This project came to an end December 31st 2012. During my 9,5 work months 2009-2012 I have done many things, see work log where you see that my primary role has been to:

• create knowledge om triple helix, focusing collaboration industry-academy, and present it mostly within Medea and Media Evolution
• be open for contacts from industry and give advice on collaboration
• be part of developing new events within Medea and Media Evolution: task forces, workshops, advisory groups etcetera

In my progress reports you find short descriptions of what the value of this project is in relation to the overall indicators and work packages. My work assigned to me has been to focus on industry and its view on collaboration and innovation with academy, more than the actual indicators, because more people have been involved doing these things to stimulate the creation of a cluster.

A draft for the final report for this project was discussed at workshop with Media Evolution, Netport and Medea November 2011. Yesterday, June 19th 2012, I participated in a workshop at Media Evolution aiming for finding results not visible in the reports and threads between projects. There and then I realised that my sketchy report should be available, as it is articulating threads in triple helix as innovation.

Because this project and the role assigned to me has been what it has, the “effect” of my work is up to the people taking part of it. So far it has been mostly within organisations. Now it can aso be everywhere. Even if my job is finished I will answer questions and engage in conversations you might have.

Sorry for it being in Swedish, hope that google translate can do the trick.

Best,

Pernilla

The triple helix thesis is an important basis for innovation that the European Union supports.

Starting point for the triple helix thesis, or the knowledge triangle as it is also called, is that collaboration between academia, industry and government is a good precondition for fostering innovation (Etzkowitz, 2002; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, Lissenburgh and Harding, 2000). Triple-helix is ​​a thesis, a perspective on innovation, where the emphasis is on:
- Commercialization (Asheim & Coenen, 2004; Leydesdorff, 2005; Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 2001; Shapira, 2002)
- Collaborative research (Best et al., 2003) and;
- Significance of the region (De Bruijn, 2004).

There is much research that supports that this type of cooperation will improve conditions for innovation, productivity and prosperity in a knowledge society (Campbell, 2005; Campbell, Koski, & Blumenthal., 2004; Etzkowitz, 2002; Leydesdorff, 2003; Shapira, 2002; Sutz, 1998).

The assumption is that a triple-helix-research partnership is best if you want to establish long-term organizational structures that allow short-term intensive collaborative experience. It is also supported by much research (Campbell, 2005; Etzkowitz, 2003; Langford, Hall, Josty, Matos, & Jacobson, 2005; Leydesdorff & Fritsch, 2005).

Regions has in research been identified as central to theories of innovation and economic development (De Bruijn, 2004). The idea is that the region as a place can become a local environment, where many of the “input” is available and where to share the work stimulated (Fritsch, 2002).

Doloreux and Parto (2004) argues that there are three key elements for regional innovation:

1. That there are regional “communities” that share a knowledge and local resources of eg special skills in the labor market, suppliers, local learning processes, local traditions to work together and so on.
2. That innovation is embedded in social relationships that develop over time according to culturally defined structures. It is often informal social relationships that determine a particular image and sense of belonging, which promotes the synergy and collective learning processes.
3. That innovation occurs when a geographical concentration and proximity are present.

Regional innovation also occurs in what can be called urban clusters. They will provide access to the maximum flow of information and ideas, provide opportunities for cooperation, access to specialists, subcontractors and suppliers, the effectiveness of specific local services, the development of a local pool of specialized labor, lower risk and, more options and customer choice (Harmaakorpi , 2004).

In order to promote regional innovation lateral relationships across borders are required, rather than traditional hierarchical bureaucratic structures (Etzkowitz, 2001). Knowledge should flow and be available at the organization and industry level and also geographically.

Successful innovation also requires organizations that have the capacity to absorb, perceive bring in opportunities (Greve & Salaff, 2001). A large pool of ideas is preferrable (Aharonson et al., 2004).

There are many difficulties in creating triple-helix cooperation that meets all these criteria.

One challenge is that the triple helix thesis can be said to be contrary to academic freedom (Bekelman, Li, & Gross, 2003). It could also be that triple-helix affect education and learning in a problematic way (Gluck, Blumenthal, & Stoto, 1987). It is also important to know that the triple-helix collaboration can bring and carry financial
conflicts of interest (Campbell et al., 2004).

Within academia, there is growing opposition to research to be ordered from above. August 1, 2009 Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter writes about scientists in rebellion to eminent British scientists. I is published as an appeal to defend the freedom of research, because of a new policy from the British research councils, which required the researcher presents the future benefits of their projects. It is insisted on that such measures are not reflected in real break-through, measured in number of Nobel Prizes.

