[DSRP Evidence](https://dsrpevidence.org/) # Innovation in the Spaces In-Between: Creating the Nexus Between Human and Non-Human Actors in Systemic Innovations ## Details **Authors** Thomasson, Anna and Wigren-Kristoferson, Caroline **Year** 2026 **Publisher** Systems Research and Behavioral Science **Kind of work** article **Discipline** Business & Management **Secondary disciplines** Systems Science, Environment & Sustainability **Kind of engagement** scholarly **Applied** false [Read it at the publisher](https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3193) 10.1002/sres.3193 ## In authors' words ### Abstract By combining theories of system thinking with a post-humanist approach, we established a nexus between human and non-human systems in the examination of systemic innovation. By doing so, we shed light on the interdependencies that exist between human and non-human systems and contribute theoretically as well as methodologically to theories on systems thinking by developing a framework for analysing systemic innovations focusing on the transition towards a more sustainable society. The identification of these interdependencies is particularly relevant to the discussions about systemic innovation and its role in the transformation towards a more sustainable society. ### What they set out to do (purpose) To deepen understanding of systemic innovation by joining systems thinking to a post-humanist approach, so that non-human systems such as water and infrastructure are analyzed alongside human ones, and to develop a framework for analyzing systemic innovations aimed at a more sustainable society. ### Who or what was studied (sample) A single embedded case: the 'Three pipes out' wastewater system in the Ocean Harbour neighbourhood of the H+ urban renewal project in Helsingborg, Sweden, developed by a municipal water company with a joint research company. Embedded fieldwork ran from October 2018 to October 2020 and produced fieldnotes from meetings and workshops, observations, and narrative interviews, with four key informants identified. The authors do not report interview or observation counts. ### How they did it (methods) Single embedded ethnographic case study, written in a post-humanist narrative and confessional style from a stated social-constructionist position. Systems thinking supplies the warrant for questioning the boundaries, relationships and perspectives at work in the case; the post-humanist approach supplies the non-human actors. ### What they found (results) The authors conclude that boundaries between natural, technical and social systems were not redefined but became more permeable, and that the innovation emerged in the relationships between human and non-human actors. Value shifted from a linear to a circular value chain, and implementation required changes in policy, business models and resident behaviour. They note that a single case limits generalisability and call for further research covering behavioural, social and aesthetic dimensions. ## Commentary ### In short A Swedish wastewater innovation study that takes the four patterns from Cabrera, Cabrera and Powers as the warrant for questioning the boundaries, relationships and perspectives in its case, then joins them to a post-humanist account of non-human actors. ### In more detail Thomasson and Wigren-Kristoferson introduce systems thinking as what lets a researcher question existing boundaries and relationships and challenge prevailing perspectives, citing Cabrera, Cabrera and Powers (2015). They quote that paper's characterization of systems theory as a fragmented field 'characterised by a baffling array of methods and approaches,' and then name the four rules directly: distinction, systems, relationships and perspectives, 'i.e., DSRP,' attributing them to Cabrera (2006) as reported in the 2015 article. The four rules do analytic work unevenly across the paper. Relationships and perspectives carry the findings: the innovation is located in the relationships between human and non-human actors, and the authors report that the project required a change in the perspective of the central stakeholders. Distinction appears once, in the observation that distinctions can be made between 'things' and 'ideas.' Systems is largely absorbed into the post-humanist vocabulary of boundaries and nested systems. The four patterns are not turned into a coding scheme or an instrument, and the only Cabrera source cited is the 2015 article. ### Response The paper states the four patterns accurately and attributes them correctly, including the co-implied pairs implicit in its treatment of boundaries and of action and reaction. Its reading of distinction is narrower than the theory's: in DSRP a distinction is the identity-other operation that draws a boundary, not a taxonomy separating things from ideas, and the paper's one use of D takes the second sense. The framing is also narrower in a second way. Thomasson and Wigren-Kristoferson present the four rules as a researcher's stance, something that permits the analyst to question boundaries; DSRP's claim is about how any organized body of information is structured, whoever is looking at it. Nothing in the paper depends on the narrower reading, and the two patterns it leans on, relationships and perspectives, are used as the theory describes them. **Patterns it shows** D, S, R, P Shows it makes a difference **Added** 2026-10-19 **How to cite this** Thomasson, Anna and Wigren-Kristoferson, Caroline (2026). Innovation in the Spaces In-Between: Creating the Nexus Between Human and Non-Human Actors in Systemic Innovations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science.