninterestingoptionforfutureresearch,thatis,tostudy morenicheexperimentsandcomparetheconclusionstothe find-ingsfromtheNewMixedFarmexperiment.Indeed,severalpast TransForumprojectsmaybeinterestingforamultiplecasestudy,as wellasmorecurrentinitiativestowardsysteminnovation. Transi-tiontheorystillisaratheryoungfieldinternationally.Wehopethat thisarticlewillcontributetofurtheringtheinternationaldebate abouttransitionsandlearning.

Acknowledgment

WewouldliketoexpressourgratitudetoHenkC.vanLatesteijn. Ourdiscussionswithhimaboutthecasewereanimportant inspi-rationforthisarticle.

References

[1]P.Senge,A.Kleiner,C.Roberts,R.Ross,B.Smith,TheFithDisciplineFieldbook. Strategiesandtoolsforbuildingalearningorganization,Doubleday,NewYork, 1994.

[2]D.Loorbach,J.Rotmans,Managingtransitionsforsustainabledevelopment, in:X.Olshoorn,A.Wieczorek(Eds.),UnderstandingIndustrialTransformation: ViewsfromDifferentDisciplines,Springer,2006,pp.187–206.

[3]A.Veldkamp,A.C.V.Altvorst,R.Eweg,E.Jacobsen,A.V.Kleef,H.V.Latesteijn, S.Mager,H.Mommaas,P.J.A.M.Smeets,L.Spaans,J.C.M.V.Trijp,Triggering transitionstowardssustainabledevelopmentoftheDutchagriculturalsector: TransForum’sapproach,Agron.forSustain.Dev.29(2009)87–96.

[4]F.Hermans,M.Stuiver,P.J.Beers,K.Kok,Thedistributionofrolesandfunctions forupscalingandoutscalinginnovationsinagriculturalinnovationsystems, Agric.Syst.115(2013)117–128.

[5]E.M.Rogers,DiffusionofInnovations,5theditioned.,FreePress,NewYork, 2003.

[6]C.Leeuwis,A.W.VandenBan,CommunicationforRuralInnovation:Rethinking AgriculturalExtension,BlackwellScience,Oxford,2004.

[7]IAASTD,Internationalassessmentofagriculturalknowledge,scienceand tech-nologyfordevelopment:globalreport,IslandPress,WashintonD.C,2009.

[8]J.Rotmans,R.Kemp,M.B.A.VanAsselt,Moreevolutionthanrevolution: tran-sitionmanagementinpublicpolicy,Foresight3(2001)15–31.

[9]A.Rip,R.Kemp,Technologicalchange,in:S.Rayner,E.L.Malone(Eds.)Human

ChoiceandClimateChange,1998,pp.327-399.

[10]J.Schot,R.Hoogma,B.Elzen,Strategiesforshiftingtechnologicalsystems:the caseoftheautomobileindustry,Futur.26(1994)1060–1076.

[11]A.E.J.Wals,Sociallearningtowardsasustainableworld,WageningenAcademic Publishers,Wageningen,TheNetherlands,2007.

[12]R.Ison,N.Röling,D.Watson,Challengestoscienceandsocietyinthesustainable managementanduseofwater:investigatingtheroleofsociallearning,Environ. Sci.&Pol.10(2007)499–511.

[13]C.Pahl-Wostl,Theimportanceofsociallearninginrestoringthe multifunction-alityofriversandﬂoodplains,Ecol.andSoc.11(2006).

[14]C.Leeuwis,R.Pyburn,Wheelbarrowsfulloffrogs;Sociallearninginrural resourcemanagement,KoninklijkeVanGorcumBV,Assen,2002.

[15]M.S.Reed,A.C.Evely,G.N.R.Cundill,I.Fazey,J.Glass,A.Laing,J.Newig,B.Parrish, C.Prell,C.Raymond,L.C.Stringer,Whatissociallearning,Ecol.andSoc.(2010).

[16]A.H.VandeVen,Theinnovationjourney,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork, 1999.

[17]F.Hermans,D.vanApeldoorn,M.Stuiver,K.Kok,Nichesandnetworks: Explain-ingnetworkevolutionthroughnicheformationprocesses,Res.Pol.42(2013) 613–623.

[18]L.Klerkx,N.Aarts,C.Leeuwis,AdaptiveManagementinagriculturalinnovation systems:Theinteractionsbetweeninnovationnetworksandtheir environ-ment,Agric.Syst.103(2010).

[19]C.Leeuwis,N.Aarts,RethinkingCommunicationinInnovationProcesses: Cre-atingSpaceforChangeinComplexSystems,J.ofAgric.Educ.andExt.17(2011) 21–36.

[20]F.Hermans,K.Kok,P.J.Beers,T.Veldkamp,AssessingSustainability Perspec-tivesinRuralInnovationProjectsUsingQ-Methodology,SociologiaRuralis52 (2012)70–91.

[21]R.U.Ayres,IndustrialMetabolism,in:J.H.Ausubel,H.E.Sladovich(Eds.), Tech-nologyandEnvironment,NationalAcademyPress,Washington,D.C,1989,pp. 23–49.

[22]J.R.Ehrenfeld,IndustrialEcology:Aframeworkforproductandprocessdesign, J.ofClean.Prod.5(1997)87–95.

