Introduction

Sustainability transition studies have increasingly paid attention to indigenous peoples and knowledges (e.g. Bush and Doyon 2021; Doyon et al. 2021; Ramirez et al. 2020; Boni and Velasco 2019), an interest that follows the current research agenda of sustainability transitions (Köhler et al. 2019). Specifically in achieving: (i) a deeper understanding of contexts for both policy and experiment effects in the governance of transitions; as well as (ii) a deeper understanding and reflexivity of transitions’ mainstream vis-a-vis diversity and inclusion. To contribute to this debate, this article explores if, and how, indigenous peoples and knowledges take part in the construction of hybrid socio-technical systems, i.e. socio-technical systems where heterogeneous knowledges already coexist and give rise to the emergence of specific and nuanced socio-technical features and patterns feeding from epistemic diversity. Given that a socio-technical system is a “cluster of material objects, social practices, social relationships, and social organization” (Johnson and Wetmore 2009), we argue that a deeper contextual and analytical understanding of this phenomena is core to the understanding of knowledge governance challenges related to deep changes towards just and environmentally sustainable socio-technical systems.

Understanding processes of hybridisation of knowledge is necessary to address the wicked challenges of sustainability policy and practice, specifically, to address the relations between knowledge and power in social change (Avelino 2021). For example, indigenous peoples have been recognised as the stewards of global biodiversity: “constituting only 5 percent of the world population, indigenous peoples are vital (…). Traditional indigenous territories encompass 22 percent of the world’s land surface, but 80 percent of the planet’s biodiversity” (Sobrevila 2008, p. xii). Yet, such peoples are locally embedded in broader regional and national borders and, naturally, all sorts of economic, political, social, cultural and institutional exchanges occur in such porous contexts. Often, scholarly work and political dynamics point at the conflict and controversy that arise from the coexistence between modern ways and indigenous peoples and knowledges. Here, we acknowledge such exchange contexts as heterogeneous contexts, settled on institutionally complex socio-technical, political and economic dynamics (Ramos-Mejía et al. 2018). Power imbalances and exclusion of every sort have been also frequent, including their epistemic forms (Cummings et al. 2018; Hajjar et al. 2021), phenomena that have been often rooted in colonial institutions, conflicts and historical drifts (Mignolo 2003; Ghosh et al. 2021).

Yet we can imagine that, even if such coexistence is not an easy feat, there might be a number of forms by means of which, oblivious to a deeper scrutiny, heterogeneous knowledges interact creating situated forms of socio-technical systems. This paper aims at providing analytical means to understand if, and how, indigenous peoples and knowledges assemblages interact with techno-scientific assemblages to create hybrid socio-technical systems. To that aim, we address the question: What are the types of interaction between techno-scientific and indigenous/local knowledges in socio-technical configurations aiming at sustainability? We build on the assumption that hybrid socio-technical systems emerge from the diverse possible ways in which techno-scientific and indigenous/local socio-technical knowledges interact. We search for patterns or building blocks of hybrid socio-technical systems. The resulting framework points at specific knowledge governance challenges that sustainability transitions face in relation to localised epistemic diversity.

Conceptually, we discuss the assumptions and main approaches of epistemic diversity and hybridisation. Coming from manyfold scholarly traditions, these concepts bring to the table challenges related to the existence of diverse knowledges. However, its reach comes short to provide nuanced views of the forms of interaction between such knowledges and its effects in socio-technical systems. We turn to the literature to source an outline of such nuanced views, carrying out a theory-driven review (Paré et al. 2015). We assess scholarly works discussing any form of interaction between techno-scientific and indigenous/local knowledges having sustainability as a reference point. Sustainability is our reference point because, on the one hand, unsustainability (or the current ecological crisis and deep social inequalities that we face today worldwide) has been caused by the hegemonic Western ways of knowing, imagining and seeing the world (Ndlovu 2014); on the other hand, because it has been argued that the quest of sustainable socio-technical systems would benefit from including indigenous knowledges (Doyon et al. 2021). In this way, sustainability acts as a catalytic notion where techno-scientific and indigenous/local knowledges interact. We search for recurring patterns indicating types and modes of interaction. We build an integrated view of such interactions into a model. We bring about the multi-level perspective transition framework as a common background to discuss a hybrid socio-technical knowledge circulation model (Geels 2002; Geels and Schot 2007), built on reiterative types of interaction. These types of interaction hint at the existence of multiple directionalities and levels of unfolding of such interactions. In the discussion, we further develop these hints, suggesting knowledge circulation patterns and constitutive tensions of hybrid socio-technical systems.