Triple-helix is ​​also a theory that links to more scientific research, that is to say that cooperation also will take place between two or more disciplines. The key is to prevent institutions to promote the isolation of disciplines (Dauphinée and Martin, 2000).

In the collaborative world of crowdsourcing and open innovation, grass roots innovation etcetera, triple-helix seems to be a a sensemaker of an infrastructure, aiming for a certain pluralistic and inclusive approach to differences to achieve innovation. Macro levels are well researched, but the micro practices are not. The value of the coming publications from this project is providing some glimpses of those micro practices.

The trend in innovation for media development is collaborative production, consumption and produsage. Open innovation in particular linked to open source emerges as an important aspect. It explains that the more open source-oriented, the more distrust of authority, and more faith in open processes. There is a strong academic foundation in the form of Program in Open Innovation at Berkely.

Social innovation has emerged, based on corporate social responsibility, to meet the possibility of innovation aiming at a better world. It opens up for new actors and agency in innovation: social movements, cultural networks, and new academic fields. It is here that grassroots innovation is the strongest. Internationally, the U.S. sets the agenda with Stanfords Centre for Philantrophy and Civil Society.

Participatory innovation is an attempt to see how participatory design can contribute to innovation. This is a relatively new field that is emerging to capture and work with what participatory methods could mean – not only for traditional design processes – but also for structural levels like policy and management. Here there is a Scandinavian tradition of “particpatory design” and an international leader is SPIRE in Denmark.

Gendered innovation is not just about attention to women as resources for innovation. It is also a way to capture the inclusive and situated and practices that sex and gender analysis mean to create new knowledge. Europe has captured this in recent years and is involved a partnership with U.S, Gendered Innovations at Stanford.

In an example of what innovation can and should be, there is a close link to University as an important part in finding new ways to work with and understand the innovation. U.S. has managed to become a world leader in virtually all innovation inputs, except the participation of innovation. Here is a Scandinavian tradition to build on where Sweden, Skåne and Malmö in particular have an opportunity to become internationally strong. Medea has world leading reputation in particiatory design and has a network that includes SPIRE in Denmark.

Communicating this project has been, well… a project of it’s own. It is no wonder because an important starting point for this project is contact/outreach/linkages to understand collaboration between academia, industry and government (the classic triple-helix triangle).

Since starting August 17th 2009 I have explored how different forms of social networked media, mainly two different WordPress blog’s (this one and http://pernillaseverson.wordpress.com) and the microblog tool Twitter (as @perseverson and @pernillaseverso).

Finalizing the project (ending 9,5 work months later December 31st) I have made a collection of my blog post’s from the first one August 18th 2009 and the one’s published up til today, October 24th 2010: MMSS1 FoU Delprojekt_PS_SamladBlogginlagg

In the social networked media world linking to your own material is not unusal. More often than seldom link’s appear on Twitter where blogger’s refer to earlier blog post’s on a current theme. And it is not uncommon that digital media content end up in physical form, for example collecting and publishing your own images.

My Blog Post Collection is meant partly to give insight to the knowledge production process during this project. But more significantly, to give insight to media, innovation and participation. Here are some first reflections.

Looking back on the published 40 blog post’s, they show a process of entering a new arena through questions, issues, reflections, debates, abstracts, articles, clarifications, chit chat, academic lingo, results, Swedish, English etcetera.

A prominent theme is how the process of making sense of media, innovation and participation is structured along “mapping persons and papers”, “meaningful approaches to phenomena” and “transparent and accountable”. It is a political journey from “innovation as innocent and possible” to “innovation as political and sometimes hindering”. It is also a personal journey from having no other communication arena than the blog to demanding and also creating other arenas.

Being a voice in the digital world has not always meant that people have been listening to me. What it has meant is that I have been accepted as a conversation partner on Twitter and have gotten a spurred interest for the project helping legitimating me for interviews with companies. More on this will be developed in the final report which will be published both in Swedish and English.

If you’re interested in specific topics and or issues, just let me know.

/Pernilla

During these years (started August 2009) I have included communication as an important aspect of both understanding innovation and accomplishing some kind of collaborative knowledge production on the matter.

Starting the project I tried to explore as many communication possibilities as I could: participating in conversation wherever I could, and was allowed and welcomed to.

In the process of ending this project, meaningful communication of its results seem more pressing than ever.

My main result on exploring communication possibilites is that academic relevance need extreme situated settings. It is not enough with one blog post on the main results from my study of local participatory innovation practices. I mean, it takes a lot of effort just to try and understand what this study is all about.

I am convinced that my results from studying media events, social media and interviewing companies are relevant for all people involved in the swamp (or heaven) of innovation.

