When the Time Never Comes: Temporal Mobilization and Temporal Tensions in a Nascent Solar Energy Field

Abstract

Studies show how actors successfully engage with temporal mobilization, understood here as purposeful attempts to harmonize temporal perceptions across different field communities, to foster cross-community engagement with rising issues. These studies predominantly focus on established fields where organizations are prone to adopt similar rhythms and timeframes for action. Less is known about how temporal tensions emerge and develop between communities over temporal mobilization attempts and how they influence mobilization processes. We address this through a four-decade qualitative investigation of temporal mobilization in a nascent solar energy field. Our findings show how temporal mobilization polarizes asynchrony in community engagement, based on the “imprinting” of early temporal mobilization attempts and the emergence of conflicting perceptions of the nature of progress in the field among communities. We present a process model that explicates how asynchrony recurs and polarizes as an unintended inter-community dynamic, resulting in repeated breakdowns in the mobilization process.

Introduction

An emerging body of research investigates how actors mobilize temporal perceptions and structures to foster cross-community engagement in fields (Buhr, 2012; Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Nyberg et al., 2020; Patala et al., 2022). These studies suggest that a key aspect in such temporal mobilization attempts lies in harmonizing temporal perceptions across communities with different and conflicting interests in a field. Studies show that harmonization can occur through actors mobilizing shared temporal beliefs (Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016) or activities that take place in synchronicity with institutional processes (Buhr, 2012), or appealing temporal frames for collective action (Nyberg et al., 2020; Patala et al., 2022). In this way, temporal mobilization can generate synchronous engagement and momentum across different groups, thus facilitating the objectives of those who pursue it.

Existing studies predominantly focus on successful temporal mobilization in established fields (Buhr, 2012; Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Nyberg et al., 2020) characterized by isochronism, that is, the pressure for organizations in the same context to adopt similar rhythms and timeframes for action (Barley, 1988). Nascent fields, however, are more prone to temporal tensions between organizations and groups than established fields, chiefly due to the lack of homogenizing temporal practices and norms and higher uncertainty regarding future developments (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009), and the fact that previously disconnected actors and communities come together for the first time to experience and enact time (Garud et al., 2013). Extant studies also investigate single, bounded change projects, where a somewhat stable group of actors capitalizes on the macro-economic trends and discourses of one particular era in field development, specifically to harmonize temporal perceptions of other, likewise stable, communities (Buhr, 2012; Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Nyberg et al., 2020; Patala et al., 2022). These conditions signify relatively predictable environments for temporal mobilization, contributing to the success bias of extant studies. As a result, there is little understanding of how temporal tensions emerge and develop between divergent communities during temporal mobilization in nascent fields, and how they influence mobilization processes.

This absence of a more profound understanding of how temporal tensions take shape and develop between field communities presents a significant theoretical lacuna, considering that fields are generally conceptualized as sets of communities with conflicting temporal orientations, timeframes, and experiences (Andersen et al., 2020; Garud et al., 2013; Zietsma et al., 2018). The literature identifies a variety of sources for temporal tensions, concentrating mostly on single organizations and projects, such as conflicts in the timeframes of businesses versus development organizations (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015), the varying focus placed on the past, present, and future by new ventures versus more established organizations (Dacin et al., 2010; Garud et al., 2014), and the temporal orientations of different professional communities (McGivern et al., 2017). Thus, while organizations in established fields can, over time, develop practices to reconcile temporal tensions (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015), temporal conflicts nevertheless remain fundamental to fields in general, and to nascent fields in particular. To generate insight into this underexplored phenomenon, we set out to investigate the following research questions: How do temporal tensions emerge and develop during temporal mobilization attempts in nascent fields? How do temporal tensions influence mobilization processes?

Here, we define temporal mobilization as purposeful attempts aimed at harmonizing temporal perceptions across diverging field communities to foster cross-community engagement and resources around a rising issue. We build on an understanding of temporal perceptions as “based on conventions and cultural constructions” (Reinecke & Lawrence, 2023, p. 9). This means that temporal perceptions are socially constructed through people’s ongoing practices.

With this in mind, we conducted a grounded, qualitative study of the emergence of a solar energy field in Finland over a four-decade-long period (1973–2016), characterized by changing actors and groups engaging in temporal mobilization over the course of various field maturity stages. Our analyses reveal how temporal mobilization attempts lead to recurring and polarizing asynchrony in community engagement over time, rooted in these communities’ conflicting temporal orientations. Polarizing asynchrony refers to community perceptions of the opportune time for engagement drifting apart along the past–present–future spectrum. One community begins to locate opportune time in the present, while others locate it either in the future or the past. Recurring asynchrony, then, prompts repeated mobilization breakdowns, which ultimately marginalize the local field in global comparison, despite its pioneering role in earlier decades. Two processual inter-community dynamics contribute to polarized asynchrony. First, early temporal mobilization attempts imprint later ones by molding expectations and causing delays in subsequent engagement. Imprinting refers to the enduring influence of formative experiences on later trajectories and outcomes, highlighting how early history leaves residual traces long after initial conditions have changed (Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013; Stinchcombe, 1965). Second, communities develop conflicting perceptions on the nature of progress within the field over the long term, that is, disagree over whether the field is steadily progressing forward or whether its development is circular and lacks meaningful advancement.

We contribute to emerging knowledge on temporality and mobilization in fields (Buhr, 2012; Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Nyberg et al., 2020; Patala et al., 2022; Zietsma et al., 2018) in two key ways. We expand existing conceptualizations of synchronized engagement (Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Patala et al., 2022; Zietsma et al., 2018) first by detailing how (a)synchronies emerge as timeframe-based community interpretations and, second, by showing how asynchronies evolve and unintendedly intensify over the long term. This occurs due to the “imprinting” of early attempts at temporal mobilization that continue to influence the mobilization process over decades, as well as the emergence of a tension over communities’ differing perceptions of the nature of progress within the field. Third, we expand scholarly understandings of temporality and sustainability (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; Zietsma et al., 2018) by explicating how short-termism, as a collectively constructed process, can include certain self-sustaining mechanisms that lead to its recurrence.

Temporality and Field Mobilization

Nascent fields refer to emerging communities of actors that gradually develop shared meanings, practices, and identities. An established body of research addresses the mobilization of nascent fields. Studies show how participants foster resonant meanings among the relevant communities, and challenge dominant frames, thereby enabling collective identity formation (Lounsbury et al., 2003; Weber et al., 2008). This facilitates engagement of different actors and resource attraction (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Navis & Glynn, 2010). Such developments gradually yield field boundaries, practices, market positions, and standards, ultimately legitimizing and stabilizing the field (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Georgallis et al., 2018; Lounsbury et al., 2003).

While classic studies have largely overlooked temporality in field mobilization, they nevertheless indicate that it is fundamentally driven by various temporal dynamics. Studies show how expectations create the impetus for change, point to the importance of the right timing, and conceptualize mobilization as a process of generating momentum that grows when new actors join the movement (Lounsbury et al., 2003; Weber et al., 2008). Prior studies also identify the role of events and systemic shocks in punctuating developments, linking these to a movement’s success, and describe the episodic or sequential nature of developments over time (Davis et al., 2008; McAdam & Scott, 2005; Tarrow, 2011). Together, these studies show that temporality is central to mobilizing nascent fields.