Our insights show a better grasp of epistemic diversity as a constructive tension for transformative change in hybrid socio-technical systems. Results provide a nuanced reading of phenomena conditioning the understanding, framing and deployment of transition pathways for socio-technical long-term change in hybrid epistemic settings. We expect this contribution to add valuable insights into current analytical reflections on how to better approach the impact of epistemic diversity in sustainability transitions, especially in the South (Rigolot 2018; Hedlund-de Witt 2012).

Conceptual framework

In this section, we discuss the epistemic diversity and hybridisation in the backdrop of socio-technical transitions as conceptual landmarks. These notions denote a diverse and long-standing scholarly interest in the coexistence and interaction between heterogeneous knowledges.

Epistemic diversity

Epistemic diversity was coined as a notion by decolonial thought. It is worth addressing a few lines to decolonial thought to clarify its foundations and positionality. Decolonial thought has been nurtured by Latin and Northern American cultural studies’ scholars and African and Asian postcolonial researchers (Doxtater 2004; Kapoor 2008; Megerssa 1993; Rahnema and Bowtree 1997; Walsh 2007), critiquing the assumption that decolonisation came to an end in the early nineteenth century or in the second half of the twentieth century for Africa and Asia, when national revolutions surged and republics were born. From the decolonial viewpoint, colonial times have not ended at all. Colony is clearly seen in worldwide structures of center–periphery relations in which national colonial-minded elites play a role.

Decolonial works and reflections raise awareness about the means by which coloniality is still performed and reproduced. Its practice supports the positioning of the colony’s others’ peoples, knowledges and rights. Decolonial tradition has been nurtured in action-oriented scholarship. Decolonial thought builds upon two main sources: first, the Anglo-Saxon ‘postcolonial studies’ perspective, arguing that coloniality is performatively expressed in manyfold ways of ‘colonial discourses’ (Quijano 1993, 2000); second, the world-system perspective, in which the worldwide capital accumulation is pointed at as the main source of contemporary global becoming (Castro-Gómez and Grosfoguel 2007; Spivak 2012; Wallerstein 1974, 1979).

As a decolonial concept, epistemic diversity aims at uncovering, visualising, valorising and positioning other knowledges. Epistemic diversity has grown as a shared notion from a variegated set of complementary works, which plead for a deeper look at alterity, and with it express a resistance position aiming at situating others’ recognition. This standpoint has been coined as radical diversity (Espinosa 2007) or post-abyssal thought (de Sousa Santos 2007). Epistemic diversity discusses the enactment of radical diversity at various possible levels.

First, epistemic diversity operates as an assumption or starting point. The notion of ecology of knowledges expresses such diversity. Here, modern techno-scientific knowledge tradition should be just seen as another of the kind, sharing with other knowledges a core feature: incompleteness (de Sousa Santos 2006a; b). No knowledge is or could be complete, and every kind of knowledge is partial. Ecology of knowledges also encompasses an ecology of temporalities, where contemporary times do not grasp the multiple time directionalities (cyclic, circular, etc.) posed by multiple epistemic sources, nor is it exhausted in a single reference of ‘present’ or a sense of ‘progress’.

Second, epistemic diversity expresses a human value, an aspect drawing attention to widely embedded practices of epistemic injustice (Cummings et al. 2023). As a human value, epistemic diversity urges the acknowledgement of others’ knowledges and being in their intrinsic legitimacy, as well as spontaneity in their mutual encounter and exploration. Cajigas-Rotundo (2007, p. 190) suggests that ‘exploring such boundary spaces demands questioning about what is and what could be knowledge in a realm of epistemic diversity and democracy’. de Sousa Santos (2007) brings forth the notion of ecology of the acknowledgement, which refers to what remains when (implicit, insensible) hierarchy is ignored, and the search for intelligibility without cannibalising others’ knowledges.

Third, epistemic diversity feeds the creation of alternate social worlds. Following Walsh (2007), interculturality is not about romanticising folklore or ‘exchange’, but rather about witnessing societal building processes: the building of others’ knowledges, social orders (as seen in politics and economics), social powers (as seen in the state or other institutional orders) and societies. de Sousa Santos (2007) understands such processes as an ecology of productivities. We will come back later to this aspect, for it shares the main assumption of our inquiry.

In sum, epistemic diversity stresses a point about the intrinsic value of human diversity, the wealth of knowledge produced by such diversity and the fact that such knowledge is embodied in social orders.

Hybridisation as a knowledge- and culture-related process

Hybridisation relates to the processes by means of which epistemically diverse peoples meet into single streams. Even though hybridisation has been discussed from different locus and disciplinary streams, there is little detail about its means and patterns. We discuss here an overview.

