The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges
Open accessAbstract
Sustainable development is prompting a re-assessment of innovation and technological change. This review paper contributes three things towards this re-assessment activity. First, it considers how the history of innovation studies for sustainable development can be explained as a process of linking broader analytical frameworks to successively larger problem framings. Second it introduces an emerging framework whose allure rests in its ability to capture the bigger picture: the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions (MLP). Whilst burgeoning researcher networks and literature suggests this policy-relevant theory is attractive, it is not without its challenges. The third purpose of this paper is to elaborate these challenges as areas for further research and development. We do this by drawing upon contributions to this special section and the wider literature.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Geels, F. W. (2002) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8 · Cited by 7,275
Technological paradigms and technological trajectories
Dosi, G. (1982) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6 · Cited by 6,685
Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 · Cited by 5,245
From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems
Geels, F. W. (2004) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015 · Cited by 4,098
Redefining innovation — eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics
Rennings, K. (2000) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(99)00112-3 · Cited by 3,226
Schot, J. (1998) · History and Technology · doi:10.1080/07341519808581928 · Cited by 227
Cited by
An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., et al. (2019) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 · Cited by 2,800
Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda
Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007 · Cited by 2,469
What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability
Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012 · Cited by 1,712
Self-citationSustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change
Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340 · Cited by 1,401
The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism?
Martin, C. J. (2016) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027 · Cited by 1,327
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., & Grin, J.
- Venue
- Research Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-05
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 435-448
- ISSN
- 0048-7333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059527695
- Cited by
- 1,691
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 55.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023
- The paper
- Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
