international conference towards knowledge democracy

August 25th – 27th, 2009 Leiden - City of Discoveries

Consequences for Science, Politics and Media

International conference

Towards KnowledgeDemocracy

An initiative of

International conference Tow

ard

s Kn

ow

ledg

e Dem

ocra

cy

1

info

rmat

ion

Wel

com

e To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

August 25 – 27, 2009Welcome to Leiden

Dear participants, dear guests,

The programme booklet you have just opened is your membership ticket to

the knowledge democracy community. This community will hopefully be an

active one: you are now co-creator of what will be produced between August

25 and 27. This means that you are invited to be both participant and critic.

The conference is designed as a learning environment: the physical

boundaries have been expanded by opening the RMNO Twitter experiment,

the LinkedIn group “Knowledge Democracy” and the Youtube channel

“Knowledgedemocracy” for everyone who is interested. In addition a series of

side-events is organised to enhance your learning experience.

The general formula of the conference reveals scientific experiences and

dialogues during the first day, intensive exchange of ideas between scientists

en practitioners during the second day, and accumulation and recommenda-

tions on the third day. Each participant contributes with his or her own

wisdom, insights and experiences. We hope that we have succeeded in

creating an environment which rewards each individual contribution.

Knowledge democracy is an emerging concept that has not yet solidified into

deeply-rooted paradigms of theories. The fluid nature of the focal notions

leaves a lot of space for intense dialogues. We hope and expect that these will

enrich us all. Enjoy the conference!

www.knowledgedemocracy.nl

Roeland J. in ’t Veld

Chair of the Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and

the Environment (RMNO), the Netherlands

2in

form

atio

nin

tern

atio

nal c

onfe

renc

e To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

ContactThe RMNO Conference Team

Roeland J. in ’t Veld

Chair RMNO

Email: [email protected]

Telephone number: +31(0)70 315 52 19

Ana Lidia Aneas Moyano

Conference Manager


Telephone number: +31 (0)70 315 52 26

Mobile: +31 (0)6 20451131

Louis Meuleman

Secretary General RMNO



Mobile: +31 (0)6 21827020

Madelon Eelderink

Conference Organiser



Mobile: +31 (0)6 34192559

Sophie Jongeneel

Conference Organiser



3

info

rmat

ion

Con

fere

nce

Team

To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

Bert de Wit

Programme Manager



Jeroen Bordewijk

Master of Ceremony

Council Member RMNO

Anneke Heinecke

Communication Advisor



Mobile: +31 (0)6 24235261

Bart Jan Krouwel

Master of Learning

Council Member RMNO

4in

form

atio

nin

tern

atio

nal c

onfe

renc

e To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

Towards Knowledge DemocracyConference Programme

Day 1 August 25th, 2009 Advanced Theory Finding a Common Base

08.30 REGISTRATION IN ACADEMY BUILDING

PLENARY SESSION IN ACADEMY BUILDING

09.30 Welcome by prof. Rietje van Dam, Vice Rector Magnificus, Leiden University, the

Netherlands

09.40 Opening by the chair of the first conference day, prof. ir. Rudy Rabbinge, Advisor

Executive Board, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

09.50 Introduction by the conference chair, prof. Roeland J. in ’t Veld, Chair, RMNO, the

Netherlands

10.10 COFFEE BREAK

10.30 Theme 1: Knowledge & Future Research

Keynote speaker: prof. Julie Thompson Klein, Wayne State University, Detroit, USA

Co-referent: prof. Marjolein van Asselt, Maastricht University and Council Member,

Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands

11.10 Theme 2: State of the Art in Transdisciplinary Research

Keynote speaker: prof. Roland Scholz, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH

Zürich), Switzerland

Co-referent: prof. Joske Bunders, VU University Amsterdam and Council Member RMNO,

the Netherlands

11.50 Theme 3: Practical Approaches to Boundary Work

Keynote speaker: dr. Christian Pohl, Co-director of transdisciplinarity-net, Swiss

Academy of Arts and Sciences, Switzerland

Co-referent: prof. John Grin, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

12.30 LUNCH BREAK

13.30 Theme 4: Media, Politics and Knowledge Flow

Keynote speaker: prof. John Ryan, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA

Co-referent: David Clements MPA, Vice President, Canadian Health Services Research

Foundation, Canada

14.10 Theme 5: Defining Knowledge Democracy

Keynote speaker: dr. Silvio Funtowicz, Scientific Officer, Institute for the Protection and

Security of the Citizen (IPSC), Joint Research Center of the European Commission, Italy

Co-referent: prof. Roeland J. in ’t Veld, Chair RMNO, the Netherlands

14.50 First impressions by the chair of the first conference day, prof. ir. Rudy Rabbinge,

Advisor Executive Board, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

5

info

rmat

ion

Con

fere

nce

Prog

ram

me

Tow

ard

s K

no

wle

dg

e D

emo

cra

cy

14.55 COFFEE BREAK AND WALK TO KAMERLINGH ONNES BUILDING

15.15 - 17.15 PARALLEL SESSIONS IN KAMERLINGH ONNES BUILDING

Theme 1 Knowledge & Future Research

1.1 Problems & Opportunities

Chaired by: prof. Herman Eijsackers, Chair, Scientific Advisory Board, Wageningen

University and Research Centre and Chief Scientific Officer, Ministry of Agriculture,

Nature and Food Quality (LNV), the Netherlands

Theme 2 State of the Art in Transdisciplinary Research

2.1 Transdisciplinary Research: Its Possibilities and Limitations

Chaired by: dr. Jacqueline Broerse, Head of Science Communication, Athena Institute,

VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Theme 3 Practical Approaches to Boundary Work

3.1 Boundary Work and Transition Management

Chaired by: prof. Robert Hoppe, University of Twente, the Netherlands

Theme 4 Media, Politics and Knowledge Flow

4.1 Old and New Media Living Apart Together?

Chaired by: prof. Franciska de Jong, University of Twente and Board Member,

Organisation of Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands

4.2 Knowledge Sharing: Who is the Facilitator?

Chaired by: drs. Anja van der Aa, Entrepreneur, Platform Chains and Networks, the

Netherlands

Theme 5 Defining Knowledge Democracy

5.1 Policy Experimentation & Academic Accountability

Chaired by: prof. Wim van de Donk, Chair, Scientific Council for Government Policy

(WRR), the Netherlands

5.2 Researching Publics

Chaired by: dr. Floor Basten, Owner and Researcher, OrléoN, the Netherlands

PLENARY SESSION IN ACADEMY BUILDING

17.30 Speech by dr. Jacqueline Cramer, Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the

Environment (VROM), the Netherlands

17.50 Reception at the Former University Library

19.00 DINNER AT THE FORMER UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

6in

form

atio

nin

tern

atio

nal c

onfe

renc

e To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

Day 2 August 26th, 2009Tensions & Synergies Facing the Challenges

08.30 REGISTRATION FOR NEW PARTICIPANTS

PLENARY SESSION IN KAMERLINGH ONNES BUILDING

09.15 Wrap-up of the first conference day by the conference chair, prof. Roeland J. in ‘t Veld,

Chair RMNO, the Netherlands

09.25 Introduction by the chair of the second conference day, drs. Koos van der Steenhoven,

Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), the

Netherlands

09.50 Transdisciplinary Scholarship, by prof. Chris Peterson, Michigan State University

Product Centre for Agriculture and Natural Resources, USA

10.20 Evaluating Evidence, by dr. David Stanners, Head of International Cooperation,

European Environment Agency, Denmark

10.45 COFFEE BREAK



1.2 Scanning the Horizon

Chaired by: ir. Hans van der Veen, Director, Study Centre for Technology Trends (STT),

the Netherlands


2.2 Creating the Landscape: Scientific Knowledge in Regional Case Studies

Chaired by: prof. Paul Opdam, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the

Netherlands

2.3 Transdisciplinary Research: Its Contribution to Problem Solving and the

Consequences for Higher Education

Chaired by: prof. Joske Bunders, VU University Amsterdam and Council Member RMNO,

the Netherlands


3.2 Mainstreaming Citizen Participation

Chaired by: dr. Lars Klüver, Director, Danish Board of Technology, Denmark


4.3 Lost in Translation

Chaired by: prof. ir. Klaas van Egmond, Utrecht University, the Netherlands

4.4 Network Knowledge Society – Effects for Science & Politics

Chaired by: drs. Marinka Voorhout, Director Academy and Principal Consultant KBenP,

the Netherlands


5.3 Production and Use of Knowledge in the Political Realm

Chaired by: mr. Guido Enthoven, Founder and Director, Institute for Social Innovation (IMI),

the Netherlands

7

info

rmat

ion

Con

fere

nce

Prog

ram

me

Tow

ard

s K

no

wle

dg

e D

emo

cra

cy

5.4 Scientists as Citizens: Citizens as Scientists

Chaired by: dr. David Laws, Senior Lecturer, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

5.5 Policy Experimentation, Social Learning, and Political Accountability

Chaired by: prof. Anton Hemerijck, Director, Scientific Council for Government Policy

(WRR), the Netherlands

13.00 LUNCH BREAK



1.3 The Future in Policy-making

Chaired by: prof. ir. Rudy Rabbinge, Advisor Executive Board, Wageningen University

and Research Centre, the Netherlands


2.4 Stimulating Informed Debate on Sustainable Development

Chaired by: prof. Frans Berkhout, VU University Amsterdam and Council Member

RMNO, the Netherlands

2.5 Transdisciplinary Research as Social Learning

Chaired by: prof. Josee van Eijndhoven, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Member of

the Academy of Technology and Innovation (AcTI), the Netherlands


3.3 Collaborative Knowledge Production

Chaired by: prof. Jurian Edelenbos, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

and drs. Nienke van Schie, PhD Researcher, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the

Netherlands

3.4 A New Methodology for Policy Research?

Chaired by: prof. Peter van Hoesel, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Director of

Panteia, the Netherlands


4.5 Science-based Reports, Media and the Political Hype

Chaired by: mr. drs. Jan Staman, Director, Rathenau Institute, the Netherlands

4.6 Citizens in Charge (1): Participation in Inspection and Monitoring : Introduction

and Experiences in the Netherlands

Chaired by: prof. Valerie Frissen, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Senior Strategistat

TNO Information and Communication Technology, the Netherlands


5.6 Inconvenient Knowledge and Policy-making

Chaired by: prof. Henk Dekker, Leiden University, the Netherlands

5.7 Organising Politics in a Knowledge Democracy – Reinventing Political Parties

Chaired by: dr. Krijn van Beek, Advisor, Council for Societal Development (RMO) and

Founding Director of the Think Tank 2100, the Netherlands

8in

form

atio

nin

tern

atio

nal c

onfe

renc

e To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

Open Sessions Part 1

14.15 -

14.30

An Introduction to the “Meaning of Knowledge”

by ir. Arnold Fellendans, Networker, Network for Future Research (NTV) and Network for

Sustainable Higher Education (DHO), the Netherlands

14.30 -

14.45

Knowledge, Power & Identity: Struggles Over Unstructured Laptop Use in American

University Classrooms

by dr. Jill Harrison, Post-doctoral Fellow, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, USA

14.45 -

15.00

An Inter- and Transdisciplinary Analysis of the Climate Discussion of Transport

by dr. Petri Tapio, Senior Researcher, Turku School of Economics, Finland

15.00 -

15.15

Democratic Decision-making and Innovative Knowledge: Two Cases

by drs. Paul Jansen Schoonhoven, Senior Training Manager and Consultant, ROI/HEC

Institute for Public Administration, the Netherlands

drs. Laura Sprengers ma, Advisor, ROI Institute for Public Administration, the

Netherlands

15.15 -

15.30

Boundary Spanning in Hybrid Dutch Organisations

by Philip Marcel Karré MPhil, Senior Researcher and Lecturer, Netherlands School for

Public Administration (NSOB), the Netherlands

15.30 -

15.45

The Knowledge Broker, Matching Supply and Demand of Expert Knowledge

by drs. Michel Leenders, Head of Spatial Development and Management, City of Gouda,

the Netherlands

16.00 COFFEE BREAK



1.4 Future Research and Strategic Policy making: How do the Two Relate?

Chaired by: prof. Maarten Hajer, Director, Netherlands Environmental Assessment

Agency (PBL), the Netherlands


2.6 Sustainable Value Development through New Knowledge Creation

Chaired by: ir. Jeroen Bordewijk, Council Member RMNO, Board Me ofmber TransForum

and former Senior Vice President at Unilever, the Netherlands

2.7 The Transition Approach and the Resilience Approach: What can we Learn?

Chaired by: prof. Josee van Eijndhoven, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Member of

the Academy of Technology and Innovation (AcTI), the Netherlands


3.5 Boundary Institutions in Science Governance - Triangulating Knowledge and

Democratic Practice

Chaired by: dr. Peter Stegmaier, Assistant Professor, University of Twente, the

Netherlands

9

info

rmat

ion

Con

fere

nce

Prog

ram

me

Tow

ard

s K

no

wle

dg

e D

emo

cra

cy


4.7 Citizens in Charge (2): Participation in Inspection and Monitoring: International

Experiences and Conclusions

Chaired by: dr. Jeroen Kerseboom, Vice Chair, VIDE Association for Monitoring,

Assessment and Inspecting, the Netherlands

4.8 Investigative Journalism and the Battle for Access to Information

Chaired by: drs. Margo Smit, Director, Association of Research Journalists (VVOJ),

Belgium and the Netherlands


5.8 Knowledge-Democracy or Jericho-Democracy? A Design Workshop

Chaired by: drs. Jan Schrijver, Senior Civil Servant, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom

Relations (BZK), the Netherlands

5.9 Facing and Bridging the Gap: Organising Knowledge For Policy-making

Chaired by: dr. Arnold Jonk, Director of Knowledge, Ministry of Education, Culture and

Science (OCW), the Netherlands (invited)


16.15 -

16.30

We’re Only in It for the Knowledge. Does Democracy Pay?

by drs. Hans Keune, Political Scientist, University of Antwerp, Belgium

16.30 -

16.45

People Empower Each Other, Information Technology Helps Only in Facilitating

Them

by drs. Marga Jacobs, Lecturer, Avans University of Applied Sciences and President,

Human Environment Foundation (Vereniging Leefmilieu), the Netherlands

16.45 -

17.00

Dissemination and Implementation of Knowledge within the Public Health Sector

by dr. Lenneke Vaandrager, Associate Professor, Wageningen University and Research

Centre, the Netherlands

17.00 -

17.15

Globalisation and Governance Reforms in India

by dr. Vasant Moharir, Retired Academic and former President of the Foundation for

Critical Choices for India, the Netherlands

18.00 WALK TO THE FORMER UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

18.30 Reception and speech by drs. Henri Lenferink, Mayor, City of Leiden, the Netherlands

19.30 DINNER

10in

form

atio

nin

tern

atio

nal c

onfe

renc

e To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

Day 3 August 27th, 2009 Bridging Theory and Practice Taking Responsibility

08.30 REGISTRATION IN KAMERLINGH ONNES BUILDING

09.00 – 11.00 PARALLEL SESSIONS IN KAMERLINGH ONNES BUILDING


1.5 Towards a Better Governance of Long-term Decision-making

Chaired by: prof. Roeland J. in ‘t Veld, Chair, RMNO, the Netherlands and Chair of

Working Group Governance, European Environment and Sustainable Development

Advisory Councils (EEAC), Belgium


2.8 Roles, Competence and Action Perspectives of Actors in Transdisciplinary

Research

Chaired by: dr. ir. Huib Silvis, Head of Public Issues Division, Agricultural Economics

Research Institute (LEI), Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

2.9 Research and Knowledge Transfer in Water Management

Chaired by: ir. Bert Satijn, Director, Research Programme Living with Water, the

Netherlands


3.6 Implications for the Science-policy Interface

Chaired by: prof. Robert Hoppe, University of Twente, the Netherlands

3.7 Practical Approaches to Boundary Work around Transformative Change

Chaired by: dr. René Kemp, Senior Researcher, Maastricht University, the Netherlands


4.9 Communication about Controversial Issues

Chaired by: drs. Pieter Hilhorst, Publicist and Journalist, Volkskrant newspaper (among

others), the Netherlands

4.10 From Response to Responsibility

Chaired by: drs. Willem Schoonen, Chief Editor, Trouw newspaper, the Netherlands


5.10 Wanted: Competent Public Officials

Chaired by: drs. Kees Vijlbrief, Deputy Director General, Office for the Senior Civil Service

(ABD), Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK), the Netherlands

5.11 Improvement of Knowledge Transfer: Co-operation or Competition in the

Research Field?

