The relationship between description and prescription in transition research more

Chapter 8 The relationship between description and prescription in transition research M. Duineveld, R. Beunen, K. van Assche, R. During, R. van Ark Draft 12.06.2008 Abstract In this chapter we will elaborate upon the relationship between the analysis and representation of long term societal change as well as the recommendations for actual practices that are based on this analyses and representation. We argue that the promise of transition management as a strategic science to solve socio-political problems in our society is partly based on unrealistic theories and empirical misrepresentations. This is primarily due to the fact the descriptions of transitions have not always been accurately constructed. Within transition management, the Foucauldian conceptualization of power is still disregarded as an analytical tool for the production of ‘realistic’ representations of governance. The second reason is that there is, by definition, an inevitable gap between descriptions and prescriptions. We conclude that an amoral and realistic analysis of what is happening in actual practice is not only necessary for the (scientific) production of realistic representations of long term societal change but will also teach researchers and knowledge users to be realistic and therefore modest about their ability to ‘manage’ or direct their desired changes in society. Keywords: transition management, social engineering, power, Foucault, governance 1. The rise of strategic research Changes in society have lead to the call for scientific research to be useful for purposes other than purely academic ones. (Gibbons, 1994) Social and political relevance are considered to be just as important as scientific relevance. The rationale behind this is simple: scientific research needs funding. As a consequence of this researchers have to look for people and organisations who want to pay for their research and that they have to “sell” their results. This is not necessarily a negative phenomenon. In fact, it has occurred for as long as research exists. As a result, the marketing of research and its uses has become increasingly important and professional in recent years. It is not only the quality of research that is important, but also its image. To many people, policy research is considered to be of use if it helps to formulate more effective policies or if it strengthens the implementation of policies. Much of the present-day policy research is (co-)funded by governments. Policy research should therefore hold the promise of clear recommendations for effective policies. This forces scientists, chair groups and research institutes to explicitly present themselves as producers of strategic research and knowledge. (Ark, 2005, Hoppe, 2002, Tress et al., 2003, Ark, 2005, Loos et al., 2007, Spaapen et al., 2007) The popularity of strategic research, like transition management, can partly be explained by the promise it holds. For example, the promise that research on long- term societal changes can provide tools that help guide society towards sustainability. In practice, however, the usefulness of these recommendations is often limited. There are simply too many factors that influence the implementation of policies and therefore these policies will not always work out as expected. (e.g. Pressman et al., 1979) This insight is not new and has, for instance, led to more attention given to research perspectives in which the role of government is limited. (Pierre et al., 2000) In this chapter we will deconstruct the promise that policy research, including transition research, often holds. (cf. Fischer, 2000, Fischer, 2003) Our criticism is aimed both at the way transition research is conducted and at the way practical recommendations are derived from it. We argue that there is a clear distinction between the analyses and the recommendations and that research does not tell us how to organise the world. We do not argue that policy research is useless. On the contrary! The value of policy research becomes clear after we have shown what research cannot do. Once we recognise its limitations we can focus on the strong points of research, which we will. We will put forward an alternative approach, by elaborating on the useful functions of policy research and how research should be conducted to fulfil these functions. This will bring us to some modest recommendations. Recommendations that take into account the fact that it is difficult and sometimes even impossible to define generally valid policy measures from policy studies. In order to probe the relationship between analysis and research and the concrete conclusions for policy that are drawn from them, we will first describe how sociopolitical long term processes of societal change are analysed by Dutch transition managers and the recommendations they derive from that. Next, we will argue that these processes are unrealistically represented as more or less mechanical processes. Following that, we will explore to what extent realistic recommendations can be derived from process analysis. We will criticise the frequently held misconception that process analysis can be translated almost directly into specific strategies for policy. Finally, we will come to the most important conclusions and we will make some recommendations for anyone who prefers ‘realism’ to the ‘idealism’ of social engineering. 