Search results

This paper investigates how participatory knowledge production may contribute to more democratic sustainability governance. It develops an analytical framework in order to perform a systematic analysis of the GammaSense project in the Netherlands, on the measurement of gamma radiation by citizens. The paper first of all concludes that the way in which participation takes place throughout each and every stage of the knowledge production process, including technically complex issues such as the design of the measurement system and analytical toolset, has consequences for (a) which aspects of the gamma radiation decision-making process can potentially be democratized; (b) who gains a voice on the issue; (c) which form of democratization process is potentially facilitated. Secondly, the democratizing effects of setting the purpose of knowledge production, defining the research object and developing the methodological toolset are closely intertwined. Finally, providing space for multiple epistemologies and being attentive towards the role of material objects-the issue at hand and the methodological devices-are of crucial importance to realize the democratizing ambitions that the GammaSense project aimed to contribute towards.

This paper investigates how participatory knowledge production may contribute to more democratic sustainability governance. It develops an analytical framework in order to perform a systematic analysis of the GammaSense project in the Netherlands, on the measurement of gamma radiation by citizens. The paper first of all concludes that the way in which participation takes place throughout each and every stage of the knowledge production process, including technically complex issues such as the design of the measurement system and analytical toolset, has consequences for (a) which aspects of the gamma radiation decision-making process can potentially be democratized; (b) who gains a voice on the issue; (c) which form of democratization process is potentially facilitated. Secondly, the democratizing effects of setting the purpose of knowledge production, defining the research object and developing the methodological toolset are closely intertwined. Finally, providing space for multiple epistemologies and being attentive towards the role of material objects—the issue at hand and the methodological devices—are of crucial importance to realize the democratizing ambitions that the GammaSense project aimed to contribute towards.

India's 2009 policy on biodiesel remains controversial to date. It excludes voices of marginalized people such as landless workers and knowledges associated with diverse feedstock cultivation practices. It considers the 'upscaling' of biodiesel production to be straightforward, based on easy transferability between diverse socio-material contexts. The policy's marginalization of the immense diversity of India's lands, peoples, perspectives, and practices is based on a neglect of socio-material relations and their multiplicity. A relational analysis highlights the need for alternate inclusive policy processes. Such processes include as evidence the diverse knowledges of interested people and relevant things. They recognize that each entity is known differently depending on how its socio-material relations are approached. Inclusive policy processes also highlight the adjustments that are required to translate a policy out of one socio-material setting and into another. Finally, inclusive policy processes help build realities relying not only on the knowledges from policy experts and firms, but also on the marginalized knowledges of grassroots actors such as smallholders and environmental activists.

Responsible Innovation (RI) is a young field of research that has nevertheless had remarkable successes in dissemination within academic and political circles. However, there is relatively little awareness of its limits, blind spots and situations in which it cannot be used for actual innovation trajectories. Without such awareness, there is a risk that RI may get hollowed out and turned into a tool for 'greenwashing'. To examine RI's limits, we present a case study on biofuel innovation in Hassan, South India. This case study demonstrates that there are important barriers that may make it difficult to conduct innovation according to RI values. In particular, we highlight the following factors that emerge from our case study and need more attention in order to be included and adequately theorised in the RI literature: material barriers to innovation, engagement with abandoning or reducing existing practices as a consequence of innovation, power differences and dependencies, (un)clear demarcation of responsibilities, strategic behaviour and, lastly, different, diverging and even contradictory interests. We demonstrate that such factors may obstruct the possibility to innovate in a responsible way, leading us to our core observation that RI should be about innovating responsibly–or not innovating at all.

AbstractDespite increased popularity of knowledge co-production as a research approach to address contemporary environmental issues, its implementation in science–policy contexts is not self-evident. In this paper, we illustrate how researchers at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (in Dutch: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL)) ensured a fit between key features of knowledge co-production and conventional norms and customs for knowledge production processes at the science–policy interface while simultaneously challenging those norms to create space for knowledge co-production. Drawing on implementation science, we analyzed two types of alignment activities: negotiation of normative and relational norms and modification of co-production features. Based on three policy evaluation cases, we show that PBL researchers developed co-production capacity over time. They became more skilled at recognizing (un)conducive structures to knowledge co-production, negotiating such structures, and modifying co-production features without compromising co-production integrity. We argue that investment in these skills is required to negotiate space for knowledge co-production in science–policy settings.

This paper studies the performativity of smart mobility expectations in envisioning urban futures. Smart mobility, or ICT-enabled transport services, are increasingly considered a necessary ingredient for sustainability transitions in cities. Expectations of smart mobility's contribution to such a transition are constituted by a strong belief in the transformative potential of data collection and use. These knowledge claims embedded in smart mobility expectations tend to be unchallenged, yet contribute to a particular future vision of urban mobility. Our empirical analysis, which draws on two empirical smart cycling case studies in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and Bordeaux, France, underlines the politics of such smart knowledge claims in two smart cycling projects and identifies distinct processes as to how such claims may shape and structure mobility futures. We observe intimate entanglements between what is being developed in terms of technologies and services; and the societal needs that the projects' expectations promise to fulfil. At the same time, we witness a disentanglement of these interconnected knowledge claims when projects unfold, leaving the promise of (un)achieved societal benefits out of view. Indeed, smart knowledge claims carried strong inherent legitimacy in the cases studied, thereby risking to exclude non-smart alternatives.

This paper studies the performativity of smart mobility expectations in envisioning urban futures. Smart mobility, or ICT-enabled transport services, are increasingly considered a necessary ingredient for sustainability transitions in cities. Expectations of smart mobility's contribution to such a transition are constituted by a strong belief in the transformative potential of data collection and use. These knowledge claims embedded in smart mobility expectations tend to be unchallenged, yet contribute to a particular future vision of urban mobility. Our empirical analysis, which draws on two empirical smart cycling case studies in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and Bordeaux, France, underlines the politics of such smart knowledge claims in two smart cycling projects and identifies distinct processes as to how such claims may shape and structure mobility futures. We observe intimate entanglements between what is being developed in terms of technologies and services; and the societal needs that the projects' expectations promise to fulfil. At the same time, we witness a disentanglement of these interconnected knowledge claims when projects unfold, leaving the promise of (un)achieved societal benefits out of view. Indeed, smart knowledge claims carried strong inherent legitimacy in the cases studied, thereby risking to exclude non-smart alternatives.

This article studies local enactments of "smart" in and through visions of six smart district development projects. We show that smart cities' framings of the future are inevitably diverse, emerging from local assemblages consisting of a wide array of heterogeneous elements that translate global imaginaries of the smart city to meet local specificities, needs and agendas. We demonstrate that visions may describe the process of district planning and design, the materiality of the envisioned district and the governance of the district; and that smart visions may play three distinct roles – they may act as mobilizers, instrumentally (i.e. as tools to achieve specific sociotechnical goals) and to exclude alternatives. Knowledge forms a key constituent of smart visions, and acts to include some while excluding others. We therefore suggest that further research should focus on the political and controversial construction and use of knowledge in visioning processes.