Keywords

1 Introduction

The question of transformation has a striking tension. On the one hand, there are calls for transformation in all places: transformation of the energy system, transformation of urban ways of life, transformation of capitalism and many transformations more. The calls are not only loud and audible, they are also put forward with good arguments. For example, the way of life of Western industrialised societies and their imitators has a considerable problem in respect to sustainability. And in the Anthropocene, limits to the availability of resources not only become inescapably visible, but at the same time, questions of justice between the various groups of people become urgent in a completely new way. On the other hand—and in a peculiarly opposite relationship to this—the willingness as well as the ability to change seem to be decreasing rather than increasing (visible in the rise of polarised political debates, overarching bureaucracies, and limits to individual adaptability). The demand for fundamental change meets a pronounced resistance to change. The established paths seem to be anything but well-trodden, but rather exhibit a persistence that is sometimes difficult to understand. It is these structural path dependencies against the backdrop of both urgent and far-reaching needs for change that give rise to a sociology of transformation.

But the starting point for a sociology of transformation is anything but simple, for several reasons. Firstly, the task of identifying structural path dependencies is theoretically very demanding. With which “lens” can these be made visible without at the same time fixing existing conditions or exaggerating change dynamics? Secondly, there are considerable problems of interpretation. The prominently articulated diagnoses of Blühdorn (2013), in which democracy is interpreted as a simulation to “whitewash” unsustainable societal natural relations and internal coordination, vividly illustrate the extent to which prior assumptions in modellingFootnote 1 determine the interpretive perspective. Thirdly, a fundamental problem of sociology, namely that its exponents are always contemporaries of the formation they are trying to observe from a distance, is considerably exacerbated. Critical sociology has so far been able to operate with plausible overarching normative assumptions (while controversial in between approaches). Not so a sociology of transformation, which, although critical, cannot have the same certainty of scale. Fourthly and finally, a particular challenge of a sociology of transformation is that transformation is based on the recognition of a structural difference which, from an epistemological point of view, can in principle only be recognised in retrospect. At the same time, for practical considerations of the political shaping of transformation, there is a strong interest in gaining insight into current transformations, if possible through participation, in order to gain shaping knowledge.

In addition to these four reasons, however, a sociology of transformation must also challenge the currently predominant self-image of sociology as a science free of value judgments. Max Weber’s famous postulate in this regard, made more than a hundred years ago, continues to have indeed an unbroken effect today. Accordingly, the task of sociology is to provide as accurate a picture as possible of contemporary society, without, however, recommending what can be changed. For, from a sociological point of view, every change means the creation of winners on the one hand, but also the creation of losers on the other. In other words, no social change, let alone a transformation of society, will only produce winners. There will always be groups or social milieus that are disadvantaged by a change. Accordingly, a sociologist would be taking sides if he or she were to make frank recommendations for change. So much for the background of the unbroken predominance of value judgement in our discipline that is of interest here. It is, of course, a major hurdle for sociology to open up in the direction of transformative research. But it was also Max Weber who spoke of the “eternal youthfulness” of sociology. By this, he meant that sociology should always have contemporary society as its main focus, so that it must constantly question its concepts, theories and methods as to whether they still allow a penetration of social reality, which has been changing dynamically since the beginning of modernity and is even accelerating in the process of change (Rosa 2017). Accordingly, Max Weber assumed that sociology must change according to its object of study in order not to lose relevance. In accordance with this “eternal youthfulness” precept, it is therefore not sacrilegious to also question Weber’s postulate of freedom from value judgement as to whether it is still “youthful” enough, i.e. still suitable for contemporary society and sociology’s self-understanding.

These different challenges and the problem of dealing with them can be illustrated very well by looking at the discussion on public sociology. In his emblematic essay For Public Sociology, Burawoy (2004) distinguished four forms or ways of working in professional sociology. These were grouped according to the two dimensions of audience (academic/extra-academic audience) and the type of knowledge (instrumental/reflexive knowledge). Accordingly, professional (academic/instrumental), political (extra-academic/instrumental), critical (academic/reflexive) and public sociology (extra-academic/reflexive) emerged. A first assumption is to position sociology of transformation in the light of this typification precisely as a call for targeted coupling between these types. A second, more far-reaching assumption is that this typology may need to be expanded. To name just two reasons for this: First, entirely new types of data are being added, with a new sociological territory of the predictive (“Digital Sociology”, Marres 2017; “Computational Social Science”, Lazer et al. 2009 and Conte et al. 2012) emerging, e.g. the expansive use of data from simulations. Second, with real-world laboratories and living labs, entirely new sites for the production of knowledge and innovation are being established in the borderland between science and society, which reconfigure social and knowledge orders (Schäpke et al. 2017; Lemm and Häußling 2021; Böschen et al. 2021a, b). Such developments cannot be ignored by a sociology of transformation, but must rather be used as an occasion to reorient sociology itself.

The main task is understanding about structuring processes of collective order in transformative change—for which a sociological theory must be offered. At the same time, however, the pressure on the social sciences is growing not only to better understand the structures and dynamics of transformation, but even more to produce successful steering knowledge. As if the situation was not already complicated enough, we are also observing transformations in science itself, especially through the “digitalisation of research”, which expands the ways of knowing of the present, but at the same time undermines the foundations of knowledge. Therefore, sociology of transformation must be thought and designed in the triad of transformation research, transformative research and research transformation. This means the provision of design knowledge on how transformations take place, social science research that uses this knowledge to intervene in social and societal processes in a targeted way, and reflection on how sociology itself changes as a discipline due to such action and socio-political expectations.