Chaired by: drs. Martin van der Gugten cmc, President, Association for Policy Research

(VBO), the Netherlands

11.00 COFFEE BREAK

11

info

rmat

ion

Con

fere

nce

Prog

ram

me

Tow

ard

s K

no

wle

dg

e D

emo

cra

cy

PARALLEL SESSIONS

11.20 Open Space Session: Planning for Action

11.20 Gathering and combining results. Preparing recommendations.

12.30 LUNCH BREAK AT KAMERLINGH ONNES BUILDING

AND WALK TO ACADEMY BUILDING

13.30 PLENARY SESSION IN ACADEMY BUILDING

13.30 Opening by the chair of the third conference day, ir. Hans van der Vlist, Permanent

Secretary, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), the

Netherlands.

The recommendations of the participants of the conference, “the Leiden Agenda”, will be

presented to distinguished leaders in the Netherlands in the domains of Politics, Science,

Media and Industry.

Speakers

prof. Paul F. van der Heijden, Rector Magnificus Leiden University, the Netherlands

prof. Uri Rosenthal, Leiden University and Senator, the Netherlands

drs. Willem Schoonen, Chief Editor, newspaper Trouw, the Netherlands

dr. Herman Tjeenk Willink, Vice President of the Council of State, the Netherlands

mrs. Gerdi Verbeet, President of the House of Representatives of the States General, the

Netherlands

dr. Hans Wijers, Chair of the Board of Management, AkzoNobel, the Netherlands

15.30 Final remarks by the conference chair, prof. Roeland J. in ‘t Veld, Chair, RMNO, the

Netherlands

15.30 HIGH TEA AT ACADEMY BUILDING

Leiden CentralStation

Hotel Tulip Inn

Kamerlingh Onnes Building

Academy Building The Former University Library“Oude UB”

Rapenburg Canal

Stationsweg

RapenburgPrinsessekade

Steenstraat

Steenschuur

No

orderplantsoen

Schuttersveld

Rijnsburgersingel

12in

form

atio

nin

tern

atio

nal c

onfe

renc

e To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

Contact & Locations

Organised by

RMNO

Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning,

Nature and the Environment

Emmapark 6

2595 AT The Hague

The Netherlands


Phone: +31 (0)70 315 52 10

www.rmno.nl

Safety and SecurityThe emergency telephone number in

the Netherlands is: 112

When situated in one of the University buildings,

please see emergency numers per location and

make sure to inform the reception in the case of

an emergency.

Accommodation

Hotel Tulip Inn

Schipholweg 3

2316 XB Leiden

The Netherlands


13

info

rmat

ion

Con

tact

& L

ocat

ions

To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

Locations Leiden University

Academy Building

Rapenburg 73

2311 GJ Leiden


In case of emergency:



Steenschuur 25

2311 ES Leiden


In case of emergency:


The Former University Library

“Oude UB”

Rapenburg 70

2311 BZ Leiden


14in

form

atio

nin

tern

atio

nal c

onfe

renc

e To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

Conference Partners

Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and the Environment (RMNO), the Netherlands www.rmno.nl

Council for Public Administration (ROB), the Netherlands www.rfv.nl

European Commision (EC), Belgium www.ec.europa.eu

European Environment Agency (EEA), Denmark www.eea.europa.eu

European Environment and Sustainable Development Advisory Councils (EEAC), Belgium http://www.eeac-net.org/

Leiden University, the Netherlands www.leiden.edu

An initiative of

15

info

rmat

ion

Con

fere

nce

Part

ners

To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV), the Netherlands www.minlnv.nl

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), the Netherlands www.minocw.nl

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), the Netherlands www.vrom.nl

Office for the Senior Civil Service (ABD), the Netherlands www.algemenebestuursdienst.nl

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (VenW), the Netherlands www.minvenw.nl

City of Leiden, the Netherlands www.leiden.nl

Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands www.nwo.nl

Rathenau Institute, the Netherlands www.rathenau.nl

ScienceGuide, the Netherlands www.scienceguide.nl

Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands www.wrr.nl

TransForum, the Netherlands www.transforum.nl

17

Tues

da

y, A

ug

ust

25

thxx

x

The Academy Building, located at Rapenburg, is

the oldest building and the heart of the University

of Leiden.

The building was built in 1516 as a nunnery and

since 1581 it is used by the (then) newly

established university.

Today it is a national monument that is mainly

used for ceremonial events, such as graduation

ceremonies and promotions, although some

lectures still take place in the Academy Building.

The Academic Museum is located in the building

and is the gateway to the Hortus Botanicus.

August 25th 08.30 - 09.30 Academy Building

Registration

Reg

istr

atio

n To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

18Tu

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

5th

Wel

com

e |

Plen

ary

sess

ion Rietje van Dam is Vice Rector Magnificus at Leiden

University. At Leiden University she also holds the

Chair for Sustainable Development and Innovation

of Education in the Faculty of Mathematics and

Sciences.

She has been and still is a member of several

advisory and supervisory committees: the

Programme Committee Science and Technology

of the European Association of Distance Teaching

Universities (EADTU), the Scientific Advisory

Board of the Deutsches Institut für Fernstudien

Forschung an der Universität Tübingen (DIFF),the

Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR),

the Netherlands, the Advisory Board of AXIS, the

national platform for science and technology in

education and labour market, the Scientific

Advisory Board of Delft Cluster, the Supervisory

Board of AkzoNobel Netherlands, the Supervisory

Board of the Organisation for Applied Scientific

Research (TNO), the Netherlands, the Stiftungsrat

of Lüneburg University, the Dutch/Flemish

Association of Science Centres, the Supervisory

Board of Unilever Netherlands and the Advisory

Board of Deltares.

She studied chemistry at Utrecht University, the

Netherlands, graduated in 1973 and did her PhD

thesis at the same university in 1976. After that

period she worked at Maastricht University and

the Open University of the Netherlands where she

was appointed as Professor and Chair Natural

Sciences, especially biochemistry and biotech-

nology in1993. From 1996-1998 she was chair of

the Board of Professors (rector) at the same

university. She is a founding member of the

Regional Centre of Expertise (RCE) Rhine-Meuse

and actively involved in the RCE-initiative of

United Nations University as visiting professor for

RCEs at the United Nations Institute for Advanced

Studies (UNU-IAS) in Japan and as a member of

the Ubuntu Committee of Peers for RCEs.


Welcome

Leiden University, the Netherlands

prof. Rietje van Dam, Vice Rector Magnificus, Leiden University, the Netherlands

Rietje van Dam: “To me, knowledge democracy stands for an effective and respectful

interaction between:

· the development of knowledge in a scientific manner

· sharing knowledge with a wide audience

· dealing with knowledge from a “public good” perspective.”

19

Tues

da

y, A

ug

ust

25

thO

peni

ng

| Pl

enar

y se

ssio

nRudy Rabbinge is chair of several national and

international organisations. He is deputy

chairman of the Commission for Environmental

Assessment (MER), the Netherlands, chair of the

Science Council of the Consultative Group on

International Agricultural Research (CGIAR, Italy/

USA), he is chair of the Board Earth and Life

Sciences (ALW) of the Organization for Scientific

Research (NWO), the Netherlands, chair of the

Council of Earth and Life Sciences of the Royal

Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

(KNAW) and other organisations. He is also

Professor in Sustainable Development and Food

Security at Wageningen University and Research

Centre and Advisor to the Executive Board of this

university. Rudy Rabbinge is member of

numerous national and international organisa-

tions, such as the Executive Committee of the

Asia Rice Foundation, Thailand, the International

Advisory Board of TransForum Agro & Groen, the

Netherlands, the Executive Board of the Centre for

World Food Studies, the Scientific Programme

Indonesia-the Netherlands (SPIN) and the

Supervisory Committee of the National Institute

for Public Health and Environment (RIVM), the

Netherlands.

He has several distinctions to his name, among

which the Knight in the Order of the Netherlands

Lion, the Knight in the Order of Oranje-Nassau

and Honorary Professor of the Chinese Academy

of Agricultural Sciences. He is also Board Member

of the Directors Alliance for a Green Revolution in

Africa.

Rudy Rabbinge studied biology and crop

protection at the Wageningen University and

Research Centre. He conducted his PhD in

agricultural and environmental sciences at the

same university. He has written over 200

scientific publications (international A-refereed

journals), 5 text books, more than 250 other

publications, and reports.


Opening by the chair of the first conference day

prof. ir. Rudy Rabbinge, Advisor Executive Board, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

Rudy Rabbinge: “Knowledge democracy means better access and understanding of knowledge

in different fields without full background information. Every interested layman should be in a

position to participate in discussions on dilemma ‘s and ethical choices.”

20Tu

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

5th

Intr

oduc

tion

|

Plen

ary

sess

ion

0.0

Roeland in ’t Veld is Chair of the Advisory Council

for Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and the

Environment (RMNO). He is professor at the Open

University of the Netherlands, Professor of Good

Governance at the University of the Netherlands

Antilles. Furthermore, he is a member of the

Supervisory Board of Netherlands Knowledge

Country and Commissioner for IBM The

Netherlands, HSK Group and President

Commissioner of Prorail. Roeland in ’t Veld has

editorial responsibility for a wide range of

publications, including works on process

management and the Handbook on ‘Corporate

Governance’.

In the past Roeland in ’t Veld has held positions

such as Director General for Higher Education and

Scientific Research at the Ministry of Education,

Culture and Science, Secretary of State for

Education and Science and Chair of the

Supervisory Board of the IB Group. He was also

Dean of the Netherlands School for Public

Administration (NSOB), Rector of SIOO, the

Interuniversity Centre for Development in the field

of Organisation and Change Management.


Introduction by the conference chair

RMNO

prof. Roeland J. in ‘t Veld, Chair of the RMNO, the Netherlands

Roeland in ‘t Veld: “Speaking truth to power is complicated considerably by the tensions

between politics, science and media. Does it take three to tango in this problematique?”

10.10 - 10.30 COFFEE BREAK

21

Tues

da

y, A

ug

ust

25

th1.

0

Theme 1 asks all participants in this international

conference to consider the role of research in

realising a “knowledge democracy“ at the

interfaces of science, politics, society, and media.

The root meaning of “democracy” frames our

collective task. The strength of knowledge and

decision-making depends partly on leveraging the

lessons of two major developments: transdiscipli-

nary research (TDR) and new digital technologies.

The two topics – TDR and digital technologies

– have not been linked closely in the past, but

they share common values for a knowledge

democracy, including:

· creating an open space for all forms of knowledge;

· fostering the participation of all stakeholders;

· providing equal access to power and

representation;

· facilitating new modes of social learning;

· and crossing the boundaries that divide

knowledge domains and sectors of society.

These common values reflect significant changes

in how we think about producing and dissemi-

nating knowledge. A growing literature base on

TDR documents the theory and practice of crossing

boundaries between academic and other forms of

knowledge in a new agora of collaborative research

and problem solving. Yet, despite successes and

the widening credence of TDR, the dominant

structure of research and education continues to

prioritise academic modes and hierarchies.

Another growing literature base documents the

possibilities of new technologies in building a

digital commons. Yet, the Internet is rife with

tensions between open access and privatisation,

uneven cyber infrastructure across nations and

communities, stereotyping and dubious authority.

Both developments underscore the heightened

importance of new forms of research, learning, and

critical literacies in both the public and private

arenas. This need is all the more pressing at a time

when older taxonomies of knowledge are slow to

change while information comes increasingly from

new media sources, and when web-based

networking, 20 million hits on YouTube, and

orchestrated tweets on Twitter are more persua-

sive in the demos than older media of the

classroom, television and radio, and print

publications. The answer is not to design a new

virtual world, but to inform future research and

decision-making with a reflexive understanding of

the changing nature of knowledge and the role of

new intermediated forms of communicative action.


1.0 Knowledge & Future Research: an introduction

Keynote Speaker prof. Julie Thompson Klein, Wayne State University, USA

Co-referent prof. Marjolein van Asselt, Maastricht University and Council Member of the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands

Julie Thompson Klein: “The roots of the term democracy derive from the Greek demos,

meaning the ‘people’, and krátos, meaning ‘rule or strength’. The strength of problem-solving

and decision-making in the contemporary world depends in no small part on drawing lessons

from inter- and transdisciplinary research that crosses the boundaries of both academic fields and

other sectors of society in the demos. The building stones of knowledge democracy today also require

leveraging the affordances of information technology, necessitating new forms of digital literacy,

participatory learning, and communicative action.”

Them

e 1:

Kno

wle

dge

& F

utur

e R

esea

rch

| Pl

enar

y se

ssio

n

22Tu

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

5th

Them

e 2:

Sta

te o

f the

Art

in T

rans

disc

iplin

ary

Res

earc

h |

Plen

ary

sess

ion

2.0

The importance of transdisciplinary research as a

link between knowledge and policy is increasing.

In the Netherlands however, until now this link has

barely been established. When does one choose a

transdisciplinary approach of research? What are

the possibilities and limitations of transdiscipli-

nary research and how can this be mutually

combined with social learning? What recommen-

dations can be made concerning knowledge

development, the role of stakeholders, the use of

knowledge and competencies?

This plenary session will introduce the theme of

‘State of the Art in Transdisciplinary Research’ in

an international context. The parallel sessions of

this theme will go in-depth on the current use of

transdisciplinary research, trends and expecta-

tions, important stakeholders and their role in

transdisciplinary research.


2.0 State of the Art in Transdisciplinary Research: an introduction

Keynote Speaker prof. Roland Scholz, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zürich), Switzerland

Co-referent prof. Joske Bunders, Director, Athena Institute at VU University Amsterdam and Council Member of the RMNO, the Netherlands

Roland Scholz: “A knowledge democracy asks for the support and the efficient utilisation

of different types of epistemics/knowledge, values/norms and discourses in society.

Transdisciplinarity which organises mutual learning between science and society for getting

socially robust solutions and the dismantling of barriers between different knowledge systems (among

others between sciences), which is an important methodology for supporting knowledge democracy.

Finding appropriate ways of integrating or relating knowledge from different disciplines in relation to

different systems, from different modes of thought, (e.g. analytic and intuitive thinking) interests and

cultures can be a challenge.”

23

Tues

da

y, A

ug

ust

25

th3.

0

Research that crosses disciplinary boundaries and

boundaries between science and society to

address real world problems can be found in a

number of thematic fields, such as global

environmental change, migration, public health,

new technologies or area development. It goes by

names like transdisciplinary research, knowledge

production 2.0, boundary work and transition or

hybrid management. Such knowledge production

often takes place as a self-organised temporary

collaboration of disciplinary researchers and

actors from civil society, the government and the

private sector. The question however remains,

how the practical experiences gained in one

project can be depersonalised and handed over to

the next project to disburden project teams form

“re-inventing the wheel”. For that purpose, the

practical experiences have to be sampled and

systematised and the core challenges as well as

successful ways to address them have to be

identified. But what are the specific challenges

that have to be addressed in boundary work?