An emerging body of research examines temporal mobilization, emphasizing actors’ capability to forge synchronous engagement by strategically constructing, navigating, and leveraging timeframes. These studies highlight the benefits of shorter timeframes and urgency over long-term prospects. By examining the temporal conditions for agency in the established aviation field, Buhr (2012) shows how actors exploit short policy-change windows, as an external temporal structure that actors adapt to and synchronize with to engage diverse groups and enable institutional change. Granqvist and Gustafsson (2016), in turn, reveal how actors themselves produce novel shared beliefs about short-term opportunities and urgency. These strategically constructed beliefs, alongside understandings of synchronicity and irreversibility, then drive collective action and enable rapid change in the university sector. Finally, two studies examine temporal mobilization from a framing perspective. Through an investigation of framing contests in the fracking industry, Nyberg et al. (2020, p. 191) find that frames become “actionable and thus [. . .] enacted at an institutional level” once they portray a clear chronology between a dominant past and a familiar imagined future. This suggests that actors make frames more compelling by compressing their timeframes and connecting these to immediate concerns (Nyberg et al., 2020). Patala et al. (2022), in turn, examine how temporal frame adjustments foster collective action across sectors in the nascent circular-economy field. Focusing on a single, bounded project, they show that successful mobilization depends on the public sector adjusting to the shorter timeframes of private and collective processes.

In sum, an emerging research stream investigates successful temporal mobilization in established fields and bounded change projects within relatively predictable environments. As a consequence, we still know little about how temporal tensions arise between communities in nascent fields and shape mobilization processes.

Temporal Tensions in Field Development

Extant studies suggest that nascent fields face temporal tensions stemming from how diverse and formerly disconnected communities interpret and enact temporality (Andersen et al., 2020; Garud et al., 2013; Zietsma et al., 2018). Actors’ perceptions are shaped by community-specific temporal orientations—relatively stable cognitive frames for interpreting time (Stolarski et al., 2011) that reflect differences in temporal structures (e.g., length of tenures, cycles, and sequences of evaluation and rewards) across organizational and institutional settings (Barley, 1988; Choi et al., 2023; Garud et al., 2013; Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016). This literature highlights sources of temporal tensions relevant for field mobilization and linked to differing temporal orientations. These studies either explore temporal tensions in single organizations or projects or note field-level time conflicts without analyzing how they form or influence mobilization processes.

First, actors’ temporal orientations are linked to specific timeframes that affect responses to rising issues (Choi et al., 2023). Focusing on sustainable development, multiple studies highlight tensions between long-term sustainability goals and short-term business goals and other present needs (Flammer & Bansal, 2017; Kim et al., 2019). Business organizations tend to follow linear clock-time understandings favoring measurable near-term profit often leading to short-termism, whereas non-profit organizations typically adopt a processual view of time enabling long-term social and environmental focus (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015). Studies on business sustainability, in particular, emphasize that market versus sustainability orientations entail distinct, often conflicting, time spans and modes for action, which are hard to reconcile (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015).

Second, different timeframes connect with differing orientations toward the past, present, and future. Visionary scientists and entrepreneurs typically drive early field mobilization, orienting mainly to the future and present (Andersen et al., 2020; Garud et al., 2014; Logue & Grimes, 2022). In contrast, incumbent firms usually have a legacy in the past that shapes their interpretation (Dacin et al., 2010; Lok & de Rond, 2013). Logue and Grimes (2022) illustrate this dynamic in the nascent impact-investing field. They show how entrepreneurs foster grand future expectations to attract investment, while present-focused investors demand immediate proof, pushing entrepreneurs to demonstrate viability quickly (Logue & Grimes, 2022).

Overall, studies underline the challenges of operating across various temporal orientations, especially in projects or collective initiatives involving groups assembled from different organizations. Hence, while especially single organizations demonstrate the ability to reconcile temporal conflicts (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015), such conflicts often persist and undermine objectives. In their study of a management consultancy project, McGivern et al. (2017, p. 1008) show how groups construct “problems in ways that legitimated their preferred solutions and timeframes,” engaging in covert actions that produce short-term settlements while overlooking long-term common goals. Furthermore, Danner-Schröder’s (2020) study of the Great Japan Earthquake of 2011 illustrates how paradoxical tensions can exist between different interpretations of events, creating conflicting understandings of past–present–future trajectories; bridging the past, present, and future is a challenging task that does not, however, always need to be resolved to take action. Finally, the sole study that explores temporal tensions and their effects on field mobilization is Zietsma et al. (2018), who show that incumbents in the clean-tech sector curb mobilization and stall field emergence by enforcing existing temporal structures. They reproduce established rhythms and norms for evaluating energy solutions, depriving new entrants of opportunities to foster the sector at their preferred faster pace.

In sum, existing studies focus on successful temporal mobilization in established fields and on temporal tensions within single organizations or projects. This implies the need to delve deeper into the development and effects of temporal tensions in nascent fields where diverse groups pursue competing agendas in complex and decentralized environments. We address this gap by examining temporal mobilization in an emerging solar energy field in the North across shifting stages of field maturity.

Methodology

Research Setting

Solar energy is a clean energy technology that transforms sunlight into electricity via solar photovoltaics (PV) or heat via solar collectors. Since 2005, solar has rapidly become a viable energy option globally. In the early 2010s, prices for solar PV systems fell sharply, solar energy production became profitable in many parts of the world, and the industry evolved into a booming global market (Bohnsack et al., 2015). Solar energy is often considered a spearhead in the energy transition from centralized to decentralized production. This change indicates growing adoption of renewables, including solar and wind power, and a diminishing role of non-renewables and incumbent dominance.

Solar’s initial expansion was largely driven by feed-in tariff policies. ¹ Supportive policies had become standard across the European Union and other Western nations by 2012 (Bohnsack et al., 2015; Georgallis et al., 2018). In contrast, solar advocates struggled to build sustained momentum in Finland, despite several waves of mobilization attempts (see Appendix B for a chronology of events). This country was characterized as one of the world’s harshest contexts for solar still in 2015 (Heiskanen et al., 2015). Due to its delayed and weak emergence, the local industry remained small, and the country was one of the few Western economies lacking direct subsidies or targets for supporting solar’s growth (Berninger et al., 2017; Heiskanen et al., 2015).

In addition to Finland’s unfavorable geographical location, scholars and experts cite its long reliance on nuclear power and biofuels and the political influence of established industries as reasons for delayed field emergence (Berninger et al., 2017). However, insolation in the country is roughly 90%of that in Germany, a leading market in solar power. Moreover, numerous countries that transitioned to renewables in the 1990s and early 2010s also have long histories with incumbent technologies. Other rising renewables, such as wind power, enjoy stronger advocacy, growing diffusion, and policy support. These conditions warrant further study of the delayed field development in the Finnish setting.

Data Collection

Our article draws on an extensive empirical study of temporal mobilization in a solar energy field in Finland (1973–2016). We used multiple qualitative data sources to explore collective field dynamics. We collected 51 semi-structured interviews (average 66 min) from 2012 to 2015, covering all key actors and organizations. Interviewees were selected based on the first author’s prolonged field engagement, archival research, and snowball sampling. Our questions focused on collective dynamics, including participants’ objectives, collaborative initiatives, and perceptions of inter-group processes. All but three interviews were transcribed verbatim (see Appendix C for a detailed presentation of the data and their analytical use).

Interview data were complemented by an extensive archive on collaborative efforts in solar (40 items, 3,000 pages), including project reports, research papers, and social science studies providing real-time accounts of collaboration and perceptions in the field. We also collected news stories across the full investigation period from two central newspapers (3,400 items; pseudonyms: National Daily [ND] and Business News [BN]). These data provide detailed insight into actors’ perceptions, activities, and collaboration over time, including a rich account of direct participant quotations.