Against this background, this article starts from the assumption that a sociological perspective specifically tailored to the current transformation conditions and challenges can make a significant contribution to understanding as well as shaping transformation processes. Learning in transformation processes is demanding. It requires a reflective culture of trial and error. In a non-dynamic-feedback reality, one would speak of error culture. The point, however, is that in the inevitably nonlinear feedback processes of transformation, what used to be called error is inevitably part of the process of moving through the problem and solution space; in other words, it becomes just as much a constitutive component of the ongoing transformation as what has traditionally been called the implementation of the solution approach.Footnote 2 In other words, the impasses that one takes in a transformation project are just as instructive as the solution paths, since both enlighten one about the character and scope of transformative change. Taken together, sociology as a science of reflection can make a significant contribution here by helping to think through the cultural-institutional preconditions and at the same time making them transparent. What experimental spaces can be opened up at the institutional level that does not immediately fail due to systemic constraints or individual benefit calculations? This need for reflective re-positioning and striving to encompass the multiple perspectives available in transformation processes is a key constitutional fact of sociology as a science, but it is also especially demanding in a setting, where the drive to change is paramount. Therefore, a sociology of transformation might fulfil a special role, as a navigator through reflective and critical experimentation for transformation.

This article therefore sets itself a threefold task. Firstly, with the help of the Aachen Model of Transformation research (see this collection), we justify why the multi-level perspective (MLP; Geels 2004, 2022; Köhler et al. 2019), in particular, which is widely used in transformation research, is insufficient with regard to understanding processes of structure formation, despite all its undisputed strengths, and why a specific sociological theoretical perspective is therefore needed (Chap. 2). The thesis of this article is that such a specific theoretical perspective can be gained by combining field theory on the one hand and network research on the other. This is because their respective strengths and weaknesses in the analysis of structural formation and change are reciprocal to each other and can therefore not only be balanced out by a clever combination, but also led to a productive enhancement (Chap. 3). The fact that these theoretical-conceptual considerations provide added value for the understanding of transformative processes, especially those that take place in a dynamic-feedback manner, will be demonstrated by means of a concrete development process for the sustainable design of textile chains. The interlocking of different social forces and forms as well as levels of structure formation can be made visible here very well by means of the complementary field network research shown. What is more, it is precisely developmental disruptions, obstacles, framework conditions and blind spots that can be made transparent in this way and clarified for transformation actors as decision-making constraints (Chap. 4). A sociology of transformation understood in this way would then help to establish a new level of learning ability in these processes, since a reflected culture of trial and error and correction in these explorative situations, as outlined above, is inevitable. It is not about avoiding log jams, but about making visible the pitfalls and obstacles that need to be taken into account. In the concluding summary, not only are the most important findings compiled once again, but also an outlook on further tasks for a sociology of transformation understood in this way is given (Chap. 5).

2 Aachen Model of Transformation and the Sociology of Transformation

The Aachen Model of Transformation is based on the distinction between three dimensions, whereby the necessary and unavoidable interactions between them are to be taken into account above all. These three dimensions are, firstly, research on transformation processes, which can be subsumed under the term transformation research. The second dimension is characterised by attempts to bring about, accelerate or otherwise support social change with the participation of science. Here, the term transformative research is relevant. Finally, however, a third level must also be considered, which is triggered with the changes of research itself through societal changes or through its active role in them. Here we would then speak of research transformation. In this model, there is a dynamic stabilisation between these levels if science is to be successfully embedded in social transformation processes.

Each of these dimensions is already represented by a more or less extensive literature, but their connections have not yet been clearly elaborated. While transformation research often works with encompassing analytical frameworks on a large scale (such as the multi-level perspective approaches elaborated by Geels and others), works from the field of transformative research (real experiments, niche experiments and real labs) often argue at the level of small-scale cases with limited scope. The impact of the two forms of development on the researching disciplines themselves is often discussed, in turn, in quite different contexts. At this point, we should also refer to the extensive discussion of these questions in the transdisciplinarity debate, which pursues a similar line of inquiry when it is concerned with how knowledge can be developed jointly from different positions in order to then also be reflected back into the respective specific fields of knowledge (Lawrence et al. 2022). Here, too, a reflective and procedural mode is favoured (Lorenz 2022), but in contrast to the model proposed here, the specific role of a discipline is not examined more closely here, nor are the interactions between the sociological research and practice dimensions specifically named here.

From a sociological point of view, it makes sense here not to focus on these levels (which are already independent fields of research), but to deal much more explicitly with the relations between them. This entails a twofold assumption. Firstly, the main conceptual-theoretical challenge for a sociology of transformation is the simultaneous, more or less unsynchronised change taking place in various dimensions of social coordination. Secondly, this challenge is exacerbated by the fact that change in the various dimensions must not be analysed as independent of one another, but rather must be taken seriously in their dependence on the interrelated constitution of the preconditions for change. The three analytical dimensions refer to spaces of change that can generate mutual stabilisation, but also possible destabilisation in complex processes of interaction. Making these interactions describable as a reciprocal structuring process is the explicit aim of this contribution (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
A schematic presents the Aachen model. It presents micro or macro between transformative research and transformation or transition research, and requirements or positions between transformation or transition research and research transformation.

Aachen model of transformation

Full size image

  • The coupling of transformation research and transformative research pursues, on the one hand, the effects of transformational research on ongoing transformation processes (i.e. questions about the possibilities of influencing large-scale transformations through real experiments and real laboratories and the then necessary integration of these approaches into the models of transformation research) and, on the other hand, the application of experiments to the results or predictions from transformation research (e.g. in the identification of “windows of opportunity” to which one can connect).

  • The interaction between transformative research and research transformation can be observed very well through the need for new competencies among researchers and new focal points in the disciplines or the creation of new disciplines and roles and additionally also in the relevance of these changes for the implementation of transformative research projects. What problems do researchers encounter in these processes and how can these be translated back into new qualification or evaluation structures within the scientific disciplines?

  • Finally, the interrelationship between research transformation and transformation research manifests itself on the one hand in the demands placed on science by the transformation (such as increasing politicisation) and on the other hand in the fact that new methods and approaches for understanding and explaining transformation processes can be generated.

