Reflexive interactive design as an instrument for dual track governance. Paper presented at the International workshop on System Innovations, Knowledge Regimes, and Design Practices towards Sustainable Agriculture.

Sustainable development cannot be attained by technical innovation alone; it calls for a reorientation of the existing socio-technical regime: a system innovation. This implies the coordination of the distributed agency of the actors that focus on structural change, as well as activities focusing on the development of novel practices. These two ‘tracks’ of governance activities may reinforce each other in a process of dual track governance if they ‘reach out to each other’, i.e. seek to make functional connections. The paper describes a design-oriented approach to this dual track governance issue, called Reflexive Interactive Design (RIO). This approach is based on the idea that one can anticipate and facilitate system innovation by the introduction of novel concepts midway between broad future visions and specific novelties. Design and the design process turn out to act as a good vehicle to align processes of change both at the regime level and the niche level. The paper analyses the application of the approach in two design projects on sustainable husbandry of pigs and laying hens. These projects evolved into concrete experiments and new farms that radically diverge from the dominant practice, and have clearly contributed to changes at the level of the regime.

[1]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  Dealing with incumbent regimes: Deliberateness and serendipity of innovation agency , 2010 .

[2]  PAOLO PALLADINO,et al.  Give me a Laboratory, and I will raise the … Laboratory , 2004, Medical History.

[3]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Democracy and Disagreement , 1996 .

[4]  John Grin,et al.  Technology Assessment through interaction. A guide , 1997 .

[5]  D. Roep,et al.  Managing technical-institutional design processes: some strategic lessons from environmental co-operatives in the Netherlands , 2003 .

[6]  J. Voss,et al.  Reflexive governance for sustainable development , 2006 .

[7]  F. Stafleu,et al.  A Simple Value-Distinction Approach Aids Transparency in Farm Animal Welfare Debate , 2006 .

[8]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[9]  Johan Schot,et al.  Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of Clean Technologies , 1992, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[10]  J. Luttik,et al.  Welzwijn in de toekomst : over varkenswensen voor varkensstallen , 2003 .

[11]  Simon Joss,et al.  Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives , 2002 .

[12]  John Grin,et al.  Technology Assessment as Learning , 1996 .

[13]  C. M. Groenestein Diergericht ontwerpen : Methodisch in plaats van intuïtief naar een ontwerp voor een diervriendelijk houderijsysteem , 2003 .

[14]  M.B.M. Bracke,et al.  Scientist' assessment of the impact of housing and management on animal welfare , 2001 .

[15]  Adrian Smith,et al.  Translating Sustainabilities between Green Niches and Socio-Technical Regimes , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[16]  John Grin,et al.  “Doing” Reflexive Modernization in Pig Husbandry , 2008 .

[17]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Participatory design , 1993, CACM.

[18]  Jan-Peter Voßa,et al.  Reflexive Governance: Learning to cope with fundamental limitations in steering sustainable development , 2006 .

[19]  A. P. Bos,et al.  Designing complex and sustainable agricultural production systems: an integrated and reflexive approach for the case of table egg production in the Netherlands , 2008 .

[20]  John Grin Reflexive Modernisation as a Governance Issue, Or: Designing and Shaping Re-structuration , 2006 .

[21]  游淑君 國外資產移轉管理(Transition Management)業務簡介 , 2011 .

[22]  A. P. Bos,et al.  Broilers with Taste - Sustainable chicken takes flight , 2011 .

[23]  S. Rayner,et al.  Human choice and climate change , 1998 .

[24]  A. P. Bos,et al.  Reflexive Interactive Design and its Application in a Project on Sustainable Dairy Husbandry Systems , 2009 .

[25]  C. Leeuwis,et al.  Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment , 2010 .

[26]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Democracy and Disagreement: Why Moral Conflict Cannot Be Avoided in Politics, and What Should Be Done about It , 1997 .

[27]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects; functions and limitations , 2012 .

[28]  G. Koch,et al.  Outdoor ranging of poultry: a major risk factor for the introduction and development of High-Pathogenicity Avian Influenza , 2006 .

[29]  K. H. de Greef,et al.  Proof of Principle of the Comfort Class concept in pigs.: Experimenting in the midst of a stakeholder process on pig welfare , 2011 .

[30]  A. P. Bos Instrumentalization Theory and Reflexive Design in Animal Husbandry , 2008 .