The question can be raised whether the principal effect of interactive policy development is to shore up a (creaking) democratic system or to destabilize its very foundations. In this article, a framework is presented for assessing the democratic credentials of interactive policy development. It is based on four views on how a democracy should work: instrumental or substantial democracy and direct or indirect democracy. Critics and advocates differ in their confidence that the intended aims can ever be realized. Based on extensive case study material of interactive local policy development projects collected between 1997 and 2001, the validity of the various arguments for or against interactive policy-making is analysed. The analysis indicates that whether interactive policy development undermines or sustains democracy depends principally on the extent to which divergences in the expectations of the various groups are made explicit and unrealistic or mistaken expectations are dispelled.
Social enterprises and government share the ultimate goal of solving societal problems, which provides a lot of potential for collaboration between the two parties. While the local government level is the most relevant for social enterprises, little research has been done on the relationship between social entrepreneurs and local government officials. However, in the Netherlands, social enterprises experience these relations as far from optimal, evidenced by the fact that they named ‘regulations and government policy’ as the most important obstacle for increasing their impact in a 2015 sector survey. Therefore, a pilot project was started with social entrepreneurs in an Amsterdam neighbourhood, forming a learning network aiming to improve relations with local government. In the network, an innovative tool was developed in the form of a set of five illustrated stereotypes of social entrepreneurs with certain views towards local government. These stereotypes serve both as a reflection tool for social entrepreneurs and as a communication tool to open dialogue between social entrepreneurs and local government. We conclude that in an applied research project, it is crucial to place focus on the final phases in which results are reformulated into practical tools to match target groups, and resulting tools are distributed through targeted events and publications.
Wat is de mogelijke rol van lokale duurzame energiesystemen en –initiatieven in de overgang naar een duurzame samenleving? En hoe kunnen op lokale toepassing gerichte innovaties worden ontwikkeld en toegepast op een zodanige manier dat deze bij lokale systemen en initiatieven aansluiten?Deze vragen staan centraal in dit onderzoeksproject dat zich richt op innovaties die rekening houden met een grotere rol van burgers bij een duurzame energievoorziening. Het project behelst echter meer dan het verrichten van onderzoek. Het beoogt bouwstenen te leveren voor een duurzame samenleving waarin meer ruimte is voor lokale (burger)initiatieven. We stellen drie deelprojecten voor:1. een vergelijkende studie naar energiecoöperaties en vergelijkbare innovatieve initiatieven, binnen en buiten Nederland, in heden en verleden. Daarbij hopen we lering te kunnen trekken uit de succesvolle ervaringen in Denemarken en Oostenrijk en van innovaties door coöperatiesen collectieven in het verleden.2. een analyse van energie-innovaties die beogen aan te sluiten bij lokale energiesystemen. Concreet zal het onderzoek zich richten op speciale batterijen, ontwikkeld dor het bedrijf Dr.Ten, en een soort slimme grote zoneboiler, ontwikkeld door het gelijknamige bedrijf Ecovat.3. De ontwikkeling van drie scenario’s, gebaseerd op inzichten uit studies 1 en 2. De scenario’s zullen bijvoorbeeld inhoudelijk verschillen in de mate waarin deze geïntegreerd zijn in bestaande energiesystemen. Deze zullen worden ontwikkeld en besproken met relevante stakeholders.Het onderzoek moet leiden tot een nauwkeurig overzicht van de mate van interesse en betrokkenheid van stakeholders en van de beperkingen en mogelijkheden van lokale energiesystemen en daarbij betrokken technologie. Ook leidt het tot een routemap voor duurzame energiesystemen op lokaal niveau. Het project heeft een technisch aspect, onderzoek naar verfijning en ontwikkeling van de technologie en een sociaal en normatief aspect, studies naar aansluitingsmogelijkheden bij de wensen en mogelijkheden van burgers, instanties en bedrijven in Noord-Nederland. Bovenal is het integratief en ontwerpend van karakter.This research proposal will explore new socio- technical configurations of local community-based sustainable energy systems. Energy collectives successfully combine technological and societal innovations, developing new business and organization models. A better understanding of their dynamics and needs will contribute to their continued success and thereby contribute to fulfilling the Top Sector’s Agenda. This work will also enhance the knowledge position of the Netherlands on this topic. Currently, over 500 local energy collectives are active in The Netherlands, many of them aim to produce their own sustainable energy, with thousands more in Europe. These collectives search for a new more local-based ways of organizing a sustainable society, including more direct democratic decision-making and influence on local living environment. The development of the collectives is enabled by openings in policy but –evenly important - by innovations in local energy production technologies (solar panels, windmills, biogas installations). Their future role in the sustainable energy transition can be strengthened by careful aligning new organizational and technological innovations in local energy production, storage and smart micro-grids.
In recent years, disasters are increasing in numbers, location, intensity and impact; they have become more unpredictable due to climate change, raising questions about disaster preparedness and management. Attempts by government entities at limiting the impact of disasters are insufficient, awareness and action are urgently needed at the citizen level to create awareness, develop capacity, facilitate implementation of management plans and to coordinate local action at times of uncertainty. We need a cultural and behavioral change to create resilient citizens, communities, and environments. To develop and maintain new ways of thinking has to start by anticipating long-term bottom-up resilience and collaborations. We propose to develop a serious game on a physical tabletop that allows individuals and communities to work with a moderator and to simulate disasters and individual and collective action in their locality, to mimic real-world scenarios using game mechanics and to train trainers. Two companies–Stratsims, a company specialized in game development, and Society College, an organization that aims to strengthen society, combine their expertise as changemakers. They work with Professor Carola Hein (TU Delft), who has developed knowledge about questions of disaster and rebuilding worldwide and the conditions for meaningful and long-term disaster preparedness. The partners have already reached out to relevant communities in Amsterdam and the Netherlands, including UNUN, a network of Ukrainians in the Netherlands. Jaap de Goede, an experienced strategy simulation expert, will lead outreach activities in diverse communities to train trainers and moderate workshops. This game will be highly relevant for citizens to help grow awareness and capacity for preparing for and coping with disasters in a bottom-up fashion. The toolkit will be available for download and printing open access, and for purchase. The team will offer training and facilitate workshops working with local communities to initiate bottom-up change in policy making and planning.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