These data sources were complemented by observations at 13 conferences and workshops (2012–2016, ≈220 hr) and participatory observations by the first author at project meetings and seminars (2014–2015, ≈100 hr) linked to a multi-stakeholder project on home market formation. We used these observations of micro-interactions to better understand actors’ positions, and conflicting agenda, and to complement our analyses for Sequence 3. This complementary use of observations aligns with our focus on collective field dynamics, analyzed at the level of group objectives, activities, and perceptions, and the co-creation of field-level outcomes.

Analytical Process

We employed longitudinal processual analysis methods (Langley, 1999). Figure 1 presents the phases in our analytical process of moving from the data to our theoretical concepts and model. Our initial research question addressed how groups mobilized expectations across different field maturity stages to engage others. In Phase 1, we constructed a narrative of key global and local events and initiatives from 1973 to 2016, based on the archives, news stories, and interviews. This analysis helped us to identify three larger sequences of collaborative initiatives aimed at mobilizing other actors and their resources. Each sequence was driven by global macro-trends that initially generated broad engagement amongst different groups (e.g., solar companies, innovation intermediaries, and the established energy domain). Yet, each sequence ended with breakdowns in collaborative mobilization initiatives, and diverging perceptions of solar’s local potential across groups.

Figure 1.

Analytical Process of Moving From the Data to the Theoretical Concepts and Model.

We then analyzed for the different groups using the interviews, observations, and archives. We formed early communities by grouping actors by their interests and agendas in the field. We recognized that certain interests connected with varying temporal orientations, such as differing engagement timeframes (i.e., whether actors wanted to engage long- or short-term relative to expected field maturity). We coded for and recognized the key temporal dimensions and identified three distinct temporal orientations. We then re-categorized actors accordingly, forming three temporal communities: visionaries, modest anticipators, and present-driven actors (see Appendix A for temporal communities). We also recognized that, instead of mere expectations, actors mobilized shifting timeframes with varying lengths to motivate engagement—a particularly strong feature of our data. We iterated these findings against the literature on temporal orientations (Choi et al., 2023; Stolarski et al., 2011) and on temporality and field mobilization (Buhr, 2012; Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016).

Our subsequent analyses drew on all four data sources, with relative emphasis varying by sequence. In analyzing the archives, we primarily coded for direct actor quotations and compared data sources to resolve conflicting interpretations. Internal consistency was ensured through iterative modification of the data structure. While we focused our analysis on explicit temporal mobilization and perceptions, we also identified latent forms of these, such as references to solar as a “complementary [energy] source” (ND, July 1, 1995), implying solar’s long-term expansion.

In Phase 2, we revisited our three-sequence narrative to trace each community’s activities and perceptions over time, as well as changes in the communities over time. We then conducted a second coding round, examining how each community mobilized timeframes in each sequence, along with perceptions of solar upon the mobilization breakdowns. We also specified how each community participated in temporal mobilization in each sequence.

These analyses uncovered three types of temporal mobilization, each relating to the three sequences (Figure 1). Temporal mobilization commenced with demonstrating short-term feasibility (Sequence 1). The visionaries led the short-term focus, while the other communities joined, leading to a negative disposition toward solar among the modest anticipators and present-driven actors, and a positive disposition among the visionaries by the sequence’s end. This subsequently shifted to promoting long-term potential (Sequence 2), with all communities supporting a long-term focus. Again, the modest anticipators and present-driven actors hesitated, while the visionaries were optimistic by the sequence’s end. Finally, members promoted short-term opportunities (Sequence 3). The modest anticipators drove the short-term focus, while others participated. In the end, a negative disposition emerged among the visionaries and present-driven actors, while the modest anticipators were enthusiastic. The categories on temporal mobilization emerged by aggregating the first-order codes of each sequence into second-order themes and aggregate dimensions while also revisiting the historical narrative and chronologies, and by using temporal bracketing (Granqvist et al., 2017; Langley, 1999) to trace how mobilization developed over time. Figure 2 presents our observations and abstractions in this second analytical phase.

Figure 2.

Data Structure for Phase 2 of the Analytical Process, Mobilized Timeframes Over Time.

We then analyzed for the communities’ positive and negative dispositions by each sequence’s end, discovering that these orientations connected with different degrees and expressions of engagement. Negative dispositions connected with reduced contribution to collective initiatives (visible in downplaying the prospects of solar, withdrawing resources, and/or limiting participation). In contrast, positive dispositions connected with their sustained engagement (visible in efforts to reinforce momentum, maintain collaborative platforms, promote continued resources, and/or persist with participation). We observed that the mobilization breakdowns resulted when one community remained enthusiastic while others became more hesitant—reflecting a repetitive temporal tension regarding asynchrony in community engagement. We thus observed that the emergence and development of temporal tensions presented a fruitful domain for further theorization—one where our data were strong—and examined our findings in relation to studies identifying temporal tensions in organizations and projects (McGivern et al., 2017; Reinecke & Ansari, 2015).

In Phase 3, we analyzed how repetitive asynchrony emerged and developed as a shared community interpretation. We noted that discrepancies in how communities articulated the opportune time for engagement formed the interpretive basis for asynchrony. Our third coding round focused on actors’ rationalizations of readiness to engage. They articulated opportune time based on mobilizing expected field maturity (influenced by earlier experiences) and preferred engagement timeframes (whether they wanted to engage long or shortly before maturity), reflecting relatively stable temporal orientations even while these were also shaped, for example, by interpretations of macro-trends. Communities expressing alignment between expected maturity and timeframes continued to engage, whereas those showing misalignment were more hesitant or disengaged. We reached the insight that asynchrony in community engagement polarized over time, as perceptions of opportune time drifted apart. By the end of Sequence 3, the visionaries located opportune time in the past, the modest anticipators in the present, and the present-driven actors in the imagined future. Here, perceptions of the “opportune time” represented particular field maturity stages. Figure 3 presents the observations and their abstractions in this third analytical phase.

Figure 3.

Data Structure for Phase 3 of the Analytical Process, Asynchronies in Community Engagement.

We then examined how polarizing asynchrony developed historically. We revisited our three-sequence analyses to map how mobilization attempts and outcomes within one sequence influenced subsequent ones. We recognized two critical sequence shifts: the shift to cautious long-term expectations between Sequences 1 and 2, resulting from early hyped expectations and mobilization breakdown, prompting caution; and the shift to perceptions of mobilization as occurring too late between Sequences 2 and 3, driven by delays in field development as an accumulated outcome of Sequences 1 and 2 and the field’s laggard global position. Clearly, asynchronies were not merely products of conflicting temporal orientations but were reinforced and intensified through temporal mobilization itself.

We also observed that, in Sequence 3, visionary perceptions of “being too late” connected with seeing the field’s progress as circular—mobilization attempts repeatedly recurring without meaningful advancement. Informants who had engaged since the field’s beginning described repeated disappointments and characterized ongoing initiatives as “a repetition of the same old problems” (Edvard, solar industry) and “a reinvention of the wheel” (Viktor, scientist). In contrast, new entrants perceived field development as linear and progressive. We revisited the interviews and observations for a longitudinal analysis of circularity, finding that it emerged as the visionaries’ wish for a long-term focus in engagement and resources repeatedly clashed with realized short-term engagement episodes. We concluded that, longitudinally, a new temporal tension emerged, rooted in conflicting perceptions of progress that further polarized asynchrony in Sequence 3.

