The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change
Open accessAbstract
What theories or concepts are most useful at explaining socio technical change? How can – or cannot – these be integrated? To provide an answer, this study presents the results from 35 semi-structured research interviews with social science experts who also shared more than two hundred articles, reports and books on the topic of the acceptance, adoption, use, or diffusion of technology. This material led to the identification of 96 theories and conceptual approaches spanning 22 identified disciplines. The article begins by explaining its research terms and methods before honing in on a combination of fourteen theories deemed most relevant and useful by the material. These are: Sociotechnical Transitions, Social Practice Theory, Discourse Theory, Domestication Theory, Large Technical Systems, Social Construction of Technology, Sociotechnical Imaginaries, Actor-Network Theory, Social Justice Theory, Sociology of Expectations, Sustainable Development, Values Beliefs Norms Theory, Lifestyle Theory, and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. It then positions these theories in terms of two distinct typologies. Theories can be placed into five general categories of being centered on agency, structure, meaning, relations or norms. They can also be classified based on their assumptions and goals rooted in functionalism, interpretivism, humanism or conflict. The article lays out tips for research methodology before concluding with insights about technology itself, analytical processes associated with technology, and the framing and communication of results. An interdisciplinary theoretical and conceptual inventory has much to offer students, analysts and scholars wanting to study technological change and society.
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
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory
Latour, B. (2005) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001 · Cited by 16,778
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
Geels, F. W. (2002) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8 · Cited by 7,275
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
Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics
Sartori, G. (1970) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1958356 · Cited by 3,318 · cited 1×
“First, for scholars and theorists, it attempts to broaden conceptual debates and discussions that often risk ‘bias’ and ‘epistemological monism’ (Castree, 2016), ‘disciplinary chauvinism’ (Sovacool et al., 2015), or ‘methodological unawareness’ (Sartori, 1970: 1034).”
Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change
Shove, E. (2010) · Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space · doi:10.1068/a42282 · Cited by 2,439
Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective
Geels, F. W. (2010) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022 · Cited by 1,718 · cited 1×
“A wide range of distinctions is evident in some of the most proximate literature, such as grand versus middle-range theories (Merton, 1948, 1967), models versus frameworks (Geels, 2010), and meta-theories and theory frames (Rueschemeyer, 2009).”
Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4310758 · Cited by 1,426
Do Sociological Theories Grow?
Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1985) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/228142 · Cited by 242
The Bearing of Empirical Research upon the Development of Social Theory
Merton, R. K. (1948) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2087142 · Cited by 191
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
Self-citationSovacool, B. K., Axsen, J., & Sorrell, S. (2018) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.007 · Cited by 1,092
Self-citationSensitive intervention points in the post-carbon transition
Farmer, J. D., Hepburn, C., Ives, M. C., Hale, T., Wetzer, T., Mealy, P., Rafaty, R., Srivastav, S., & Way, R. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaw7287 · Cited by 248
Furszyfer Del Rio, D. D., Sovacool, B. K., Foley, A. M., Griffiths, S., Bazilian, M., Kim, J., & Rooney, D. (2022) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111885 · Cited by 171
Self-citationTheories Informing eHealth Implementation: Systematic Review and Typology Classification
Heinsch, M., Wyllie, J., Carlson, J., Wells, H., Tickner, C., & Kay-Lambkin, F. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/18500 · Cited by 114
Metadata
- Authors
- Sovacool, B. K., & Hess, D. J.
- Venue
- Social Studies of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-06-23
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 703-750
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-3127
- 1460-3659
- OpenAlex
- W2696589634
- Cited by
- 511
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 83.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
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.
