2004
Volume 50 Number 3
  • ISSN: 1384-6930
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7286

Abstract

Samenvatting

Het idee van wetenschapscommunicatie is verbreed, en omvat de articulatie van kennisvragen in de samenleving. Aan de hand van vijf mini-case-studies worden veronderstellingen hierbij kritisch onder de loep genomen, en wordt aangetoond dat het uitermate lastig is om middels vraagarticulatie de toepasbaarheid van kennis te vergroten. Voorgesteld wordt om kennisvoorziening en dialogische wetenschapscommunicatie in te bedden in bestaande veranderingsinitiatieven en discours-coalities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.002.LEEU
2022-10-01
2022-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13846930/50/3/TCW2022.3.002.LEEU.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.002.LEEU&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aarts, M. N. C (2015). The art of dialogue [Oratie]. Geraadpleegd van https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/noelle-aarts-over-the-art-of-dialogue
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adjei-Nsiah, S., Leeuwis, C., Giller, K. E., & Kuyper, T. W. (2008). Action research on alternative land tenure arrangements in Wenchi, Ghana: learning from ambiguous social dynamics and self-organized institutional innovation. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(3), 389-403.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J.Kuhl, & J.Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Springer-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Almekinders, C.J.M. (2011). The joint development of JM-12.7: A technographic description of the making of a bean variety. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 57(34), 207-216.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Almekinders, C.J.M., Beumer, K., Hauser, M., Misiko, M., Gatto, M., Nkurumwa, A.O., & O.Erenstein (2019). Understanding the relations between farmers’ seed demand and research methods: The challenge to do better. Outlook on Agriculture, 48(1), 16-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253-1268.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bentley, J., Velasco, C., Rodríguez, F., Oros, R., Botello, R., Webb, M., Devaux, A., & Thiele, G. (2007). Unspoken demands for farm technology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 5(1), 70-84.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Birner, R., & Anderson, J. (2007). How to make agricultural extension demand-driven. The case of India’s agricultural extension policy. IFPRI discussion paper 00729. IFPRI.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Birner, R., & Byerlee, D. (2016). Synthesis and lessons learned from 15 CRP evaluations. Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) of CGIAR.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Boon, W., & Edler, J. (2018). Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 435-447.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bukenya, C. (2010). Meeting farmer demand? An assessment of extension reform in Uganda [PhD dissertation]. Wageningen University.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Damtew, E., Mierlo, Van, B., Lie, R., Struik, P., Leeuwis, C., Lemaga, B., & Smart, C. (2020). Governing a collective bad: social learning in the management of crop diseases. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 33(1), 111-134.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. De Graaf, B. A., Kan, R., & Molenaar, H. (Eds.) (2017). The Dutch national research agenda in perspective. A reflection on research and science policy in practice. Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Feder, G., Birner, R., & Anderson, J. R. (2011). The private sector’s role in agricultural extension systems: potential and limitations. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 1(1), 31-54.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8/9), 1257-1274.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Giller, K. E., Leeuwis, C., Andersson, J. A., Andriesse, W., Brouwer, A., Frost, P., Hebinck, P., Heitkönig, I. M. A., van Ittersum, M. K., Koning, N., Ruben, R., Slingerland, M., Udo, H., Veldkamp, A., van de Vijver, C., van Wijk, M. T., & Windmeijer, P. N. (2008). Competing claims on natural resources: what role for science?Ecology & Society, 13(2), 34.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Godin, B. (2006). The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(6), 639-667.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hajer, M. A., & Laws, D. (2006). Ordering through discourse. In M.Moran, M.Rein & R.E.Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 249-266). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hall, A., Bockett, G., Taylor, S., Sivamohan, M.V.K., & Clark, N. (2001). Why research partnerships really matter: Innovation theory, institutional arrangements and implications for developing new technology for the poor. World Development, 29(5), 783-797.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Horst, M., Davies, S. R., & Irwin, A. (2016). Reframing science communication. In U.Felt, R.Fouché, C. A.Miller & L.Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4 ed., pp. 881-908). MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jalbert, K., & Kinchy, A. J. (2016). Sense and influence: Environmental monitoring tools and the power of citizen science. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(3), 379-397.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kibwika, P., Wals, A. E. J., & Nassuna-Musoke, M. G. (2009). Competence challenges of demand-led agricultural research and extension in Uganda. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15(1), 5-19.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kilelu, C. W., Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2014). How dynamics of learning are linked to innovation support services: Insights from a smallholder commercialization project in Kenya. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 20(2), 213-232.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Klerkx, L., Grip, K. de, & Leeuwis, C. (2006). Hands off but strings attached: The contradictions of policy-induced demand-driven agricultural extension. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(2), 189-204.