Finally, we constructed a process model of temporal mobilization and temporal tensions in nascent fields. We revisited the insights from prior analytical phases and our core data to confirm key concepts and their relationships. The final theoretical concepts and analytical structure of the model emerged after multiple iterative rounds, as an outcome that best corresponds with our data.

Temporal Mobilization and Temporal Tensions in the Solar Energy Field

Our findings show how temporal mobilization unfolds as the field moves through different maturity stages, and how it contributes to polarized asynchrony in community engagement over time. Figure 4 presents a process model of temporal mobilization and temporal tensions in nascent fields.

Figure 4.

Model of Temporal Mobilization and the Development of Temporal Tensions in Nascent Fields.

The model shows three sequences of mobilization among three communities with conflicting temporal orientations: visionaries, modest anticipators, and present-driven actors. Each sequence is motivated by a macro-economic trend prompting all communities’ initial engagement. In each sequence, members enact particular timeframes: short-term during early emergence, followed by a long-term approach during emerging viability, and a renewed short-term focus during global growth.

However, after initial collective engagement in each sequence, communities’ conflicting temporal orientations surface, leading to repeated asynchronies in community engagement and mobilization breakdowns. These occur as communities develop discrepant perceptions of the opportune time for engagement by the end of each sequence. Communities articulate opportune times by mobilizing the field’s expected maturity (influenced by prior experiences) and preferred timeframes for engagement (i.e., whether they seek to engage long or shortly before field maturity). By the end of Sequences 1 and 2, the visionaries locate opportune time in the present, whereas others place it in the future. By the end of Sequence 3, the modest anticipators locate opportune time in the present, while the visionaries locate it in the past and the present-driven actors in the future, reflecting the polarization of asynchrony over time. Besides communities’ conflicting temporal orientations, the breakdowns reflect the dominance of present-driven actors who favor existing energy solutions.

The model identifies two key mechanisms through which temporal mobilization may polarize asynchronies. First, early attempts at temporal mobilization imprint later ones, such as in our case, where they mold expectations causing subsequent delays in engagement. Second, a further temporal tension develops over the long term regarding the nature of progress in the field, as the visionaries’ perceptions of opportune time in the present are repeatedly met by mobilization breakdowns. As a result, the visionaries come to view field development as circular—with events repeating without meaningful progress—whereas new entrants regard it as linear progression.

Sequence 1: Solar as an Alternative to Oil (1973–1988)

The first mobilization sequence was triggered by the two global oil crises of 1973 and 1979, when solar was an emerging technology with few applications and high uncertainty about potential. Drastic increases in oil prices and fears over the exhaustion of oil reserves prompted broad global attention to solar and increased local attention.

Demonstrating Short-Term Feasibility

From the late 1970s onward, the oil crises prompted interest in solar among the visionaries—an early scientists and entrepreneurs driven by technology optimism and a desire to pioneer sustainable energy. Despite solar’s immaturity, the visionaries aimed to demonstrate solar’s short-term feasibility as a solution to the pressing oil crises.

They launched a pilot project named Solar Hamlet ² in 1980, together with members from the other two communities. Their goal was to pursue immediate feasibility for solar. They targeted a challenging, untested, and risky technical problem: “Olof [visionaries], the project manager of Solar Hamlet, admits that comparable experiments have performed below their expectations [in the neighbouring country]” (ND, August 25, 1982) (see Appendix D for additional empirical evidence).

As the oil crises indicated urgency and a need for large energy yields from alternative sources (Quote 1.1), local scientists proposed resolving the question of solar’s feasibility during winter months when sunlight was scarce. They focused on seasonal heat storage, aiming to create a solar heating system for 44 local inhabitants. Overall, the initiative reflected the visionaries’ temporal orientation to stay at the forefront of energy trends, pioneer global technology development, and create breakthroughs rather than incremental change brought about by a collective. Viktor, the leading scientist of the project (visionaries), articulated in an interview his desire to pioneer development globally at this time (also Quote 1.2):

We were the forerunners in the world. [. . .] “Solar Hamlet” was a pioneering project internationally. [. . .] In all our efforts we understood where the world is heading and got engaged with promising issues.

Besides the visionaries, other engaged members included, first, an innovation intermediary that became the project’s main funder. This organization represented the modest anticipators, a community of innovation intermediaries, policy bodies, and technology corporations seeking to stay in step with global energy trends. These organizations played a significant role in financing research and innovation. Second, an energy incumbent, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and construction-industry actors joined the initiative, representing the present-driven community, composed of organizations in the existing energy domain and other established industries, especially utilities and policymakers connected to them. These organizations engaged with new energy trends to prepare for potential market shifts while primarily defending established technologies. Accordingly, they highlighted market profitability when considering engagement with new technologies.

The scientists from the visionary community, who were responsible for technical planning and execution, mobilized speculative hype around Solar Hamlet, promoting related expectations among the other two communities. They stated that “[seasonal storage] is the single real obstacle in the way of solar energy, which can, however, be overcome” (Lisa, Solar Industry Association; in ND, February 23, 1980) and highlighted the initiative’s high potential for large energy yields (Quote 1.3). While similar solar villages faced tremendous technological obstacles in neighboring countries, the visionaries nevertheless claimed that they could resolve such technical issues (Quote 1.4). These expectations were reinforced by wider speculative hype around solar, which was still very immature in this time (Quote 1.5). The project generated great enthusiasm but also carried high risks due to its ambition and large budget. In particular, the main funding body entered with what would later be regarded as extravagant expectations:

The Innovation Fund [modest anticipators] estimates that solar energy used in housing is ‘on the verge of profitability’. There are forecasts of decreasing prices for house-integrated heating units. And rising oil prices are the best safeguard for the emergence of solar heat. (ND, February 23, 1980)

Due to its visibility and relatively broad involvement, the pioneering project played a key role in the development of local perceptions about solar.

Asynchrony in Community Engagement

Discrepancies in the communities’ underlying temporal orientations soon surfaced during the Solar Hamlet project, leading to conflicting interpretations of whether the period was opportune for investing in solar, thus generating asynchrony in community engagement. The project outcomes prompted all communities to alter their forecasts of expected maturity—the point when solar would become technically feasible and financially viable—and to begin mobilizing revised long-term expectations of approaching maturity. These re-interpretations stemmed from the project’s spiraling costs, which shocked funders (i.e., modest anticipators and present-driven actors), and from its technical disappointments. Instead of delivering the promised 75% of the heating needs for houses, solar energy provided only 25%. The housing area, thus, lacked sufficient heating in the cold winter months and had to be connected to the local district heating system, ³ with funders covering added costs. The media reported on the communities’ revised expectations, noting how the initiative created disappointment around solar and showed that maturity remained in the distant future (also Quote 1.6):

“It can take 100 years before we can establish the feasibility of solar against fossil fuels,” [says Viktor, scientist, visionaries]. Solar is no longer expected to produce magical outcomes that would ease people’s lives in an instant. As the oil crisis broke out [. . .] house owners installed panels with high hopes, only to have them later torn down and cursed as the worst scam in human history. (ND, September 22, 1984)

Despite these outcomes, the visionaries highlighted that the ongoing time merited engagement. While they, too, revised their expectations of solar’s maturity, they mobilized longer timeframes and global developments to interpret whether the time was opportune. The project’s scientists stated that Solar Hamlet was “promising even if it suffered from childhood diseases” (Stine, project engineer, visionaries; in ND, June 20, 1989), while also highlighting commercial opportunities abroad (Quote 1.7). These mobilized timeframes reflected the visionaries’ underlying temporal orientation and that expected maturity still corresponded with their preferred timeframe for engagement, that is, whether they wanted to engage long or shortly before field maturity. Specifically, they regarded solar as offering continued opportunities to lead global technology development, viewing the demonstration as offering important lessons.

