Community Music presents a contested field. Cultural policy has had a hard time dealing with community music because aesthetic intentions, social objectives and economic motivations may all play a role for actors and sometimes clash. This chapter provides a scheme of the basic tensions inherent to community music in the cultural policy fields which can form the basis for ‘negotiations’ between actors. The scheme is based upon the pragmatic sociology of Boltanski and Thévenot who provide a grid of sometimes conflicting and sometimes aligning values that can be present in any social situation. Their grid will be applied to the practice of community music in an effort to provide insight into the intricacies of cultural policies regarding this particular form of music as well as into the practicalities of the practice of community musicians working in a field in which cultural policy making plays an often vital role.
LINK
Scientific research from within and beyond academia continues to provide the justification and the knowledge for policy developments directed toward migration and integration governance. A proliferation of scholarship aims to study, pilot, and investigate the ‘best practices’ for facilitating integration, which is then taken up in advice to policy makers. Many authors have written about this science-policy nexus (Boswell 2009; Penninx, Garcés-Mascareñas, and Scholten 2005; Scholten et al. 2015; Verbeek, Entzinger, and Scholten 2015) These works have also engaged in critical reflection, problematizing this nexus and demonstrating how funding structures draw researchers not only into addressing short-term policy goals, but also into reproducing some of the essentialist worldviews that come with methodological nationalism (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002) and the ‘national order of things’ (Malkki 1995). Yet, the colonial legacies and dis/continuities of these logics in integrationism have not received much attention so far.The paper takes a critical lens on the implications of the science-policy complicity in reproducing colonial logics of ‘cultural distance’, based on perspectives and empirical research from different national (Netherlands and Switzerland) and supra-national (EU) contexts. We analyse texts which shape the civic integration programme in the Netherlands, the genealogy of the integration requirement to respect the values of the constitution in Switzerland, and the EU framework on migrant integration. This combined analysis brings forth the role scientists and knowledge producers play in (re)producing the colonial logics within integrationism, and their contributions to the regime of truth within which integration discourse operates. Throughout this article, we draw on examples from these different contexts to display that integration and its migranticized (Dahinden 2016) subjects are constructed through practices deemed as scientific or objective expertise, building on important work by Schinkel (2018) on integration research as “neocolonial knowledge production” and Favell’s (2022) critical reflections on integration indicator frameworks. As we demonstrate, the “idea of integration as an issue of cultural distance is rendered imaginable in and through colonial legacies and scientific practices from which policy draws legitimacy. We show how cultural distance is produced in the scientification of migrants’ assimilability in a ‘Western work ethic’, in measurement of migrants’ adherence to liberal values, and through constructions of integration drawing on social imaginaries of national and European identity. Importantly, we argue that by presenting this cultural distance as a product of objective, scientific processes of empirical observation, the notion of cultural distance is normalised and depoliticized, which ultimately legitimizes integrationism as a mode of governance.The present study builds on important contributions (by Schinkel 2017; Favell 2022; Korteweg 2017; Bonjour and Duyvendak 2017, and others) in attempting to destabilize the normalization of integrationism as the widely accepted mode of governance of ‘immigrant’ or ‘ethnic’ populations and their inherent and problematic ‘distance’. The content and structure of this summer school in post-colonial Amsterdam would allow us to continue our critical reflexive discussions to better understand the colonial logics at play and how they operate in multiple contexts and at multiple levels of governance, in and beyond integration
LINK
Collecting local memories on-line is a growing practice with participatory elements on different levels. Three levels of participation – micro, meso and macro – are introduced by describing an exemplary case: the Memory of East in Amsterdam. These levels of this particular case can be grounded in the statements of the Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. This indicates that the Memory of East case might be a good practice. However, looking at 53 other cases shows that the three levels are present, but designed differently with respect to the degree in which residents participate. Since the convention is not specific enough we choose the notion of cultural citizenship to assess the value of cases like these. We claim that the cases that have more focus on ordinary residents participating on all three levels assures a sustainable and self-feeding system, which is the best answer to the goals of the convention.
DOCUMENT
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.
Dutch Cycling Intelligence (DCI) embodies all Dutch cycling knowledge to enhances customer-oriented cycling policy. Based on the data-driven cycle policy enhancement tools and knowledge of the Breda University of Applied Sciences, DCI is the next step in creating a learning community between road authorities, consultants, cycling industry, and knowledge institutes with their students. The DCI consists of three pilars:- Connecting- Accelerating knowledge- Developing knowledgeConnecting There are many stakeholders and specialists in the cycling domain. Specialists with additional knowledge about socio-cultural impacts, geo-special knowledge, and technical traffic solutions. All of these specialists need each other to ensure a perfect balance between the (electric) bicycle, the cyclist and the cycle path in its environment. DCI connects and brings together all kind of different specialists.Accelerating knowledge Many bicycle innovations take place in so-called living labs. Within the living lab, the triple helix collaboration between road authorities the industry and knowledge institutes is key. Being actively involved in state-of-the-art innovations creates an inspiring work and learning environment for students and staff. A practical example of a successful living lab is the cycle superhighway F261 between Tilburg and Waalwijk, where BUAS tested new cycle route signage. Next, the Cycling Lab F58 is created, where the road authorities Breda and Tilburg opened up physical cycling infrastructure for entrepreneurs in the bicycle domain and knowledge institutes to develop e-cycling innovation. The living labs are test environments where pilots can be carried out in practice and an excellent environment for students to conduct scientifically applied research.Developing knowledge Ultimately, data and information must be translated into knowledge. With a team of specialists and partners Breda University of applied sciences developed knowledge and tools to monitor and evaluate cycling behavior. By participating in (inter)national research programs BUAS has become one of the frontrunners in data-driven cycle policy enhancement. In close collaboration with road authorities, knowledge institutes as well as consultants, new insights and answers are developed in an international context. By an active knowledge contribution to the network of the Dutch Cycling Embassy, BUAS aims to strengthen its position and add to the global sustainability challenges. Partners: Province Noord-Brabant, Province Utrecht, Vervoerregio Amsterdam, Dutch Cycling Embassy, Tour de Force, University of Amsterdam, Technical University Eindhoven, Technical University Delft, Utrecht University, DTV Capacity building, Dat.mobility, Goudappel Coffeng, Argaleo, Stratopo, Move.Mobility Clients:Province Noord-Brabant, Province Utrecht, Province Zuid-Holland, Tilburg, Breda, Tour de Force