This complex picture of the structural dynamics involved then also shows that the framework of the multi-level perspective is not sufficient to adequately capture these dynamics. MLP attempts to make socio-technical transitions, such as the change from sailing to steam navigation or the low-carbon transition, describable in a framework consisting of three distinct levels. At the niche level, new possible solutions (such as new bottom-up sharing concepts for mobility in urban quarters) might take place. On the regime level, established actors control the status quo of a developed dominant socio-technical field (such as the status quo of urban transport), and on the landscape-level societal trends (such as in particular the societal norm of sustainable transport concepts related to the example used here for illustrative purposes by MLP), public perception and events determine the emergence of windows of opportunity that can destabilise existing regimes. The framework allows for clear categorisations, but tends to get in the way of an analysis of the possible complex interactions between levels, as well as within levels, and tends to reify these levels (see also Schmitt et al. 2023).

In particular, the intervention and reflection perspective of transformative research and the repercussions of the transformative process on the research itself are not sufficiently taken into account there and observed in their retroactive effects on transformation processes. On the one hand, these complex nestings in transformations open up a special opportunity for observing social change in real time. On the other hand, this nesting poses a particular theory problem. So what is the theory problem? Transformation means that the cultural-institutional structure that makes up a society, as well as in which research is embedded, moves along with it. Moreover, such research cannot remove itself from events as distanced research. Rather, it has always been a form of engaged research. In this sense, transformation sociology in Burawoy’s typology (2004: 11) would necessarily always be public sociology. Beyond this, however, the question arises: How do the four forms connect with the considerations of the Aachen transformation model? What consequences, then, does this particular constellation entail? How can the relevant interdependencies not only be made theoretically accessible, but also be reflexively caught up in the shaping action that sociology as transformation sociology inevitably becomes? Intervening research requires a theory that makes the respective relations and the dependencies within them visible. Theoretical tools are therefore needed to analyse these complex interactions in contemporary transformation processes and at the same time to assist in the positioning work of a sociology of transformation, especially between professional and public sociology. It is therefore less a matter of taking up a fixed positioning on transformation processes as a sociology than of pointing out the possibility of switching between them in a controlled way in order to do justice to changing demands and criteria. Theoretical tools from field theory and network research, which make structural dynamics representable as changes in positioning without scales, can support these reflexive positioning of self and others.

3 Theoretical Framing: Field and Network Theory

The theoretical-conceptual problem of interest here consists primarily in the question of how the mutual relation and interactive stabilisation between the three aforementioned dynamics can be conceived and in a way that does not lead to the introduction of sociology as a neutral observer or to the reification of individual structural features of societies as indispensable. This poses a general theoretical-conceptual problem, which cannot be answered here. Our intention here is much more modest. In the present article, we propose a strategy for joint reflection. This strategy consists of making the potential of two relationally oriented sociological theories fruitful with and for each other: field theory and network research. Field theory and network research are both capable of mapping and explaining complex structural dynamics between different social spheres. What is more, it is to be assumed that, due to their respective special focuses, they can be linked in a complementary manner in order to capture the different facets and dynamics of transformations in a sociologically meaningful sense (cf. also Schmitt 2019). The aim is to explicitly search for the forms within which the two research perspectives can mutually support and complement each other. The aim is to make potentials for the observation of complex embedding and disembedding processes comprehensible by focusing on relational structures and their changes.

3.1 Field Theory

Transformations typically take place in such a way that established structures and (collective) actors lose influence and new (collective) actors in turn gain influence. In this way, new relations emerge between actors, but also between actors and structures. Field theories offer one way of illuminating such developments. From such a perspective, transformation spaces become places in which transformation fields unfold and processes of structural change can be observed. And in this sense, a plethora of analyses have been carried out on issues of transformation in which field theories have been fruitfully employed. In this way, changes in the scientific field were carried out, for example, with regard to the organisation of the university (e.g. Baier and Schmitz 2012), the specific features of fields of investigation while hybrid interaction spaces are taking place (cf. e.g. Herberg et al. 2021) or the emergence of “techno-scientific fields” (cf. Raimbault and Joly 2021). Or studies that took regional densification as an opportunity to examine specific path dependencies and opportunity structures in the linking of different domains of action, for example in the context of questions of knowledge exchange or education (Herberg 2018), or with a view to problems of regional structural change (Böschen et al. 2021a, b).

This relevance of field theories for the study of forms of path dependency as well as processes of fundamental change owes much to specific theoretical attentions as well as addressed theoretical tensions that are taken up and dealt with in such theories. This is why, that these theories, in whatever form they are formulated (cf. Böschen 2016), take up precisely the tension between actors and structures and thereby emphasise the importance of structures as well as actors and their specific alignments and related changes. Nevertheless, there are different variants that set the accents differently with regard to the stability and emergence of structures and which need to be brought into the discussion (Raimbault and Joly 2021). On the one end of the spectrum, there is the modelling of fields in the way Bourdieu (1992) did, who spoke of objective structures and thus gave fields the character of immutability. At the other end of the spectrum are theories that view the dynamic reconstruction of fields as an inherent moment and have reconstructed them as strategic fields of action (Fligstein and McAdam 2012). Although at first glance these two perspectives seem to be mutually exclusive, if one makes appropriate adjustments, accentuations and expansions, interesting innovations arise for transformation research. After all, questions of transformation owe much to the tense combination of stability and change. The relevant question is how this simultaneity can be meaningfully dealt with in a theory without accentuating one or the other side of the coin too strongly.

In the sociological discussion of the last decade, field theories have experienced a renaissance (cf. Bourdieu 1992, 1998a, b; Fligstein and McAdam 2012). Fields resemble spaces of play. They can be understood as “historically constituted spaces with their specific institutions and their own functional laws” (Bourdieu 1992: 111; translation the authors). Fields constitute positions and thus preshape the practical meaning of the actors operating in them, but their reproduction is not independent of how the actors relate to these positionings. Fields are areas defined by specific rules of the game, in which the rules frame the actions of the individuals, but do not necessarily determine every move. Field theories are attractive because they not only allow us to bridge the gap between macro- and micro-views, but also take a look at the dynamic formation of social order (Böschen 2016).