2. The Dutch transition management discourse Transition management is an example of a successful type of strategic and applied policy and management research. Much research into long term societal changes and transition management is done at the request of ministries and institutions like LNV (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality), BuZa (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), V&W (The Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management) and VROM (Ministry of housing, spatial planning and environment). These and other organisations use the concept of transition management as a guideline for transition policy (Rotmans et al., 2005). As described in other chapters of this book, all means that (could) lead to changes can be identified as (forms of) management and a transition as ‘a structural social transformation that is the result of interacting and corroborating developments in the fields of economy, culture, technology, institutions, nature and the environment (…). (…) [They] are gradual transformations that take a long time, at least one generation (25-50 years)’ (Rotmans, Loorbach, & Brugge, 2005, [translated by the authors] ). 2.1 Recommendations for problem solving Guiding social transformations is not a goal in itself. Transition research carries the promise of contributing to the solutions to socio-political and environmental problems. According to experts on transitions these are problems of a special kind, because they are ‘persistent problems that have been around for decades for which there are no cut and dried solutions (…). These problems are persistent because they are deeply rooted in our social structures and institutions (…)’ (Rotmans, Loorbach, & Brugge, 2005 [translated by the authors] ). In order to solve these so-called ‘persistent problems’ in, for instance, agriculture, water-management, transportation, education and healthcare, transition researchers produce recommendations and policymeasures in order to manage a transition. It is believed that transition management is able to offer a conceptual framework ‘that enables one to come up with a specific mix of ways to steer things in the right direction.’ (Rotmans, Loorbach, & Brugge, 2005 [translated by the authors] ) For this purpose it is, among other prescriptions posed in transition literature, that (1) management at system level is essential (2) newcomers should create a new regime (3) a pluralistic approach is desirable and (4) it is thought to be important for the actors involved within transitions to get to know each others perceptions of reality (Rotmans, Loorbach, & Brugge, 2005). Even more specific are the recommendations for setting up a transition arena and developing transition coalitions and a transition agenda. (Rotmans, Loorbach, & Brugge, 2005). These and other recommendations make it clear that transition research is a good example of promising research in the effort to provide definite solutions for the problems governments are dealing with. 2.2 Describing transitions The abovementioned, and other, recommendations and guidelines are deduced by transition researchers from theoretical and empirical based representations of long term societal changes. It is believed to be possible to determine from these analyses to what extent long term societal changes can be guided and the way this should be done. Among other things, these insights could teach us how a transition works and which factors and mechanisms play a part in it. Transitions would consist of different phases, each characterised by their own dynamics. Also, they’d be brought about by system changes at different scale levels. Transitions are viewed as processes involving several people and organisations, such as ordinary citizens, governments, businesses and social organisations (Rotmans et al., 2000). 2.3 Analysing transitions The descriptions of the way transitions function are derived from theoretical and empirical analyses of long term societal changes. These analyses are based, firstly, on existing theories and insights from, among others, public administration studies, sociology and political science. These include new kinds of governance theories, complexity theories, network theories and system theory. Secondly, they are derived from the analysis of existing societal change processes and long term societal change processes in the past. (Rotmans, Kemp, Asselt, Geels, Verbong, & Molendijk, 2000, Rotmans, 2003) Thirdly, transition researchers take part in societal change processes themselves and they base their analysis partly on their own experiences within these processes. This type of research is called (reflexive) action research. (Termeer et al., 2006: 30, vgl. Zuber- kerritt, 1991, Tress & Tress, 2003) 3. Deconstructing the promise The previous paragraph shows that transition management is a good example of research that promises to provide definitive solutions for the problems governments are faced with. This largely explains its popularity. As we have already mentioned in paragraph 1, we have some serious doubts about these promises. In this paragraph we will explain our doubts. We criticize the way research is done as well as the way recommendations are deduced from this research. Before we can investigate to what extent it is possible to deduce recommendations from analyses of long term societal changes and other social and political processes, we first have to answer the question, how realistic are these analyses and descriptions. 