I am also convinced that for me to be able to connect with these people I need to engage in conversation – this is also a main result of evaluating my communication exploration.
On Twitter I am present both as @perseverson and as @pernillaseverso The former, more depersonalized twitter-personality has not been meaningful, in the sense of it has not been making people interested in asking and knowing more about my study.

As @pernillaseverso I am both the professional and the personal Me.  I have connected with many different people, expressing interest in my research. Here I will continue with 140 character tweets on main results, using the hashtag #PSfoproj.

I have also tried the concept of Network by Doing, exploring the Do Tank-method and its relevance for communicating and stimulating innovation. This I will continue with.

Another way of communicating results from this project will be in form of a workshop with Heidi Nilsson and Sara Ponnert at Media Evolution. With my main results, in form of a text based report (a draft in November), we will situate these results by discussing it in relation to their knowledge of this cluster’s member companies. Our goal is to come up with at least one relevant issue for each company. This will be communicated to the company with an invitation to have a conversation on what this result implicates for the company.

Hopefully this will result in meaningful communication of results, by engaging and involving people in the relevance making process.

In academic research, ethics is an important part of the work conducted. There are several books and articles on the matter. In Sweden one important guideline for research ethics comes from the Swedish Research Council.

This project is one part of MMSS1 FoU focusing on a study of local participatory innovation practices. Here I have three field studies:

- Media Events

- Social Media

- Interviews with companies

In media events I analyse all official material from the organizer, mostly from the conferense web site. I also make use of my own experiences from the event, as field notes. I do not use any conversations with any participants from the events. Only the official presentations from the conference speakers is referred to.

In social media I analyze Twitter focusing on its possibilities for participatory innovation. I follow open Twitter accounts looking and being part of the talk of interest and following hashtags: so I do not analyze persons but what becomes talk of interest. To publish something referring to persons tweeting I will ask for consent.

In interviews with companies, every interview has been introduced by a moment of talk and consenting to me recording the interview and using it as confidential material. It is only me that listens to and transcribes the material. To publish material I go back to interview persons for consent again.

All of this has been part of my work since I started August 2009. The reason for a blog post on the issue now, is that I am starting to try some analytic thoughts on Twitter with hashtag #PSfoproj from the media events study. And I want to be sure that people reading it can trust me. This post was triggered to be published one week earlier beacuse of an article on research ethics in the local daily newspaper.

For research ethics to really work it needs a vibrant ever present discussion and conversation. Please do no hesitate to comment and or ask questions.

/Pernilla

Drawing on tentative results from six months work during 2009-2011, I will test the idea of “network by doing” by creating an event that takes place September 21st 2011.

This event aims at connecting different women networks by, during a couple of hours, engage in Arduino-prototyping.

It is an effort to:

- Meet and enhance that research imply that diversity foster innovation

- Explore ‘think-do’ tank in connecting formal networks

The event is also based in beta results from ethnographies at conferences, in social media and at companies, where tentative results show:

- There is an extreme multitude of events that are more or less similar in their form: talks from experts and time for informal conversation between participants. Women do not seem to be experts in digital technology.

- That social media can be a way to connect a diversity of people, and to mobilize people to action if combined with offline events.

- That companies seem to prefer collaboration in form of “doing”, to make meaning of exploring new things, not only thinking and talking. For companies different forms of formal networks are important.

Innovation and Diversity

Innovation is not an easy concept to describe. I find this definition relevant: “The concept of innovation is that of adopting the idea of process or innovative activities” (Pinto, 2009).

In innovation research recent results support that diversity foster innovation. This has grown from establishing notions of innovation as “key factor to growth and competitiveness”, that “innovation and technological change have a critical impact on economic development”, realizing that “the concept of innovation remains unclear and has been an area under discussion in different approaches” and coming to terms with that innovation is better understood as a system rather than a chain (Pinto, 2009).

So far in research, the link between diversity and innovation is something that “is mainly addressed through the descriptive notion of niche markets” where the approach has been that “efficiency relates positively and diversity negatively to various increasing returns to scale in markets”. The problem with this approach is that it “neglects the benefits of diversity in terms of realizing system improvements through recombinant innovation or spillovers.” (Van Den Bergh, 2008).

This highlights what Leiponen and Helfat (2010) show in their study:

“Innovation is a risky business. Under conditions of high uncertainty, it makes sense to ask: how can firms maximize their chances of success? In the context of innovation activity, there is a longstanding answer: safety lies in numbers and in variety of attack (Jewkes, Sawers, and Stillerman, 1958). In other words, search broadly.”