Field theories shed light on the relation between structure and actor. Pierre Bourdieu in particular addressed this problem in his field theory. In social practices, structures manifest themselves and are reworked at the same time. Actors realise structures that are set for them as guidelines for interpretation and action, but at the same time, actors are not fixed to these structures, but move within them, including individual adaptations. However, Bourdieu’s field theory emphasises structures in particular (Müller 2014). In contrast, Neil Fligstein and Doug McAdam’s field theory accentuates the relationship between actors (Fligstein and McAdam 2012). They conceptualise their field theory as a theory of strategic fields of action. Here, opponents compete against proponents and try to reduce their influence and expand their own. Strategic action thereby determines the respective traits of the actors. Through the formation of lines of conflict between opponents and proponents, established structures are simultaneously transformed or new ones are formed in order to deal with the emerging conflicts. In his work, which focuses in particular on the analysis of habitus and the distribution of power, Bourdieu has more or less assumed the power of fields as a framework. However, this is not necessary for theory. Therefore, the emergence of such field structures, which is addressed by the theory of Fligstein and McAdam, can be brought into line with Bourdieu’s theory. Then, as it were, the processes of liquefaction and crystallisation of structures can be examined as field-specific processes of structure formation.

Such forms of structure formation can be examined in particular in terms of their materialisation, for example in the formation of infrastructures. This is because materiality stabilises social practices (Shove et al. 2012). However, there is no determination of patterns of action. In his field-theoretical reflections, Kurt Lewin referred to the things in a field that triggers something in actors as “objects with a prompting character” (Lewin 1963). This meant objects or persons in an individual’s field that cause the individual to move towards or away from them. In general, such elements can be described as prompting moments in fields. These are signs in the perceptual field of actors that can trigger a movement (interpretation, action). What is decisive here is the potential to trigger an activity, not the unambiguous consequence of the presence of a prompting moment. The context does not function in an objective sense. The signs are interpreted by actors and then proceeded with a more or less routine response. So one cannot assume a causal effect on the perception and action of actors. Only in very rare cases do prompting moments develop a compelling effect in such a way that the perceptual and action requests they contain are followed without circumstance.

Now, for a sociology of transformation, questions of structuring are of particular importance. The tension between structured structure and structuring structure comes into play here in a special way. In previous approaches to field theory, the aspect of structuring has been treated very differently. Pierre Bourdieu fixes structure, as it were, through the conceptual condensation of centres of rule as autonomous and heteronomous poles of a field. In Bourdieu’s view, these embody the specific intrinsic and extrinsic rules of social sub-areas. In doing so, he basically falls short of the possibilities of his theory. For what would be an argument against not starting from stable constructs of autonomous and heteronomous poles, but rather examining precisely their formation as poles, each for itself, but also in their constellation to each other? In contrast to this, Fligstein and McAdam addresses the dynamic formation of structures through the emergence of strategic fields of action. Here, however, the aspect of the preconditions of structure formation through preceding structures is underexposed. If one takes the suggestions from both theoretical traditions of field theories, then an insightful conceptual-theoretical framework opens up for examining processes of structuring (cf. Böschen 2016).

In a sociology of transformation, it is important to be able to pose questions of multi-layered de- and re-structuring more precisely. Taking the approach of Bourdieu as the central frame, the theoretical problem can be described as follows. If one declares stability and change to be a central theoretical problem of a sociology of transformation, then it makes sense to raise two questions that relativise the static nature of field relations within Bourdieu’s previous conceptualisation. Typically, according to Bourdieu, a field is formed from an autonomous and a heteronomous pole, each of which appears as a static-fixed quantity. On the one hand, one can ask whether these poles are not themselves continuously configured and reconfigured. On the other hand, it must be assumed, especially in the case of transformations, that it is not only the references between two poles that shape the transformation process, but also the multiplicity of several autonomous and heteronomous poles as well as their specific mutual relations.

Taking the first point, it is a question of not understanding autonomous and heteronomous poles as static variables, but rather of analysing them as variables being continuously “under construction”. The stability of such poles may be very high, so that their change seems rather unlikely. However, this should not obscure the continuous re-structuring that is taking place and which sometimes also occurs below the usual depth of analysis. These micro-shifts in the tectonics need to be captured. In a first approach, poles can be understood as centres of regulation essentially formed by discursive, institutional and pragmatic schemes and rules. The more actors follow these and the more they are materialised (for example through infrastructures), the more stable such centres of regulation are.

Taking the second one, it is not only such centres of regulation that matter, but always in a certain context. Bourdieu has defined this through a bipolar structure of autonomous and heteronomous poles. In contrast and as an extension to this, it seems more revealing to proceed less from such a bipolar structure and more from a multi-polar structure. This forms a matrix, as it were, whose change can be studied as a longue durée (Böschen 2017). As mentioned above, transformation processes can be read precisely as changes in the bi- or multi-polar field structure. Thus, especially in regional structural change processes, which mean an ex-novation from a path dependency, the importance of science as a future innovation driver is often emphasised. However, this brings the field of science—and thus its structural patterns—more into focus. Such a reconfiguration of the transformation field is highly demanding, which is why it is not surprising how quickly such situations are blocked. With a field-theoretical perspective, the moments of opportunity for the emergence of structures could be identified more easily.

Finally, such modelling transforms the problem of “Coleman’s bathtub”, which describes the difficult mediation of micro- and macro-processes as a theory problem. For in-field theories, this tension can be studied as actor-centred structuring. However, this path has not been chosen so far because corresponding theoretical-methodological connecting points were missing. Yet network research offers precisely the theoretical and methodological approach that leads further here.