3.1 Deconstructing transition analysis and representation What is remarkable about the manner in which socio-political changes are represented within some transition studies, is the high level of abstraction (eg. Rotmans, 2004) Transitions are, for example, represented as a set of factors or conditions that, if they all work together, will cause a desired change – as if they are the result of more or less mechanical, instrumental processes. We will argue that these abstract representations do not offer a realistic view of the factors and mechanisms that, in fact, influence social, administrative and political processes. We believe it to be more realistic to analyse these processes within the framework of power, in the manner described by Machiavelli (Machiavelli, 1988), Nietzsche (Nietzsche, 1977), Foucault (Foucault, 1988, Foucault, 1998, Foucault, 2001, Gils et al., 2004) and, more recently, Flyvbjerg (Flyvbjerg, 1998, Flyvbjerg, 2002). Because the context of power has remained under-exposed within transition research, just as it has been in disciplines such as planning (Assche, 2004) and public administration (Korsten et al., 2006), we will first define our use of the term ‘power’. In an interview, Foucault says that to him, ‘power’ is shorthand for the expression he generally uses: ‘relations of power’. “But there are readymade models: when one speaks of power, people immediately think of a political structure, a government, a dominant social class, the master and the slave, and so on. I am not thinking of this at all when I speak of relations of power. I mean that in human relationships, whether they involve verbal communication (…), or amorous, institutional, or economic relationships, power is always present: I mean a relationship in which one person tries to control the conduct of the other. So I am speaking of relations that exist at different levels, in different forms; these power relations are mobile, they can be modified, they are not fixed once and for all.” (Foucault, 1997: 291-292). According to Foucault, power is not an external factor, but it is everywhere and it is exercised from different viewpoints and positions (Foucault, 1998: 93). Moreover, relations of power are always connected to a certain objective, they are intentional relations: “There is no power that is exercised without a series of aims and objectives” (Foucault, 1998: 95). It has to be stressed at this point that the word ‘power’ doesn’t hold a negative connotation, in contrast with the everyday use of it. Power is neither good, nor evil. It can be repressive as well as productive: power produces some discourses, realities, knowledge, values, subjects et cetera and makes others impossible, marginalises or subjugates them (Foucault, 1998: 81-102, cf. Foucault, 1994). Flyvbjerg has extensively studied a planning process from the perspective of power, strongly influenced by Machiavelli, Nietzsche and Foucault. His book ‘Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice’ is the result of detailed empirical research into planning practices in the city of Aalborg. Aalborg’s local administration received an award for its innovative long-term transportation plans for the inner city. These plans were said to have been developed in an innovative manner, involving new concepts, new strategies and new partners. Transition managers would have called it a successful ‘transition’. However, Flyvbjerg’s analysis did not underline this success. In this book he exposes the power strategies the different actors, often with opposing interests, used to attain their objectives. One of those strategies was the selective use of (scientific) knowledge and the conscious concealing or marginalising of research that did not support their case. Those who, like Flyvbjerg (or Foucault), analyse socio-political processes, including long term societal change processes, will understand that in the socio-political arena, many groups of people, organisations, parties and governments use various means and strategies to attain their ideal society and reinforce their claims (Duineveld, 2004, Roth et al., 2006). Examples of these strategies are: lobbying, the formation of networks, coalitions and alliances, playing the media, the use of rhetoric, the selective use of the results of scientific research, making and implementing laws, formal rules and procedures and the formation and transformation of institutions. In short, those who follow Machiavelli, Foucault and Flyvbjerg, in analysing political and social processes and practices as ‘the continuation of war by other means’ (Foucault, 2003), will gain insight into the factors, processes and mechanisms that instigate changes or ensure stagnations. These factors will partly be in accordance with the factors already deduced from theory and empirical research within transition research. Nevertheless, factors will come to light that are rarely or never mentioned in the descriptions of (transition) processes. They remain invisible because of the existing analysis