The presentation defines sustainability experiments and describes a categorisation based on 6 different uses of these experiments. The 6 categories are utilized for analysing Finland's current quest to become an experimentalist society,

1. An experimental culture
in the making?
Uses of sustainability experiments
& the case Finland
Annukka Berg (D.Soc.Sc.)
SYKE, Environmental Policy Centre
YHYS Fall Colloquium, November 19-20, 2015

2. The structure of the
presentation
2
● Sustainability experiments
○ Definitions
○ Use categories
● A short history of Finland’s quest to
become an experimentalist society
● How to approach the promotion
experimental culture in Finland? –
applying the use categories

3. 3
Disclaimer:
This presentation includes thinking-in-
progress and notes about a process that is
currently taking place. Thus, comments are
welcome and floor is open for discussion.

4. 4
The potential and risks
of experimenting
Sustainability
experiments

5. Why sustainability
experiments matter to me?
5
● PhD on national sustainable
consumption and production
programmes (2006-2012)
○ Frustration
● Stockholm’s congestion charge
experiment (2005-2006)
● Well evaluated
● Communal referendum
● The haunting question: What if all the
limited resources driving
sustainability would be directed to
action?
● A side-project since 2008

6. ● In the recent literature, defined in various ways (see e.g.
Bulkeley & Castán Broto 2013; Kivimaa et al. 2015;
Berkhout et al. 2010)
○ Sustainability experiments have multiple faces
● A minimalistic definition:
(1) A concrete act that is
(2) novel (in its context),
(3) temporary (restricted space and scale) and
(4) reversible (open to failure) and
(5) the outcomes of which are not known beforehand
● Other typical features: involves a network of actors,
fosters learning, seeks to contribute to broader societal
development (directional)
6
Sustainability experiments

7. “The three rights” of
experimental culture
- A popular definition
7
(1) The right to act
(2) The right to plan less
(3) The right to fail
-> Taking (restricted) action/steps
even though consensus, resources,
and knowledge would be lacking
-> Experimentation essentially about
learning by doing
-> Can be contrasted with
deliberating, studying or planning
a case/question

8. ● The idea: to take into account that sustainability
experiments a institutionally ambiguous form of
governance (Hajer 2003)
○ Open-minded policy analysis process: what is
meaningful and legitimate?
● Actors use (the opportunities provided by) sustainability
experiments for various purposes
○ Can be categorized: framing experiments from use
perspective
○ Knowledge use literature (e.g. Hawe et al 2009)
8
The use perspective
to sustainability experiments

9. ● An article on analysing Finland’s sustainable consumption
and production programme from use perspective (Berg &
Hukkinen 2011). Use categories:
(1) scripted/instrumental;
(2) deliberative/conceptual;
(3) political/tactical;
(4) ritual;
(5) unprompted/unanticipated
● Categories partly overlapping -> for analysing
experiments, need to add more
● A case study of resource-wise experiments of Jyväskylä
(Berg & al. 2014) + a literature review -> later on: a meta-
study 9
The development of use categories for
sustainability experiments

10. Uses of sustainability experiments
1. Instrumental use
10
● Experimentation as a test
case/field trial
○ Practical information on “what
works”
● The most conventional
understanding of experimental
governance
● The perspective of policy
experiments (e.g. Jowell 2003)
○ Key questions: rigid design and
evaluation, e.g. reliability and
validity

11. Uses of sustainability experiments
2. Conceptual/deliberative use
11
● Experimentation as a tool to foster
higher order/conceptual learning –
on individual and group levels
○ “Assumptions, norms, interpretive frames
which govern the decision-making process
and actions” (Brown & Vergragt 2008)
● A key theme in the SE literature
● The perspective of policy learning and
deliberative democracy
○ Key questions e.g. organizing the
experiment around learning,
creating open networks and safe
spaces, communicating to various
audiences (Bos et al. unpublished)

12. Uses of sustainability experiments
3. Political use
12
● Experimentation as a political act, e.g.:
○ A way to bring about, strengthen or
weaken politically meaningful
symbols, emblems, stories and
discourses
○ A way to silent voices or mask general
inaction
● A viewpoint less frequently addressed
in the SE literature
● The perspective of (symbolic) politics
(e.g. Edelman 1964)
○ Key questions e.g. the potential
ritual features of an experiment; the
power to bring about strong political
symbols/discourses