3.2 Network Research

Social science network research not only offers a conceptual toolkit for describing relations between social phenomena (e.g. between scientific communities) and the positions of network actors but also has an extremely comprehensive range of methods for analysing precisely these relations and positions (see Stegbauer and Häußling 2010). This range of methods enables the analysis of individual positions in the networks (for example, by means of different centrality or equivalence measures), as well as analyses and, above all, visualisations of the entire shape of a network (density, diameter, centralisation, modularity, etc.) (see Wassermann and Faust 1994 and Newman 2018 for the scope of possibilities).

Thus, a special feature of network research can be seen in the fact that it can look at both micro- and macro-phenomena of the social network researchers speak here of freedom of scale (especially important in White 1992 and 2008). For the question we are interested in here, we see the possibility of using network research to make shifts in the field of science, triggered by the dynamisation between transformation research, transformative research and science transformations, visible. In this way, new positions such as the real laboratory expert or the expert for science communication can be identified, as well as so-called gatekeeper, broker and hub positions, which, due to their respective special structural position in the network, assume positions that are distinctly powerful and determine the discourse. What is central here is that it generally starts from observable relationships and also distinguishes different levels of aggregation, such as multiplex relationships (which integrate indeterminate forms of relationships) or clearly defined types of relationships (with White “types of tie”, White 2008, p. 36ff). Here again, it is the freedom of scale that needs to be pointed out, as they occupy an important position in network concepts.

Furthermore, it is possible to explore the range of effects of certain findings or developments in one of the three phenomenon areas—transformation research, transformative research and research transformation—as well as the repercussions triggered there, as spill-over effects between different networks that are connected by transportable identities (Padgett and Powell 2012), e.g. persons who are a trade partner in a business network and a supporter in a political network. The concepts from network research allow us here to make transitions, mediation and brokerage between these areas comprehensible, as well as to make the divisions into different communities with different approaches and questions visible. Reaches are then generated through connections and mediations.

Also from a macro-perspective, individual scientific disciplines (here sociology), scientific concepts and instruments can be analysed positionally, making shifting relevance or role changes visible. Here it becomes possible to also see institutional arrangements or network clusters as units that themselves also form networks, e.g. a stronger collaboration structure between public administration and sociological research.

Finally, we expect network research to provide an answer to the general question of whether the new developments in the field of science indicated by the triad can give rise to new network structures and control regimes, which not least stand for new political and/or economic influences on scientific activity. In particular, examining these effects, between delimitable areas of the social, is a strength of the network perspective, as it can clarify how the bridges or brokers are positioned and how an overarching network with multiple levels shapes itself (Lazega and Snijders 2015).

3.3 How the Two Perspectives Complement Each Other

Both perspectives adopt a fundamentally relational perspective (cf. Häußling 2010) in that they always assume that it is only by being embedded in a structuring context that recognisable relevant social units (such as actors) can be formed and their scope for action and strategies identified. However, this structuring context arises in different ways and can therefore also be used in complementary ways. While field theory assumes objective relationships that arise from the distribution of different capacities (in Bourdieu’s case, capitals) between actors or groups of actors, network theory approaches assume observable relationships (interactions, repeated interactions, communicative references, etc.) that happen more between defined units and do not derive their position from their relative endowments. Both views have great analytical potentials and are not mutually exclusive.

While objective relations allow us to observe which positions, resources and capacities accumulate, which of these capacities are particularly influential and how the weightings between groups of actors shift. Changes become apparent when new capitals become important or different groups meet in new fields. Field theory brings some concepts here that make these re-organisations in and between fields clear. The concept of hysteresis, for example, highlights the phenomenon that actors cling to their traditional capabilities even when field structures change, thus blocking transformation processes. The concept of types of capital also makes clear how actors can translate their endowments when new fields are constituted and how new positions result from this. The translation possibilities offer connections for analysing where autonomous and heteronomous poles are to be located that structure the emerging field and how transdisciplinarity can be read as a successful balance between field forces of different fields. With the help of field theory, transformation can be understood as a struggle for resources and thus positions, strategies can be identified and thus structuring processes can be analysed.

In contrast, the more directly observable types of relationships that social network analysis assumes offer better access to opportunity structures, such as brokerage positions (which can explicitly mediate between different areas) or structural holes (where solutions fail due to a lack of exchange) (cf. Burt 2007). Positions are determined here by the access paths possible to them and thus one can see where condensed areas form, to what extent these are closed to the outside and whether new positions also emerge through new possibilities of contact. The observation of entire network constellations then also enables assessments of the entire opportunity structure, of resilience if nodes fall away and of general dynamics, such as information flows or closure tendencies.

The two perspectives are often juxtaposed as if to decide whether observable or objective relations are more important or original.Footnote 3 Here, the suggestion will be made that it might make more sense to combine their strengths in order to observe and analyse a transformation process that is taking place simultaneously in research, society and new sub-fields. Mutual (de-)stabilisations of structural dynamics are expressed particularly clearly when one looks at both objective relationships (as imbalances in the balance of power) and observable relationships (as opportunity structures). Here, the complementarities between the approaches can also be made strong, which help to make three problems central to a sociology of transformation workable. Firstly, the problem of scaling structural dynamics, which opens up as a gap between transformation research (with its focus on “great transformations”) and transformative research (with its orientation towards niche experiments). Here, field and network theories offer scale-free concepts that make it possible to capture the expansion of structural dynamics methodologically (cf. Padgett and Powell 2012, Fligstein 2021 and Schmitt et al. 2023). Secondly, the problematic of the methodological mix of engagement and distance calls for new research designs that explicitly address positioning and shifting relations or even use them exploratively. Finally, the two perspectives also complement each other in a third dimension, which then deals more specifically with the reconfiguration of positional relations, taking seriously that this reconfiguration can refer to quite different relations.