In contrast, the other two communities emphasized that investments were not timely. In assessing engagement, they mobilized shorter timeframes and current local conditions. Specifically, they cited Solar Hamlet as a “proof-of-concept” demonstrating solar’s low potential and emphasizing its high costs and poor performance (also Quote 1.8):

What was enough [funding] last year is not enough this year. [. . .] “Last year we were promised to gain 75% of our heating from the sun, now the percentage is said to be 60. People are not entirely convinced of solar’s potential,” [says Åke (industry representative, modest anticipators)]. (ND, March 24, 1981).

These statements reflected that expected maturity did not correspond with these communities’ preferred timeframes for engagement. Hence, both the modest anticipators and the present-driven community located the opportune time for engagement in the future. These perceptions were reinforced by the waning of the oil crises. Oil prices fell rapidly in the early 1980s, thereby impacting especially the modest anticipators’ and present-driven actors’ enthusiasm, neither of whom exhibited a strong urge to pioneer (also Quote 1.9):

“In the face of current energy prices, it is not worthy to grant [funding to solar],” [according to Sigmund (energy incumbent involved in Solar Hamlet, present-driven community)] [. . .], “there is no evidence that the solutions [of ‘Solar Hamlet’] would be profitable under current conditions.” (ND, February 1, 1984)

This outcome was partly due to actors framing solar in the pilot project as an immediate “replacement” for established energy sources. Thus, the project represented a radical rather than incremental approach. This generated stringent norms for evaluation because solar energy directly competed with mature energy sources in terms of costs and all-year feasibility, thereby placing the new technology into a highly unfavorable position.

Clash Between Visionaries’ Wish for Long-Term Focus and Short-Term Collective Engagement

The visionaries called for continued engagement and resources for solar, stating that technology development needed “at least a 10–20-year period” (Stine, project engineer, visionaries; in ND, June 20, 1989), and regarded local development as a meaningful step forward. However, rather than mobilizing collective action, the early activities—and the pioneering project in particular—were “detrimental to local solar energy development [. . .], [leading to] solar energy [being] put into deep-freeze for nine years” (ND, August 6, 1992, media representation; see also Quote 1.10). Solar Hamlet “left a stigma of failure [. . .] [and people took] it up as an example of the problems related to solar energy” (Heiskanen et al., 2015) decades after the project. In so doing, Solar Hamlet imprinted subsequent developments and hampered mobilization for a long time to come. Many of the acquired networks and resources dissipated.

Nevertheless, a small group of Solar Hamlet visionaries, a few entrepreneurs, and the Solar Association remained engaged, forming a research group committed to legitimating solar nationally. While scientific experimentation continued abroad and the technology was regarded as advancing, the local visionaries received neither financial nor institutional support, causing them to consider government officials’ and funders’ investments discontinuous and as stymieing the knowledge acquired: “Without government support [. . .], the project buried itself, along with acquired knowledge and business prospects” (Viktor, scientific establishment, visionaries).

Sequence 2: Solar as a Solution to Climate Change (1989–2007)

While the early development work of the Solar Hamlet project did not encourage collective engagement or continued resources, the three communities nevertheless renewed their interest in emerging sustainable energy sources from the late 1980s onwards. Rising global awareness of climate change prompted discussion on whether solar could reduce emissions. In this period, solar was on a path toward increasing technical feasibility and maturity, and several governments around the world launched large policy programs to support its expansion and push for profitability.

Promoting Long-Term Potential

From the late 1980s onwards, innovation intermediaries (modest anticipators) and policy bodies (present-driven community) became concerned about climate change, spurring interest in future-oriented technologies and longer-term energy strategies. These communities recognized the need to replace fossil fuels with sustainable energy sources; and the Chernobyl accident of 1986 further boosted the appeal of alternative sustainable energy sources by compounding concern over nuclear power. A news story reported on policy changes in the country’s energy strategy, reflecting how climate change urged extensions to the timeframes of present-driven policy actors:

The national energy strategy extends far into the coming century, until 2020 or 2030. [. . .] Mikael [Ministry of Trade and Industry, present-driven community] believes that a long-term strategy will accelerate [the adoption of] new energy sources—for now they have been rejected because they are currently unprofitable. (ND, June 18, 1989)

The three communities, again, began to engage collectively around solar. Innovation and policy bodies from the modest anticipators and present-driven community launched new programs to experiment with several emerging technologies, together with the visionaries, who “mostly represented the same organisations” (Pesonen, 1996, pp. 79–80) as in previous decades.

In contrast to the first sequence where the visionaries emphasized short-term viability and mobilized speculative hype, they now took a cautious, long-term approach. They articulated related long-term expectations (also Quote 2.1): “Over time the new technology will solve environmental problems [. . .] and provide sufficient and cheap energy,” [says Viktor, scientist, visionaries]’ (BN, December 10, 1993).

The visionaries’ long-term approach also appeared in them pursuing gradual long-term technical advancement, rather than large leaps. They initiated the country’s second large demonstration project, the Eco-District (1999–2004), and designed it so as not to place solar in direct competition with established energy sources (Quote 2.2). Instead, solar was framed as a complementary energy source that could reduce electricity consumption from traditional sources and expand gradually over time.

The modest anticipators and present-driven actors shared the visionaries’ cautiousness and focus on long-term potential (also Quote 2.3). ‘“Nobody expects that [. . .] solar energy could have a meaningful impact on our country’s energy mix any time soon,” [says Patrik, Minister of Trade, present-driven community.] [. . .] He assumes that in a few decades 10 % of all energy could be covered by new energy sources” (ND, May 25, 1993). While these communities now portrayed a clear interest in long-term energy solutions, the programs still positioned solar as competing against cheaper, established sources and shorter investment timeframes:

After the 5-year programme, it should be clear which technology is worth developing locally. [. . .] Determination and patience are required from the government. [. . .] The situation will be politically challenging as long-term benefits will compete with short-term aspirations. (ND, June 20, 1989)

Recurring Asynchrony in Community Engagement

Yet, again, conflicts in the communities’ temporal orientations resurfaced, creating recurring asynchrony. As shown above, all communities mobilized cautious long-term expectations of solar’s approaching maturity. While actors now were slightly more optimistic than at the end of Sequence 1, they still framed solar’s maturity as a distant prospect (also Quote 2.4): “It is unlikely that [solar PV will become profitable] before the year 2030” (Lund, 1997, p. 28) (scientific report, visionaries).

As local initiatives progressed, the modest anticipators and present-driven actors, again, began perceiving the time as inopportune, mobilizing short timeframes and current local conditions, as in Sequence 1, that still implied high costs and performance below traditional sources. The main reason for this shift from longer timeframes to shorter ones lay in a severe recession that hit the country during the 1990s. Innovation intermediaries (modest anticipators) and policy bodies (present-driven community) stressed “the importance of [short-term] financial considerations” (Salo, 2015) and urged to “deal realistically with the acute (financial) situation and [. . .] not discuss the future of wind and solar power” (ND, February 25, 1997, media representation of the Ministry for the Environment’s (modest anticipators) approach). Thus, the appeal of climate change as a motivating trend fizzled. Financial urgency began to dominate, pushing them back to shorter-term outlooks and locating the opportune time in the future (Quote 2.5), as solar’s expected maturity no longer corresponded with their preferred timeframes.