methods, and perhaps also due to the fact that some factors are considered to be so immoral or undemocratic, that they have become a blind spot for the researchers. (Cf. Assche, 2004) 3.2 Recommendations for problem solving and the inevitable gap between description and prescription The above must be read as a criticism on the way in which long-term societal changes are analysed and at the same time as a recommendation for another, more realistic way of analysing them. But even if the analysis within transition research could be more accurate, the question would still remain: can this knowledge, these descriptions, be used for prescriptive purposes? To answer this question we must first acknowledge that with the so called ‘persistent problems’ (environmental, political and social), aims and means are not necessarily a given but can be both the outset and the result of social interaction, political decision-making and conflict. (Ringeling, 2002, Peters, 2005) Just like set goals and means; problems are constructed by people and are therefore always subjective. (Ringeling, 2002) Some people, for instance, see nuclear energy as the answer to the energy problem. Even though the advocates of nuclear energy generally share the same problem analysis as the adversaries, they have totally different views on what means should be used to solve this problem. This implies that even in the utopian situation of knowing everything, this knowledge still would not tell us how to act. It would remain a choice which would mean different things to different people. This fact, however, seems to be hard to accept and many governments and researchers collaborate in their quest for control. (Gunsteren, 1976, Scott, 1998) This phenomenon, called high modernism by Scott, is often referred to as a form of malleability thinking or social engineering. (We should add here that malleability is the translation we use for the Dutch word ‘maakbaarheid’, a term often used within the Dutch context. The term refers to the assumption that governmental and non-governmental actors can reach certain goals using guidelines and other directive means. The term is related to the more broadly and internationally used concept of social engineering.) Since malleability seems to be a persistent phenomenon (see e.g. Frissen, 1996) it is important to keep emphasising the difference between description and prescription. Transition experts state that it is a misconception to presume that the implementation of the theory ‘will lead to a deterministic collection of directing rules’ (Rotmans, Loorbach, & Brugge, 2005). Though recognising the fact that guidelines may not be deterministic, it doesn’t hinder the transition researchers in producing concrete recommendations, guidelines, methods and techniques that are presumed to have real effects, and which can be used to attain certain objectives and solve certain problems. This presumption can be considered as a (new) kind of malleability thinking or social engineering. According to Terpstra, ‘malleability refers to the practical or pragmatic question: what are the possibilities of effectively implementing a certain (political) decision in accordance with the therein-contained intention?’. He believes it is ‘the conscious use of the present means for attaining (…) set goals (…)’ (Terpstra, 1995). He illustrates the idea of malleability with a simple but telling example: “Suppose, I have to go to Amsterdam and I want to travel by train. I can make an accurate mental image of how to reach my goal. I know that if I buy a ticket and get on the right train, I will eventually arrive in Amsterdam. I can completely put this image into practice. (…) What is important here is that there is a beautiful similarity between my mental image of the coming events (I call it: my policy plan) and the events that actually take place during the execution of this plan. (…) There is a connection between designing (my mental image of the trip and the accompanying reasoning), making (in this case: that which has been made, together with my own actions) and knowing (I know from experience that it usually works). There is a connection between my action, the result of it and the prior justification for it (…). This connection, as said, is the essence of the idea of malleability.” (Terpstra, 1995)1. We will name three strongly interwoven arguments that can be made against the idea of malleability. The first we partly derived from Terpstra. According to him malleability is not always possible, because machines are rarely perfect or function as such. The railway-company he uses as an example ‘is, as we all know, not a perfectly working machine. In reality, machines like the railway-system will frequently falter, for example, either because of a human error or weather conditions’ (Terpstra, 1995). Consequently, the imperfections of the railway-company limit the possibilities for coming up with a strategy that will almost certainly succeed. This applies even more so for socio-political (transition) processes. After all, these do not work according to 1 All the quotes from Terpstra have been translated out of Dutch by the authors. the mechanical principles that are characteristic for the railways. Still, some transition processes are presented as such. By representing socio-political (transition) processes