Ajisha K V
A fishing crew navigates the sea in motorised boats off the coast of Pozhiyoor, Trivandrum.
Image Credits: Ajisha K V
This article is part of a special series titled “Productive Disruptions.” The series features contributions from Graduate Students and Early Career Researchers in Science and Technology Studies (STS), who reflect on how they enter and engage with the field through theory, methodology, and ethnographic practice while being “formally” enrolled in or affiliated with other disciplines such as Sociology, International Relations, and more. Serving as an introduction to the upcoming roundtable “Productive Disruptions,” this series leads into the session scheduled for 16 December 2025 at the STS-IN Conference, hosted at O.P. Jindal University, Delhi NCR.
Introduction
When I started my doctoral research on socio-technical transition among artisanal mukkuva fishing communities along the south-west coast of Kerala, I initially envisioned transition as a straightforward progression of technological advancements. I expected to understand how engines, GPS, and new nets were introduced to artisanal mukkuva fishing and how they transformed their everyday life. However, as I began to engage with fishermen and their narrative, my perception of ‘transition’ evolved significantly. It became clear that it was never a simple tale of progress, but a complex web of negotiations, conflicts, and adaptation- where progress unfolds alongside contestations and compromises. This shift in understanding marked my initial productive disruption, where my preconceived academic framework began to deconstruct in the face of real-world experiences.
The concept of “productive disruption” effectively describes this intellectual journey; these disruptions serve as more than hindrances and crises, providing an opportunity to think otherwise. For many of us working within the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) in the Indian context, such disruptions often occur when global theoretical frameworks prove inadequate to understand complex local situations. My engagement with Kerala’s coast served as a disruptive space, prompting me to reconsider fundamental concepts like knowledge, power and agency.
Rethinking Transitions from Framework to Fieldwork
My entry into transition studies began with the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) framework, a commonly used lens in the fields of sustainability and transition studies. The MLP outlines how change occurs through three levels: the niche (where innovations emerge), regimes (representing established systems and institutions) and landscapes (encompassing broader socio-political and environmental factors). This framework provides a structured way to understand the progress of technologies and practices from experimental environments to mainstream adoption. Initially, when I applied this model to the historical development of Indian fisheries, it fit well with the official accounts of ‘motorisation’ and ‘modernisation’. Government documents, policy briefs, and research reports from institutions such as the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) and the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT) portray fisheries transitions as a linear progression—from traditional to modern, and from indigenous to scientific practices.
The MLP, though a prominent framework in transition studies, proves inadequate to understand the intricate, cyclical and context-dependent socio-technical transition observed in artisanal fisheries – its hierarchical and linear approach, which separates change into distinct niche, regime and landscape levels. This definite structure frequently overlooks the shared agency of human and nonhuman actors, the inherent conflict between institutional and local knowledge systems, and the actual conditions that drive change. Consequently, I adopted the Multi-Dimensional Agency Model (MDAM), which better accommodates interdependent and distributed agencies. The Multi-Dimensional Agency Model (MDAM) posits that social change occurs not by a single actor or force, but by the intertwined actions of humans, technologies, ecologies, and institutions acting together. This model resonates more closely with organisations like the South Indian Federation for Fishermen Society, which view technology not merely as an efficiency tool but as a catalyst for community empowerment, ethical practices and resilience.
However, as my fieldwork progressed along the Trivandrum coast, even the Multi-Dimensional Agency Model proved to have its limitations. Narratives of fishers did not align with the distinct stages or hierarchical classifications. Instead, their experience of change was deeply entwined with ecological understanding, changes in labour routines, and new technologies that mediated their skills, among others. A motor was never a technological object; it functioned as a moral, technological and social force, fundamentally altering relationships, duties and everyday activities. Despite MDAM’s adaptability, it still maintained subtle distinctions between human and non-human, local and global and knowledge and belief, which ultimately made it inadequate to capture these intricate dynamics. Both MLP and MDAM operate on a foundational, modernist and Eurocentric premise. When I speak of ‘Eurocentric,’ I’m not referring to Europe as a single cultural entity. Rather, my focus is on the Enlightenment’s intellectual legacy, which presumes a linear path of progress, universal development, and a hierarchical divide between nature, society, and technology. This modernist viewpoint, embedded in models like MLP and MDAM, frequently overlooks the colonial pasts, relational understandings of existence, and localised knowledge that define technological shifts in the Global South. These frameworks offer valuable analytical insights, but they often overlook the historical and colonial influences that shape technological adoption in the Global South.
Listening to the Sea: Fieldwork as Epistemic Intervention
Engaging with the artisanal fishers of Kerala led me to consider different epistemologies. Their perspective on technology was not centred on invention or simple adoption, but rather on adaptation, improvisation and coexistence. Instead of describing engines as a technological innovation, fishers relate them to their cost of fishing, extension of their physical labour, ecological senses and labour arrangements. For them, engines are not a machine in isolation, but an integral part of a larger assemblage that encompasses wind, current, money, skill and devotion.