This outcome was also reinforced by earlier mobilization attempts that had encouraged cautiousness in maturity expectations. Hence, both communities again started to favor established, profitable sources with predictable energy yields, prioritizing cost-competitiveness over emissions targets (Quote 2.6). These viewpoints influenced the 1997 energy strategy, where present-driven policy bodies reaffirmed nuclear power as the primary carbon-free option.

In contrast, the visionaries argued that the ongoing time remained opportune. They mobilized global expectations and the local pioneering position. According to them, local technical expertise was highly advanced in global comparison, as, for example, Solartech (anonymized) held a 5% to 10% share of the global market. They emphasized the need to maintain a pioneering position until solar would enter an inevitable phase of global growth. These views reflected the visionaries’ long timeframes and their belief that solar’s maturity aligned with them. Carl (solar industry, visionaries) argued for solar energy at a time when his business unit remained unprofitable and relied on resources provided by its parent company (also Quotes 2.7 and 2.8):

[The parent] continues to have faith in solar: “We lead technology development and intend to maintain our pioneering position, which will provide us with a good start as solar energy market enters a phase of strong growth,” says [the CEO of Solartech]. [. . .] After a decade of investment, it would be a pity to butcher a goose that is hatching golden eggs, even if you don’t know exactly how long they will take to hatch. (BN, May 29, 1996)

Moreover, the recurring asynchrony between the visionaries and the other communities was further accentuated by the outcomes of the Eco-District project, which shared the Solar Hamlet project’s technical difficulties in reaching energy targets. This created disappointment and the perception that more time was needed for solar to become mature locally, thereby reinforcing notions among the modest anticipators and the present-driven community that investment timeframes for solar were too long. The visionaries, however, praised the project for being “among the first [demonstrations] worldwide” (Viktor, scientist, visionaries) of ecological housing.

Repeated Clash Between Visionaries’ Wish for Long-Term Focus and Short-Term Collective Engagement

Again, the visionaries pleaded for continued engagement. They accused policy actors of pessimism toward future technologies and of neglecting future generations (Quote 2.9). Carl (solar industry, visionaries) defended long investment timeframes:

New energy technologies and [the country’s] established energy solutions should not be discussed simultaneously: “It’s like placing a new-born and his father in a boxing ring. One can expect that in 70 years the new-born will take his father to a retirement centre.” (ND, April 15, 1991)

Despite the visionaries’ futile pleas, resources were withdrawn and collective engagement declined. As a consequence, the visionaries’ grievance against funding agencies and policymakers deepened. They noted how actors from abroad appropriated and commercialized local know-how, lamenting the lost opportunity: “As scientists we could not do anything. Things just ended then and there” (Viktor, scientist, visionaries). Hence, after two cycles of stalled mobilization, the visionaries began to see themselves as repeatedly re-inventing the wheel without local progress, which began to erode their engagement.

Sequence 3: Solar as an Expanding Global Market (2008–2016)

The third sequence commenced with a sudden global solar boom in the late 2000s. Fast growth began in Germany in the early 2000s, followed by China’s rapid expansion and numerous other countries joining to offer subsidies. This created debate on how the country might join the trend, renewing shared interest across all three communities.

Promoting Short-Term Opportunities

Collective engagement was reignited by the modest anticipators who now developed a keen interest in solar. Many new actors with limited knowledge of the field’s past joined this community, including freshly-founded solar and clean-tech companies, ecologically-minded politicians, scientists, and NGOs. Although local deployment was limited and costs high, global expansion meant greater profitability for solar versus coal and gas in some parts of the world. To keep up with global industry trends, the modest anticipators launched programs and initiatives to mobilize disparate actors.

Unencumbered by prior mobilization efforts, the modest anticipators promoted short-term opportunities to join the trend. They mobilized global momentum to demonstrate that it was time to act (also Quotes 3.1 and 3.2): “‘Solar is developing fast and is soon going to be competitive against established energy sources. All countries are interested in it. We [in this country] cannot afford to be left out,’ [says Aksel (innovation intermediary, modest anticipators)]” (BN, October 27, 2010). “Huge business opportunities lie in the energy transition, and solar is among the fastest growing sources” (Anna, innovation intermediary, modest anticipators, conference, May 14, 2013). Moreover, they promoted the urgency of joining this trend, citing the country’s laggard position (also Quotes 3.3 and 3.4): “Now is the time to quickly start new experiments [. . .]. [The country] is lagging behind other Nordic countries that have developed new solutions. It is time for us to shape up!” (Mikael, politician; in ND, April 28, 2008).

The modest anticipators were joined by the visionaries, a stable group of mostly the same organizations as before. The present-driven actors also re-engaged—a group that was equally largely unchanged in membership. While it included new individuals, they still represented the same established organizations with firm legacies in the past. These communities made statements that reflected elements of the global-momentum discourse: “The past year has been booming in terms of business” (Fredrik, solar industry, visionaries; in BN, September 8, 2011). “All of a sudden nearly 50% of energy comes from new renewables [in Germany]” (Rebecca, electric utilities, present-driven community). For the first time, electric utilities set out to develop products based on solar, and politicians from the community also started to engage in public discussions. These actors interpreted the global growth as signaling that they could no longer ignore solar and needed to prepare for future change.

Polarized Asynchrony in Community Engagement

Despite initial shared momentum, the underlying conflicts in the communities’ temporal orientations again reappeared. At this stage, actors mobilized perceptions of emerging maturity, highlighting approaching local competitiveness and existing global profitability (also Quote 3.5): “PV is on the edge of competitiveness” (Tove, solar company, visionaries). “Europe is a mature market” (Lars, technology corporation, modest anticipators).

As the modest anticipators’ initiatives advanced, asynchrony became increasingly polarized with communities’ perceptions of opportune time drifting apart along the past–present–future spectrum. A key development reinforcing this outcome was the appeal of the global boom fizzling. Fierce Asian competition turned PV into a bulk product, driving prices down and bankrupting firms worldwide. These developments started to affect local discussions from 2013 onwards.

As a consequence, present-driven actors began increasingly emphasizing that opportune time continued to lie in the future. Consistent with their short-term profit focus and interest to defend existing sources, they promoted solar’s prematurity (also Quote 3.6): “Solar is still not profitable” (Ulrika, ministry representative, present-driven community). In this time, global subsidies to solar faced increasing scrutiny, as they seemed to mostly benefit Asian companies. Hence, policymakers began stressing that “no subsidies would be available to immature technologies like solar” (seminar statement, April 2015), while others defended the lack of subsidies as “the savvy decision” relative to other countries (Cita, electric utilities, present-driven community). Hence, investments by for instance utilities remained small.

In contrast, the fizzling boom discouraged many visionaries who now began locating opportune time in the past. They mobilized lost historical opportunity, fretting over the loss of their pioneering position—an outcome fortified by prior mobilization and delays in field development—and recalled earlier decades as missed chances to lead development (Quotes 3.7 and 3.8). According to them, mobilization was coming “multiple decades too late” (Fredrik, solar industry, visionaries) and local investments should have been made earlier, again reflecting misalignment between maturity and their preferred timeframe. Viktor (scientist, visionaries) recalled experiences of having been prematurely at the forefront of innovation development, stating that foreign competitors had benefited from their innovative groundwork and voicing hopelessness in terms of ever joining the market successfully:

There is always a different party that commercialises the technology elsewhere. [. . .] We are the peasants who cultivate the earth [. . .] and when we cultivate, we do it utilizing a horse! Perhaps we are still there to see the initial seeds appear from beneath the earth—but we never harvest! Somebody else steps in and reaps the rewards.