4 Mutual (De)stabilisation of Structural Dynamics—The Case of BIOTEXFUTURE

Using the transformative research project BIOTEXFUTURE (running since 2019 and till 2025) as an example (based on the experiences so far), we want to show the mutually influencing structural dynamics in the sociological triangle of transformation and illustrate that none of the dynamics in the pillars can be considered in isolation because they interact in specific ways, which can inhibit or support the transformations.

BIOTEXFUTUREFootnote 4 is an innovation space funded by the BMBF whose overarching goal is the extensive transformation of the textile industry from a petroleum-based to a bio-based industry. This is clearly a major socio-technical transformation, as a whole range of actors and infrastructures have to change together. For example, petroleum-based plastics and additives account for well over 70% of the total production volume in the textile industry as a whole, and textiles made from these basic materials are the best researched and large-scale machine parks are geared to them. At the same time, consumers are accustomed to certain standards in terms of quality, functionality and price and orient themselves to them. How this can succeed is undoubtedly the subject of transformation research (in line with the approach of the MLP), which can observe many niches (start-ups developing new materials and designers trying out these materials), would also observe clear trends in the landscape and would stop at the entrenched and established processes of the textile value chain on an industrial basis. Since such an approach is evolutionary in nature, it says little about the possibilities for action and processes of reflection at the various levels that play a significant role in determining feedback and change.

The model innovation space itself evokes exciting connotations. In the bioeconomy innovation spaces, certain fields of the bioeconomy (in addition to textiles, also nutrition, maritime systems and urban spaces) are to be advanced through a targeted linkage of different innovations. To this end, they each set up an independent governance structure that determines this orientation and implements it through the selection of innovation offerings. The expectation is then that, from a transformational point of view, the different innovations will work together (i.e. together generate greater reach and impact), as this is supported in the innovation space by organised collaboration on the one hand, and there is a strategic orientation guiding such collaboration on the other. Two other features of the innovation space concept are particularly important here. On the one hand, the innovation projects are explicitly about industry-science collaborations, i.e. formats in which companies develop an innovation together with universities or research institutions, resulting in solutions that are technically and economically convincing. On the other hand, the aim is for the innovation spaces to have an external impact, so that they draw the attention of the public and politicians to the problems and possible solutions in their respective fields and thus strengthen their social relevance. Taking these features together, the construct of innovation space is already a format that directly addresses the interactions between transformation research, transformative research and research transformation by trying to change the way transformation is generated in evolutionary processes and by trying to bring about a partially “planned transition” with, however, considerable freedom in generated protected spaces (often referred to as niches in the MLP). In BIOTEXFUTURE, as mentioned at the beginning, the focus is on the transformation of the textile industry with a basic orientation towards innovations that help to avoid the use of newly produced petroleum-based plastics and additives. In this context, it is important to cover the complex and long value chain of textiles and also to map it in innovation projects, bringing together entrepreneurial ideas and scientific findings. In BIOTEXFUTURE, this is achieved through an intensive consultation process during project development, regular exchange formats, mandatory demonstrator development and transformative accompanying social science research in the TransitionLab. Insights from transformation research have thus been taken into account in the construction of the innovation space by explicitly using elements of transformative research to transform research and industry alike. The idea behind this is to have a positive impact on social transformation through research transformation in technology development. Additionally, the social sciences will learn through involvement and have to also transform their approach by creating accompanying research projects, that are able to fulfil multiple roles, studying transformation in progress, as well as supporting the success of transformation and enabling learning across boundaries.

The TransitionLabFootnote 5 in BIOTEXFUTURE sees itself as such a transformative research in that it not only observes the work in the development projects of the innovation space, but can also bring insights from social science research into them in an advisory capacity and as expertise at an early stage, thus establishing a social perspective within technology development. From a network research perspective, the positioning of experiments from transformative research with regard to the results of transformation research is particularly interesting here. Here, it is a matter of the innovation space itself being understood as a real laboratory, for example by establishing concrete relationships that support recognised synergies or by seeking semantic connections to overarching societal trends in order to bring solutions that have been found into conversation and thus disseminate them. This then already traces an interaction between transformation research and transformative research, which should be taken seriously in today’s social constellation. For this purpose, the TransitionLab is also interdisciplinary, since insights from marketing, innovation research, network analysis, transformative research and transformation research must be used to achieve the most holistic view possible of the social embedding of textile innovations. However, these different insights need to be brought together and also translated for the level of technical constructions. By involving the social sciences in the construction and networking of the innovations, insights from transformation research can be directly incorporated into the design of the experiments and networks. At the same time, however, a feedback effect on science and research questions can also be observed. Thus, experimental research designs now lend themselves to be central rather than the evaluation of historical sources, and at the same time, the reactivity of science in society is now an issue and one cannot return to a simple observer position that makes non-interference the yardstick of scientificity. Instead, the issue now is to learn systematically from interference. BIOTEXFUTURE therefore tries out and practices different forms of collaboration with technically oriented development projects and stakeholders. In the process, a number of hurdles emerge in practice that must first be worked on. For example, the time and resources required for such transdisciplinary collaboration are quite high and often come into conflict with the classic planning of technical development projects. At the same time, it becomes clear that it is not the pillars themselves that are crucial for a sociology of transformation, but the interrelationships between them. Scientific advice, process organisation and science communication become elementary components of the transformation process itself, since technical innovations, e.g. the use of polymers derived from algae, are already influenced in their development by findings from social science studies, then exploratory feedback is organised for the prototypes and finally industrial embedding is included for scaling. Here it becomes clear how mutual processes of change at different levels (research practice, forms of exchange, involvement of different actors) can generate scope for transformation. However, this also changes the position of the researcher in the change process under investigation. He or she then switches between advisor, process designer, critical observer and change agent, without being clearly committed to one of these roles. Here one is part of the “structures in motion” that one wants to investigate and shape. Here one can also see from the example that the reconfiguration of positions is by no means to be understood as a pure design process, but arises from and with the structural dynamics themselves. Positional changes are initiated, get rolling and lead to changed constellations without being able to predetermine them. The case of the TransitionLab points also to specific pitfalls those positional switchings could entail. For instance, when the social sciences should be involved in early prototyping, this creates additional work for the technical innovation projects and these additional resources were sometimes not seen as something helpful for the innovation, but as a drag on already limited resources. This may lead to mistrust and holding back on collaboration.

