Search

Purpose: This study aims to discuss science governance in Europe and the network of associated nonprofit institutions. The authors posit that this network, which comprises both (partial) learning organizations and non-learning organizations, has been observed to postpone taking up "responsibility" as an issue in science governance and funding decisions. Design/methodology/approach: This paper discusses the challenge of learning and policy implementation within the European science governance system. By exploring how learning on responsible innovation (RI) in this governance system can be provoked, it addresses the question how Senge's insights in organizational learning can clarify discourses on and practices of RI and responsibility in research. This study explores the potential of a new organizational form, that of Social Labs, to support learning on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in standing governance organizations. Findings: This study concludes that Social Labs are a suitable format for enacting the five disciplines as identified by Senge, and a Social Lab may turn into a learning organization, be it a temporary one. Responsibility in research and innovation is conducive for learning in the setting of a Social Lab, and Social Labs act as intermediary organizations, which not merely pass on information among actors but also actively give substantive shape to what they convey from a practice-informed, normative orientation. Research limitations/implications: This empirical work on RRI-oriented Social Labs therefore suggests that Social Lab-oriented temporary, intermediary learning organizations present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies in a networked, nonhierarchical governance setting. Practical implications: Based on this research funding and governance organizations in research, policy-makers in other domains may take up and create such intermediary organizations to aid learning in (science) governance. Social implications: This research suggests that RRI-oriented Social Labs present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies, thus integrate learning on and by responsible practices in various governance settings. Originality/value: European science governance is characterized by a network of partial Learning Organization (LOs) and Non-Learning Organization (nLOs) who postpone decision-making on topics around "responsibility" and "solving societal challenges" or delegate authority to reviewers and individual actors, filtering possibilities for collaborative transformation toward RRI. social lab (SLs) are spaces that can address social problems or social challenges in an open, action-oriented and creative manner. As such, they may function as temporary, intermediary LOs bringing together diverse actors from a specific context to work on and learn about issues of science and society where standing organizations avoid doing so. Taken together, SLs may offer temporary organizational structures and spaces to move beyond top-down exercise of power or lack of real change to more open, deliberative and creative forms of sociopolitical coordination between multiple actors cutting across realms of state, practitioners of research and innovation and civil society. By taking the role of temporary LOs, they may support existing research and innovation organizations and research governance to become more flexible and adaptive.

Many researchers experiment with participatory settings to increase public engagement in research and innovation (R&I). Because of their temporary nature, it often remains unclear how such participatory experiments can contribute to structural change. This paper empirically explores options for bridging this gap. It analyzes how participants can be supported to act as institutional entrepreneurs to actively promote public engagement in R&I. To draw lessons, we analyze empirical material gathered on nineteen Social Labs which were set up to promote the uptake of Responsible Research and Innovation in a European R&I funding program (Horizon 2020). Involvement of motivated participants, insight in their institutional context, and specific methods and management choices that enhance a sense of agency are identified as essential for organizing change. These findings and the resulting framework of interventions may prove valuable for further (action) research into the institutionalization of public engagement in R&I. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aims to discuss science governance in Europe and the network of associated nonprofit institutions. The authors posit that this network, which comprises both (partial) learning organizations and non-learning organizations, has been observed to postpone taking up "responsibility" as an issue in science governance and funding decisions. Design/methodology/approach: This paper discusses the challenge of learning and policy implementation within the European science governance system. By exploring how learning on responsible innovation (RI) in this governance system can be provoked, it addresses the question how Senge's insights in organizational learning can clarify discourses on and practices of RI and responsibility in research. This study explores the potential of a new organizational form, that of Social Labs, to support learning on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in standing governance organizations. Findings: This study concludes that Social Labs are a suitable format for enacting the five disciplines as identified by Senge, and a Social Lab may turn into a learning organization, be it a temporary one. Responsibility in research and innovation is conducive for learning in the setting of a Social Lab, and Social Labs act as intermediary organizations, which not merely pass on information among actors but also actively give substantive shape to what they convey from a practice-informed, normative orientation. Research limitations/implications: This empirical work on RRI-oriented Social Labs therefore suggests that Social Lab–oriented temporary, intermediary learning organizations present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies in a networked, nonhierarchical governance setting. Practical implications: Based on this research funding and governance organizations in research, policy-makers in other domains may take up and create such intermediary organizations to aid learning in (science) governance. Social implications: This research suggests that RRI-oriented Social Labs present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies, thus integrate learning on and by responsible practices in various governance settings. Originality/value: European science governance is characterized by a network of partial Learning Organization (LOs) and Non-Learning Organization (nLOs) who postpone decision-making on topics around "responsibility" and "solving societal challenges" or delegate authority to reviewers and individual actors, filtering possibilities for collaborative transformation toward RRI. social lab (SLs) are spaces that can address social problems or social challenges in an open, action-oriented and creative manner. As such, they may function as temporary, intermediary LOs bringing together diverse actors from a specific context to work on and learn about issues of science and society where standing organizations avoid doing so. Taken together, SLs may offer temporary organizational structures and spaces to move beyond top-down exercise of power or lack of real change to more open, deliberative and creative forms of sociopolitical coordination between multiple actors cutting across realms of state, practitioners of research and innovation and civil society. By taking the role of temporary LOs, they may support existing research and innovation organizations and research governance to become more flexible and adaptive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Transitions need intermediation to enable place-sensitive governance. • This paper explores the case of a place-based, farmer-led transition intermediary. • Six place-based functions for transition intermediaries are identified. • Place-based transition intermediaries can support transition governance. • The potential of place-based intermediaries deserves policy attention. While literature on transition intermediation is burgeoning, the implications of a sensitivity to "place" in transition intermediation remain ill understood. In this paper, we empirically explore the dynamics of "place-based transition intermediation", through a case study of the 'Dune farmers' in the Netherlands. The farmers initiated a collaboration that serves as a bottom-up, non-state intermediary organization. The case shows the opportunities and intricacies of transition governance through place-based intermediation. We articulate six functions of intermediaries used in such place-sensitive transition governance: (1) Empowerment through cultivating local identity; (2) Constructing place-based relational capital; (3) Developing regional innovative capacity in a place-based innovation system; (4) Stimulating place-based learning; (5) Concretizing transition governance; and (6) Representing place-based networks. We conclude that place-based intermediation deserves attention, both in research and policy, to improve transition governance and help accelerate place-sensitive transition processes towards sustainable futures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article takes up the challenge of moving beyond a dichotomous reading of ‘niches’ and ‘regimes’ in transition literature in order to grasp the power struggles involved in fundamental societal transformations. It is argued that the ‘practice turn’ in the social sciences, and particularly Knorr-Cetina's perspective on objects of knowledge, offer a promising starting point for doing so. To understand the micro-politics of transitions, an analytic framework is developed that combines a focus on power with a focus on the creativity at work in the reconfiguration of novel practices. It is used to analyse innovations in the domain of Dutch greenhouse farming and research in the 1990s and 2000s. In contrast with the definition of niches as purposeful constructions, it concludes that innovative practices are gradually and experimentally created out of discontent with, and in relation to, existing practices and that power dynamics involved in the process are tied up with three forms of creativity: (1) the articulation of innovative networks and concepts, (2) the consolidation of the resulting transformation of existing practices, and (3) the innovation of actual material objects. The second form of creativity is employed notably by ‘regime-actors'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]