climate change and DILC.pdf dilc and car safety.pdf dilc and greening industry.pdf functional dynamics.pdf
My question to the class refers to Figure 1 in Geels' article: "Societal problems and industry reorientation: Elaborating the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model and a case study of car safety in the USA (1900–1995)"
This figure (below) is Geels' interpretation of complex lifecycle patterns that are altered by public and political concerns. In one scenario, failure of a proposed solution can lead to intensified concern. However, the reverse can also occur: a proposed solution fails and causes the public to lose interest in the problem.
My question to the class: do you think a majority of failed sustainability initiatives result in intensified or weakened concern for the issue at hand? In other words, do failed sustainability projects result in increased efforts by the public to get these issues re-noticed, or does the public usually pass over them in an effort to concentrate on a different sustainability issue that might garner more interest?
I don't believe there is any right or wrong answer here, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts!
We are all aware of the threat of global warming brought about by the changes of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to human activities. The reality of global warming has gained the interest of environmentalist and industry leaders as well. Reducing a number of toxins and emissions is an efficient goal in helping to solve the problem.
So, I did not understand much about the DILM model. I am trying to think of it in an interior design sense. I think about climate change and the automotive industry like the fabric industry using the model from the book "Cradle to Cradle". Conventional manufacturing operations typically have negative side effects. In a textile factory for instance, water may come into the factory clean, but it leaves contaminated with fabric dyes (has toxins such as cobalt, zirconium, and other heavy metals). Much of the fabric used for textiles are petrochemical (came from petroleum natural gas) based. Waste from production cannot be deposited into the ecosystem. The fabric is sold all over the world and then thrown away when it loses its usefulness. The fabric has polluted the air and people's lives just for efficient manufacturing.
This goes back to social learning because industry partners need to be more open to the different knowledge and ideas in the world and take action. According to "Cradle to Cradle" they should think about the product as a whole- what are its goals and potential effects, both immediate, and wide-ranging, with respect to both time and place; what is the entire system- cultural, commercial, ecological- of which this made thing, and way of making things, will be a part (p. 82)?
3- While reading the article on Multi-Dimensional struggles in the greening industry, I feel like I don't have a total grasp of the concept and I was wondering if anyone could help me clarify it. I'm trying to understand how the DILC even works with the network when there are many other factors tat contribute with green networking in its self. Pleas help.
4- In the DILC and Car Safety reading, Geels and Penna suggest that in this case the DILC model followed a cyclical pattern of the five phases rather than a linear sequence. Do you think it is more common for a cyclical pattern to occur than following the phases in a linear manner? To me, it seems as though a cyclical pattern would be more common as deviations seem to occur often in problem solving.
ey everyone! After reading the Geels and Penna articles on the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle model, I am interested chiefly in the first phase of the five: Problem Definition and Framing Struggles. In the third article, the authors say that this step occurs when "Activist groups articulate the first concerns about an environmental problem. Because the problem is new, there is uncertainty about causes and consequences, which gives rise to framing struggles. Industry actors employ socio-cultural strategies that aim to ignore, deny or downplay the problem."
In my discipline, I have been taught that how we frame a problem determines the nature of the solution. Do you agree with this statement, and does it make sense within the DILC model? Is this why "framing" the issue is so important and contentious?
Penna and Geels cite this quote about defining/framing the problem as well: “Social problems are not the result of an intrinsic malfunctioning of a society but are the result of a process of definition in which a given condition is picked out and identified as a social problem”.
A follow-up thought I had was about how in phase 2, industry actors or firms can utilize "framing strategies" (which are symbolic, not substantive) to try to re-frame or downplay the problem. I think framing the problem in this sense would huge for industry players because it would determine what they have to do about it. Do you agree?
please short sentence 3 to 5 just