What are suitable approaches to address these?

How can these approaches be conceptualised and

formulated as challenges from the perspective of

those involved in the knowledge production

process? Is there a need for experienced boundary

workers who organise such collective knowledge

production? And if so, what are the specific

competencies of such boundary workers?


3.0 Practical Approaches to Boundary Work: an introduction

Keynote Speaker dr. Christian Pohl, Co-Director of transdisciplinarity-net, Swiss Academy of Arts and Sciences, Switzerland

Co-referent prof. John Grin, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Christian Pohl: “In a knowledge democracy science is not the only provider, interpreter and

reviewer of knowledge. That does – as the term democracy may imply –not mean, that the

majority votes for what is true and false. Rather, knowledge production becomes a collective

process, normatively oriented to sustainable development, and bringing together those from civil society,

the private sector, the government and science, who have a say in the matter. The challenge we face is

finding those who have a say in the matter, certifying their contribution is reliable and integrating the

contributions in relation to the problem on the ground.”

12.30 - 13.30 LUNCH BREAK

Them

e 3:

Pra

ctic

al A

ppro

ache

s to

Bou

ndar

y W

ork

| Pl

enar

y se

ssio

n

24Tu

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

5th

Them

e 4:

Med

ia, P

olit

ics

and

Kno

wle

dge

Flow

|

Plen

ary

sess

ion

Regarding the role of the media as messenger and

translator between science, other knowledge

producers and politics, two different worlds have

emerged: the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ media. How are

their roles changing and what about the

interaction between them? Especially the

Internet-based ‘new’ media are characterised by

speed, high velocity in subjects and opinions and

an intense variety in sources and supply. This

allows little time to reflect.

The change in one area automatically implicates

changes in another. How are these developments

in the media affecting politics, which choices

should be made, why and by whom? In what way

are the media responsible for the knowledge and

information on which citizens and politicians base

their opinions? And when does selection of

information turn into manipulation?

Moreover, democratisation of knowledge has

increased the amount of available data and facts

enormously. What role does investigative

journalism fulfill? Dealing with knowledge has

been subject of discussion among parliamentar-

ians in recent years. The quality of knowledge is

susceptible to ‘wicked’, contested, emotional and

value-laden opinions. Still, policy makers must

prepare responsible action. What is in that case

the most effective way of providing them with the

knowledge they need, and how can they

distinguish hypes?

This plenary session will introduce the theme

‘Media, Politics and Knowledge Flow’ in an

international context. The parallel sessions of this

theme will go in-depth within these issues.


4.0 Media, Politics and Knowledge Flow: an introduction

Keynote Speaker prof. John Ryan, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA

Co-referent David Clements MPA, Vice President, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Canada

John Ryan: “Knowledge democracy is about approximating the free flow of information. It

refers both to the production and consumption of information. Both are increasingly mediated

by widely available, relatively inexpensive technologies, rather than by technologies embedded

in traditional institutions. Thus democratic knowledge is often outside institutional filtering processes.

This is both its strength and its weakness.”

4.0

25

Tues

da

y, A

ug

ust

25

th5.

0

How is knowledge being organised? How is it

applied when it comes to policy making? Timing

and verification of knowledge as input is crucial.

As a knowledge economy aimed at an increasing

intensity of knowledge in production, the concept

of knowledge democracy concerns issues that

relate to the intensification of knowledge in

politics. How can scientific knowledge and

citizens’ science both be utilised in processes

within politics? How can conflicts between both

types of knowledge be solved? How is knowledge

translated into policy-making? The gap between

knowledge and policy-making processes seems to

be widening. Moreover, scientists who prepare

knowledge for policy-making are sometimes

influenced or even threatened to ‘adjust’ their

conclusions if they are not in line with what policy

makers expect. How independent is knowledge?

When it comes to knowledge producers, where do

civil organisations come in? Do they require

involvement in knowledge production, in order to

ensure that it suits their needs and can make a

contribution to a better living of certain groups or

society as a whole?

The existence of a gap between knowledge and

politics does not seem to be the only one, the gap

between politicians and public seems to be

widening too. Political parties fulfil important

roles when it comes down to agenda setting and

programming societal opportunities; a clear

responsibility towards implementing solutions for

societal problems. What will their role be in the

future? How will these gaps develop?


5.0 Defining Knowledge Democracy: an introduction

Keynote Speaker dr. Silvio Funtowicz, Scientific Officer, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Italy

Co-referent prof. Roeland J. in ‘t Veld, Chair of the RMNO, the Netherlands

Silvio Funtowicz*: “Science now has to cope with irreducible uncertainties in knowledge and

ethics, and complexity, implying the legitimacy of a plurality of perspectives and ways of

knowing. In this way its practice is becoming more akin to the workings of a democratic society,

characterised by extensive participation and tolerance of diversity.There are now many initiatives for

involving wider circles of people in knowledge production and decision-making. In these processes, the

maintenance of scientific quality (a core commitment of post-normal science) depends on an open

dialogue between all those involved. This dialogue takes place in an extended peer community, consisting

not merely of persons with some form or other of institutional accreditation, but rather of all those with a

desire to participate in the resolution of the relevant issues. Since this context of science is one involving

policy and action, we might see this extension of peer communities as analogous to earlier extensions of

the franchise in other fields, such as women’s suffrage and trade union rights.”

*The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent necessarily those of the European Commission

Them

e 5:

Defi

ning

Kno

wle

dge

Dem

ocra

cy

| Pl

enar

y se

ssio

n

26Tu

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

5th

Firs

t Im

pres

sion

s |

Plen

ary

sess

ion

0.0

Rudy Rabbinge is chair of several national and

international organisations. He is deputy

chairman of the Commission for Environmental

Assessment (MER), the Netherlands, chair of the

Science Council of the Consultative Group on

International Agricultural Research (CGIAR, Italy/

USA), he is chair of the Board Earth and Life

Sciences (ALW) of the Organization for Scientific

Research (NWO), the Netherlands, chair of the

Council of Earth and Life Sciences of the Royal

Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

(KNAW) and other organisations. He is also

Professor in Sustainable Development and Food

Security at Wageningen University and Research

Centre and Advisor to the Executive Board of this

university. Rudy Rabbinge is member of

numerous national and international organisa-

tions, such as the Executive Committee of the

Asia Rice Foundation, Thailand, the International

Advisory Board of TransForum Agro & Groen, the

Netherlands, the Executive Board of the Centre for

World Food Studies, the Scientific Programme

Indonesia-the Netherlands (SPIN) and the

Supervisory Committee of the National Institute

for Public Health and Environment (RIVM), the

Netherlands.

He has several distinctions to his name, among

which the Knight in the Order of the Netherlands

Lion, the Knight in the Order of Oranje-Nassau

and Honorary Professor of the Chinese Academy

of Agricultural Sciences. He is also Board Member

of the Directors Alliance for a Green Revolution in

Africa.

Rudy Rabbinge studied biology and crop

protection at the Wageningen University and

Research Centre. He conducted his PhD in

agricultural and environmental sciences at the

same university. He has written over 200

scientific publications (international A-refereed

journals), 5 text books, more than 250 other

publications, and reports.


First impressions by the chair of the first conference day

prof. ir. Rudy Rabbinge, Advisor Executive Board of Wageningen University and Research


14.55 - 15.15 COFFEE BREAK AND WALK TO KAMERLINGH ONNES BUILDING


in different fields without full background innformation. Every interested layman should be in a


27

Tues

da

y, A

ug

ust

25

th

17.15 - 17.30 WALK TO ACADEMY BUILDING

1.1

How is future research being (ab)used currently,

and what trends can we forecast? What are the

strengths and major win-win scenarios of future

research? What are the threats and to which

extent do the weaknesses of future research

dominate its use? How does this affect govern-

ment and the public domain? Where do we see

opportunities and how can these be addressed?

In this session the keynote speaker and

co-referent of the plenary meeting will answer

questions about their introductions, and discuss

experiences with other panel speakers.

In addition panel speakers will give their views,

based on the wide range of their experiences.

August 25th 15.15 - 17.15 Kamerlingh Onnes Building

1.1 Problems and Opportunities

Chair prof. Herman Eijsackers, Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board, Wageningen University and Research Centre and Chief Scientific Officer at the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV), the Netherlands

Panel prof. Marjolein van Asselt, Maastricht University and Council Member of the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands

dr. Ewald Breunesse, Manager Energy Transitions, Shell Netherlands, the Netherlands

dr. Patrick van der Duin, Assistant Professor, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands

prof. Julie Thompson Klein, Wayne State University, USA

Herman Eijsackers: “It is not so much the problem ‘that everybody knows everything’, yet too

many people thínk to know everything. Therefore, “knowledge assessment” i.e. the valuation of

information, is going to be a fundamental activity in the following years, regardless for which

scientific, political or social group this is intended.”

Them

e 1:

Kno

wle

dge

& F

utur

e R

esea

rch

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

28Tu

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

5th

Them

e 2:

Sta

te o

f the

Art

in T

rans

disc

iplin

ary

Res

earc

h |

Para

llel s

essi

on2.

1

This session deals with a broad range of topics,

setting the stage for more in-depth discussion in

subsequent sessions. How and why did transdis-

ciplinary research emerge? How did it develop

over the past decades? And where are we now with

respect to the epistemological, methodological

and organisational challenges it raises? Do we

have proof of concept with respect to transdisci-

plinary research? What are issues for future

research?




experiences with other panel speakers.


from the wide range of their experience, on the

issues of the morning.


2.1 Transdisciplinary Research: Its Possibilities and Limitations

Chair dr. Jacqueline Broerse, Head of Science Communication, Athena Institute at VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Panel prof. Joske Bunders, Director, Athena Institute at VU University Amsterdam and Council Member of the RMNO, the Netherlands

dr. Thomas Jahn, Senior Scientist, Co-founder and Executive Director, Institute for Social Ecological Research (ISOE), Germany

prof. Chris Peterson, Michigan State University Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources, USA

prof. Roland Scholz, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zürich), Switzerland


Chris Peterson: “As the knowledge needed to enhance performance moves from explicit to

tacit to new, the supply chain governance structure must move from exchange governance to

learning governance to transformational governance.”

29

Tues

da

y, A

ug

ust

25

th3.

1




experiences with the audience.

Transdisciplinary knowledge development is

useful when the nature of a problem is such, that

it may only be adequately dealt with through a)

crossing disciplinary boundaries and b) inte-

grating formal and “real life” knowledge. In many

cases, this reflects a discrepancy between

contemporary problems and formal disciplinary

knowledge as this has historically co-evolved with

previous types of problems. Understanding the

rationale for transdisciplinary research in this

particular way sheds additional light on the issue.


3.1 Boundary Work and Transition Management

Chair prof. Robert Hoppe, University of Twente, the Netherlands

Panel dr. Christian Pohl, Co-Director of transdisciplinarity-net and Lecturer and Senior Researcher at the Swiss Academy of Arts and Sciences, Switzerland

prof. John Grin, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Robert Hoppe: “We only imperfectly understand the world’s complexity, yet want to shape

it to our ideals. This condemns us to permanent trial-and-error learning. The competition of

experiments creates myriads of problems that need to be made governable somehow, in order

for the trials not to result in self-destructive errors. Good governance of problems entails democracy,

which is, like almost everything else we do, a form of cooperation between laymen and experts. Therefore,

at first sight, ‘knowledge democracy’ looks like an oxymoron. But, on some reflection, it is not! The notion

expresses the never-ending challenge to maximise the intelligence of democracy by fostering mutually

creative links between the wisdom of the crowds and innovative expert knowledge in intelligent, fast, and

sustainable trial-and-error learning.”

Them

e 3:

Pra

ctic

al A

ppro

ache

s to

Bou

ndar

y W

ork

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion


30Tu

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

5th

4.1

What do we know about the roles of ‘old’ and

‘new’ media, and about the interaction between

them? What are the challenges of the changes in

the media landscape for knowledge producers and

users: for scientists and for policy makers? Will

the new media in itself provide a new instrument

for processes of democratic decision making?




experiences with panel speakers.





4.1 Old and New Media living apart Together?

Co-hosted by the Virtual Knowledge Studio

Chair prof. Franciska de Jong, University of Twente, Managing Director, Virtual Knowledge Studio at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and Member of the Governing Board of the Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands

Panel David Clements MPA, Vice President, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Canada

dr. Jill Harrison, Post-doctoral Fellow, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA

dr. Caroline Nevejan, Independent Researcher & Designer and Visiting Fellow at VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands

prof. John Ryan, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA


David Clements: “Knowledge Democracy embodies the hope of progress on the problem of

uncertainty of medical care. While healthcare professionals will always be the primary holders

of the specialised information needed to deliver high-quality care, “democratising knowledge”

requires acceptance of the important knowledge and expertise held by policymakers and the public as well.”

Them

e 4:

Med

ia, P

olit

ics

and

Kno

wle

dge

Flow

|

Para

llel s

essi

on

31

Tues

da

y, A

ug

ust

25

thTh

eme

4: M

edia

, Pol

itic

s an

d K

now

ledg

e Fl

ow

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion


4.2

On the Internet, there is an explosion of knowl-

edge networks and web communities around

social, health or environmental issues. In these

networks individuals share practical knowledge,

ideas, tools and/or social contacts that are

important for the quality of their work or personal

life. Initiatives are mostly started by professionals

or civilians and sometimes by scientists. More

cooperation between these actors is needed to

ensure long term succes for these networks and

communities. This a real challenge because

different values, visions, interests and languages

are involved. What makes a knowledge network

successful?

In this session, new and best practices will be

presented. Forms and roles to share and organise

knowledge will be discussed. The main question

is: who is or what is the role of the facilitator?

For every participant there will be a simple Self

Test which helps to reflect on how to organise and

share knowledge in networks and communities.


4.2 Knowledge Sharing: Who is the Facilitator?

Chair drs. Anja van der Aa, Entrepreneur, Platform Chains and Networks, the Netherlands

Panel drs. Arina Angerman, Director, Network Social Initiatives (NSI) Province South-Holland, the Netherlands

Heleen Bouwmans, Member of the Steering Group Chain Alliance and Manager at Education Advisory Group The ABC, the Netherlands

drs. Jos de Groen, Senior Advisor Knowledge Directorate, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), the Netherlands

drs. Gert de Haan, Facilitator, Knowledge Network The Black Hole, the Netherlands

dr. Henk Nies, Chief Executive Officer, Vilans, the Netherlands

Anja van der Aa: “Knowledge democracy is access to knowledge for every individual and

organising a open forum for knowledge sharing. Knowledge democracy supports personal and

professional problem-solving and decision making with IT facilities. The IT facilities are owned or

controlled by a Third Trusted Party.”

32Tu

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

5th

Them

e 5:

Defi

ning

Kno

wle

dge

Dem

ocra

cy

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

5.1

As a knowledge economy aimed at an increasing

intensity of knowledge in production, the concept

of knowledge democracy concerns issues that

relate to the intensification of knowledge in

politics. Bottlenecks that threaten optimal

trajectories between the realm of politics and

policy-making are: the political agenda may not

correspond with the existing policy theories that

are embraced by the top civil servants within the

ministries, the translation of policy questions into

knowledge demand may prove to be extremely

difficult, inconvenient newly produced knowledge

will probably not be applied in policy-making,

research will produce knowledge in the future but

the need is urgent now, so there is a general

problem of timeliness. How to align?