as a system, wherein various processes, mechanisms and factors affect each other in more or less regular patterns, the suggestion is made that a transition can be represented as a complex ‘machine’. This makes it relatively simple to suggest that long term societal changes can be steered or engineered to a certain extent. In other words: the ‘representation of a transition as a machine’ wrongly suggests that one only has to point out ‘which buttons to push’ to steer the transition process in the desired direction. A second argument against the possibility of malleability is the almost insurmountable difference between the perspectives of those that analyse and those that take part in a (transition) process. Many interpretive anthropologists, constructivists and postmodernists teach us that the way people, including scientists, perceive and represent the world, has to been seen as a construct. (Glasersfeld, 1995, Eco, 1993, Potter, 1996, Geertz, 1973, Branaman, 2001, Howarth, 2000) This means there is no direct connection between the world outside us and the way we perceive it. In principal, people’s constructs (or worldviews, discourses, frames, configurations, perspectives) can constantly change and often differ between various groups of people. This implies that many analyses can’t be converted into guidelines, because discrepancies (could) exist between analyses and between first and second order observations. Following a similar line of reasoning Maturana and Varela state that first order observations, the observations of people that act, are by definition different from second order observations, those of researchers observing other people’s actions (Maturana et al., 1987). This is why analyses and recommendations cannot be synchronized. They illustrate their argument with the following example, paraphrased by us. Two observers on the shore watch a submarine make it’s way through a very dangerous reef without damaging the submarine nor the reef. As the crew comes ashore, observers compliment them on their helmsmanship. They ask the crew how they managed such a delicate operation. ‘How did you manage to avoid the reef?’ The crew answers: ‘Reef? What reef!’ From their position, the environment in which they manoeuvred looked totally different. What they perceived through measuring instruments and monitors were numbers, graphs and other abstract representations of the surroundings. But no reef. (Maturana et al., 1987) This simple example illustrates the theory that the way a system functions (the actions of people, the functioning of organisations as seen through a first order observation) and the analysis of the dynamics (second order observation) of this system in its environment should not be confused. The dynamics of the system do not, by definition, work with the same representation of the environment as the observer’s one. No matter how good and solid the analyses of the observers on the shore are and no matter how detailed their insight into the relationship between the crew and their environment, one cannot expect them to be able to offer the crew concrete advice on how to steer their boat. A third argument, partly intertwined with the second, against malleability is that there will be, by definition, a difference between the context which is analysed, and the context for which the recommendations are drawn. Socio-political processes are the result of power games that have a different outcome every time. This happens, amongst other things, because in every process, transition or social change, different questions play a part; different problem definitions dominate; there are different actors and balances of power; and different means are considered to be necessary. Therefore, it is impossible to deduce concrete plans, designs, instruments or guidelines from an analysis of the factors or mechanisms that influenced one process and impose them in a different situation. A much-heard recommendation, for instance, is that in order to stimulate changes and innovations, it is important to start a social learning process. (Cf. Gray, 1997) The aim is to get the actors involved in a transition to use more or less the same definitions of reality. The idea behind this recommendation is that transition processes can go wrong because people think and act from different perspectives, configurations or images of reality. Although this recommendation could turn out to be useful, this doesn’t mean that one should, by definition, initiate social learning processes, or reframe people nor does it say how this should be done. Perhaps the desired objectives can be attained in a different context or situation by excluding those actors that have a different perspective, or by pressuring them, or merely give them the illusion of being involved and listened to. The ideas of malleability that we disputed above, promulgate a misconception in transition management and other strategic policy research. This misconception more or less synchronises description and prescription, in other words synchronises the process analysis and the recommendations that come from it. For example: analyses from sociology, political sciences and public administration show that steering processes are no longer dominated by the sovereign position of governments (Pierre & Peters, 2000, Hajer et al., 