User:Ecocharlie/Middle-Out Perspective (MOP)

The “middle-out perspective” or MOP is an analytical framework that explores and expands options for societal change. The MOP was initially developed by Kathryn B. Janda and Yael Parag in the context of studying transition pathways from a high carbon society to a low carbon society.

The MOP recognizes that social and technological transitions are usually seen as being initiated from the “top-down” (e.g. regulations by policymakers) or from the “bottom-up” (e.g. by citizens or grassroots organizing). The MOP is an evolving perspective that calls additional attention to actors who are located in the middle (between the top and bottom). Middle actors are groups that include: building professionals (e.g., architects, housing companies, contractors), religious congregations, and commercial real estate companies.

Research using the MOP demonstrates that "middle actors" (see definitions) are able to effect and affect change in different directions, namely upstream to policymakers, downstream to citizens, and sideways to other middle actors. These activities show that the middle is more than filler between policymakers and citizens. The MOP proposes that in some circumstances ”middle actors” have a better balance of agency and capacity to implement durable change than top and bottom actors do. As an analytical approach, the MOP suggests that some activities can (and maybe must) be initiated from the middle and move outwards toward actors at other levels.

Timeline
Janda and Parag started their research on the MOP in 2009 while they were both at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, supported by a grant from the UK Energy Research Centre. They wrote a number of conference papers on the topic between 2010 and 2013. Their first journal article on the MOP appeared in 2013, followed closely by another in 2014.

A number of authors have used the MOP and its concepts during the course of its development (see "definitions" section, below). Beyond the initial research by Parag & Janda, these and other authors have expanded the list of middle actors to address providers of housing refurbishment, heating engineers, community-based organizations , facilities managers , social housing providers , actors involved in energy storage , actors involved in demand response , providers of low carbon strategies to offices and schools , and many other groups. (See ”Application and evolution” section).

In 2019 a synthesis paper describing the MOP's evolution within the field of energy demand was written by Janda, Parag and three other scholars (Katharina Reindl, Faye Wade, and Yann Blumer). This paper looked at six additional applications of the MOP in various domains, including an energy committee for orthodox Jews in Israel, code officials in India , formal social groups in Swiss cities , professionals working with housing providers in Sweden , local authorities and delivery agents in Scotland  , and housing developers in the United States.

Since the MOP's inception, Parag relocated to Reichman University in Israel (originally called IDC Herzliya) and Janda to University College London. Janda and Parag have continued to work together as well as with colleagues and students—particularly Katharina Reindl who used the MOP for her PhD at Linköping University and is now at Lund University in Sweden—to further develop the MOP. They held a joint UK/Israel workshop in Israel on The Middle-Out Perspective in Public Health in March 2020, just as the COVID pandemic was hitting.

Application and evolution
The MOP is an evolving field of research rather than a fixed set of ideas as evidenced by new applications and visualizations.

New fields of study
Although Parag and Janda originally used the MOP in the context of transitions in energy demand, particularly in buildings, its use has expanded beyond this field to address problems in public health , transportation , and development. Some authors have also written about how the MOP applies to other social theories, such as practice theory .This expansion has resulted in further thought in conceptualizing and characterizing top, middle, and bottom actors in various contexts, as well as the connections between them.

New visualizations
The visualization of the MOP has evolved over time. Early papers from 2009 to 2013 conceptualized the MOP as a simple triangle with three arrows. Later papers (2014–2018) used a more detailed graphic showing top, middle, and bottom actors as overlapping shapes and a clearer visual representation of the ‘directions of influence’ (upstream, downstream, sideways) written in the appropriate directions. Subsequent papers have further clarified the directions of influence are not just “upstream” and “downstream but “middle-up” and “middle-down” while adding extra arrows to show that these influences are multiple rather than monolithic. A recent paper (circa 2021) exploring the role of middle actors in public health has reconceptualized the system by using a rectangle instead of a triangle. This conceptual diagram recognizes that the public do not need to go through middle actors to speak to policymakers. They can lobby directly to top actors.

These amendments suggest that the MOP’s concepts and ideas are growing and evolving, rather than fixed and static. Researchers use the MOP to help define what the opportunities and challenges are in reconceptualizing the agency, capacity, and relative position of the major actor groups in whatever system they are studying. Ongoing work on the MOP includes thinking about the thickening of the middle, and ways in which the operational scale of middle actors (e.g., from local to regional to national) affects their impact.

Middle actors
Middle actors are neither policymakers nor individual citizens. They are professional or social organizations or groups who can promote or inhibit societal change, but it is not usually their job to do so. Initial examples of middle actors were building professionals and practitioners, religious congregations, and commercial property companies.

Agency and Capacity
“Agency” means the willingness and ability of an actor to make a choice or decision.

“Capacity” means the ability of an actor to enact change.

Both agency and capacity can be influenced by technical, institutional, financial, political, social, and psychological factors. Agency and capacity are based on elements and variables connected to behaviour in other fields such as sociology (e.g., ‘agency’ and ‘structure’), psychology (e.g., internal and external motivations) and organization studies (e.g., organizational ‘concern’, ‘condition’ and ‘capacity’ )

The MOP hypothesizes that change is more likely to occur when actors’ levels of agency and capacity are high and overlapping. It is more unlikely to take place if the levels are low and uncertain and when their levels of agency and capacity are mismatching (one is high and the other low). This was studied by

Upstream
Middle actors can exert influence upstream (or "middle-up") to policymakers (local, regional, national or international), affecting current practices in their field by communicating with regulators, public agencies and policy-makers.

Downstream
Middle actors can have an influence downstream (or "middle-down") to clients, customers, congregations, members, or consumers.

Sideways
Middle actors can influence their own profession/social group as well as other related professionals/social groups in a sideways direction.

To take an example, an architect as a middle actor is in a good position to provide guidance downstream to clients on e.g. energy saving options such as wall insulation. When building regulations are formulated, governments consult and listen to experts in the field such as architects, which describes the upstream influence of the middle actors. The architect as a middle actor can also have sideways impacts on the market around them by teaching other building professionals to make buildings more environmentally friendly.

Modes of Influence
The MOP argues that middle actors exert influence by enabling/disabling, mediating and/or aggregating.

Enabling
Enabling, (with its opposite disabling) refers to how middle actors can facilitate (or inhibit) the adoption of technologies and/or strategies. For example, building contractors may advocate for (or against) specific energy efficiency measures like solid wall insulation on the basis of their experience (or lack of it).

Mediating
Mediating refers to how middle actors can change and/or alter technologies and strategies. A technology or measure might need to be changed to some extent to adapt it to a given situation or project. An example would be to install wall insulation to a higher performance level than required by law, or (on the other hand) to overstuff a wall cavity such that the insulation does not perform at peak performance.

Aggregating
Over time, middle actors collect and accumulate practical expertise in real world situations. To aggregate refers to their ability to recognize and act upon patterns from previous experience. For instance, architects might know from designing a lot of projects that a particular project needs a combination of different energy measures to reach a certain technical performance standard. They might also know which technologies tend to appeal to which clients, and for what reasons.

Recognition and Impact
Early MOP papers have received upwards of 150 citations each. The MOP has been presented at conferences and/or introduced to university courses in Austria, Canada, Denmark, France , Germany , India , Israel , Sweden, Switzerland , the UK  , and the US. It has been used by non-academic practitioners in the UK and US. The initial 2013 paper in Building Research & Information is one of the 10 most-cited papers in that journal for that year and is in the top 5% of all papers indexed in Building Research & Information since 2012. In 2017, the concept was featured in a Nature article.

Distinct from
middle-out (in systems engineering)

middle-out economics