How do supervisors and regulators deal with

citizens’ science? A number of questions concern

the functioning of the democratic institutions

themselves as far as the application of knowledge

is involved. How do parliaments not only use

knowledge but also produce knowledge? How do

parliaments deal with their dependence on

information from ministries?




experiences with panel speakers.





5.1 Policy Experimentation & Academic Accountability

Co-hosted by Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands

Chair prof. Wim van de Donk, Chair, Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands

Panel dr. Arwin van Buuren, Assistant Professor, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

dr. Silvio Funtowicz, Scientific Officer, Institute for the Protection and Security of Citizen (IPSC) at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Italy

Stella van Rijn MBA, PhD Researcher, Nyenrode Business University, The Netherlands

prof. Katrien Termeer, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

prof. Roeland J. in ’t Veld, Chair, RMNO, the Netherlands

prof. Dirk J. Wolfson, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Wim van de Donk: “Democracy, essentially, is about learning. Learning demands variety.

Variety breeds sustainable wisdom.”


33

Tues

da

y, A

ug

ust

25

th5.

2

From the moment sociology took itself seriously,

its practitioners have, roughly speaking, travelled

two different roads. The first started out of

pessimism about the possibility of an unmediated

representation. The second began with optimism

about the possibility of finding universal laws.

They led to respectively micro and macrosociolo-

gies. Some critics however claim that both led to

nothing. Be as it may, a crisis in sociology is felt

repetitively. Nowadays the problem of representa-

tion is still alive, not only in sociology but in

democracy as well.

There is an analogy between social sciences and

democracy. Both have a habit of using closed

questionnaires on which either citizen or

respondent can chose only one alternative. But in

sociology, the difference between quantitative

and qualitative methods is decreasing, offering

possibilities to engage large amounts of

participants in research with the same depth

earlier reserved for small scale analysis. Does this

offer new perspectives for democracy as well?

In this session, we discuss the outlines of a

mesosociology. The ‘public’, as an in-between unit

of analysis, is a key concept. Methods discussed

are based on narrative research and transdiscipli-

nary production of meaning. Can they make the

research process democratic and do their

outcomes offer opportunities for social and

political change?


5.2 Researching Publics

Chair dr. Floor Basten, Owner and Researcher, OrléoN, the Netherlands

Panel drs. Lex de Boer, Director of the Steering Committee for Experiments in Public Housing (SEV), the Netherlands

drs. Albert Cath, Owner, Narratio Knowledge and Advice and PhD Researcher at the University for Humanistic, the Netherlands

dr. Jurgen van der Heijden, Senior Consultant Sustainability, AT Osborne Consultants and Managers, the Netherlands

drs. Maurits Kreijveld, Project Manager, Study Centre for Technology Trends (STT), the Netherlands

dr. Noortje Marres, Research Fellow, University of Oxford, UK

drs. Anne-Marie Poorthuis, Director, Contemporary Connections Foundation for Network Development (Stichting Eigentijdse Verbindingen), the Netherlands

drs. Erik Schrijvers, Scientific Officer, Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands

Floor Basten: “Dutch society is highly educated and the Dutch government aims at creating a

knowledge society. Multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research are becoming increasingly

popular and more and more – also fundamental – research takes place outside the context of

universities. Outcomes of these types of research sometimes find their way to the policy arena, but exit

easily under the government monopoly in policy relevance. In a knowledge democracy, a government

does not focus solely on knowledge outcomes of universities and other state-financed institutes, but also

pays attention to broader knowledge producing publics.”

Them

e 5:

Defi

ning

Kno

wle

dge

Dem

ocra

cy

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

34Tu

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

5th

Spee

ch

| Pl

enar

y se

ssio

n Jacqueline Cramer went on after her secondary

education to the University of Arkansas (USA),

where she studied philosophy from 1969 to 1970.

She subsequently studied biology at the

University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

graduating in 1976. In 1987 she obtained her

doctorate in social sciences at the same

university with a thesis on Missio-orientation in

ecology: the case of Dutch freshwater ecology.

Jacqueline Cramer was a lecturer at the University

of Amsterdam from 1976 to 1989, first in the

Biology and Society Department and then in the

Dynamics of Science teaching and research unit.

From 1989 to 1995 she was senior researcher at

the Centre for Technology and Policy Studies of

the Netherlands Organisation for Applied

Scientific Research (STB-TNO). From 1990 to

1996 she was also professor of Environmental

Science at the University of Amsterdam, followed

by three years as professor of environmental

management at the University of Tilburg, the

Netherlands.

In 1999 she started working as a freelance

environmental consultant. She was also professor

of Environmental Management in organisations

at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, the

Netherlands from 1999 to 2005, and until 2007,

professor of Sustainable Enterprise at Copernicus

Institute of the University of Utrecht, the

Netherlands.

Jacqueline Cramer was a crown-appointed

member of the Social and Economic Council (SER),

the Netherlands. She has also been a member of

the Supervisory Board of the World Wide Fund for

Nature (WWF), the University of Maastricht and

Arnhem-Nijmegen University, the Council for

Transport, Public Works and Water Management,

council member of the RMNO and the supervisory

Committee of the National Institute of Public

Health and the Environment (RIVM) and chair of

the Residents and Sustainable Construction

Forum, the Netherlands. She has been a member

of the Supervisory Boards of a number of

organisations, including Shell Netherlands, ASN

Bank, the Netherlands and the Development

Finance Company (FMO), the Netherlands.

On 22 February 2007 Jacqueline Cramer was

appointed Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning

and the Environment (VROM) in the fourth

government of the Prime Minister Balkenende.


Speech

Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM)

dr. Jacqueline Cramer, Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, the Netherlands

17.50 - 19.00 RECEPTION @ THE FORMER UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

19.00 - 22.00 DINNER @ THE FORMER UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

35

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

th

In 1882, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes (then 29 years

old) was appointed in Leiden as professor of

experimental physics. He was not only a brilliant

scientist, but also a thorough research manager.

On his initiative, the dusty laboratory on the

canal was transformed into one of the most

advanced research laboratories in the world. He

created a new laboratory-style in which research

and education were intertwined.

Kamerlingh Onnes was in 1908 the first to

succeed in liquifying helium gas on the lowest

critical temperature, for which he received the

Nobel Prize in 1913.


Registration

Reg

istr

atio

n To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

36W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

Wra

p-up

of t

he fi

rst

conf

eren

ce d

ay

| Pl

enar

y se

ssio

n

Roeland in ’t Veld is Chair of the Advisory Council

for Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and the

Environment (RMNO). He is professor at the Open

University of the Netherlands, professor of Good

Governance at the University of the Netherlands

Antilles. Furthermore, he is a member of the

Supervisory Board of Netherlands Knowledge

Country and Commissioner for IBM The

Netherlands, HSK Group and President

Commissioner of Prorail. Roeland in ’t Veld has

editorial responsibility for a wide range of

publications, including works on process

management and the Handbook on ‘Corporate

Governance’.

In the past Roeland in ’t Veld has held positions

such as Director General for Higher Education and

Scientific Research at the Ministry of Education,

Culture and Science, Secretary of State for

Education and Science and Chair of the

Supervisory Board of the IB Group. He was also

Dean of the Netherlands School for Public

Administration (NSOB) and Rector of SIOO, the

Interuniversity Centre for Development in the field

of Organisation and Change Management.


Wrap-up of the first conference day

prof. Roeland J. in ‘t Veld, Chair, RMNO, the Netherlands

Roeland in ‘t Veld: “Speaking truth to power is complicated considerably by the tensions

between politics, science and media. Does it take three to tango in this problematique?”

37

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

th

Koos van der Steenhoven became Permanent

Secretary of the Ministry of Education, Culture

and Science in 2003. While he was still studying

political science at the VU University in

Amsterdam, he already began his career in

education. After two years of teaching civics to

pre-university pupils in The Hague, he gave in to

the attraction of politics and became personal

assistant to several Members of Parliament for

the Christian-Democratic Party. In 1981 he

became political assistant to Culture and Welfare

State Secretary, later Minister, De Boer as well as

political assistant to Culture, Welfare and Health

Minister Brinkman.

In 1985 he became Director for Radio, Television

and Press at the then Ministry of Culture, Welfare

and Health. In 1987 he became Deputy

Permanent Secretary of the same Ministry and he

remained at this post till 1992. Before being

appointed, in 2003, to his current post as

Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education,

Culture and Science, he worked outside of politics

and government for a period of 10 years. During

this period he was Director for Harbour Innovation

at the Municipal Port Company of Rotterdam and

Director of the expert centre “Het Expertise

Centrum” (HEC) in The Hague.


Introduction by the chair of the second conference day

drs. Koos van der Steenhoven, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), the Netherlands

Intr

oduc

tion

by

the

chai

r of

the

sec

ond

conf

eren

ce d

ay

| Pl

enar

y se

ssio

n

38W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

Tran

sdis

cipl

inar

y Sc

hola

rshi

p |

Plen

ary

sess

ion

Governments, businesses, and societal organisa-

tions are faced with a dizzying array of “wicked

problems,” characterised by: no definitive problem

formulation; no true or false solution, but only

better or worse outcomes; stakeholders with

radically different frames of reference.

Sustainability, terrorism, and global warming are

but a few of the most critical and most pressing.

Knowledge institutions are expected by these

other partners to assist in the creation and

application of knowledge to manage these wicked

problems. Yet traditional disciplinary scholarship

has neither the scope nor active engagement with

the world of practice to be effective with such

problems. Progress in managing wicked problems

demands both having impact on the diverse

elements and system components of the problem,

and engaging the critical stakeholders deeply

involved with the problem (who can block as well

as enable action). The co-creation of new

knowledge among the stakeholders thus becomes

essential to progress. New knowledge (from new

paradigms) holds the potential to convert

seemingly unyielding tradeoffs into breakthrough

innovations where the tradeoffs can become

complements. The keys to the process include (1)

knowledge democracy—the engagement of the

explicit and tacit knowledge of all stakeholders

(scholars, practitioners and citizens) with their

willingness to create new knowledge together, and

(2) transdisciplinary scholarship that brings the

best knowledge and methods from all the

disciplines relevant to the problem, and generates

new knowledge and methods through the

democratic process. Transdisciplinary scholarship

can thus play a critical role in creating new

knowledge and transforming it into engaged

action.


Transdisciplinary Scholarship


Chris Peterson: “As the knowledge needed to enhance performance moves from explicit to

tacit to new, the supply chain governance structure must move from exchange governance to

learning governance to transformational governance.”

39

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

th

David Stanners will introduce a “Framework for

Evaluating Complex Scientific Evidence”, developed

by the European Environment Agency (EEA). The

framework is based upon a simplified list of

“criteria” for moving from association to

causation. It takes into account the main

limitations of the criteria-based approach to

evidence evaluation, and uses a simplified “levels

of proof “ continuum, based on the IPCC approach

to climate change evidence. The framework may

help different stakeholders to arrive at some

provisional and “negotiated” or “shared truths”

regarding complex policy issues.”


Evaluating Evidence

dr. David Stanners, Head of International Cooperation at the European Environment Agency, Denmark

10.45 - 11.15 COFFEE BREAK @ KAMERLINGH ONNES BUILDING

Eval

uati

ng E

vide

nce

| Pl

enar

y se

ssio

n

40W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

1.2

Them

e 1:

Kno

wle

dge

& F

utur

e R

esea

rch

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

Horizon Scanning is a method for getting an

overview of possible future developments that are

relevant for strategic policy-making.For the

Horizon Scanning project in the Netherlands,

information was gathered about possible future

developments in leading domains, a number of

essays highlight the views on future develop-

ments. The main question is, to what extent does

horizon scanning provide useful information for

scientists, policy-makers and society at large?

What are the experiences with horizon scanning

or similar methods in other countries? How is this

methodology being linked to future users and to

what point are they actually able to use the

results in their work? In other words, to which

extent is horizon scanning useful for public and

private policy makers? Does a horizon scan that is

not interactive or deliberative in the process,

make sense?


1.2 Scanning the Horizon

Co-hosted by Study Centre for Technology Trends (STT), the Netherlands

Chair ir. Hans van der Veen, Director, Study Centre for Technology Trends (STT), the Netherlands

Panel Anders Jacobi, Project Manager, Danish Board of Technology, Denmark

prof. Paul Rademaker, Founder and Chair, Network for Future Research (NTV), the Netherlands

Alun Rhydderch, Project Manager, Foresight Horizon Scanning Centre, Government Office for Science, UK

prof. Wim de Ridder, Chair, Faculty Management of Governance, University of Twente, the Netherlands

drs. Victor van Rij, Senior Advisor, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), the Netherlands

Hans van der Veen: “Knowledge democracy can lead to an open space for discussions

between governement and people.”

13.00 - 14.15 LUNCH @ KAMERLINGH ONNES BUILDING

41

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

th2.

2

When landscapes, seen as socio-ecological

systems, are the outcome of the interplay

between natural and human processes. Human

interventions alter the physical landscape. These

interventions are influenced by value perceptions

about the ecological, social and economical

returns. Regional projects are also driven and

sometimes altered by knowledge of global

systems, for example global warming or the

financial crisis. The processes that shape regional

projects inevitably involve multiple actors and in

democracies they can therefore best be described

as collaborative planning and design processes.

This is sometimes in stark contrast to the abstract

technical knowledge that forms input for these

processes.

This symposium explores the role of knowledge in

the processes that shape regional landscapes. To

attain this goal the following questions will be

answered:

· how does scientific knowledge facilitate the

collaborative decision process and assist in

answering the why, how and where to change

questions?

· what makes knowledge acceptable, credible

and relevant to local actors?

· how does the knowledge structure affect the

course of the collaborative process? For

example, with respect to water systems, how is

knowledge about the relationship between the

physical structure of the water system and its

functioning used in decisions about adapting

the water system to climate change

· how are knowledge of economic, social and

environmental systems integrated?


2.2 Creating the Landscape: Scientific Knowledge in Regional Case Studies

Co-hosted by Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

Chair prof. Paul Opdam, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

Panel drs. Gerhard Dekker, Head of Research & Statistics Department, City Almere, the Netherlands

drs. Shantala Morlans, Antropologist, College of Agronomy of Clermont Ferrand (Enitac) and Member of Research Unit UMR Métafort, France

dr. Eveline Steingröver, Senior Researcher, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

drs. Lambert Verheijen, Dikereef, Aa and Maas Water Board, the Netherlands

Paul Opdam: “Knowledge democracy describes the principle that generic scientific knowledge

is made available to decision makers and stakeholders involved in change processes, and

combined with case-specific and local knowledge provided by the actors involved. This results in

knowledge creation during which the scientific knowledge gains in credibility, saliency and legitimacy to

its users.”

Them

e 2:

Sta

te o

f the

Art

in T

rans

disc

iplin

ary

Res

earc

h |

Para

llel s

essi

on


42W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

2.3

Transdisciplinary research is said to democratise

knowledge production as it tries to (re-)build

relations between science and society by means

of stakeholder involvement. Typically one can

distinguish two epistemological paths: one to

gain transformation strategies for the societal

problem at hand and the other to cope with the

methodological challenges of integrating different

disciplinary approaches. In this session two

propositions are for development strategies. A

model in which the societal process of production

of knowledge for sustainable development is

described as a transdisciplinary research process

will be presented. On this basis a concretisation of

the model is discussed which shows how an

explicit and reflexive understanding of transdisci-

plinarity can help cope with issues such as the

integration of knowledge and people, the

formulation of expectations and the establish-

ment of quality criteria. Next a ‘methodology of

the evidential’ will be presented. Based on the

epistemological starting points of different

scientific methodologies, a methodology to

research, but moreover to support organisational

development is presented.

What implications do these development

strategies and new ways of knowledge production

and problem solving have for higher education?