Through the process of collecting these narratives, I began to understand that each technological advancement, such as the adoption of synthetic nets, plywood boats and fuel engines, was deeply embedded with emotions, memories and ethical considerations. Unlike in official accounts, the transition of the narrative of the fishing community is not marked by “milestones” but by continuous periods of tensions and negotiations. It includes conflict over resource sharing, the emergence of new forms of debt, and a shift in collective ownership. These experiences were impossible to capture with institutional logic.
Institutional science, often driven by agencies like CMFRI or CIFT, typically categorises fisheries science through progress-oriented narratives. These narratives often define distinct periods such as motorisation, mechanisation and modernisation. While these timelines celebrate technological advancements, they often overlook the uneven and contested experiences that accompany such changes. This approach enabled the selective valorisation of certain knowledge, like quantitative scientific data over local insights from the lived experience. In contrast, fishers’ own narratives revealed an alternative timeline, deeply rooted in their memories, ecological understanding and lived adaptations.
Fieldwork transcended mere data collection, evolving into a space for profound theoretical reflection. Each conversation with an interlocutor and every story of technological improvisation served to challenge these dominant, progress-oriented frameworks. In this sense, the sea functioned as a practical site for empirical investigation and a profound conceptual teacher.
From Model to Heuristic: Developing the Agency Nexus Framework
The existing framework and its incompetence to hold the empirical insights resulted in the materialisation of the Agency Nexus Framework (ANF) from the ethnographic fieldwork. ANF is not a conventional model; it is established as a practical heuristic shaped by lived experiences. This framework deliberately moves away from the hierarchical and structural logic of MLP and MDAM to transitions. Instead, it conceptualises transition as dynamic points of connection, where human, material, institutional, and ecological forces continuously constitute each other. This bottom-up emergence from lived realities directly challenges the selective valorisation of data-driven knowledge over qualitative place-based insights.
Structurally, the ANF doesn’t impose a vertical layering of niche, regime and landscape. Rather, it visualises them as intersecting circles that engage in horizontal and cyclical relationships. These domains interlace, interact and mutually transform one another through daily practices, thereby avoiding the notion of separate levels of change. This cyclical arrangement highlights how transitions unfold as continuous negotiations, rather than linear progression or distinct stages.
Within ANF, the concept of agency is not static or fixed; it is distributed across interactions. This includes the dynamic interplay between sea and fisher when mediated by non-motorised traditional crafts to motorised boats, the complex relationship between engine efficiency and operating cost, and the adaptations occurring between institutional policy and local practices. This perspective shifts the understanding of technological change from a mere outcome of progress to an ongoing process of negotiation among diverse actors.
The development of ANF proved to be a constructive disruption in my methodological practice. It is not merely a decolonial practice but a reflexive methodological stance. Instead of adopting pre-existing theoretical tools, I began to perceive theory as something that can arise organically from ethnographic encounters, from the experience of first-hand receivers of technological change. It underscores that fieldwork is not only the application of existing frameworks, but also serves as a basis for empirical observation to reconfigure your conceptual tools.
Disrupting Epistemic Hierarchies and Towards a Plural STS
The initial exploration of technological change among artisanal fishers gradually turned into an inquiry into how knowledge is formed and valued. What began as an effort to track the adoption of engines, nets and GPS devices transformed into deeper questions of transitions that are lived. This shift represents a productive disruption- a moment where established theories are challenged and reconfigured by the complex realities they aim to explain.
Conclusively, by positioning fishers’ knowledge at the centre, I highlight that transitions are rarely linear or simply progressive; they unfold through intricate relationships with the ecology, materials, institutions and humans. These interactions dissolve distinctions between technology and everyday life, between human and non-human elements, and between “formal” academic knowledge and experiential knowledge. This complexity compelled an encounter with the epistemic hierarchy that shapes development discourse- whose knowledge counts and whose gets invisible? Ultimately, this reflection advocates for pluralistic and grounded STS- one that perceives transition not only as a technological change but also as an epistemic shift. Productive disruptions, whether they arise during fieldwork or theoretical contemplation, are not viewed as failures but as crucial opportunities for renewal.
Ajisha K V is currently pursuing her PhD at the Madras Institute of Development Studies and is a KCHR Doctoral Fellow. Her research investigates the socio-technical transition within artisanal fisheries on the south-west coast of Kerala, exploring how technological change reshapes relationships between communities, marine ecosystems, and non-human agencies. Her academic interests include decolonial approaches to Science and Technology Studies, more-than-human and post-human perspectives, traditional ecological knowledge systems, and critical transition studies.