The first locus comes from social studies of technology (STS). Early on, Callon and Law (1997) and Callon et al. (2009) brought about the notion of hybrid forums. Hybrid forums discussed interactions between “science-experts” and “society-lay people” interactions, taking a look at the intersections in which hybrid configurations between them took place. This view aimed at illuminating ‘alternative visions of worlds’, as well as to show the ‘heterogeneous character of social networks’. Some works follow suit, discussing the institutionalisation of collaborative practice between scientists and non-scientists (Chayut 1994) or collaborative scientific and ancestral conservation initiatives (Zanotti 2014; Zanotti and Palomino-Schalscha 2016).

A second locus comes from institutional hybridisation. This is, hybridisation at the level of rules of the game or standardised practice. Mostly set disciplinarily on peace studies, these discussions draw attention to the manifold ways in which interactions amongst diverse actors shape institutional settings (Boege 2018). Some refer to challenges related to the existence of implicit hegemonic positions on such processes (Hameiri and Jones 2018; Wallis et al. 2018). A complementary stream on institutional hybridisation draws attention to the ways diversity forcefully demands adaptation from rules and standards, as would be the case with multinational businesses (Fritsch 2015).

A third locus comes from anthropology and cultural studies, specifically in relation to overarching cultural (re)creation phenomena that take place in contemporary societies. Here, the discussion draws attention to the ways by which cultural boundaries are affected (Lie 2009), with hybridisation patterns that affect identities as an effect of intercultural communication. It is argued that this phenomena still need further on-site understanding (De Grandis 1997), particularly in relation to the creation of ‘cultural borders’ (Soto Silva 2019).

A last locus builds on a line closer to decolonial thought. This stream discusses the relations between tradition and modernity, the product of which is a hybrid, a mixture between elements of both. Some references point at cultural mixtures expressed in specific communities (Canclini 1999), as well as possible tensions implicit in such mixtures (Boswell 2008).

Escobar (2019) reckons in his work implicit tensions of hybridisation processes, calling to otherness as a normative reference to question Western forms and integrating other ways of construction through interaction between different actors, knowledges, identities and cultures. Escobar seeks to conceptualise non-scientific structures as sources of alternative development pathways through hybridisation and interculturality. Close to this idea, Brown (2010) argues for the engagement of multiple knowledges as a necessary condition to tackle societal challenges.

Such alternative pathways are stressed by the notion of divergence as a locus of transformational potency set in place in diversity, i.e. the idea of ‘diversity as richness is desirable and taken for granted, yet many epistemically diverse contexts hold the statu quo’. As a notion, divergence raises awareness about the power of such diversity in opposition to epistemic monocultures, by diverting, producing paradigmatic controversies, proposing alternative pathways and valuing the opposition character of “a motley world” (Rivera Cusicanqui 2010; Van Assche et al. 2013).

In sum, hybridisation processes take place: (i) in the acknowledgement of diversity and divergence, (ii) in everyday quotidian exchange, (iii) in processes of knowledge production, exchange and circulation and (iv) in societal rules of the game and institutions.

Towards modelling a hybrid socio-technical system

The question about knowledge in sustainability transitions research relates to the understanding of possible approaches, features and effects of human knowledge and technologies in relation to sustainability. Expectedly, this subject is not exempt from scholarly controversy and heterogenous normative, socio-technical and political views and action (Paredis 2011), for the discussion on knowledge embeds a discussion on power (Avelino 2021).

As a notion, socio-technical systems provide a comprehensive analytical framework studying long-term clustering processes of material objects, social practices, social relationships and social organisation (Johnson and Wetmore 2009). Following systemic views, the notion provides a long-term view on social change processes with awareness of its material conditions (Nesari et al. 2022).

This approach was rapidly taken by sustainability transition studies following the work of Geels (2002), for its capacity to address the systemic nature of unsustainable production–consumption systems. Although analytical efforts have been developed to better account for place and scale in socio-technical transitions (Lawhon and Murphy 2012; Raven et al. 2012), the claim for a better understanding of other contexts, and further, other peoples and knowledges, is still an open question. This matter is not only open for discussion in the field of sustainability transition studies (Ghosh et al. 2021), but in international development practice as well (Brown 2010).

The understanding of heterogeneous systems, justice and governance is of special interest in this line of inquiry (Hansen et al. 2018; Doyon et al. 2021). Despite the fact that there are ongoing discussions about knowledge for sustainability (e.g. Oliver et al. 2021), its reach seems to be far from grasping epistemic diversity challenges.

By reflecting on socio-technical systems in the light of decolonial thought, we aim at a more detailed translation of its stance at a model scale. Decolonial thought is positioned in a critique standpoint towards modern science, technology and innovation as foundations of the techno-scientific regime. The decolonial debate on epistemic diversity is set in defence of others’ knowledges. Its values, positionality and scholarly stance are concerned with the many ways in which the modern episteme has caused epistemic damage (de Souza Santos 1997; de Sousa Santos 2002, 2006a, b, 2007, 2009; do Sousa Santos 2010). Notions such as growth, development and innovation are seen by decolonial scholars as locked-in in performative forms of the relation developed/developing or centre/periphery. The Schumpeterian motto of creative destruction is seen not only to destroy and create jobs, but to destroy ontological multiplicity, epistemic diversity and ecosystems (Grosfoguel 2007; Bortagaray and Ordóñez-Matamoros 2012).