How do we train our future leaders? What kind of

education do we need to provide for students to

become competent in knowledge integration and

boundary work? How can they learn to contribute

to organisational and societal development for

sustainable development?


2.3 Transdisciplinary Research: Its Contribution to Problem Solving and the Consequences for Higher Education

Chair prof. Joske Bunders, Director, Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Council Member of the RMNO, the Netherlands

Panel dr. ir. Marcel van Gogh, Education Developer and Lecturer, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands

mr. Ben Verleg, Top Advisor, City of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

dr. Florian Keil, Senior Scientist and Project Coordinator, Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), Germany

drs. Barbara Regeer, Assistant Professor, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands

dr. Coyan Tromp,Curriculum Developer and Lecturer, Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Ben Verleg: “We need dialogue and reflection for using knowledge effectively. It just doesn’t

make sense to keep your knowledge for yourself. Knowledge democracy is sensemaking in

democratic organisations.”


Them

e 2:

Sta

te o

f the

Art

in T

rans

disc

iplin

ary

Res

earc

h |

Para

llel s

essi

on

43

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

thTh

eme

3: P

ract

ical

App

roac

hes

to B

ound

ary

Wor

k |

Para

llel s

essi

on3.

2

Citizen participation methodology has proven

itself in terms of its ability to carry different kinds

of knowledge, values, interests, and policy

assessments into decision-making. Although this

methodology is free from built-in dilemmas, need

for pragmatism and problems to be solved, there

is a general consensus that the bottom line is

positive. At the national level numerous citizen

consultations have been executed and at the

trans-national level, an increasing number of

experiments are being carried out. However, it is

striking that even with a two-decade record of

relative success, citizen participation based policy

advice must be characterised as a discipline of

one-off events.

Why is that? What would we gain from having

citizen participation mainstreamed? What risks

would it involve? What would be the restrictions

on mainstreaming citizen participation – geog-

raphy, economy, political will and courage,

ideological resistance…?

This session embraces three presentations,

followed by a triangle talk, an open discussion

and a wall of points: everybody can make a point

or question and put it on the wall – the wall will be

transcribed and reported in the workshop paper.


3.2 Mainstreaming Citizen Participation

Co-hosted by the Danish Board of Technology, Denmark

Chair dr. Lars Klüver, Director, Danish Board of Technology, Denmark

Panel dr. Elie Faroult, Scientific Officer, European Commission, Belgium

prof. Robert Hoppe, University of Twente, the Netherlands

dr. Tore Tennøe, Director, Norwegian Board of Technology, Norway

Lars Klüver: “Knowledge democracy is about constructive inclusion of diversity; it must

include procedures for participation that go far beyond voting. The methods for a knowledge

democracy are in place – it is the intention we need.”


44W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

4.3

How are politics, business and media dealing with

all the different knowledge flows? This session

focuses on the interpretation of policy-relevant

knowledge by the media. Who has the lead? Who

controls selection and when does selection

become manipulation? What can go wrong when

translating scientific knowledge into articles,

quotes, and (sound)bites for the general public,

and how does this influence democratic decision

making?


4.3 Lost in Translation

Cohosted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV), the Netherlands

Chair prof. ir. Klaas van Egmond, Utrecht University, the Netherlands

Panel Hans van Brussel, Head of Communications, CBS Statistics, the Netherlands

dr. Janneke Hoekstra, Director Knowledge Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV), the Netherlands

Hanns-J. Neubert, President, European Science Journalists Organisation (EUSJA), France

Hans Wansink, Commentator of newspaper De Volkskrant, the Netherlands

Janneke Hoekstra: “Knowledge democracy: everybody has access to abundant information

and adds to it. The media present facts and figures in strong colours. The political and social

debate follow.”

Hanns-J. Neubert: “In times of information overflow it is most important that all people are

put into the position to gain and acquire knowledge in learning how to handle and integrate

informational bits and pieces. However, knowledge is not necessarily a ticket for the ability to

contribute to democratic processes, it can even foster authoritarian developments. Knowledge has to

exceed its own borders and lead to literacy – an improper translation of the German term “Bildung” – of

all people, which effectuates passion, sympathy, tolerance and interest, which are prerequisites of real

democracy.”

Them

e 4:

Med

ia, P

olit

ics

and

Kno

wle

dge

Flow

|

Para

llel s

essi

on


45

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

th

Scott Douglas: “Knowledge democracy can easily deteriorate into a soap opera transmitting

nothing but gossip. It will require effective institutions to put the information to work without

stifling the knowledge flow.”

Them

e 4:

Med

ia, P

olit

ics

and

Kno

wle

dge

Flow

|

Para

llel s

essi

on4.

4

The Internet undoubtedly changed the world.

Never before has it been so easy to obtain, share

and use a vast amount of knowledge. Rapidly

producing information overloads and clear

knowledge underloads. Furthermore the Internet

created the knowledge- and network society in

which we now live. In this society new rules for

knowledge apply. The youngest generation

(‘screenagers’) play a big part in this changing

world of knowledge.

What is the impact of all of these changes for

science and politics, both knowledge sensitive

areas? Is it already impossible to secure the use of

valid and valuable knowledge? How does

networking – by means of the Internet – affect

knowledge sharing? What are the risks for the

– lack of – quality of knowledge? How does

knowledge sharing affect science? Are there

tensions between generations in the way they use

knowledge?


4.4 Network Knowledge Society - Effects for Science & Politics

Chair drs. Marinka Voorhout, Director Academy and Principal Consultant, KBenP, the Netherlands

Panel dr. Chris Aalberts, Lecturer, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

dr. Aart Bontekoning, cmc, Organisational Psychologist, MAGMA, the Netherlands

Scott Douglas MPhil, Consultant, Berenschot, the Netherlands and PhD Student at the University of Oxford, UK

prof. Felix Janszen, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

drs. Maurits Kreijveld, Project Manager, Study Centre for Technology Trends (STT), the Netherlands

drs. ir. Nic Moens, Manager and Lead Facilitator, International Institute for Communication and Development, the Netherlands


46W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

5.3

To what extent is scientific knowledge used in the

parliament when it comes to political formation of

judgements? Does political decision-making take

place on the basis of new scientific insights? Or

are they two separate worlds? Do Members of

Parliament have the time to consult studies and

articles? Do Members of Parliament speak with

Scientists and -if so- who takes the initiative? Or

do we speak of a distant relation in which

Members of Parliament are tempted to fall into

the habit of ‘selective shopping’ in scientific

reports?

In addition, the participants reflect on the

similarities and differences between processes of

scientific truth finding and political truth finding.

What exactly are the differences between

researches of the House of Representatives and

researches of Academic Project Groups when

consulting on the same topic?


5.3 Production and Use of Knowledge in the Political Realm

Co-hosted by the Institute for Social Innovation (IMI), the Netherlands

Chair mr. Guido Enthoven, Director, Institute for Social Innovation, the Netherlands

Panel drs. Paul Kalma, Member of Parliament, House of Representatives, the Netherlands

Hans Licht cmc, Director and Senior Management Consultant, Org-Link and Scholar on the Swedish Parliamentary System, Sweden


drs. Roos Vermeij, Member of Parliament, House of Representatives, the Netherlands

dr. Mei Li Vos, Member of Parliament, House of Representatives, the Netherlands


Guido Enthoven: “The power of democracy is to learn; to move with more and better ideas

slowly but surely towards ‘the best of all possible worlds.”

Them

e 5:

Defi

ning

Kno

wle

dge

Dem

ocra

cy

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

47

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

th

David Laws: “Asking a question is an action, which can be reflected upon morally and ethically,

as well as practically. Knowledge democracy is the terrain where these forms of reflection

cannot be kept apart or done without. It generates an imperative for such reflection in the

practices through which we take action on the substantive problems, concerns, and aspirations that

constitute this terrain.”

Them

e 5:

Defi

ning

Kno

wle

dge

Dem

ocra

cy

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

5.4

Efforts to develop and implement policy in

science-intensive arenas regularly bring citizens

and scientists together in negotiations over

controversial questions about action. Familiar

moorings in role definitions like expert and

laymen or citizen are often destabilised by the

controversy and basic points of orientation, like

the definition of a stakeholder. Consultation in

such settings is unlikely to be a straightforward

process, in which turning to the facts resolves the

controversy, but instead a (potentially)

generative episode in which the grounding and

limits of knowledge claims, the manner in which

implications for action are drawn, and the

moral-political significance of features like risk

and uncertainty are challenged.

In the best of circumstances, such contestation

has prompted reflection by both scientists and

citizens on their respective roles and responsibili-

ties as stakeholders and provided hints about

what it would mean to democratise the boundary

between the practices of science and citizenship.

The goal of this session is to reflect on such

institutional arrangements as designs for relating

scientists and citizens in negotiations over policy

action. The speakers will present institutions as

designs and compare how these arrangements

shape the roles that are available to scientists

and citizens, the way these roles are related to

each other and to raise questions about what

action to take, and the opportunities they provide

to dispute and rework these critical features of

policy practice. The speakers will present case

studies of science-intensive policy practice from

Europe and the U.S. and, in discussion with one

another, analyse the dynamics that shape

experiments with new designs for relating

scientists and citizens as stakeholders in policy

action and frame an agenda for research into the

interaction between scientific and policy practice.


5.4 Scientists as Citizens: Citizens as Scientists

Co-hosted by the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Chair dr. David Laws, Senior Lecturer, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Panel dr. Olivier Barreteau, Senior Water Scientist, Cemagre, France and Scholar in Residence, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

drs. Mike Duijn, Senior Researcher, TNO Built Environment and GeoSciences, the Netherlands

dr. Herman Karl, Co-Director, MIT-USGS Science Impact Collaborative of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

dr. ir. Laurens Klerkx, Assistant Professor, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

48W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

Them

e 5:

Defi

ning

Kno

wle

dge

Dem

ocra

cy

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

5.5

It is often conjectured that the political domain

hardly meets the ideal conditions for a ‘learner

friendly environment’. The collective nature of

politics, short time horizons, institutional density

of policymaking, power asymmetries, and the

complexity and opacity of politics all present

serious problems for government and policy

learning. Power considerations and group interest

mobilisation, manipulating intelligence and

information in ways that lend them political

advantage, effectively drive out the dimension

“puzzling” in the policy process. In the workshop

on Policy Experimentation, Social Learning and

Political Accountability we take issue with the

“blinkered” mainstream view of politics of

information and ideas as merely resources to

bolster standing power and interest positions.

Elections are the mechanisms that enforce that

responsiveness. Democratic leaders have a strong

motive to solve societal problems before they

fester and grow. As politics embodies strife over

ideas and best courses of action, some form of

evaluation or learning is always present.

Moreover, policy actors engaged in profound

reform have to convince other political actors and

the public of the plausibility and legitimacy of the

ideas through argument and persuasion. What

could be a preferred line of inquiry is to analyse

the inherent connections between “powering” and

“puzzling” in the policy process, and to critically

recognize how problem-situations are occasioned

by the inability of established policy repertoires

to meet established expectations, under the new

social, political and economic conditions. This

minimally shows how policy actors update their

normative and cognitive orientations in the face

of new challenges. In this workshop we touch on

two institutional dimension which shape

processes of policy learning. These concern, on

the one hand, dilemmas of (horizontal) policy

experimentation in the shadow of (vertical)

political accountability. Can we think of

‘framework’ political rules for enabling effective

policy experimentation? The second dimension

concerns the wider institutional conditions for

fostering policy learning, such as societal changes

in prevailing normative and cognitive orienta-

tions. Examples are taken from the recent

experience of US and EU welfare policy and social

services.


5.5 Policy Experimentation, Social Learning, and Political Accountability

Co-hosted by the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands

prof. Anton Hemerijck, Director of the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands

prof. Charles Sabel, Columbia University, USA


49

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

thTh

eme

1: K

now

ledg

e &

Fut

ure

Res

earc

h |

Para

llel s

essi

on1.

3

(Re)new(ed) insight in the future is apparent from

the increase in future studies. This trend raises

questions about the significance of future studies

for robust government policy. How are foresight

endeavours useful for policy, and how are the

dilemmas surrounding the use of these studies

addressed in practice?

Learn about the experiences within countries and

the perspectives of the people involved in

policy-oriented foresight practices.


1.3 The Future in Policy-making

Co-hosted by the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands

Chair prof. ir. Rudy Rabbinge, Advisor to the Executive Board, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

Panel prof. Marjolein van Asselt, Maastricht University and Council Member at the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), the Netherlands

dr. ir Hedi Poot, Senior Advisor, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (VenW), the Netherlands

dr. Jenny Andersson, Associate Professor, Institute for Futures Studies, Sweden



in different fields without full background innformation. Every interested lay man should be in a


50W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

2.4

Them

e 2:

Sta

te o

f the

Art

in T

rans

disc

iplin

ary

Res

earc

h |

Para

llel s

essi

on

Sustainable development (SD) can be seen as a

societal learning process. In this process,

Sustainable Development Councils help to frame

topics from an sustainability perspective, while

being at the same time “down to earth” and

“telling”. Sustainable Development Councils may

play an important role in awareness-raising and

in stimulating informed policy and societal

debate. They help governments to articulate

sustainable development into society and back

into government. About half of the EU member

states have established national Sustainable

Development Councils.


2.4 Stimulating Informed Debate on Sustainable Development

Co-hosted by the network of European Environment and Sustainable Development Advisory Councils (EEAC), Belgium

Chair prof. Frans Berkhout, Director of the Institute for Environmental Sciences, VU University Amsterdam and Council Member of the RMNO, the Netherlands

Panel dr. Günther Bachmann, Secretary General, German Council for Suistainable Development (RNE), Germany and Former Chair of the EEAC Working Group Sustainable Development, Belgium

dr. Ingeborg Niestroy, Secretary General of the EEAC Network, Belgium and Author of ‘Sustaining Sustainability’, Belgium

ir. Annemieke Nijhof MBA, Director General Water, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (VenW) and Former Advisor to the Prime Minister, the Netherlands

prof. Tim O’Riordan, Emeritus Professor, University of East Anglia, UK and Chair of the EEAC Working Group Sustainable Development, Belgium


Frans Berkhout: “Knowledge confers power and the capacity to act. Knowledge, openly and

widely available and known, is therefore a prerequisite for a strong democracy. But the more

we know, the more we realise we do not know. Some of the greatest challenges in contemporary

global societies relate to the need for democracies to deal with uncertainty, risk and ignorance. For me,

a knowledge democracy therefore has at least two elements: open access of knowledges to capable

citizens; and good institutions for making explicit and handling risk and uncertainty.”

In this session, experiences with stimulating

informed debate on sustainable development will

be shared and the challenges of creating more

and better involvement of civil society, business

and citizens will be discussed.

51

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

thTh

eme

2: S

tate

of t

he A

rt in

Tra

nsdi

scip

linar

y R

esea

rch

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

2.5

Social learning may be an important product of

transdisciplinary research. Transdisciplinary

research is being conducted in the expectation

that it can help to bring about solutions for

societal problems. But the experience of

transdisciplinary research can also help to learn

about ways in which various societal actors can

cooperate effectively. The relationship of

researchers and other actors is an important

issue to discuss in order to enhance learning how

to deal with differing goals and perspectives in a

knowledge society.

In this session the relationship between

transdisciplinary research and social learning will

be addressed with a view on learning for

sustainable development. The issue will be

addressed from three perspectives:

1. the perspective of industry seeking to

cooperate with research institutions to support

a transition to more sustainable products and

production processes

2. the perspective of a knowledge institute

adressing the specifics of the role of science in

informing the governance of sustainability

decisions

3. from the perspective of the possible role of the

consumer.