The modest anticipators, in turn, promoted the ongoing time as opportune. They implicitly mobilized mid-range timeframes and emphasized the present as a preparatory phase before full maturity (also Quote 3.9): “The energy transition is picking up. We should start thinking about how to partake in solar markets” (Laura, innovation intermediary, modest anticipator).

Conflicting Perceptions on the Nature of Progress

Alongside recurring asynchrony, a novel temporal tension emerged between the visionaries and the modest anticipators concerning the nature of progress locally. Some veteran actors expressed skepticism toward the new efforts, referring to them as a “reinvention of the wheel” (Viktor, scientist, visionaries) and projecting their past experiences onto new mobilization attempts: “These discussions have not changed since the 90s [. . .]. They are a repetition of the same old problems and no solutions have been found” (Edvard, solar industry, visionaries). Drawing on their long history of continual engagement, they perceived resource allocation as circular, recurring without meaningful progress (Quotes 3.10). Concomitantly, the modest anticipators, too, were aware of this narrative of circularity, yet voiced a positive vision for solar locally: “It cannot be that all other markets take off, except for ours” (Tommy, new solar company, modest anticipators; Quotes 3.11 and 3.12). These perceptions further affected both communities’ eagerness to engage, contributing to polarized asynchrony. Some experienced actors hesitated to re-engage due to perceived circularity: “[I know from my past experiences that] it would not make a difference for me to speak for solar energy” (Charlotta, scientist, visionaries).

The modest anticipators managed to spur regulatory change in favor of solar, improving profitability and legitimacy, and prompting a small-scale market take-off as late as in 2015. Yet mobilization remained constrained by the visionaries’ demoralization and present-driven actors’ resistance: “I have this feeling that somewhere a handbrake is on” (Aksel, innovation intermediary, modest anticipators). In addition, as lobbying successes accumulated, the modest anticipators’ own sense of urgency began to fade. Solar energy’s rapid growth persisted globally despite protracted turmoil in international markets. By the end of Sequence 3, broader momentum waned and many networks dissolved. Again, the mobilizing community’s efforts were hampered by intensifying temporal tensions among the three communities.

Discussion

We conducted a study of temporal mobilization in a nascent field over shifting stages of field maturity, illuminating how it polarized asynchrony in community engagement. Polarizing asynchrony, here, refers to a dynamic where community perceptions of the opportune time for engagement drift apart along the past–present–future spectrum. We show how two processual inter-group mechanisms contributed to this outcome: early attempts at temporal mobilization imprinted later ones by molding expectations, which caused delays in subsequent engagement; and a tension emerged over communities’ perceptions of the nature of progress within the field. We present a model that shows how asynchrony recurs and polarizes as an unintended outcome of inter-community processes and how it results in repeated breakdowns in the mobilization process. The model demonstrates that harmonizing temporal perceptions across communities is central to field mobilization, as suggested in prior research (Buhr, 2012; Garud et al., 2013; Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Nyberg et al., 2020; Patala et al., 2022; Zietsma et al., 2018).

(A)synchronies as a Timeframe-Based Interpretation by Communities

We make two contributions to the emerging understanding on temporality and mobilization in fields (Buhr, 2012; Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Nyberg et al., 2020; Patala et al., 2022; Zietsma et al., 2018). First, we expand existing knowledge on the development of synchronized engagement amongst different groups in the face of new issues, specifically by detailing the concepts that explain how synchronies or asynchronies in cross-community engagement emerge as community interpretations. Existing studies highlight the harmonization of timeframes as the basis for synchronization, focusing either on how dominant actors enforce their timeframes on other groups (Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Zietsma et al., 2018), or how they willingly adjust to the timeframes of collaborative processes (Patala et al., 2022). In alignment with these conceptualizations, our findings further confirm the importance of harmonized timeframes for collective engagement and the role of power positions in the influence of certain timeframes over others. Concomitantly, we delineate how (a)synchronies emerge and develop as each community compares the expected timeframe for issue emergence (such as expected maturity in our case) vis-à-vis their preferred timeframes, that is, whether they want to engage long or shortly before a new issue solidifies—in our case, solar becoming mature. Expected timeframes for issue emergence are based on the expectations of a given time and ongoing interpretations of field developments. Preferred timeframes, in turn, are reflective of communities’ temporal orientations and related interests and agendas, and further impacted by interpretations of changing macro-economic trends. Our view of synchronized engagement as a form of active, community-level interpretation complements existing studies that have predominantly focused on how dominant actors rule with, or accommodate, timeframes, therefore neglecting to investigate the more micro-level, interpretative, and negotiated aspects of synchronization.

Polarization of (A)synchronies: The Imprinting of Early Attempts at Temporal Mobilization

Second, we extend existing knowledge on (a)synchronies in fields by showing how early attempts at temporal mobilization can both lay the foundations for, and restrict, later temporal mobilization attempts that take place as the field matures, and how this can polarize asynchronies in community engagement over the long term and curb mobilization processes. Extant empirical studies on temporality and mobilization in fields investigate (a)synchronies in temporally-bounded settings and present them as planned, one-time outcomes that result from the temporal mobilization attempts occurring during a particular stage of field development (Buhr, 2012; Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Nyberg et al., 2020; Patala et al., 2022; Zietsma et al., 2018). Further, scholars have pointed out how the existence of multiple different timeframes and temporal orientations among actors can introduce unintended asynchronies and diachronies to new issue emergence, and invited empirical investigations and additional theorization to address these under-studied research areas (Garud et al., 2013, p. 802). We extend the existing empirical views on (a)synchronies, and respond to the call to shed light on asynchronies as non-planned obstacles or roadblocks in issue emergence. Here, our longitudinal historical study brings to the fore a process perspective on asynchronies that explicates their emergence and development over the long haul along with their unintended nature.

In our case, members initially mobilized hyped expectations and sought to demonstrate short-term feasibility, resulting in major disappointment and mobilization breakdown during solar’s early emergence; and, as an adjustive measure, actors grew increasingly cautious and modest in articulating expectations regarding the field’s expected maturity during a phase when solar was maturing. This contributed to local understandings that solar remained a distant option and that their national setting was being left behind by numerous other countries at that time. As a consequence, the final field maturity phase was impacted by perceptions about mobilization occurring too late. Our historical analysis hence shows how early attempts at temporal mobilization can influence and mold temporal perceptions longitudinally through group processes, thereby “imprinting” the mobilization process for decades to come with influences that persist well beyond the founding phase (Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013; Stinchcombe, 1965). Although Stinchcombe (1965) first described imprinting as a process shaping industries—an empirical context aligned with the field concept—subsequent research has mainly examined imprinting within single organizations (Blake et al., 2015). Our analysis revisits the original idea of imprinting in field settings and extends empirical research to the field level, showing how formative temporal mobilization efforts shape subsequent engagement across field communities. In this way, we demonstrate the importance of analyzing (a)synchronies as a cumulative process or trajectory that unfolds over multiple decades, as a field moves through different stages of maturity. This perspective can uncover fundamental self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing mechanisms that easily pass unnoticed in studies that focus on shorter observation periods and single change projects.