It is worth noting, though, that epistemic diversity is not only about how epistemically diverse knowledges exist at the borders (Mignolo 1996), but also about how epistemically diverse knowledges co-produce social orders (Escobar 2015, 2019). Analytically, this view is close to ontological aspects of constructivism in the understanding of socio-technical systems (Geels 2010, 2020) and the broader notion of boundary work (Gieryn 1983; Mollinga 2008), building on forms of agency related to demarcation in the shared production of social worlds.

We argue that it is possible to situate a midway solution towards a nuanced understanding of hybrid contexts, by trying and recreating a colourful view of the encounter between heterogeneous knowledges as well as its effects in shaping diverse socio-technical systems.

Rationale of the inquiry

A theory-driven literature review

We aim at finding if there are and, if so, what are the typical interactions between Western techno-scientific knowledge and indigenous/local knowledges. We approach this question through a literature review, using a crosscutting approach to ground operational categories.

We are aware that a caveat of this approach is its limited reach vis-a-vis a complex and multi-situated object. We understand this inquiry as a theoretical experiment that aims at setting a provisional model built on common references. Further, we understand this inquiry as an effort of translation and development of decolonial thought and heterogeneous disciplines into mainstream thought about socio-technical systems. The effort is relevant due to the place given to socio-technical systems in sustainability transition literature.

The grounding inquiry follows a theory driven literature review (Paré et al. 2015) following an interpretive approach (Yanow 1999; Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2015). We select works that describe interactions in the context of sustainability, i.e. works that document initiatives related to socio-ecological issues. Works are selected with a broad approach, to include insights from a multiple disciplinary base (see Table 2). We aim at grounding an analytical framework built on forms of interaction between knowledges (Star 1998; Bryant and Charmaz 2007).

We assume that (i) interactions around sustainability between epistemically diverse/divergent assemblages have been scholarly addressed and the readings are sound despite such interactions being studied unintentionally; (ii) both the product and the means of interaction are factual and relatable as data; (iii) the body of works studies modes of encounter that can be typified into a number of categories; (iv) possible relations between such categories help outlining a comprehensive view.

Analytical grounding

Expectedly, not every work on the database explicitly discusses interactions in a direct sense, but embodies, exemplifies or implies phenomena of interest on the matter. This aspect translates into the analysis as an iterative assessment process (Star 1998), by means of which (i) elements of each work added to the definition and extent of emergent categories, in the light of its contents, purpose and/or stances; and (ii) each work was categorised according to a fitting place in each category, but also in the light of a plausible whole of demarcated categories. The categories we have found describe various features and facets of phenomena taking place when various possible and scattered elements of the Western techno-scientific regime interact with their counterparts regarding the broad context, challenges and initiatives towards sustainability.

The interpretive process includes a first sorting of the papers according to scales of inquiry found in the literature (i.e. micro or meso level). The microscale includes works set to the reach of individuals or single communities. The mesoscale includes works that describe a broader reach in which phenomena takes place beyond the single individual or community, discussing crosscutting societal objects or patterns (e.g. institutions, widespread social practice, socio-technical assemblages). Afterwards, iterative rounds of discussion allowed us to identify categories within each scale.

Research method

The set of potential peer-reviewed articles was selected by performing a search in ProQuest, Ebsco Host, Jstor, LENS and Scopus. The search query was selected by searching for as many forms as possible to address forms of encounter between diverse knowledges, including their nature (i.e. knowledge related), purpose (i.e. sustainability related) and context (i.e. relational settings related. We made use of a query combining multiple ways of addressing keywords in the period 1990–2018 (Table 1).

Table 1 Search Query Composition
Full size table

Results

We identified 58 papers, most of them case driven (N = 47), while the rest elaborated at the theoretical level or consist of theoretical/reflexive approaches (see Table 2). Case-based studies analyse cases from 65 countries which are shown in Fig. 1. Expectedly, the topic is more frequently addressed in post-colonial settings.

Table 2 Selected articles
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Source: Authors

Discussed cases in the database, by country.

Full size image

Disciplinary approaches to the topic are multiple. Some disciplines evidence more interest (i.e. sociology, ecology, law studies, agroecology), but scholarly works come from a scope of 25 disciplines. This highlights the fact that the topic is relevant and draws diverse scholarly attention. Finally, the distribution in time shows an increasing interest on the topic after the year 2000, with a notorious increment after 2014.