2003, Bevir, 2004). Rather, steering is the result of the working of networks in which various actors participate in a non-hierarchic horizontal relationship. However, these analyses don’t automatically imply that governments or other actors that want a transition should set up networks in order to attain this objective. Perhaps some things should be still be directed hierarchically. Besides, it is still not sure that networks can be planned. The intentional or unintentional confusing or mixing-up of description and prescription is not only typical for transition management. Pierre and Peters (2000) declare that this is also the case with the concept of governance, which is currently popular within political sciences. This concept is used both in the descriptive and the prescriptive way and sometimes confused (Pierre & Peters, 2000, Bevir, 2004). 4. How to make policy research useful 4.1 Realistic analyses… We propose that it is impossible to predict and verify the possible effects of (policy) scientific recommendations. Our recommendations will therefore be modest. Just like other (policy) researchers, we can’t tell administrators what they should do in order to attain their objectives. We can, however, help the people that take part in a political, administrative and/or social process of transition act more realistically, by providing them insights into the reality and consequences of policy. Below, we will first give five recommendations for researchers that analyse socio-political (transition) processes. We will conclude with a description of the possibilities and impossibilities of deducing recommendations from realistic analyses. A few recommendations can be made with regard to the manner in which realistic scientific research should be conducted. Firstly, we think ‘power’ has to be the central perspective for the starting point of the analysis. One needs to view socio-political (transition) processes as power relationship transformations. Furthermore, the organisational, institutional and disciplinary systems should be viewed as factors of power as well, which both enable and constrain the behaviour of actors. This implies that the formation of networks and coalitions, the construction and use of policy instruments and the compliance to rules should also be considered as factors of power. The functioning of these factors in practice relies on, amongst other things, the interpretation and use of these factors by the actors (Beunen et al., 2007). Secondly, one shouldn’t define the strategies and means that play a part in sociopolitical processes beforehand. It is recommended that the researcher should try to analyse each case without too many (theoretical) presumptions. Then, one is in a better position to deduce from the analysis those factors that influenced or played a role in a specific process. When this is done, one can investigate to what extent these factors correspond with analyses and descriptions of other processes. A conscious ‘open-mindedness’ at the start of the analysis process reduces the chance that one ‘discovers’ mainly those factors, strategies or mechanisms that confirm and/or match existing presumptions and theories. ‘Open-mindedness’ can prevent one from intentionally or unintentionally uncovering things that confirm the set principles. (Strauss et al., 1990) Thirdly, one also will have to put aside ones (own) ambitions for the development of a certain transition during the research process. (Ark, 2005) This also applies for presumptions on how strategies, laws, rules, organisations and such should ideally work. An analysis shouldn’t be made starting from an idea of how a transition should be conducted, how planning should ideally work or how a political-administrative transition process should develop. It should be about analysing what really happens. (see also: Wissink, 2000, Ark, 2005) In the fourth place, a realistic analysis demands an amoral position from the researcher. This means that for the duration of the research the researchers temporarily try to put aside their own moral frame and describe as realistically as possible what happens in the transition processes. Just to be clear: an amoral analysis doesn’t imply that the researcher is immoral, nor that he intentionally overrides the moral rules of a community. He is amoral because the official codes of conduct and the desired ways of thinking cloud his view on the real power games and lead to false conclusions (Assche et al., 2004, Cf. Machiavelli, 1988). An amoral analysis implies that the researcher also takes things into account that might be considered undesirable. In the fifth place: the modernistic idea that theories on administrative, political and social processes can be perfect, has to be considered a fairytale. It is more realistic to use existing theories and theories that still have to be constructed in a very pragmatic way, customised for a specific problem, in the manner of Foucault and Rorty. (Foucault, 1994: 250, Foucault, 1997: 172, Rorty, 1989, Malachowski, 1990) The pragmatic use of theories in this way implies that the researchers try, neither to pretend to construct the transition theory nor the guidelines. In each individual case, they look for useful theories from disciplines like philosophy, psychology, sociology, public administration and political sciences that can help them analyse and describe the transition. 