13. Uses of sustainability experiments
4. “Practice change” use
13
● Experimentation as a way to
change routines, habits and
practices (of everyday lives)
● A viewpoint addressed unevenly in
the SE literature
● The perspective of sustainable
consumption literature,
marketing and practice theory –
also living laboratories
○ Key questions e.g. how personal
experiences and the ability to
sense things affect behaviour;
what is the role of learning by
doing and concrete nudges in
changing habits

14. Uses of sustainability experiments
5. Managerial use
14
● Experimentation as a way to
manage change and to accumulate
resources for a cause
○ Networks, knowledge, stories,
publicity, money
● A viewpoint less addressed in the
SE literature
● Yet, a key for business thinking on
experimentation (Tuulenmäki 2010)
○ Key questions e.g. the optimal
and innovative design and timing
of experiments to maximise
resources in use

15. Uses of sustainability experiments
6. Systemic use
15
● Experimentation as a driver for
systemic change
○ socio-technical, socio-ecological etc
● A perspective frequently used in the
SE literature
● The perspective of sustainability
transitions literature – but also other
e.g. sector-specific framings possible
○ Key questions e.g. the role of
experimentation in niche and market
creation, spatial development and
societal problem solving (Kivimaa et al
2015); the possibilities for experiments
to deepen, scale up and broaden

16. 16
A short history of Finland’s
quest to become an
experimentalist society

17. ● The Foresight Reports of the Prime Minister’s Office
○ On energy and climate policy (2009)
○ On sustainable growth and well-being (2013)
● In the legislature 2011 - 2015, Juha Sipilä the vice-chair of
the Parliament’s Committee for the Future
○ Hearing and a study process on experimental culture
17
Seeds planted -
Foresight Reports & Parliament’s
Committee for the Future

18. ● Ideas on experimental culture met with enthusiasm
across political party lines
○ A way to shift from stagnation/(mere) planning to
action
○ Combatting extensive “normative burden”
○ Supporting civic engagement
● In the background
○ Frustration for the unability to solve the great
challenges of our time: economic crisis, social and
health care reform (SOTE), climate change…
○ Diminishing powers of the Parliament?
18
Hearings in Parliament’s
Committee for the Future 2012

19. “Time to Experiment!” - A report
19
● A study: “Time to experiment!
– Finland on its way to become
an experimentalist
society”(Berg, 2013)
● Based on interviews with 14
Finnish experts from e.g.
Tekes, Sitra, Aalto University +
14 case studies
○ An environmental focus
● Presented in a press
conference chaired by Juha
Sipilä in the spring 2013

20. ”Time to Experiment!” – Key
recommendations
20
● An office/ombudsman for
experimentation and
innovation
● High profile
experimentation hubs
● Seed money
● Councelling services
● A program

21. ● Sitra: Various experiments and the quest to promote
experimental culture
● Tekes: experimentation a key theme e.g. in the innovation
research call of 2013
● Ministry of the Environment & Ministry of Transport and
Communications: Sustainable consumption and
production experiments & Traffic Lab
● Valo: the idea to use experimentation as a way to make the
whole nation exercise by 2017
-> On international level, e.g. increasing urban experiments,
living labs and transition experiments + literature on the topic21
Other pioneering work in
Finland (examples)

22. “A culture of experimentation will be introduced
Experimentation will aim at innovative solutions,
improvements in services, the promotion of individual initiative
and entrepreneurship, and the strengthening of regional and
local decision-making and cooperation. Experiments will make
use of citizen-driven operating practices…”
22
Programme of Prime Minister
Sipilä's Government (Chapter 8, p. 28)

23. ● An experimentation programme, including extensive trials
and several smaller experiments, will be implemented.
● Systematic experimentation will be introduced and a legal
basis will be created to make the arrangement of
experiments easier.
● Experimentation will reduce response times and improve
anticipation during the process of solving social problems,
and the Government’s strategic aims will be promoted.
23
Programme of Prime Minister
Sipilä's Government (Chapter 8, p. 28)

24. 24
The triangle model of
experiments
Governments strategic
experiments:
- Relatively few
- Aim at developing
governments policies
- Well designed and
evaluated
Experimentation hubs:
- 10-100?
- For various purposes:
research, technological
and service innovation,
governance practices
- Design and evaluation as
pragmatic for the actors?
- By redirecting resources?
Grassroots experimentation:
- Everywhere: workplaces, NGOs,
individual citizens…
- Aim at developing their own
operations and the society around
(grassroots innovations!)
- Light design and evaluation
- Need for small seed money?