Discussion: outline of a hybrid socio-technical system

Our inquiry builds on the assumption that hybrid systems emerge from the diverse possible ways in which techno-scientific and indigenous/local socio-technical assemblages interact. We analyse the literature in the search of patterns.

These patterns refer to categories that show different ways of interaction between knowledges taking place around sustainability initiatives (see Table 2). We take these interactions as plausible sources of an empirical inventory depicting the ways epistemic diversity is actually performed, and that its analytical grouping outlines a model of a hybrid socio-technical system, where knowledge circulation patterns at both the niche and the regime levels ignite hybridisation processes.

Interaction patterns in a hybrid socio-technical system

Niche

At the niche level, we have identified encounters that take place around individual, project-sized, specific object-related processes. These should not be understood here as single or particular actions, but as generalisable examples of frequent arrays of practice by means of which standardised practice and institutionally recognised actors create relational patterns. Niche-level processes suggest grounded categories of (i) scientific research, (ii) local valorisation and (iii) co-design.

  1. (a)

    Scientific research (R):

    Research-oriented interactions are those driven to produce systematic scientific accounts about local or traditional embedded knowledges. These works relate to understanding, translation or diffusion of such knowledges. The scale of such accounts vary, depending on disciplinary approaches or object scales. Although scholar involvement varies in such works, most of the inquiries are set to the extent to provide a detailed stocktaking of an object at hand. In such cases, research objects are singled out of their social/indigenous context and taken into science.

    Selected works refer to rather broad topics, such as agroecology (Castillo 2003), indigenous sustainable innovation and entrepreneurship (Onwuegbuzie 2010), food systems (Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. 2018; Keleman et al. 2016), environmental care and knowledge (Lefale 2010; Ianni et al. 2015; Hansen et al. 2018), and inclusion (Absolon 2016, 47–49)

    Some other works tackle very specific matters, for example, the features of Moriche palm (Torres-Mora et al. 2015), riparian forest reforestation (Celentano et al. 2014), the Khettara water supply system (Benqlilou and Bensaid 2013), analysis of indigenous sayings for species protection (Wehi 2009) and the legitimation of beliefs in hunter–gatherer societies (Rushforth 1992).

  2. (b)

    Valorisation of local initiatives (I):

    Valorisation of local initiatives relates to initiatives of local knowledge promotion, visibility, positioning or resistance led by local/indigenous/grassroots actors. Oftentimes, valorisation is led by indigenous scholars or has the support of partner organisations. Such accounts seem to use published research as a means to secure a place in broader social or political arenas. These works are intended to advocate for visibility of such local initiatives.

    The potential of indigenous knowledge is discussed, for example, showing what negotiation configurations would make it possible to balance indigenous and scientific actors towards sustainability in natural resource management in Taiwan (Lin and Liu 2016). Features or values of indigenous knowledges are usually shown, for example, discussing ancestral knowledges unveiling in processes of climate change adaptation in Zimbabwe (Iloka 2016) and in medicine and food as a wise agrobiodiversity strategy taking place in Colombia (Montes-Rojas and Paz-Concha 2015). Sometimes, researchers develop these accounts from critical positions towards scholar canons or other hegemonic discourses. This aspect has further consequences, as will be discussed below. Later works in this line build on the notion of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).

  3. (c)

    Co-design (C):

    Co-design initiatives discuss collaborative settings in which local/indigenous and external actors partner to develop solutions fitting to local challenges, profiting from diversity and encounter between knowledges. Most often, the works in this category document single cases that refer to a specific action-oriented collaborative experience. This shows diverse settings for reach, scope, leading actors and settings of the partnerships. These works often have a focus on the methods set in motion to mix various knowledge sources (e.g. Husson et al. 2015) and/or the hybrid features of the collaborative inputs and outcomes (e.g. Carrión et al. 2018).

Regime level

We also identified works that discuss features of regime-level arenas or institutional conditions. The kind of phenomena studied in these works exceeds the territorial and local reach to impact into the broader institutional or socio-technical dynamics of sectors, regions or countries. At the regime level, we identified the following grounded categories: (i) displacement, (ii) usurpation, (iii) strategic use, (iv) straddling, (v) positioning, (vi) hybrid science and (vii) hybrid products.

  1. (d)

    Displacement (D):

    Displacement accounts for gradual displacement of local or indigenous knowledges. These works have a broader reach, detailing the means by which features of a dominant socio-technical regime stand at odds with local or indigenous knowledges. Rather than pointing at specific threats, these accounts describe sectoral/institutional patterns.

    The scale of the discussions varies, including international commerce negotiations (e.g. Romero 2006), national productive models (e.g. Montalba-Navarro and Carrasco 2003), or political tensions arising from multicultural settings (e.g. Shepherd 2010). 

    The cases in this category depict exogenous knowledges as embedded in sets of practice and institutions, displayed on diverse sectors and territorial settings, gradually hampering quotidian efficacy of traditional knowledges.