Additionally, a presentation will be given of a new

cross-cutting program on Knowledge, Learning

and Societal Change (KLSC) that is being

developed under the aegis of the International

Human Dimensions Program of Global

Environmental Change of the UN.


2.5 Transdisciplinary Research as Social Learning

Co-hosted by the Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Chair prof. Josee van Eijndhoven, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Member of the

Academy of Technology and Innovation (AcTI), the Netherlands

Panel John Barzilay BAppSc BSc, Director, Innovation Management & Research Consulting (IMRCons) and Former Research Guidance Manager at Unilever R&D, the Netherlands

ir. Jeroen Borderwijk, Council Member, RMNO and Former Senior Vice President of Unilever, the Netherlands

dr. Daniel Lang, Senior Scientist, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Switzerland

prof. Miranda Schreurs, Director, Environmental Policy Research Centre, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Josee van Eijndhoven: “In the 21st century knowledge is no longer the exclusive domain of

experts and other elites. Knowledge of all people should be brought into deliberations on the

way forward to a more sustainable world.”


52W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

3.3

Them

e 3:

Pra

ctic

al A

ppro

ache

s to

Bou

ndar

y W

ork

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

Policy-making is a process of social construction,

in which the worlds of experts, bureaucrats and

stakeholders are combined and interconnected.

These different parties provide different sources of

knowledge that need adjustment and intercon-

nection. The way in which this connection is

organised explains the legitimacy of the

knowledge used in making policy-decisions. The

proper organisation of this connection in which

both the value of expert knowledge, as well as the

legitimacy of stakeholder knowledge is recog-

nised, is stressed in for example literature on joint

fact-finding, participatory policy analysis,

collaborative dialogues, collaborative analysis,

interactive social science, interactive knowledge,

cogeneration of knowledge, and civic science.


3.3 Collaborative Knowledge Production

Chair prof. Jurian Edelenbos, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands and drs. Nienke van Schie, PhD Student, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Panel prof. Chris Caswill, University of Exeter and University of Oxford, UK

drs. Mike Duijn, Senior Researcher, TNO Built Environment and GeoSciences, the Netherlands

dr. ir. Erik van Slobbe, Senior Consultant Water Management , Arcadis and Lecturer at Wageningen University Research Centre, the Netherlands

drs. Wouter Stolwijk, Director, PIANOo, the Netherlands

drs. ir. Kees Tazelaar, Manager, PIANOo-desk, the Netherlands

dr. Anna Wesselink, Marie Curie Research Fellow, University of Leeds, UK

dr. Alison Ziller, Director, Australia Street Company and Chair of the Social Planning Chapter, Planning Institute, Australia


Jurian Edelenbos: “In a knowledge democracy everyone, i.e. professional, scientific expert,

and citizen, has an equal opportunity to express his or her thoughts, emotions and rationalities

in complex policy processes. Accepted, feasible and legitimate knowledge is produced only in

interaction among professionals, experts, and citizens.”

53

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

th3.

4

Policy makers gradually begin to discover the

merits of interactive policy making for bridging

the gap between government and citizens.

However, interactive policy making is far from

easy, certainly when policy makers sincerely try

to involve citizens and entrepreneurs in the policy

process. Policy research can help policy makers

with research designs that enable fertile

interactions with citizens and entrepreneurs.

What are adequate research designs for the

analysis of a policy problem in cooperation with

(representatives from) target groups, for an ex

ante evaluation of policy proposals with all

involved parties, or for the preparation of the

implementation of a policy measure with the

involved public servants? In many cases classic

methods like a survey, a statistical analysis or

expert interviews will not be sufficient. Policy

researchers already have developed a lot of new

research strategies that starts to influence the

minds of policy makers.

Meanwhile policy researchers are also busy with

the development of new methods for data

gathering, yielding research results with a higher

validity level together with a higher impact level,

which of course supports the quality of interactive

policy making.

In this session we will give four examples of the

application of research methods aimed at

interactive policy making and/or the gathering of

high quality data.


3.4 A New Methodology for Policy Research?

Co-hosted by Panteia, the Netherlands

Chair prof. Peter van Hoesel, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Director of Panteia, the Netherlands

Panel drs. Hans Donkers, Director, Stratus Market Research, the Netherlands

dr. Joris Meijaard, Senior Manager and Manager of the Board, EIM Business & Policy Research, the Netherlands

drs. Frans Pleijster, Account Manager, EIM Business & Policy Research, the Netherlands

dr. Pieter van Teeffelen, Account Manager Research for Policy, Panteia, the Netherlands

Peter van Hoesel: “High level policy research will bridge the gap between citizens and the

government by showing ways to effective as well as attractive public policies.”

Them

e 3:

Pra

ctic

al A

ppro

ache

s to

Bou

ndar

y W

ork

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion


54W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

4.5

Them

e 4:

Med

ia, P

olit

ics

and

Kno

wle

dge

Flow

|

Para

llel s

essi

on Numerous scientific institutions send policy-

related scientific reports to the government and

parliament. They are sometimes considered as

belonging to the category of “regulatory

sciences”. Many reports go relatively unnoticed,

but some, on the other hand, have a big influence

on the political agenda and on policy. The

reputation of the institution and the media often

play a large role here, although this is not always

the case. Sometimes these scientific reports are

used by parties with a view to a specific political

interest. Other parties ignore the report in

question because of other interests or put forward

facts and circumstances that refute or down play

the conclusions and recommendations of the

report. It is seldom - if ever - because of their

scientific nature that reports come as a Deus ex

Machina, and certainly not in an area that is -in

any case- politically controversial.

The media play an important mediating role in

spotting a report and in its scientific, social and

political assessment and positioning. It is the

media that stimulate discussion of the report. In

this case the media is blamed for provoking a

political hype and researchers are not seldom

accused of cooperating knowingly. The objections

are that the topic is enjoying excessive attention

from the media, that self-reinforcing mechanisms

have been set in motion by them, that the debate

is unreasonable and that the result has been

‘manipulated’. This claim is often made - usually

by parties in the ongoing debate - and frequently

researchers get involved. But do we find support

for this reproach even after the debate has died

down? Don’t the media ensure that the rules of

the game still apply? Don’t we need the media to

get the interests behind the issue out into the

open? Aren’t democratic decision-making

processes, by definition, accompanied by

emotions, excitement, fighting and compromise

and doesn’t the aspect of exaggeration therefore

cling to every decision-making process in the

political domain? Has scientific reason allocated a

place in the democratic decision-making process

for the right reasons? And if so, how do we view

the increasing demand for evidence-based policy?


4.5 Science Based Reports, Media and the Political Hype

Co-hosted by the Rathenau Institute, the Netherlands

Chair mr. drs. Jan Staman, Director, Rathenau Institute, the Netherlands

Panel drs. Johan van de Berg RC, Head of the Parliamentary Bureau for Research and Public Expenditure, the Netherlands

dr. Miguel Goede, Associate Professor, University of the Netherlands Antilles

dr. Cisca Joldersma, Member of Parliament, House of Representatives, the Netherlands

dr. Lars Klüver, Director, Danish Board of Technology, Denmark

drs. Martin Sommer, Politics Editor, newspaper De Volkskrant, the Netherlands

Jan Staman: “Knowledge production is

urgently in need of inspiring metaphores.

Without that it will be transformed into

knowledge industry, far away from the knowledge

democracy.”


55

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

thTh

eme

4: M

edia

, Pol

itic

s an

d K

now

ledg

e Fl

ow

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

4.6

The Internet has created possibilities for citizens

and civil society organisations to contribute to

government activities concerning evaluation,

monitoring, inspecting and maintaining

government policies and regulation. Valerie

Frissen will introduce the issue by presenting

examples of initiatives by citizens and by public

authorities, pointing at some important

challenges.

Panel speakers will present examples like aviation

(real time noise measurement by citizens), the

Amber Alert procedure for finding missing

children, and a website on which parents and

pupils can evaluate teachers.


4.6 Citizens in Charge (1) – Participation in Inspection and Monitoring: Introduction and Experiences in the Netherlands

Co-hosted by VIDE, the Association for Monitoring, Assessment and Inspecting, the Netherlands

prof. Valerie Frissen, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Senior Strategist at TNO Information and

Communication Technology, the Netherlands


Valerie Frissen: “Knowledge democracy to me is knowledge that increases the transparency of

the democratic state; equal acces to knowledge; knowledge that increases our understanding of

others and makes us enjoy living together.”

56W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

5.6

Them

e 5:

Defi

ning

Kno

wle

dge

Dem

ocra

cy

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

Michiel de Vries: “As long as much disinformation - based primarily on strategic positions of

the researcher and the vested interests of the commissioner of that research - is distributed

under the guise of knowledge and hardly anyone debunks that disinformation, the ideal of a

knowledge society remains a fairy tale.”

Scientists who prepare knowledge for policy are

sometimes influenced or even threatened to

‘adjust’ their conclusions if they are not in line

with what policy makers expect. This is relatively

common practice in a range of disciplines, from

environmental science to history. How serious is

this phenomenon?

During this session we will address questions

such as: What is at stake for scientists to follow

the ‘guidelines’ of policy makers? Will a knowl-

edge democracy deal differently with independent

knowledge? What is the rationality of policy-

makers when using knowledge and what makes

them want to influence knowledge producers?


5.6 Inconvenient Knowledge and Policy-making

Co-hosted by Leiden University, the Netherlands

Chair prof. Henk Dekker, Leiden University, the Netherlands

Panel dr. Henk Tromp, Staff Member at the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University, the Netherlands

prof. Michiel de Vries, Chair of the Public Administration Department, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands

dr. Ellen Wayenberg, Assistant Professor, Ghent University, Belgium


57

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

thTh

eme

5: D

efini

ng K

now

ledg

e D

emoc

racy

|

Para

llel s

essi

on5.

7

In most (Western) countries, the gap between

politicians and the public seems to be widening,

and there are no signs that this trend will end.

Political parties fulfil important roles when it

comes down to agenda setting and programming

and carry a clear responsibility towards

implementing solutions for societal problems.

How can political parties reinvent themselves (in

time) and what strategic course should be set?

Strict adherence to their original principles and

character can imply the risk of further loss. Too

much adaptiveness to social developments

however, can lead to irrelevance.


5.7 Organising Politics in a Knowledge Democracy – Reinventing Political Parties

Co-hosted by the Council for Public Administration (Rob), the Netherlands

Chair dr. Krijn van Beek, Advisor, Council for Societal Development (RMO) and Founding Director of the Think Tank 2100, the Netherlands

Panel prof. Ron Meyer, University of Tilburg, the Netherlands

drs. Monica Sie Dhian Ho, General Director, Wiardi Beckman Foundation, the Netherlands

prof. ir. Jaap van Till, HAN University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands

Ron Meyer: “Information + structure = knowledge. Knowledge + judgment = wisdom. Living in

the information age offers the electorate the opportunity for more knowledgeable choices. But

without structure we might drown in a sea of information and without judgment make morally

disputable choices, all while thinking we are blessed by mountains of data.”


58W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

14.15 - 14.30 An Introduction to the “Meaning of Knowledge”

by ir. Arnold Fellendans, Networker at the Network for Future Research (NTV)

and Network for Sustainable Higher Education (DHO), the Netherlands

14.30 - 14.45 Knowledge, Power & Identity: Struggles Over Unstructured Laptop Use in American University Classrooms

by dr. Jill Harrison, Post-doctoral Fellow at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University, USA

14.45 - 15.00 An Inter- and Transdisciplinary Analysis of the Climate Discussion of Transport

by dr. Petri Tapio, Senior Researcher at the Turku School of Economics,

Finland



Ope

n Se

ssio

ns P

art

1 |

Para

llel s

essi

on

59

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

thO

pen

Sess

ions

Par

t 1

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

15.00 - 15.15 Democratic Decision-making and Innovative Knowledge: Two Cases

by drs. Paul Jansen Schoonhoven, Senior Training Manager and Consultant at the ROI/HEC

Institute for Public Administration, the Netherlands and

drs. Laura Sprengers ma, Advisor, ROI Institute for Public Administration, the Netherlands

15.15 - 15.30 Boundary Spanning in Hybrid Dutch Organisations

by Philip Marcel Karré MPhil, Senior Researcher and Lecturer at the Netherlands School for

Public Administration (NSOB), the Netherlands

15.30 - 15.45 The Knowledge Broker, Matching Supply and Demand of Expert Knowledge

by drs. Michel Leenders, Head of Spatial Development and Management at the City of Gouda,

the Netherlands

60W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

1.4

Them

e 1:

Kno

wle

dge

& F

utur

e R

esea

rch

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion Strategic policy deals with the future, with the

question of what kind of future we desire and how

we can best anticipate future developments to

steer in the direction of this desired future. Future

research tries to sketch possible futures (be it

desired or dystopian ones). But the intriguing

aspect of ‘the future’ is that it does not actually

exist. Future research therefore has particular

challenges regarding notions of empirics and

objectivity. Necessarily, future research, as does

strategic policy, has to engage with idealisations

and abstractions as well as with societal norms

and values. So there are a lot of similarities

between the two activities and in principle, future

research seems to be the right tool to develop

strategic policies and to inform those responsible

for these policies. The question is how the two

relate in practice.

This panel will deal with three related questions.

1. How (if at all) is future research used in

strategic policy processes?

2. What are the prospects for the future use of

future research in strategic policy processes?

3. What are the implications for the current and/

or future relation between future research and

strategic policy for the notion of knowledge

democracy?


1.4 Future Research and Strategic Policy making: How do the Two Relate?

Co-hosted by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), the Netherlands

Chair prof. Maarten Hajer, Director, Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), the Netherlands

Panel dr. Martijn van der Steen, Associate Dean and Deputy Director, School for Public Management (NSOB), the Netherlands

dr. Esther Turnhout, Lecturer, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

prof. mr. Stavros Zouridis, Director Strategy, Ministry of Justice, the Netherlands

Maarten Hajer: “The real challenge for knowledge democracy is to develop new ways to

involve scientific ‘facts’ in democratic deliberation. How can science–policy communication be

enhanced by stakeholder participation? First of all, we must not consider ‘fact-regardingness’ as

the opposite of stakeholder participation but find a way to marry the two.”

18.15 SPEECH BY DRS. HENRI LENFERINK, MAYOR CITY OF LEIDEN @ FORMER LIBRARY BUILDING

61

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

th2.

6

Given that sustainability has no definitive

formulation yet, it is hard to imagine how existing

knowledge, either explicit or tacit, can be properly

used to obtain sustainability. It would seem that

only new knowledge, which is co-created by

stakeholders, may result in a responsive and

efficient set of products and services. Such new

knowledge arises from cooperation between

scientists, entrepreneurs, government and

societal organisations. The co-creation of

knowledge is a prerequisite for innovation and

may thus lead to sustainable development.

TransForum is an innovation programme

designed to assist Dutch agriculture toward

sustainability. Its method is based on co-creation

of new knowledge. In this session, both the

organisation of knowledge and practical

experiences of sustainable value development will

be central topics in an Open Space work session

with the aim to show participants how this

democratisation of knowledge works.


2.6 Sustainable Value Development through New Knowledge Creation

Co-hosted by TransForum, the Netherlands

Chair ir. Jeroen Bordewijk, Board Member, TransForum, Council Member of the RMNO and former Senior Vice President of Unilever, the Netherlands

Panel dr. Henk van Latesteijn, General Manager, TransForum, the Netherlands


Them

e 2:

Sta

te o

f the

Art

in T

rans

disc

iplin

ary

Res

earc

h |

Para

llel s

essi

on

Jeroen Bordewijk: “The knowledge and experience of everyone needs to be shared and used

to solve the many complex problems and create innovative solutions in an every day more

complex world.”


