oa Wetenschapscommunicatie en het articuleren van de maatschappelijke vraag naar kennis en technologie: een lastige kwestie

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]