Polarization of (A)synchronies: The Emergence of Conflicting Perceptions of the Nature of Progress

Delving deeper into how asynchronies emerge and evolve longitudinally, we also explicate how tension emerges in actors’ perceptions of the nature of progress, and how this contributes to polarizing asynchrony and the inhibition of mobilization processes. Our study shows how circularity perceptions can materialize among pioneering communities with long-lasting field engagement and who, thus, invoke distant pasts when perceiving the present, reflective of a “deep” present orientation (Bluedorn, 2002). We show how this happened in the case at hand, as the pioneers’ wish for long-term investments repeatedly clashed with short-lived episodes of collective engagement and discontinuities in their core activities.

Here, circularity denotes interpretations where past negative experiences are projected into present and future developments, and where the past is hence regarded as repeating itself without meaningful progression. In contrast, our case also shows how linearity perceptions can exist amongst actors whose field experience is not dominated by repetitive negative experiences of the past, such as new actors who invoke near pasts when perceiving the present and, in this manner, depict a “shallow” present orientation (Bluedorn, 2002). In this vein, linearity signifies a perception where actors interpret the present and future in open-ended terms and by anticipating positive developments, thereby regarding the present as “progress” toward a desired future. It thus follows that both circularity and linearity are different interpretations of the present. Moreover, we also show how circularity and linearity affect interpretations of the opportune time to engage with circularity demotivating engagement and linearity motivating it—and this further accentuates asynchrony. Similar to our findings on the imprinting of mobilization processes, these findings also redirect existing conceptualizations of synchronized engagement toward novel processual views.

Furthermore, our findings on conflicting perceptions of progress extend knowledge on temporal tensions between groups and actors (Danner-Schröder, 2020; McGivern et al., 2017; Zietsma et al., 2018). Here, the prior literature has broadly addressed the perceptive aspects of tensions (Danner-Schröder, 2020; Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Logue & Grimes, 2022) and studied the inhibiting influences of temporal tensions on collective processes (Garud et al., 2013; McGivern et al., 2017; Zietsma et al., 2018). However, to date, this literature has neither explicated the emergence of tensions regarding perceptions of the present nor detailed how such tension can influence inter-group outcomes.

Short-Termism as a Collectively Constructed Self-Sustaining Process

As our third key contribution, we expand the prior literature on temporality and sustainability by depicting how short-termism is collectively constructed as a repetitive outcome of group processes. Existing studies present short-termism either as an in-built organizational tendency to neglect long-term sustainability goals (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015) or a one-time outcome of group processes, for instance generated by dominant actors who bolster slowness (Zietsma et al., 2018) or frames with a compelling temporal dimension (Nyberg et al., 2020). Going beyond these views, we delineate the processual self-sustaining mechanisms of short-termism and show how especially the malleability of temporal perceptions and orientations over group processes and shifting macro-economic trends can contribute to the consistent recurrence of short-termism. In regard to temporal perceptions, our case shows how early short-termism (i.e., the decision to withdraw resources from solar and, instead, invest in pre-existing short-term energy alternatives) led to cautious and modest local expectations as an adjustment and, later, to perceptions about being too late, thus contributing to further instances of short-termism during subsequent sequences through the previously detailed dynamic of “imprinting.” Furthermore, we find that the malleability of temporal orientations can feed into short-termism as a repetitive dynamic. Our case reflects that the preferred timeframes for engagement by policy makers and public funding bodies can be highly sensitive to shifts in macro-economic trends. Certain trends can temporarily extend timeframes, spurring interest and resources for new sustainable solutions, yet these timeframes can shrink equally abruptly as a trend loses its appeal or is supplanted by new trends. This malleability of temporal orientations can contribute to sporadic, episodic, and short-lived windows of opportunity for developing a sustainable solution, thereby increasing the likelihood of further instances of short-termism, for instance through stigmatizing the new sustainable solution (e.g., as early failures do not receive continued opportunities to build on acquired knowledge) or through the demoralization of pioneers caused by breakdowns.

Although we investigated a setting where the main reasons for recurring short-termism likely lie in the dominant position of established energy sources and the undoubtedly harsh local geographical conditions, we do suggest that short-termism can include certain self-sustaining mechanisms linked to how it is constructed as a dynamic group process. These more subtle mechanisms underlying short-termism should not be overlooked, chiefly because sustainable practices and innovations have been found to spread through “path creation and enactment” (Feuls et al., 2025; Garud & Gehman, 2012), thus highlighting the importance of delicate shifts and social tipping points in group processes that can, at occasions, pave the path toward emerging sustainable solutions.

In sum, our study of the nascent solar energy field throughout various stages of field maturity redirects scholarly debate over temporality and mobilization in fields to the emergence of temporal tensions and how these affect field mobilization processes. This research direction brings to light new understandings on the interpretive and perceptive aspects behind (a)synchronies, including their processual and unintended nature, as well as on the processual mechanisms that polarize asynchronies between communities over the long term and serve to provoke short-termism as a repeated outcome of group processes.

Applicability of Findings and Future Research

While our investigation is contextually bounded by a range of factors, our findings still have broad applicability beyond our case. First, our study shows how asynchrony in community engagement emerges as a timeframe-based community interpretation. We studied an emerging technological field across multiple maturity stages, where uncertainty over feasibility and profitability led actors to articulate expected field maturity. Thus, our findings on the interpretive aspects of asynchrony are likely to apply in other settings with high uncertainty about an issue’s importance and maturity timeframe, such as in other emerging technological fields or in the face of rising social issues with lacking consensus over their political salience. While we recognized a range of factors behind interpretations of expected maturity and the opportune time to engage, future research could explore these questions in greater depth, for instance, by examining conflicting maturity interpretations during issue emergence and their effects on group dynamics and outcomes.

Furthermore, we detected the processual dynamic of imprinting in a context where mobilization began unusually with attempts to demonstrate short-term feasibility. These findings are best applicable to other longitudinal settings where mobilization begins with bold expectations and early disappointment, such as in other technological fields characterized by urgency combined with lacking technological solutions. As in our case short-term focus connected with the urgency of the oil crises, future research could examine how temporal mobilization is both enabled and constrained by unfolding macro-economic trends. Studies could explore how actors capitalize on legitimating trends and navigate external legitimacy threats through temporal mobilization, and address the patterned effects and resulting unintended consequences of such evolving temporal activities and discourse.

Moreover, we depict the emergence of conflicting perceptions of the nature of progress as well as short-termism as a collective repeated outcome. Here, we studied a context where challengers faced powerful incumbents and fluctuating macro-trends that provoked recurring bursts of enthusiasm. Thus, our findings on the nature of progress are likelier to apply in similar settings where new issues face high opposition or provoke strong fluctuations in interest—whether due to conflicting interests among powerful actors, changing macro-trends, or uncertain futures and benefits. Our findings on short-termism likewise apply where fluctuating attention drives recurring disengagement. Overall, these boundary conditions remain inclusive of different types of nascent fields and change projects observed over long periods. Future research could keep extending the study of temporality and mobilization to other challenger contexts, asking for instance “How can challengers employ temporal mobilization to resolve temporal conflicts successfully in field settings and propel collective action?” or “What trade-offs do challengers forego in their temporal mobilization to create leverage from non-dominant positions?” We thus invite research to unearth new strategies of temporal mobilization and their processual influences on temporal tensions in field settings.