62W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

2.7

Them

e 2:

Sta

te o

f the

Art

in T

rans

disc

iplin

ary

Res

earc

h |

Para

llel s

essi

on

The objective of this panel is to derive key-

insights with regards to continuous learning in

management processes as a way to deal with

uncertainty and change.

In this panel session we attempt to find the

common ground between Adaptive Management

and Transition Management. Both stress the

limits of our knowledge and understanding of

complex adaptive systems and therefore

emphasise the importance of continuous

processes of learning and adjusting.

The first presentation discusses how Adaptive

Management and Transition Management are

based on different conceptualizations of how

complex adaptive systems behave. Then we will

discuss two different cases in which Adaptive

Management and Transition Management are

applied in practice to elucidate the commonalities

and differences.The third and fourth presenta-

tions are about Adaptive Management in practice.

In the discussion afterwards, we will attempt to

synthesise learned lessons and the consequences

for management and learning.


2.7 The Transition Approach and the Resilience Approach: What can we Learn?

Co-hosted by the Erasmus University Rotterdam and the Resilience Centre of the University of Stockholm, Sweden

Chair prof. Josee van Eijndhoven, Chair Sustainable Management, Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Panel dr. Rutger van de Brugge, Scientific Researcher, Research Institute for Transitions (Drift), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

dr. Per Olsson, Research Team Leader, Adaptive Governance, Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden

dr. Henrik Österblom, Researcher and Science-Policy Coordinator at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden

dr. Derk Loorbach, Senior Researcher, Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam , the Netherlands

Derk Loorbach: ‘True democracy would be to use the collective knowledge of people to

shape, direct and change societies. Given that our current democracy was designed in a

totally different era, we are now in serious need of new mechanisms and institutions that

facilitate open exchange of knowledge, creation of new knowledge and ideas and the translation of new

insights into institutional change. This should be a key focus in sustainability research: how to create

mechanisms through which in principle all those interested and engaged can co-create new insights and

ideas to reshape society towards sustainability.’


Them

e 3:

Pra

ctic

al A

ppro

ache

s to

Bou

ndar

y W

ork

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

63

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

th3.

5

The assessment of the societal aspects of new

and emerging technoscience is increasingly

organised in large-scale institutions, be it

programmatic networks or centers, focusing for

example on nanotechnology, biotechnology,

genomics, ICT and the convergence between these

technologies. Many of these institutions, one

could say, work at the cutting edges of ‘collabora-

tive knowledge production’ and of ‘fostering

democratic participation’. Aim of both new and

established institutions is to foster “democratic”

“participation”, “societal interaction”, up to “social

responsibility”, and to add to the production of

knowledge concerning the evaluation and

assessment of new technoscience. To various

extents, the work of such institutions is shaped

through contribution to and collaboration with

both academic actors and actors in the field of

policy and politics.

We wish to ask from the point of view of the heads

of boundary institutions: How do both established

and new institutions bring together their ambition

to add to the production of new knowledge? What

might be called the ‘democratisation of technology’

in this context? What sorts of knowledge,

interaction, and infrastructure are necessary?

This session brings together directors of a number

of both new and well-established institutions to

discuss the way in which they shape and define

the triangulation between knowledge and

democratic practices. The session will explore the

often tacit conceptions of knowledge and

democracy and the way these shape science

governance. It asks how the systematic triangula-

tion of knowledge production and democratic

impact can be realised. Finally, we will discuss how

such boundary or convergence work can be

managed efficiently and successfully.


3.5 Boundary Institutions in Science Governance – Triangulating Knowledge and Democratic Practice

Chair dr. Peter Stegmaier, Assistant Professor, University of Twente, the Netherlands and dr. Annemiek Nelis, Director, Centre of Society and Genomics (CSG), the Netherlands

Panel dr. Daniel Barben, Associate Research Professor, Arizona State University, USA

Prof. Stefan Kuhlmann, Chair, Department of Science, Technology and Policy Studies, University of Twente, the Netherlands

mr. drs. Jan Staman, Director, Rathenau Institute, the Netherlands

prof. Steven Yearley, Director, ESRC Genomics Forum, University of Edinburgh, UK

Peter Stegmaier: “‘Knowledge Democracy’ refers to claims and projects in science governance

that are being promoted massively in some countries and forms since a couple of years. It can

mean many things to many actors and in various contexts. It is the task of social science not

only to participate in such a policy and movement, but to investigate thoroughly which claims have been

made and realised so far, how such ideas develop and what has been achieved on the level of everyday

practice (and what not).”


64W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

4.7

Them

e 4:

Med

ia, P

olit

ics

and

Kno

wle

dge

Flow

|

Para

llel s

essi

on

In the second part of the session different

speakers will present examples from international

experiences. This session will focus on the role of

civil society in inspecting and monitoring. The

participants will discuss the opportunities and

threats with the speakers of the first and second

part of the session.


4.7 Citizens in Charge (2) - Participation in Inspection and Monitoring: International Experiences and Conclusions

Co-hosted by VIDE, the Association for Monitoring, Assessment and Inspecting, the Netherlands

Chair dr. Jeroen Kerseboom, Vice Chair, VIDE, the Association for Monitoring, Assessment and

Inspecting, the Netherlands

Jeroen Kerseboom: “If it is true that knowledge equals power, is knowledge democracy a

pleonasm? And about who’s democracy are we talking then? People bounded by what borders,

if any?”


65

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

th4.

8

While information seems abundant, and cheap

and easy to come by these days, the investigative

journalist plays an ever more important role in

disseminating knowledge to participating citizens

in society. For the information people need to

base their life’s decisions on, seems to retreat

behind ever thickening walls of bureaucracy,

stalling techniques and outright refusal. The

investigative journalist, with time and resources

at hand, should be ultimately equipped to break

through these barriers. But for how much longer?

In this session, we will discuss the need for clear

and easy to use Freedom of Information (FOI)

laws, both in the Netherlands and Europe. Where

the Dutch word ‘wobbing’ is coined across the

continent as the term for filing a FOI request, the

Dutch are rapidly losing their position as

champions of access to government information.

Starting in the fall of 2009, the Dutch government

will implement new ‘WOB’ guidelines and terms,

with it effectively impairing the people’s access to

information. In the broader European spectrum,

proposals on the physical state of documents (i.e.

whether digital or on paper) may exceedingly

narrow the number and scope of documents

journalists and citizens can get access to. Both

developments largely go unheeded, by law makers,

politicians, journalists, ngo’s and citizens alike.

Recent developments in the field will be presented,

views on the direction proposals to change the

‘WOB’ - both in the Netherlands and Europe - the

role of journalists, politicians and lawmakers in

improving FOI laws and regulations will be

discussed with members of all three parties

concerned.


4.8 Investigative Journalism and the Battle for Access to Information

Co-hosted by the Dutch-Flemish Association for Investigative Journalism (VVOJ), Belgium and the Netherlands

Chair drs. Margo Smit MA, Director, Dutch-Flemish Association for Investigative Journalism (VVOJ), Belgium and the Netherlands

Panel drs. Brigitte Alfter, Director, European Fund for Investigative Journalism and Journalist, Denmark

Roger Vleugels, Lecturer and Legal Advisor, Freedom of Information (WOB), the Netherlands

Them

e 4:

Med

ia, P

olit

ics

and

Kno

wle

dge

Flow

|

Para

llel s

essi

on


Roger Vleugels: “Access to information, especially government held information, is essential

in a democracy. This access right has, of course, to excist for parliamentarians, but also for the

people themselves. This so called extra-parliamentary access right, or controll or reconstruct

tool, can be established by a freedom of information act.”

66W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

5.8

Them

e 5:

Defi

ning

Kno

wle

dge

Dem

ocra

cy

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

Elaborating the work of Herman van Gunsteren, it

seems fruitful to develop a broader perspective on

democracy, including all steps that lead to

collective decision-making.

These steps are presented as seven necessary

circumambulations, like the ritual by Muslim

pilgrims around the Ka’aba or the people around

the walls of Jericho. No single step (round) can be

left aside in democratic decision-making. So it is

quite vain to present one of them (e.g. knowledge

gathering, polling the people or representation) as

the core of democracy. This perspective is at the

same time complicating and reassuring.

This interactive workshop will help to explore the

implications of this vision on Jericho-democracy

for practical policymaking and for political

science.


5.8 Knowledge Democracy or Jericho Democracy? – a Design Workshop

drs. Jan Schrijver, Senior Civil Servant, Ministry of Internal Aff airs and Kingdom Relations (BZK) and Guest Researcher at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Ferry Tromp, Former Director of Ferry Tromp Productions, the Netherlands


Jan Schrijver: “The essence of knowledge democracy is for me: “The insight that in the

end Democracy is a matter of learning from each other, the willingness to take part in a

complex process of “study and enterprise”, and accepting that not one single actor (or party)

can claim to represent the truth, or that many parties represent parts of the truth simultaneously.

Epistemologically: democracy = social constructivism.”

67

Wed

nes

da

y, A

ug

ust

26

thTh

eme

5: D

efini

ng K

now

ledg

e D

emoc

racy

|

Para

llel s

essi

on5.

9

The gap between scientific research and policy,

even if that research is policy-directed, is often

analyzed and described. From both a scientific

point of view and from the world of public

administration solutions are presented to bridge

the gap. In recent years this has led to many new

initiatives worldwide. In this workshop we present

promising initiatives from the Netherlands and

other countries. We focus mainly on institutional

innovations, both within the world of public

administration and within the world of science.

· Which institutions (with varying degrees of

organisational hardness) are created in order to

bridge the gap? For example, in the Netherlands

in recent years the Top Institute for Evidence

Based Education Research, the Knowledge

Institute for Mobility, the NICIS and other

public-private partnerships aimed at knowledge

development have been established. Other

examples are departmental knowledge chambers

and covenants that have been made with

organisations in the knowledge world.

· How do existing institutions and figurations of

institutions become restructured to ensure

effective linkages between research and policy?

In the Netherlands the review of the advisory

system especially in the physical domain and

the knowledge arenas are interesting

phenomena. What are the first experiences in

this field?

· How do these new institutions act on the existing

arrangements and which tensions arise here?

What is the impact of new public management

within departments?

· Which forms of brokerage work and which do not

work to connect demand and supply of

knowledge? Is the by national research councils

(e.g. NWO) claimed role of independent, national

agency going to be successful or not?

In the workshop we will focus on two domains,

namely the physical and social domain. In both

domains, different knowledge institutes are active

and various departments. Part of the presentations

and discussions is how in these two domains

connections between the different knowledge

institutes, departments and intermediary

implementation organisations are fostered.


5.9 Facing and Bridging the Gap: Organising Knowledge for Policy-making

Co-hosted by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) and the Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands

Chair dr. Arnold Jonk, Director of the Knowledge Directorate, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), the Netherlands (invited)

Panel ir. Ben Geurts, Director Strategy and Knowledge, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), the Netherlands

prof. Wim Hafk amp, Scientific Director, NICIS Institute for Urban Research, the Netherlands

prof. Kurt Aagaard Neilsen, Roskilde University, Denmark

prof. Theo Toonen, Dean of the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology (TU), the Netherlands


68W

edn

esd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

6th

16.15 - 16.30 We’re Only in It for the Knowledge. Does Democracy Pay?

by drs. Hans Keune, Political Scientist at the University of Antwerp, Belgium

16.30 - 16.45 People Empower Each Other, Information Technology Helps Only in Facilitating Them

by drs. Marga Jacobs, Lecturer at the Avans University of Applied Sciences and President of

the Human Environment Foundation (Vereniging Leefmilieu), the Netherlands

16.45 - 17.00 Dissemination and Implementation of Knowledge within the Public Health Sector

by dr. Lenneke Vaandrager, Associate Professor at Wageningen University and Research


17.00 - 17.15 Globalization and Governance Reforms in India

by dr. Vasant Moharir, Retired Academic and Former President of the Foundation for Critical

Choices for India, the Netherlands



Ope

n Se

ssio

ns P

art

2 |

Para

llel s

essi

on


69

Thu

rsd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

7th

Reg

istr

atio

n To

wa

rds

Kn

ow

led

ge

Dem

ocr

acy

In 1882, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes (then 29 years

old) was appointed in Leiden as professor of

experimental physics. He was not only a brilliant

scientist, but also a thorough research manager.

On his initiative, the dusty laboratory on the

canal was transformed into one of the most

advanced research laboratories in the world. He

created a new laboratory-style in which research

and education were intertwined.

Kamerlingh Onnes was in 1908 the first to

succeed in liquifying helium gas on the lowest

critical temperature, for which he received the

Nobel Prize in 1913.


Registration

70Th

urs

da

y, A

ug

ust

27

thTh

eme

1: K

now

ledg

e &

Fut

ure

Res

earc

h |

Para

llel s

essi

on1.

5

Whereas developing political visions about the

future can be attractive for politicians, concrete

political decision making about the long term

seems to be less popular. The results of such

decisions are usually harvested by future

politicians but the investments (capacity, money)

lie in the present. This is only one of many

reasons why long-term decisions tend to be

postponed or cancelled, even if there is consider-

able evidence that taking measures now prevents

enormous costs in the future.

This session discusses the conclusions of the

EEAC WG Governance paper on the governance of

long-term decision making within the perspective

of the emerging knowledge democracy.


1.5 Towards a Better Governance of Long-term Decision Making

Co-hosted by the Working Group Governance of the Network of European Environment and

Sustainable Development Advisory Councils (EEAC), Belgium

Chair prof. Roeland J. in ‘t Veld, Chair, RMNO, the Netherlands

Panel dr. Louis Meuleman, Secretary General, RMNO, the Netherlands

drs. Koen Moerman, Researcher, Federal Council for Sustainable Development, Belgium

prof. Miranda Schreurs, FU Berlin, Germany

drs. Bart Vink, Project Manager Randstad 2040, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), the Netherlands


Louis Meuleman: “Knowledge democracy is about taking the responsibility to develop and

maintain productive relationships between science, politics and the media, which reflect the

challenges of our time.”

71

Thu

rsd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

7th


Diverse types of complex problems we face today

are increasingly addressed in collaborations

between scientists, policy-makers, citizens,

consumers and entrepreneurs, collaborations in

which knowledge and solutions are co-produced.

For the actors involved, participating in these

types of collaborative research approaches can be

exciting and meaningful, but also challenging. The

modes of operations in transdisciplinary research

projects often differ significantly from the modes

of operation in other institutional/homogenous

settings.

Can we relate the modes of operation in

transdisciplinary research to specific assump-

tions, competences, personality, attitude and

knowledge of involved actors? What are the

specific qualities required for managing or guiding

these processes? What action perspectives can

we define for coping with differences between

institutional settings and the collaborative

practice?


2.8 Roles, Competence and Action Perspectives of Actors in Transdisciplinary Research

Co-hosted by the VU University Amsterdam, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Competence Centre for Transitions and TransForum, the Netherlands

Chair dr.Huib Silvis, Head of the Public Issues Division, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

Panel ir. Jose Andringa, Senior Programme Advisor, Competence Centre Transitions (CCT), the Netherlands

drs. Jolanda van den Berg, Senior Researcher, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

drs. Sander Mager, Vice President, TransForum, the Netherlands


drs. Barbara Regeer, Assistant Professor, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

prof. Roland Scholz, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Switzerland

dr. ir. Barbara Sterk, Postdoc Researcher, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands

2.8

Them

e 2:

Sta

te o

f the

Art

in T

rans

disc

iplin

ary

Res

earc

h |

Para

llel s

essi

on

Huib Silvis: “Policy decisions are often guided by the protection of special interests. Knowledge

democracy is the ambition to have decisions based on empirical and normative science for the

good of the people.”

72Th

urs

da

y, A

ug

ust

27

th2.