4.2 …and modest recommendations This chapter should not be interpreted as a repudiation of the possibility of formulating guidelines and recommendations. Social and political transition processes do take place and will continue to do so. Many factors contribute to them. The answer to the question whether social science can be a factor of importance is a resounding ‘YES’. With the additional comment that research is able to fulfil various (sometimes unpredictable) functions and malleability itself has various gradations. Between setting the original objectives and analysing the outcome of the research, a degree of uncertainty should be expected from socio-scientific research that aims to evaluate a policy process, the functioning of an institution or transition. Whether or not the evaluation succeeds, depends on the researchers, the methods of evaluation and the predisposition of the people and organisations whose functioning is under evaluation. If all these things are in order, it is likely that an evaluation will be properly executed. The same goes for the insight provided by research into the factors that influence socio-political processes. It is, however, difficult to use evaluation research to direct the actual use of the results of the analysis. This depends, amongst other things, on the ‘users’ of the research and the institutional conditions in which the research is used. There is as much chance that people and organisations adjust their behaviour as a result of the evaluation, as there is that the evaluation disappears into the bottom drawer. A higher degree of uncertainty between the original objectives and the outcome of a research is expected from the deducibility of recommendations and guidelines from a process analysis or evaluation. Especially where recommendations for the ‘design’ of long term, complex processes are concerned. Naturally, one can always construct a recommendation, but chances are slim that following the guidelines will lead to the desired objectives in the long run. After all, the context changes with every step of the process and this demands new recommendations that are adjusted to the new situation. (Scott, 1998) The more complex a process becomes, the smaller the level of malleability will be. It is impossible to deduce a definite set of useful tools, instruments and guidelines from process analysis. Similar to the theories and research methods, the use and functioning of specific means will depend on the particular circumstances and these cannot be predicted beforehand. It is preferable to view the results of studies into policy, transitions, political processes et cetera as a set of tools that can or might help steer processes in the desired direction, but it doesn’t do that by definition. One can’t predict what the choice of certain tools should be, nor their effect on a specific case, in advance. It can be expected, though, that recommendations on the means that are to be applied (tools, guidelines and such) that are based on a thorough (Foucauldian) analysis of the specific process, will be much more realistic and will have a bigger effect. The following analogy might clarify this recommendation: we think it’s wrong to answer the question ‘how do I cross a river?’ (how can I influence a process?) with: ‘by boat, because this has proven to be a very adequate way to cross a river in the past’. It is better to take the river as an object of research. From the analyses of the river it can be deduced that it would be better to avoid this river, or that a bridge would be a good and sustainable solution, or that the purchase of a boat would be a fine solution. Maybe it is even possible to swim across, which would be the cheapest solution. (Cf. Hopkins, 2001) We started this chapter with the statement that the popularity of strategic research such as transition management can partly be explained by the promise it holds. We end it by adding that this promise can only be sustained if transition managers and transition researchers become more modest about their ability to ‘manage’ or direct the desired long-term changes in society: bearing in mind that modest intentions and expectations are often the basis for surprising outcomes. References Ark, R.G.H., van. (2005). Planning, contract en commitment: naar een relationeel perspectief op gebiedscontracten in de ruimtelijke planning. Delft: Eburon Assche, K., van. (2004). Signs in time. An interpretive account of urban planning and design, the people and their histories. Wageningen: Wageningen University Assche, K., van, & Duineveld, M. (2004). Groot Archeologiepark Leidsche Rijn: over de rol van cultuurhistorie in planning en ontwerp. Wageningen: Wageningen Universiteit Beunen, R., & Ark, R.v. (2007). De politieke dimensie van natura 2000. Hoe wil NL het EU-beleid uitvoeren? Landschap, 1 Bevir, M. (2004). Governance and interpretation: what are the implications of postfoundationalism? Public Administration, 82 (3), 605-625 Branaman, A. (2001). Self and society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Duineveld, M. (2004). Bedankt voor de bloemen. Over machtige burgers, bloemen en bakstenen. In H. Venhuizen (Ed.), Geest en grond (pp. XVI-XXVIII). Rotterdam: Bureau Venhuizen Eco, U. (1993). De grenzen van de interpretatie. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. London: Duke University Press Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing power to planning research. One researcher’s praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 353-366 Foucault, M. (1988). De orde van het spreken. Meppel: Boom Foucault, M. (1994). Power. Essential works of Foucault 1954-1984. Volume 3. New York: The New Press Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics: subjectivity and truth; the essential works of Michael Foucault, 1954-1984. Allen Lane: London Foucault, M. (1998). The will to knowledge. The history of sexuality: 1. London: Penguin Books Foucault, M. (2001). Discipline, toezicht en straf. Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij Foucault, M. (2003). "Society must be defended" Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976. New York: Picador Frissen, P.H.A. (1996). De virtuele staat. Politiek, bestuur, technologie: een postmodern verhaal. Schoonhoven: Academic Service Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books Gibbons, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Gils, W., Hoeks, H., Kate, L., & Rooden, A., van (Eds.). (2004). Foucault. Breekbare vrijheid. Teksten en interviews. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom Glasersfeld, E., von. (1995). Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press Gray, B. (1997). "Framing and Reframing of Intractable Environmental Disputes" In R. Lewicki, R. Bies & S. B. (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 171) Gunsteren, H.R., van. (1976). The quest for control: a critique of the rational-centralrule approach in public affairs. London: Wiley Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hopkins, L.D. (2001). Urban development: the logic of making plans. Washington: Island Press Hoppe, R. (2002). Van flipperkast naar grensverkeer. Veranderende visies op de relatie tussen wetenschap en beleid. AWT Achtergrondstudie nr. 25: Adviesraad voor het Wetenschaps- en Technologiebeleid Howarth, D. (2000). Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press Korsten, A., & Hoppe, R. (2006). Van beleidswetenschap naar kennissamenleving. Voortgang, vooruitgang en achteruitgang in de beleidswetenschap. Beleidswetenschap, 4 Loos, A., Spaapen, J., Wamelink, F., & Drooge, L. (2007). Zichtbaar maken van maatschappelijke relevantie van kennis. De sci-Quest methode in praktijk. Den Haag NWO Machiavelli, N. (1988). The prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Malachowski, A.R. (1990). Reading Rorty : critical responses to philosophy and the mirror of nature (and beyond). Oxford: Blackwell Nietzsche, F. (1977). Morgenrood. Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers Peters, B.G. (2005). The Problem of Policy Problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 7(4), 349 - 370 Pierre, J., & Peters, B.G. (2000). Governance, politics, and the state. Basingstoke: Macmillan Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage Pressman, J.L., & Wildavsky, A.B. (1979). Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland : or, Why it's amazing that Federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes (2d ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press Ringeling, A. (2002, September 26-27, 2002). An instrument is not a tool. Paper presented at the Paper presented at Conference on Policy Instruments, McGill School of Law, Montreal, Ontario Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Roth, D., Warner, J., & Winnubst, M. (2006). Noodverband tegen hoog water: waterkennis, beleid en politiek rond noodoverloopgebieden. Wageningen: Wageningen UR Rotmans, J. (2003). Transitiemanagement: sleutel voor een duurzame samenleving. Assen: Van Gorcum Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., Asselt, M.v., Geels, F., Verbong, G., & Molendijk, K. (2000). De casus van een emissiearme energievoorziening. Maastricht: International Centre for Integrative Studies, Universiteit Maastricht Rotmans, J., Loorbach, D., & Brugge, R., van der. (2005). Transitiemanagement en duurzame ontwikkeling; Co-evolutionaire sturing in het licht van complexiteit. Beleidswetenschap, 19(2), 3-23 Scott, J.C. (1998). Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press Spaapen, J., Dijstelbloem, H., & Wamelink, F. (2007). Evaluating research in context: a method for comprehensive assessment. The Hague: Consultative Committee of Sector Councils for Research and Development (COS) Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J.M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park ; London: Sage Termeer, C.J.A.M., & Kessener, B. (2006). Vitaliseren van gestagneerde organiseerprocessen. M&O(2), 26-38 Terpstra. (1995). Ontwerpen en weten, maken en verkeren. Argumenten voor en tegen maakbaarheid in beleid en wetenschap. Nijmegen: Best / Damon Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2003). Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary landscape studies: potential and limitations. Wageningen: Delta Program Wissink, B. (2000). Ontworpen en ontstaan: een praktijktheoretische analyse van het debat over het provinciale omgevingsbeleid. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers Zuber- kerritt, O. (1991). Action research for change and development. Aldershot: Avebury