In this context, examples from the field of the German “Mobilitätswende” are also interesting, for example, where a successful bicycle decision not only generates imitators, but also helps to build supraregional support structures that facilitate and make it possible to facilitate the conditions for such a bicycle decision in other cities as well (cf. Schmitt et al. 2023). These multiplying relational possibilities then allow for niche accumulation (as a relationality to gain reach) that produces large-scale uniform changes. Positioning in and creating network structures then allows for a higher chance of success of the desired transformative change here.

A science that is actively involved in shaping the transformation requires specific methods and concepts to be able to do this at all. Not only do individual scientific disciplines (such as sociology) have to abandon their research paradigm, which is largely oriented towards observation and description, and enter into a more intensive entanglement with their object of study (because they are now not only a part of the object of study, society, but also change this object by means of their research, quite specifically, during the constellations of observation). They also face the challenge of developing new methods, for example, in order to meet the requirements of the necessary transdisciplinarity: Scientists and diverse non-scientific stakeholders enter into an open-ended discourse on an equal footing, which alone forms the basis of legitimacy for the negotiated concrete transformation.

In a closer look at the relation between research transformation and transformation research, it is particularly significant how an increase in the number of transformation processes within and transformation demands on society diagnosed by the latter has implications for the self-understanding of the sciences themselves. We diagnose the present as a time of increased transformational demands on society: ecological crisis, pandemic, return of war, to name only the most important transformations to which society has to find viable answers at present. This inevitably leads to increased socio-political pressure on the sciences to treat the implied research questions as priorities, for example, over questions of basic research in any discipline. At the same time, there is also a demand on the sciences to give up their freedom of value judgement in favour of a committed direct participation in the transformation as well as in favour of a normative positioning in shaping it.

We assume that a concrete socio-ecological transformation towards more sustainability can only succeed if a mutually beneficial dynamic arrangement is found for all three dimensions, i.e. for transformation research, transformative research and research transformation. At present, it can be observed that, for example, knowledge about social transformations that have already taken place is only incorporated into transformative research in a very selective manner, if at all; this is therefore an untapped potential that could be better utilised in transformation projects. This is because such knowledge clarifies possible pitfalls, interdependencies between measures or circumstances that were not anticipated in advance, typical understandings of the roles of stakeholders, the design potentials but also the design limits of each measure, the legitimacy problems of participation procedures, the different speeds at which measures are implemented, and the not always compatible inherent logics of the (scientific) disciplines, economic, official, civil society and political actors. On the other hand, in the individual scientific disciplines, persistent tendencies can be observed that stand in the way of an active transformation of their own understanding of science. An example of this is sociology, which has always resisted departing from a value-neutral position, as explained in Sect. 1 with reference to Max Weber. So if a discipline like sociology is to have an active valuational role in transformation projects in the future, what does this mean in terms of research practice?

Of course, this is not to say that sociology has to side with a social grouping and henceforth assert its interests (against those of other social groupings)—for instance, in the sense of Karl Marx’s characterisation of science as a superstructure phenomenon that—in other words—only benefits the rulers in society. The value judgement dispute in our discipline has flared up again and again because it can at best only function as an ideal type, i.e. as a vanishing point of sociological research that can never be caught up with itself. For as a sociologist, one’s research is itself part of the society one wants to study. Even as researchers, for example, we cannot deny our socialisation; values, prejudices, ideas and needs of our respective social milieu migrate more or less subconsciously into the research. At the same time, in times of digitalisation, scientific research is also becoming unbounded: Open Access allows barrier-free access to scientific publications by anyone and everyone. So we cannot rule out the possibility that people we interview in our daily research activities via survey have not taken note of one or two social science findings, possibly translated once again by an expert in science communication into generally understandable language.

In other words, especially in a highly networked, accelerated and delimited society such as ours, it is not at all possible to withdraw into a purely descriptive crow’s-nest position; rather, we sociologists have to admit that description and evaluation stand in a complex, hardly fully reflective and thus resolvable interrelation to each other.

Knowing this and in the horizon of pressing questions of the time, in which sociological expertise is needed more urgently than ever (to shape the social pillar of sustainability), sociology needs a viable way to accompany the transformation process in a distanced and committed way. But how exactly?

A heuristically helpful answer to this question is provided by Mol’s (1999) “ontological politics”. It is not, of course, politics in the conventional sense. Rather, it is the politics of multiple enactments: for Mol, the quantity and variety of de facto enacted practices—and thus of practices established in a society—is a political question. She assumes that there are many, but by no means arbitrary, enactments of a specific phenomenon—such as the provision of textiles. Accordingly, it is significant which of the possible enactments are actually chosen. This is because it shapes the phenomenon in question in its continuous execution. For Mol, part of the enactment is not least her own research. That is, whether she wants to or not, her research interferes. This interfering and “taking sides” leads to the question of how social science research relates to the normative implications it generates. Mol proposes to participate in the reconfiguration of norms established in practices, without, however, having to determine in advance which concrete norms she is referring to. This distinguishes her approach from other normative approaches that introduced normative postulates as premises and used this prior normative framework to examine their research objects in an evaluative way. In other words, preferences as to which norms should be followed only emerge in the course of research in the sense of Mol. Or to use her terminology: The norms are formed in the enactments in which she intervenes with her research. It is precisely this kind of dynamic and normative positioning as a researcher that preserves the necessary agility to balance the different needs and concerns of the stakeholders in the ongoing process of knowledge discovery.