  2. (e)

    Usurpation (U):

    Usurpation refers to broader patterns by means of which the dominant socio-technical regime usurps local or indigenous knowledge. The cases here show exogenous actors/practices/institutions set in place as devices that allow misappropriating or abusing local/indigenous knowledges/practices/land/workforce, often profiting its value while hampering locals’ rights to ownership. A case in point comes from the global intellectual property regime, raising a case for rooibos tea (Ismail and Fakir 2004).

  3. (f)

    Straddling (S):

    Straddling (Maragia 2005) accounts for the coexistence of parallel local/indigenous and exogenous institutions. Here, rules of the game are diverse starting on the principles, means and ends of justice. Institutional complexity is embedded in contradictions at the level of formal rules, policy or programs.

    Extrapolation of this notion to forms of political and economic organisation brings about the broader institutional effects of epistemic diversity.

  4. (g)

    Strategic use (SU):

    Works under this category describe local absorption of technologies from the techno-scientific regime. These cases document a gradual, but strategic indigenous adaptation, absorption or profiting of exogenous technologies and practice. Such processes support indigenous peoples’ development or strategic positioning.

    Cases in point include grassroots innovation using drones for indigenous-lead mapping and monitoring (Paneque-Gálvez et al. 2017) or the use of information and communication technologies by indigenous civil society (Lupien and Chiriboga 2019).

  5. (h)

    Positioning (P):

    Positioning is a form of valorisation of local actors/initiatives/stances at a wider level. This is, beyond particular or specific accounts of local knowledge or initiatives. Positioning strategies are often mixed/supported/sourced by others' languages (e.g. law, critical social sciences, international development), elaborating on the ways local/indigenous actors/initiatives/stances (fit, not fit, take part within, struggle, reject, confront) the dominant socio-technical regime. Positioning signals at scales beyond the local where the local actually plays a role.

    Some works refer to local positioning discourses, strategies and means towards controversial topics or societal affairs. This is the case, for example, of seeds (Aguayo and Hinrichs 2015), genetic resources (Talaat et al. 2012), common resources or places (Langdon 2010; Al-Houdalieh et al. 2009). Some others relate to institutional processes, as the case of educational policy (Bertely Busquets 2015) or legal controversies (Savaresi 2018). Finally, some works refer to scholarship, such as discussions about cross-cultural work (Zanotti and Palomino-Schalscha 2016) and overlaps or controversy in the interface Western/indigenous knowledges related to sustainability (Throsby and Petetskaya 2016; Alexander et al. 2011).

    Positioning strategies broaden the wealth of knowledge upon which public problems are understood and tackled. It widens the scope of available options as well as the political implications of policy choices. In the case of sustainability transitions, positioning processes point to indigenous/local knowledges’ intrinsic merit and draw attention to its fruitful dialogue with/within Western views on cultural and ecological sustainability.

  6. (i)

    Hybrid science (HS):

    Hybrid science refers to forms of scientific practice that are sympathetic to valorisation/hybridisation with indigenous/local knowledges. Hybrid science often develops from critical or alternative stances. Yet it often takes part of mainstream scientific practice or creates room for educational or research programmes and within the techno-scientific prevailing system.

    As said before, some of these works link to valorisation efforts, as it is the case of agrarian/environmental grassroots movements against regional planning regulations in Santiago del Estero in Argentina (Jara 2014), and the epistemic exploration on sourcing alternative therapeutic views from Yuruba Orisha traditions in the African diaspora (James 2018).

    Other scholar works adopt critical stances and provide broader systemic readings on political ecology and power relations (Garí 2000; DuBois 1991) and social movements (Casas-Cortés et al. 2008; Rushforth 1994; Ahenakew et al. 2014).

    A different stream relates to works that discuss alternative views, often in the attempt to being comprehensive by combining available knowledges as feasible solutions for sustainability. Some cases in point include initiatives related to agroecology (Castillo 2003; Torres-Mora et al. 2015; Catacora-Vargas et al. 2015), entrepreneurship (Onwuegbuzie 2010) and food value chains (Sage 2014).

  7. (j)

    Hybrid objects (HO):

    Hybrid objects account for the co-production of hybrid artefacts, created out of hybridisation processes between parties of diverse socio-technical regimes. Solutions at this scale should not be understood as specific artefacts, but as institutional, technological or methodological products by means of which diverse socio-technical regimes link in the search for social or technological solutions that allow coexistence. Some of these hybrid objects can be found in ethnic-health programs (Boccara 2007), natural resource co-management (Simon 2013) and natural resources infrastructures (Carrión et al. 2018).