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2008). Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural RandD: Farmer levy funding of RandD in The Netherlands. Research Policy, 37(3), 460-472.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Laborde, D., Murphy, S., Parent, M., Porciello, J., & Smaller, C. (2020). Ceres2030: Sustainable Solutions to End Hunger—Summary Report. Cornell University, IFPRI and IISD: New York, NY, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Leeuwis, C., & Arkesteijn, M. (1991). Planned technology development and local initiative: Computer supported enterprise-comparisons among Dutch horticulturists. Sociologia Ruralis, 31(2/3), 140-161.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Leeuwis, C. (1993). Of computers, myths and modelling: The social construction of diversity, knowledge, information and communication technologies in Dutch horticulture and agricultural extension [Wageningen Studies in Sociology, nr. 36]. Wageningen Agricultural University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Leeuwis, C. (2000). Learning to be sustainable. Does the Dutch agrarian knowledge market fail?The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 7(2), 79-92.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Leeuwis, C. (with contributions by A.Van den Ban) (2004). Communication for rural innovation. Rethinking agricultural extension. Blackwell Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Leeuwis, C., & Aarts, M.N.C. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: Creating space for change in complex systems. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(1), 21-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Leeuwis, C., & Aarts, M.N.C. (2016). Communication as intermediation for socio-technical innovation. JCOM Journal of Science Communication, 15(6), 1-12.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Leeuwis, C., Schut, M. & Klerkx, L. (2017). Systems research in the CGIAR as an arena of struggle: Competing discourses on the embedding of research in development. In J.Sumberg, J.Andersson, & J.Thompson (Eds.), Agronomy for development: The politics of knowledge in agricultural research (pp. 59-78). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ludwig, D., & B.K.Boogaard (2021). Making transdisciplinarity work: An epistemology of inclusive development and innovation. In D.Ludwig, B.Boogaard, P.Macnaghten, & C.Leeuwis (Eds.), The politics of knowledge in inclusive development and innovation (1 ed., pp. 19-33). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. McCampbell, M., Rijswijk, K., Wilson, H., & Klerkx, L. (2021). A problematisation of inclusion and exclusion. In D.Ludwig, B.Boogaard, P.Macnaghten, & C.Leeuwis (Eds.), The politics of knowledge in inclusive development and innovation (1 ed., pp. 199-213). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Miller, S (2010). Deficit model. In S.H.Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication (pp. 208-210). Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Milgroom, J. (2012). Elephants of democracy. An unfolding process of resettlement in the Limpopo National Park [PhD dissertation]. Wageningen University.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Nederlof, E. S., Wennink, B., & Heemskerk, W. (2008). Access to agricultural services. Background paper for the IFAD Rural Poverty Report 2011. Royal Tropical Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6) 751-760.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. ParandianA., & Rip, A. (2013). Scenarios to explore the futures of the emerging technology of organic and large area electronics. European Journal of Futures Research, 1(1), 1-18.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sartas, M., Schut, M., Thiele, G., Proietti, C., & Leeuwis, C. (2020). Scaling Readiness: Science and practice of an approach to enhance impact or research for development. Agricultural Systems, 183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102874
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1974). The structures of the life-world. Heinemann Educational Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework of responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-74.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Suldovsky, B. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 415-426.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sumberg, J. (Ed.) (2017). Agronomy for development: The politics of knowledge in agricultural research. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tafesse, S., Damtew, E., Mierlo, B. van; Lie, R., Lemaga, B., Sharma, K., Leeuwis, C., & Struik, P. C. (2018). Farmers’ knowledge and practices of potato disease management in Ethiopia. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 86-87, 25-38.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tafesse, S., Lie, R., van Mierlo, B., Struik, P. C., Lemaga, B. & Leeuwis, C. (2020). Analysis of a monitoring system for bacterial wilt management by seed potato cooperatives in Ethiopia: challenges and future directions. Sustainability, 12(9), 3580-3580.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Te Kulve, H., & Konrad, K. (2017). The demand side of innovation governance: Demand articulation processes in the case of nano-based sensor technologies. In D.Bowman, E.Stokes & A.Rip (Eds.), Embedding and governing new technologies: A regulatory, ethical & societal perspective (pp. 159-186). Pan Stanford.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Te Molder, H. (2011). Beyond happy science and grim technology: Science communication in an interactional perspective [Oratie]. Geraadpleegd van https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5131790/oratieboekje+te+Molder.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Verouden, N. W., Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Aarts, N. (2016). Silence in interdisciplinary research collaboration: Not everything said is relevant, not everything relevant is said. Science as Culture, 25(2), 264-288.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Vonk, R. (1990). Prototyping: The effective use of CASE technology. Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.002.LEEU
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.002.LEEU
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error