As can be seen from the example of BIOTEXFUTURE, such dynamic stabilisation is a process that requires and necessitates structural adjustments in research, transdisciplinary cooperation and the resulting learning processes. Making this describable for different cases and also drawing generalising conclusions should be the central task of a sociology of transformation, because a reflection and analysis of the entanglement of changes in different spheres through emergent elements of self-organisation, which can be triggered equally by power relations and by opportunity structures, show how research, society and newly emerging strategic fields meaningfully intertwine or dysfunctionally block each other in a transformation movement. None of the dynamics can be understood in isolation in this sense, as the effects between them are of central importance.

5 Summary and Outlook

As described, sociology of transformation is interested in questions concerning the interdependence between research, society and strategic fields that arise between them. In doing so, it is important to take a look at the multifaceted interactions that result from the entanglement of change requirements in society and research and how these are reflected in emergent constellations. A very decisive background is the fact that shaping transformation is seen as a societal requirement (problem of expectation and implementation). Politics and civil society partly expect science to participate directly in shaping societal transformation processes. At the same time, the role of science is described in this as a provider of expertise to enable evidence-based policy. Nevertheless, the evidence is framed differently in each case against the background of different convictions and strategies of the actors. And for science, the demanding challenge of not being able to non-intervene arises. This creates multiple sources of failure and peculiar side effects. In short: social transformation inescapably grips the observer (problem of position and reflection). Hence, distance is a difficult position to maintain, which manifests itself in the need to adapt methods, instruments and perspectives. A program of a sociology of transformation must combine critical perspective and distance as well as describe the question of design beyond social technology. For this, both field and network theoretical approaches make offers that are interested in structural dynamics in their course and at the same time provide methodological instruments to trace phenomena such as the gaining of reach or the changes of positions and thus also constellations and to present them in a comprehensible way.

At the same time, sociological activity inevitably approaches “engineering”, as described, in transformative research projects. It is necessary to create new formats of participation, to accompany the processes in a moderating and intervening way, and finally to make decisions on upcoming questions of direction regarding socio-technical transformation, knowing full well that this will create advantages and disadvantages which are unequally distributed among people. Initially, it seems to be an advantage that social science expertise is now being integrated into transformation processes at a much earlier stage, which is the intention of science policy. The previously prevalent method of involving sociology only in the so-called implementation phase of an innovation in order to create acceptance, or of living a shadowy existence alongside engineering-dominated disciplines in the sense of a rather influence-less accompanying research, is obviously no longer tenable in terms of science policy either. Instead of acceptance, the focus is now on participation and transdisciplinary research settings in which the perspectives of as many stakeholders as possible, especially civil society stakeholders, are included in the early phases of an innovation. It is well known from social science innovation research that fundamental decisions are often made in the early phases of innovations that can hardly be revised, improved or expanded. It is therefore of considerable importance to include sociological expertise in this phase and to raise sociology to the level of engineering. At the same time, even the most prudent transformation sociologists cannot anticipate all the consequences of their intervention in the design processes and their feedback with further interventions as well as with the contexts in which the respective transformation is embedded. Only with a time lag, which can be considerable, does it become clear what the consequences of an intervention are, i.e. what it actually is. Accordingly, this kind of sociological transformation must be accompanied by continuous monitoring and reflection of actions and experiences, as well as of the associated consequences, which should enable the possibility of changes of direction of varying scope to remain in the transformation process (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
A schematic. It presents micro or macro between transformative research and transformation or transition research, coherence or non-coherence between transformation and problems or competencies, and requirements or positions between transformation or transition research and research transformation.

Transformation dimensions and the positioning of transformation sociology

Full size image

In the middle of the triangle of research transformation, transformative research and transformational research, we see a critically reflective theory of scientific transformation that takes a look at the development in and between all three fields from a necessary distance. A widespread trend in the entire scientific landscape towards transformative formats harbours the danger of a loss of freedom for research itself; for example, if basic research without addressing the topic of sustainability hardly has any funding opportunities, a hitherto valid fundamental understanding of science will be affected. It may well be that with the science hype of the transformative, a paradigm shift in the sense of Kuhn is taking place in the direction of a so-called postnormal science (Farrell 2008). If this is the case, it is just as important to capture this as the reverse case, in which the previous science paradigm engages with the transformative in a way that is then, however, still unclear. Such a critically reasoning theory would not least have to engage in ideology critique, which is not least ignited by the concept of transformation itself. Transformation is more than “normal” change, that is certain, but the word suggests that it is also not so radical as to amount to a revolution. Are there, we sociologists must ask self-critically, any examples in the history of society in which a fundamental transformation (now towards a more sustainable society), in which all forms of economic activity, communication and interaction with nature are supposed to change, has taken place without extensive discontinuities, frictions and conflicts? In other words, doesn't a sociology of transformation have to become active in transforming the term transformation itself and keep options open here that we cannot honestly foresee in this way in nonlinear feedback reality entanglements? If one agrees with this, then the term transformation is no more than an empty word that could be retrospectively filled with the dictum of eyewash (greenwashing), a dangerous project (which, in other words, triggers more change than intended, such as revolution), or also a successful new design of society and science. In order to constructively participate in the latter filling the empty word, however, first and foremost, a critically reasoning theory of (scientific) transformation is needed. Relational approaches with their focus on positioning, scale-free descriptions and measuring instruments for structural dynamics offer a good starting position for this. In particular, a clever combination of field and network theory (as discussed here) offers the possibility of generating a sociologically substantial theory of transformation under the premise of active scientific, political, civil society and industrial participation. We plead for a sociology of transformation that should focus on the dynamics of transformations through a relational view and engage socially based on structured formats and flexible proximity and distance relations to enable a point of view that is focused on the interrelated zones of transformations and research.