Landscape

The landscape level is understood as an external structure or context for actor interactions, in which deep structural trends and other local variables are set (Geels 2002). It is likely that some of the regime-level identified works have in some contexts such reach and extent (e.g. deep institutional and socio-cultural marks of straddling, usurpation or displacement). For the sake of discussion and in terms of creating a chance of discussion from an open model, we rather prefer to argue that regime-level antagonistic positions could embed critical stances aiming at such a degree of change (e.g. Feola 2020).

Table 3 presents an overview of the totality of the assessed works, classified according to each of the grounded categories.

Table 3 Classification of articles
Full size table

Knowledge circulation patterns in a hybrid socio-technical system

Figure 2 displays the grounded patterns as components of a hybrid socio-technical system.

Fig. 2
figure 2

A multi-level perspective of hybrid socio-technical systems. Authors, expanding on Geels (2002)

Full size image

This graphic model is set on Geels’ (2002) long-term development socio-technical framework, the multi-level perspective (MLP). As a representation of a socio-technical system, the graphic model illustrates a circulation flow, by means of which knowledges and technologies are created, processed and institutionalised in a specific socio-technical context.

There is a fundamental difference with Geels’ approach, though. The flow of this hybrid socio-technical system has a particular dynamic of knowledge circulation. It assumes the ‘usual’ techno-scientific knowledge circulation flow, in which niches emerge into the regime level. At that point, it starts a twofold flow, a linear/circular flow, by means of which the techno-scientific assemblage starts interacting with other socio-technical assemblages. Visually set in this fashion, the imagery conveys a more nuanced depiction of the relations and power struggle between socio-technical systems. In other words, this view instils the decolonial standpoint into the model.

In the linear flow, the techno-scientific socio-technical system deploys its inertia as a whole towards other assemblages. There is a stream of input/reaction by means of which the techno-scientific assemblage triggers and embeds different sorts of effects in contact/relation to indigenous assemblages.

In the circular flow, the interactions start at niche level as specific or local modes of interaction. At regime level, the interaction creates wider sets of societal patterns and institutional structures. The configuration as a whole brings about a hybrid socio-technical system: one in which variegated directionalities, created by epistemic diversity interactions, create the intrinsic tensions of a contentious socio-technical system.

The model feeds itself by ways in which niche-level phenomena escalate into regime-level phenomena. There is a sense of evolutionary/institutionalising process taking place, by means of which niche-level phenomena (e.g. scientific research, co-design or local valorisation) become regime-level features (e.g. standards, hybrid products or positioned knowledges).

In sum, given a long-term socio-technical circulation flow within the system, the place, locus, and reach of interaction phenomena between heterogeneous knowledges create patterns that become comprehensively embedded in broader hybrid societal structures.

Constructive tensions in hybrid socio-technical systems

We will now discuss the suggested model in terms of epistemic diversity and hybridisation. The section aims at assessing (i) if, and how, epistemic diversity shapes different kinds of interactions in socio-technical systems, and (ii) if, and how, hybridisation shapes different kinds of patterns in a socio-technical system.

The results discussed above bring about a comprehensive view of how practice and understanding of sustainability is set in hybrid settings. The findings show different kinds of interaction by means of which the hybrid socio-technical system is performatively constructed. Such interactions provide evidence of the starting stances of diverse epistemes towards the interaction, its disposition and possible tones and mishaps.

Hybrid socio-technical systems evidence the paradoxical coexistence of its constitutive knowledge assemblages. Two sets of constructive tension arise as features of a hybrid socio-technical system. A first set refers to the directionality that the involved actors intend. This describes the extent to which actors’ intentions performatively imply shaping a hybrid system. This is, if their intentions deliberately link to epistemic diversity and its development, or if their intentions are indifferent to or against hybridisation.

A second set relates to the tensions arising from such directionality, i.e. the extent to which such tensions are (or not) conflictive. Figure 3 illustrates this idea. It shows how actors’ performativity, both by directionality and its tensions, leads to overlapping hybrid forces that affect the socio-technical assemblage.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Source: authors

Paradoxical coexistence and overlapping tensions in hybrid settings.

Full size image

Axis Y describes directionality towards hybridisation. This is the extent to which performative actions in the knowledge circulation flow link to hybridisation structuring processes of the socio-technical system. Possible directions include (i) hybrid construction, (ii) non-hybrid construction or (iii) drift. These directions express the disposition of actors towards others’, but also, de facto views towards the means or ends of sustainability.

Axis X describes directionality towards conflict in the hybrid socio-technical system. This is the extent to which performative actions in the knowledge circulation flow stand in conflictive, neutral or flourishing grounds in relation to other sources, stances and actors. This axis expresses the tensions taking place in the becoming process of a hybrid socio-technical system.

From this point of view, the paradoxical nature of hybrid settings implies that each type of encounter performs a potential tension within the web of relations in a hybrid socio-technical system. It implies that hybrid socio-technical systems evidence a condition of intrinsic constructive tensions.