9

During the last years the resilience of the water

system has been degradating step by step, by all

of our infrastructure, building estates and land

use. This is not only the case in western countries

but also in Africa and Asia. The deltas have

become vulnerable for too much, too little and too

dirty water, affecting life considerably and

creating unacceptable risks and casualties.

Climate change, in fact climate roughness, will

increase these problems. We are facing many

uncertainties, not only related to climate change

but also from the global economy, energy, food

production and especially changing socio-demo-

graphic conditions. Climate adaptation will

mainly focus on restoration of resilience of the

earth’s system, including the water and soil

system. This requires a strong symbiosis between

spatial planning and water management in the

deltas. Reconstruction and renewal of built areas

(a permanent process in western world, in urban

as well as in industrialised areas) provides

opportunities to implement these step by step

investments in resilience. This is not only the

responsibility of the water managers: powerful

cooperation with spatial planners, the municipali-

ties and other regional authorities, the other land

users and the water authorities is needed.

These developments require a shift towards a

pro-active long term approach, in order to cope

with the long term challenges that accompany

the creation of sustainable deltas. Cooperation

with other domains is necessary for the transition

from water management to spatial choreography.

Applied research in these fields has been

conducted and the first pilots have proven to be

successful. But to achieve the goals, the research

has to be accompanied by knowledge dissemina-

tion. This not only a question of communication,

(scientific) publications, training the professionals

in workshops and master classes: in this field

70% can be characterized as tacit knowledge,

requiring new approaches of knowledge transfer.

The workshop will address the challenges of

knowledge transfer in this transition process from

water management towards spatial

choreography.


2.9 Research and Knowledge Transfer in Water Management

Co-hosted by the Research Programme Living with Water, the Netherlands

Chair ir. Bert Satijn, Director, Research Programme Living with Water, the Netherlands

Panel drs. Tijs J. van Maasakkers, PhD Candidate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

drs. ing. Beke Romp, Junior Researcher, Delft University of Technology (TU), the Netherlands

dr. Erik Rongen, Client IT Architect for Public sector, IBM Netherlands - Global Water Management Centre of Excellence, the Netherlands

prof. ing. Geert R. Teisman, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Council Member of the RMNO, the Netherlands


Beke Romp: “There is a need for a new nexus. Democratisation of knowledge brings new actors

into the nexus between policymakers and technical experts. As a result policymakers become

knowledge jugglers.”

Them

e 2:

Sta

te o

f the

Art

in T

rans

disc

iplin

ary

Res

earc

h |

Para

llel s

essi

on

73

Thu

rsd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

7th


Unilinearity in the transfer of knowledge from

science to policy is empirically discredited. Of

course, this does not mean a complete blurring of

the boundaries.

Rather, the science-policy interface may be

conceptualised as boundary work. It is, like a living

apart together relationship, simultaneously about

keeping distance by demarcation of your own

domain (expert advice respectively policy work),

and staying close enough to coordinate your

activities. Boundary work occurs in a vast array of

types of boundary arrangements.

In the Netherlands alone this runs from highly

institutionalised boundary organisations like the

WRR to mission-oriented sectored councils like

the RMNO, and research ‘centers of excellence’, all

the way to informal hybrid real-time or virtual

forums where academics, professionals, business

and government officials meet around shared

problems (Halffman & Hoppe, 2005).The

‘ideal-type’ boundary organisation may be

characterised by properties like (Guston, Clark,

Miller, Halffman):

· Double participation

· Dual accountability

· Creation and maintenance of a suitable set of

(textual) boundary objects

· Production of salient, flexible and legitimate

information

· Co-production of social and cognitive order,

using practices of negotiation and confrontation

· Mediation

· Meta-governance and capacity building.


3.6 Implications for the Science-Policy Interface

Chair prof. Robert Hoppe, University of Twente, the Netherlands

Panel drs. Sarah Cummings, Communications Coordinator, IKM Emergent, the Netherlands

dr. Iina Hellsten, Assistant Professor, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Martin Schulz, Advisor, Berenschot Consultancy, the Netherlands

prof. Dirk J. Wolfson, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Them

e 3:

Pra

ctic

al A

ppro

ache

s to

Bou

ndar

y W

ork

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

3.6

Dirk Wolfson: “Knowledge Democracy is a blissful state in which people are well-informed

about social problems and politicians behave as honest brokers of individual preference.

Rela life is different. The present paradigm shift away from laissez-faire creates a window of

opportunity to realise democracy.”

74Th

urs

da

y, A

ug

ust

27

th3.

7

According to Hoppe (2002) the worlds of science

and politics meet more often nowadays, giving

rise to boundary traffic. Boundary work may

occur through special organisations such as the

RMNO, through formal platforms such as the SER,

and on an ad-hoc basis as happened in the

preparation of the 4th National Environmental

Policy Plan (Kemp and Rotmans, 2009).

This session seeks to discuss the issue of

boundary work between institutional domains:

science and policy, business and NGOs, and NGOs

and politics. The focus is on boundary work in

relation to transformative change. Transformative

change represents an interesting issue because

usually neither science nor policy is well-equipped

to deal with it, so it is important to learn from

experiences. Examples of transformative change

are preventive health care and demand-based

cure, nano-based materials and mobility leasing.

In boundary arrangements people learn about

issues of mutual interest: possible futures and

risks, visions and practical knowledge for

decision-making. Knowledge is being coproduced

by actors involved, who may or may not form a

discourse coalition to challenge regime arrange-

ments. The session will bring together practical

approaches to boundary work, with the aim to

reflect on these.


3.7 Practical Approaches to Boundary Work around Transformative Change

Chair dr. René Kemp, Senior Researcher, Maastricht University, the Netherlands

Panel drs. Flor Avelino, PhD Researcher, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

drs. Erica ter Haar, PhD Researcher, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

dr. Sibout Nooteboom, Associate Professor, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

dr. Maarten Vrolijk, Researcher, Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR)

Them

e 3:

Pra

ctic

al A

ppro

ache

s to

Bou

ndar

y W

ork

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion


René Kemp: “Experts can be defined

by what they know and what they don’t

know.”

75

Thu

rsd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

7th

Policy makers must prepare responsible action

concerning societal problems. When such

problems are ‘wicked’, contested, emotional and

value-laden, the quality of the production and use

of knowledge becomes crucial. There are many

examples of such controversial issues, like the use

of chemicals, animal testing, genetic modified

organisms, animal disease control, and nuclear

energy.

Sometimes democratic decision making is

delayed or even impossible due to societal

distrust, and the way in which politicians cope

with this. The media sometimes play an

influential role when they advocate one position

in the debate, or when they increase the

controversy by creating hypes around such

issues.

In this session several examples will be presented,

in order to define lessons and perspectives for

new action.


Them

e 4:

Med

ia, P

olit

ics

and

Kno

wle

dge

Flow

|

Para

llel s

essi

on4.

9

August 27th 9.00 – 11.00 Kamerlingh Onnes Building

4.9 Communication about Controversial Issues

Chair drs. Pieter Hilhorst, Publicist and Journalist, newspaper De Volkskrant (among others), the Netherlands

Panel prof. Tjard de Cock Buning, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands

mr. Frans Evers, Vice Chair, Commission on Environmental Assessment Reports (MER) and Council Member of the RMNO, the Netherlands

Max von Olenhusen, Legal Advisor, Novartis European Public Affairs, Belgium

prof. Bastiaan Zoeteman, Chair, Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM), the Netherlands

Tjard de Cock Buning: “Knowledge

democracy is conditional for a fair

world.”

76Th

urs

da

y, A

ug

ust

27

th4,

10

Both the “old” media and even more the

internet-based “new” media are characterised by

speed, high velocity in subjects and opinions and

an intense variety in supply. This allows little

time to reflect on how they work and which

choices they make and why. In this session

practitioners will explain in which ways they are

responsible for the knowledge and information on

which citizens and politicians base their opinions,

and a politician will react: what should be the

responsibility of the media from a politician’s

perspective?


4.10 From Response to Responsibility

Chair drs. Willem Schoonen, Chief Editor, newspaper Trouw, the Netherlands

Panel Hanns-J. Neubert, President, European Science Journalists Organisation (EUSJA), France

drs. Marnix Norder, Alderman, City of The Hague, the Netherlands

Peter Scheffer, Communications Consultant, City of The Hague and Former Political Campaigner, the Netherlands

Ovais Ahmed Tanweer, Anchor and Producer, Dawn News TV, Pakistan

Them

e 4:

Med

ia, P

olit

ics

and

Kno

wle

dge

Flow

|

Para

llel s

essi

on


Hanns-J. Neubert: “In times of information overflow it is most important that all people are

put into the position to gain and acquire knowledge in learning how to handle and integrate

informational bits and pieces. However, knowledge is not necessarily a ticket for the ability to

contribute to democratic processes, it can even foster authoritarian developments. Knowledge has to

exceed its own borders and lead to literacy – an improper translation of the German term “Bildung” – of

all people, which effectuates passion, sympathy, tolerance and interest, which are prerequisites of real

democracy.”

77

Thu

rsd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

7th

Required competences and capabilities to deal

with the tensions between science and politics,

the challenges of translation and articulation of

strategic knowledge questions seem to be

underdeveloped. What skills are especially

missing - from the viewpoint of boundary workers

and scientists? Do we truly understand which

factors are responsible for this deficiency? Do we

need tailor-made development programmes, are

there already good examples? In this session

these questions are addressed.


Them

e 5:

Defi

ning

Kno

wle

dge

Dem

ocra

cy

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion

5.10

August 27th 9.00 – 11.00 Kamerlingh Onnes Building

5.10 Wanted: Competent Public Officials

Co-hosted by the Offi ce for the Senior Civil Service (ABD), Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK), the Netherlands

Chair drs. Kees Vijlbrief, Deputy Director General, Office for the Senior Civil Service (ABD), Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the Netherlands

Panel drs. Hugo Brouwer, Director of Energy Transitions, Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Netherlands

David Clements MPA, Vice President, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Canada

dr. Henk van Latesteijn, General Manager, TransForum, the Netherlands

prof. Harald Plamper, Teamleader Management of Public Expenditures of the Project Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, German Association for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Germany

Henk van Latesteijn: “Democratisation of knowledge is not a scientific discourse but a

working method. This means we should be willing to get dirty hands.”

78Th

urs

da

y, A

ug

ust

27

th5,

11

In this session a short review is presented of the

unique situation of policy research in the

Netherlands. In comparison with e.g. other EU

member states, a market has emerged for

independent research institutes and for entrepre-

neurship on the field of policy research. In the

seventies and eighties the Dutch government has

stimulated this growing market by giving

assignments to those highly specialised research

institutes. Nowadays there is a solid and

professional market for policy research in The

Netherlands. In other countries policy research is

more or less the exclusive domain of universities

and embedded researchers within the governmen-

tal organizations itself.

The session will include presentations on the

following subjects:

· Highlights of a recent VBO-survey on the use of

policy research in the Netherlands

· How do private research-companies success-

fully compete with the universities and

researchers within the government?

· Differences between academic research and

contract research, examples of co-operation

between research institutes and universities

and strengths and weaknesses of the two

Following the presentations the pros and cons of

the Dutch situation will be discussed and it is

questioned whether this situation leads to

co-operation or competition between universities

and independent research institutes. Does the

ongoing system of public tendering in the field of

policy research effect this relationship in a

positive or negative way? And what are the

experiences in other countries on this subject? All

contributions from the audience are welcome.


5.11 Improvement of Knowledge Transfer: Co-operation or Competition in the Research Field?

Co-hosted by the Association for Policy Research (VBO), the Netherlands

Chair drs. Martin van der Gugten cmc, President, Association for Policy Research (VBO) and Director of DSP-Group BV, the Netherlands

Panel prof. Hans Boutellier, Executive Director, Verwey-Jonker Institute, the Netherlands

prof. Peter van Hoesel, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Director of Panteia, the Netherlands

dr. Peter van der Knaap, Performance Audit Director, The Court of Audit, the Netherlands

Them

e 5:

Defi

ning

Kno

wle

dge

Dem

ocra

cy

| Pa

ralle

l ses

sion


Martin Van der Gugten: “In my opinion notions of Democracy and Knowledge are so strongly

connected that one could not survive without the other. In an information-flooded society as we

live in, we have be sure that policymaking is based on well-tailored, validated information and

applied knowledge. Otherwise our democratic future will be in the hands of populists and manipulators.”

79

Thu

rsd

ay

, Au

gu

st 2

7th

Defining challenges and taking next steps towards

Knowledge Democracy.

In this session the results, of the individual

contribution from each participant of the

conference, will be harvested.

The recommendations that will be handed out

after lunch will be prepared through discussion

and prioritisation by the participants in this

session.

12.30 - 13.00 LUNCH BREAK AND WALK TO ACADEMY BUILDING

Plen

ary

Sess

ion

Plan

ning

for

Act

ion

• Pr

epar

ing

Rec

omm

enda

tion

s |

Plen

ary

Sess

ion

August 27th 11.20 – 12.30


Preparing Recommendations

August 27th 11.20 – 12.30


Planning for action

In this open space session, the central objective is

to design a framework to disseminate the results

of the conference throughout society. Your

initiatives are welcome!

80Th

urs

da

y, A

ug

ust

27

th

The accumulated recommendations of the

participants of the conference will be presented to

distinguished leaders in the domains of Politics,

Science, Media and Industry.

Hans van der Vlist is the Permanent Secretary of

the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the

Environment since 26 january 2007. Additional

functions he fulfills are President of the

Corporation for Local Products in the Nederlands,

Membership of the Boards of: International

Filmfestival Rotterdam, Rotterdam Festivals,

Member of Advisory Board TNO Construction and

Substrate, Member of Rotterdam Energy and

Climate Council. From 2001 until the end of 2006

he was Director-General for Environmental

Protection at the Ministry of Housing, Spatial

Planning and the Environment. Other previous

positions were related to Water Management and

Public Works. Hans van der Vlist studied Road and

Hydraulic Engineering at the Delft University of

Technology (TU), the Netherlands.

15.30 FINAL REMARKS BY THE CONFERENCE CHAIR, ROELAND J. IN ’T VELD

15.30 HIGH TEA

Pres

enta

tion

of R

ecom

men

dati

ons

| Pl

enar

y Se

ssio

n

August 27th 3.30 – 15.30 Academy Building

Presentation of Recommendations

Chair ir. Hans van der Vlist, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), the Netherlands

Panel prof. Paul F. van der Heijden, Rector Magnificus, Leiden University, the Netherlands


drs. Willem Schoonen, Chief Editor, newspaper Trouw, the Netherlands

dr. Herman Tjeenk Willink, Vice President, Council of State, the Netherlands

mrs. Gerdi Verbeet, President, House of Representatives of the States General, the Netherlands

dr. Hans Wijers, Chair of the Board of Management, AkzoNobel, the Netherlands

Hans Wijers: “It is time we put our money where our mouth is. Without a significant step-up in

investing in the knowledge economy, our country will become yesterday’s news.”

Uri Rosenthal: “The direct transference of academic and professional knowledge is merely

one of the great array of impulses affecting politicians’ thought processes and actions. For

academics and professionals, this is often difficult to understand. They can however find solace

in the fact that their knowledge does indirectly influence policy and decision-making processes.”

colofon

© 2009, RMNO, Den Haag, Netherland

Conference Manager Ana Lidia Aneas Moyano, RMNO

Graphic design A10plus, Rotterdam

Print Delta Hage, Den Haag

http://www.rmno.nl

international conference towards knowledge democracy

Documents

knowledge democracyaugust

knowledge democracybert

knowledge democracy

telephone number

environment rmno

learning environment

leiden city

rmno twitter experiment