25. 25
www.kokeilevasuomi.fi

26. A participative process
26
● Minister Anu Vehviläinen
leads the process together
with the Minister group on
public reforms
● So far, two expert
workshops including
officials from different
ministries
● The Parliament of Finland
informed and consulted in a
special hearing
○ Parliamentary
Adivisory Council

27. The next steps
27
● Plans to establish an “office” to
promote experimentation
○ Part of the Prime Minister’s
Office
● A project to find out whether
there should be a special fund
for experiments, and if so, what
kind of design it should have
○ SYKE takes part
● The design process started on
the basic income experiment

28. How to approach the
promotion of experimental
culture in Finland? 28

29. Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland
1. Instrumental use
29
● Particularly governments strategic
experiments
● Practical ideas: Scientific advice
for the government; a resource kit
for those wanting to test an idea
with max. reliability and validity (c.f.
Jowell 2003)
● Critical questions: the rigidity of
design and evaluation of
experiments; the over-use of the
instrumental perspective

30. Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland
2. Conceptual/deliberative use
30
● All experiments
● Practical ideas: A check-list of design
factors that nurture learning through
experimentation (e.g. Bos et al.
unpublished); networking &
communicating success stories
● Critical questions: contents of the
learning agenda; participation

31. Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland
3. Political use
31
● All experiments, particularly
governments strategic exp.
● Practical ideas: Supporting
experiments that can act as
symbols/emblems in politicized
questions; rising and silencing political
debates by exp.
● Critical questions: understanding that all
experimentation potentially political; re-
considering the design of exp.,
e.g.inclusions/exclusions

32. Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland
4. “Practice change” use
32
● All experiments, particularly
grassroots experiments
● Practical ideas: Resource kit for
using personal trials and
nudging to support changes in
everyday practices and
consumption patterns
● Critical questions: The
paternalism of the approach

33. Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland
5. Managerial use
33
● All - but particularly grassroots
experiments and experimentation
hubs
● Practical ideas: A resource kit (incl.
communications material) and
educational program for those
managing experiments; including the
viewpoint in the financing
mechanisms (a stepwise approach)
● Critical questions: seeing the
multiple faces of experiments

34. Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland
6. Systemic use
34
● All experiments - but different
dynamics on different levels
● Practical ideas: political, financial and
specialist support (e.g. legal advice)
to niche level; feedback-mechanisms
to regime level on e.g. barriers to
action
● Critical questions: risk of scattered
action; the over-use of systemic
perspective

35. 35
To conclude

36. ● Should there be a special fund for experiments? If so, how
should it look like?
● On the basis of studies done so far, it seems that there
would be the need for (Berg 2013; Berg et al 2014)
○ Easy-to-get seed money for grassroots
○ Redirecting existing resources to support
experimentation hubs
● A three step co-creation process with major stakeholders
○ (1) The challenges and possibilities experienced in
the field; (2) The possible models of funding exp.; (3)
The implementation of the chosen model
○ Syke & Demos Helsinki (2015-2016)
36
Current SYKE projects - KORVA:
A co-creation process on the
funding of experiments

37. ● Start-up companies and co-creation communities as
ecosystems for ecoinnovations
○ 2014- 2016
○ Syke, Aalto University, Altonova Oy, Tekes
● Proposals to promote eco-innovations by
experimentation
○ Eco-innovations high on the agenda of the
“experimentation office” of the Prime Minister’s Office
○ Experimentation hubs where actors could co-operate
by setting ambitious goals
○ Increased public risk financing for companies
○ Networks for learning
37
Current SYKE projects - SCINNO:
Experimentation as a way to foster fruitful
ecosystems for ecoinnovations

38. What is most fascinating in
experimenting?
38
● The possibilities/limits of
sustainability experiments to
change things on different
levels
○ Multiple faces
● Understanding how people
and societies are able to take
up new things?
○ Learning by doing
something fundamental
● Experimentation not new but
rather old

39. 39
Thanks!
Questions? Ideas?
annukka.berg@ymparisto.fi