Knowledge governance challenges of hybrid socio-technical systems in sustainability transitions

Building on existing socio-technical system approaches, discussions on sustainability journeys (Garud and Gehman 2012) tend to assume a stable configuration at regime level, and therefore a rather expected dynamic taking place in the processes of niche initiatives evolving into regime-level practices. Our findings wave a signal to a less structured dynamic that takes place in hybrid socio-technical systems, by means of which a configuration of epistemically contentious assemblages is set beforehand in and around the understanding of and addressing sustainability challenges.

The hybrid socio-technical system paradoxical nature risks enabling contradictory, non-viable or illegitimate transition pathways. While the extent of conflict in a non-hybrid regime relates to a transition process that brings winners and losers (Ramos-Mejía et al. 2018; Swilling and Annecke 2012), the extent of conflict in a hybrid socio-technical system starts where performative embedded practices from one or other ‘side’ of the hybrid system are able to deploy (more or less conscious) forms of epistemic violence. Intended means for sustainability transitions could be part, in the end, of such violence. Controversies about seeds are a case in point (Aguayo and Hinrichs 2015).

A last aspect worth discussing brings about a reflection on science in hybrid socio-technical systems. Findings hint at the fact that, although it is a highly standardised practice, science is able to adhere to a variety of ethos. We are not referring here to Merton’s ethos, a notion concerned with the institutionalisation of scientific practice (Orozco and Chavarro 2010). We are rather pointing at the ways scientific intentionality relates to other knowledges as much as to world creating, as its contents imply one or another form of intentionality (e.g. Bristow and Esper 1984; Beebeejaun et al. 2014). Here, it is visible how such intentionalities play as means of paradoxical forces of hybridisation, with direct effects on the contents, emergence and legitimacy of the contentious regimes that overlap in the hybrid system.

Conclusion: towards a research agenda on hybrid socio-technical systems

We have provided a nuanced view of the ways in which indigenous and techno-scientific knowledges interact and reflected on the implications of such interactions for sustainability transition processes. The inquiry has added heuristics to scholarly and policy work in innovation systems (Lundvall 1992; Lundvall et al. 2011; Nelson 1993; Salazar 2017), and more specifically, in those where indigenous peoples and knowledge and diversity issues are a frequent public issue.

Our findings have shown the core features of hybrid socio-technical systems. We have discussed the diversity and eventual divergence of directionalities in the means, products, processes, features and forces that take place in such systems. A kind of multiplicity that pervades the socio-technical system both at niche and regime levels (Casas-Cortés et al. 2008; Bertely Busquets 2015). Such diversity embeds paradoxical tensions, which appear as a result of different directionalities towards hybridisation in a hybrid–non-hybrid continuum, as well as different performative modes of epistemic diversity in which coexistence between knowledges implies flourishing, indifferent/neutral or conflictive trends.

However, due to the limitations of this inquiry as a theoretical experiment, further research is needed. First, assessments and adjustments of the resulting analytical insights are required. It is possible to think that empirical or disciplinary accounts deepening on the grounded categories discussed above could bring about a better understanding of the nuances of each category as well as of the ways in which each of them interacts with other categories. Also, deepening on the empirical understanding of paradoxical tensions towards conflict and hybrid directionality. This may include (i) understanding the conditions that facilitate or block sustainability transition pathways and (ii) understanding knowledge governance structures in which diverse knowledges play a role and the likelihood of their scalability.

A second research area relates to policy. On the one hand, our findings suggest that there are features at the regime level that are worth a closer study, such as policy coherence and coordination at a cross-sectoral level (Peters 2005). It is likely that deeper layers of epistemic divergence, embedded in institutional arrangements, facilitate or hamper certain sustainability transition pathways beyond specific sectors. On the other hand, it is worth taking a deeper look into the specific realm of science and technology policy: not just to assess whether and how, it is able to embed epistemic diversity, but also to understand under what conditions it is able to push sustainability transition pathways that profit epistemic diversity. This discussion is relevant to the different policy frameworks (e.g. missions, innovation systems), but especially relevant to transformative innovation policy.

As a policy framework, transformative innovation policy emerges with the search for urgent responses to achieve sustainability, as posed by Sustainable Development Goals and Grand Societal Challenges in the 2010s (van Oost et al. 2016). Transformative innovation policy translates into policy incidence the experimental approach of sustainability transitions (Köhler et al. 2019). This experimental approach of transformative innovation policy could be able to profit objects for more fitting hybrid co-production in terms of i) the positionality and expectations of the policy workers (Colebatch et al. 2010) in the hybrid socio-technical regime; and ii) the scale and place of experiments in the hybrid socio-technical regime and its possible short- and long-term risks.