[23]P.J.A.M. Smeets, Expeditie Agroparken: Ontwerpend onderzoek naar metropolitane landbouw en duurzame ontwikkeling, in, Wageningen University,ResearchCentre,Wageningen,2009.

[24]J. Hinssen,H.Smulders,Vandingenbeterdoennaarbeteredingendoen; vergelijkendeanalyseagroparkeninNederland,in,Telos,TSC,TransForumen ERAC,Tilburg,2011.

[25]C.J.A.M.Termeer,G.Breeman,M.VanLieshout,W.Pot,Whymoreknowledge couldthwartdemocracy:conﬁgurationsandﬁxationsintheDutch mega-stablesdebate,in:R.J.’tVeld(Ed.),KnowledgeDemocracy–Consequences forScience,PoliticsandMedia,Springer,Heidelberg,2010,pp.99–112.

[26]J.Grin,J.Rotmans,J.Schot,TransitionstoSustainableDevelopment;New Direc-tionsintheStudyofLongTermTransformativeChange,Routledge,Oxford,UK, 2010.

[27]D.Loorbach,TransitionManagementforSustainableDevelopment:A Prescrip-tive,Complexity-BasedGovernanceFramework,Gov.:AnInt.J.ofPol.,Adm., andInstitutions23(2010)161–183.

[28]R.Raven,S.VandenBosch,R.Weterings,Transitionsandstrategicniche man-agement:towardsacompetencekitforpractitioners,Int.J.ofTechnol.Manag. 51(2010)57–74.

[29]U.Beck,A.Giddens,S.Lash,Reﬂexivemodernization;politics,traditionand aestheticsinthemodernsocialorder,StanfordUniversityPress,StanfordUSA, 1996.

(9)

[30]J.-P.Voss,B.Bornemann,ThePoliticsofReﬂexiveGovernance:Challengesfor DesigningAdaptiveManagementandTransitionManagement,Ecol.andSoc. 16(2011).

[31]J.-P.Voss,D.Bauknecht,R.Kemp,Reﬂexivegovernanceforsustainable devel-opment,EdwardElgarPublishing,Cheltenham,UK;Northampton,USA,2006.

[32]R.S.Burt,Brokerageandclosure;anintroductiontosocialcapital,Oxford Uni-versityPress,Oxford,UK,2005.

[33]L.C.Stringer,A.J.Dougill,E.Fraser,K.Hubreck,C.Prell,M.S.Reed,Unpacking “Participation”intheAdaptiveManagementofSocial-ecologicalSystems:a CriticalReview,Ecol.andSoc.11(2006).

[34]D.Armitage,M.Marschke,R.Plummer,Adaptiveco-managementandthe para-doxoflearning,Glob.Environ.Chang.18(2008)86–98.

[35]P.J.Beers,A.Veldkamp,F.Hermans,D.vanApeldoorn,J.M.Vervoort,K.Kok, Futuresustainabilityandimages,Futures42(2010)723–732.

[36]A.E.J.Wals,N.VanderHoeven,H.Blanken,Theacousticsofsociallearning, WageningenAcademicPublishers,Wageningen,TheNetherlands,2009.

[37]M.VanEeten,Dialoguesofthedeaf:deﬁningnewagendasfor environmen-taldeadlocks,in:DepartmentofTechnology,DelftUniversityofTechnology, Publisher,Eburon,Delft,1999,pp.183,pp.XIII.

[38]B.Nooteboom,W.VanHaverbeke,G.Duysters,V.Gilsing,A.VandenOord, Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity, Res. Pol.36 (2007) 1016–1034.

[39]A.R.Edwards,Thesustainabilityrevolution:portraitofaparadigmshift,New SocietyPublishers,GabriolaIsland,Canada,2006.

[40]C.O.Scharmer,TheoryU:Leadingfromthefutureasitemerges,thesocial technologyofpresencing,Berrett-KoehlerPublishers,SanFrancisco,2009.

[41]H.C.VanLatesteijn,K.Andeweg,Theneedforanewagroinnovationsystem,in: H.C.VanLatesteijn,K.Andeweg(Eds.),TheTransForumModel:Transforming agroinnovationtowardsustainabledevelopment,Springer,Dordrecht,2011.

[42]J.Elkington,Cannibalswithforks:thetriplebottomlineof21stcentury busi-ness,NewSocietyPublishers,GabriolaIsland,Canada,1998.

[43]A.Fischer,P.J.Beers,H.C.VanLatesteijn,K.Andeweg,E.Jacobsen,H.Mommaas, J.C.M.VanTrijp,TransForumsysteminnovationtowardssustainablefood.A review,Agron.forSustain.Dev.32(2012)595–608.

[44]J.P.P.Hinssen,I.Horlings,F.Hermans,Botsendebeelden;overinnoverenbij maatschappelijketegenwind-eenvertooganalyseoverhetnieuwgemengd bedrijf,in,Telos,Tilburg,2010.

[45]A.L.Strauss,Qualitativeanalysisforsocialscientists,CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge,UK,1987.

[46]F.Marton,Phenomenography-describingconceptionsoftheworldaroundus, Instr.Sci.10(1981)177–200.

[47]F.Marton,Phenomenography-Aresearchapproachtoinvestigating differ-entunderstandingsofreality,J. ofThought:AnInterdiscip. Q.21(1986) 28–49.