Van Den Bergh (2008) show results that diversity “fosters the necessary ‘recombinant innovation’ and ‘spillovers between different options’ that is needed for realizing system improvements; i.e. “one should cherish ones failures and innovative wastage”.

When it comes to more empirical studies of diversity and innovation, it is cultural diversity (percentage of non-nationals in the population) that is used as an indicator (see Florida, 2005). In a study of Gössling and Rutten (2007), mentioned by Pinto (2009) cultural diversity (as well as wealth, talent and density) brings “positive impact on regional innovativeness”.

Pinto (2009) discusses diversity more broadly that cultural diversity as percentage of non-nationals in the population. The meaning of diversity in innovation can also be “Network organizations, e.g. search for partners that posses competencies different from their own (Gössling et al., 2005)”.

Tsai (2009) study collaborative approaches for companies and show that “collaborative network” promotes innovation and that “The greatest positive impact on the degree of innovation novelty comes from collaborative networks comprising different types of partners.

A version of diversity and innovation, I claim is the arguments found in initiatives and research on do-tanks, focusing on the process of innovative activities.

Think and Do Tanks

A microform of innovation is present in so called think tanks. I will in this section discuss the transition from think tanks to do-tanks as including diversity thinking, in the doing of policy and networking and collaborating.

Think tanks are important initiatives for the European Union:

“The number of think-tanks in Europe has more than quadrupled in recent years, and they have become more active and inventive at disseminating policy solutions to decision-makers. But they are at risk of turning into lobbyists as they face issues related to funding, autonomy and innovation.” (EurActive, 2009)

Lists of how many think tanks the European Union have, you can find here and here. For a list on Swedish think tanks, click here.

Research on think tanks and do-tanks is not very well developed. I have only found a few, and if you have any suggestions, please let me know!

The idea of think tanks is that it should function as “a research communication ‘bridge’” for policy work (Stone (2007). Stone is quite critical of think tanks:

“The phrase ‘think tank’ has become ubiquitous – overworked and underspecified – in the political lexicon. It is entrenched in scholarly discussions of public policy as well as in the ‘policy wonk’ of journalists, lobbyists and spin-doctors. This does not mean that there is an agreed definition of think tank or consensual understanding of their roles and functions. Nevertheless, the majority of organizations with this label undertake policy research of some kind. The idea of think tanks as a research communication ‘bridge’ presupposes that there are discernible boundaries between (social) science and policy.”

For Stone do-tanks mean distinguishing between different forms of think tanks: “so-called scholarly ‘ink tank’ /…/ against the activist ‘think-and-do tank’”:

“There is also the phenomenon of the ‘think-and-do tanks’. That is, institutes initiate and support the implementation or execution of community programmes, policy trials, evaluation of programmes, monitoring, and so forth. Some institutes also engage in ethics training, delivering in-service courses, producing TV documentaries, or capacity building.”

For Valaskakis (2010) “‘think tanks’ have to be followed by ‘do tanks’ that come up with appropriate action plans”; thay act at different levels:

“At the think tank level, it is very important to connect the dots, discover patterns, uncover unsuspected links and, conversely, to note explicit and implicit uncouplings, turning points, which are often not discernible to the naked eye, yet very real. Based on this idea, we must look for cross-cutting currents and not just investigate vertical silos. At the ‘do tank’, strategies must be based on a realistic assessment of what can be done and in what time frame. As such, they must be distinguished from mere ‘wish lists’ or vague recommendations in defence of motherhood and apple pie. In light of the above, the most important question ahead is not identifying the myriad challenges ahead, but how well we, as Homo sapiens are equipped to face them. In my view, this boils down to one question which is likely to become the central issue for decades ahead: How can we explore better ways of managing our world and seeking alternative methods of global governance?”

Saturated in the do tank-level is the line of thinking from Dewey on Learning by doing: that we learn from putting ideas into action. I also see strands from action-research, design-research and practice-based research (both from art and from social work).

Initiatives using the concept “do tank” look very different. Medea, the research center I am active at, has been doing do tanks here, in form of different co-production projects. One can also see Medea’s initative for a FabLab, Fabriken, as an effort to create a do tank. At School of Arts and Communication, where I do my teaching there has been several experiments with for example sewing circles for SMS embroydering.

One well-known do tank is this from The New York Law School:

“The Do Tank strives to strengthen the ability of groups to solve problems, make decisions, resolve conflict and govern themselves by designing software and legal code to promote collaboration. Tools alone cannot create a culture of strong groups. Hence Do Tank projects address the role of legal and political institutions, social and business practices and the visual and graphical technologies — what we term the “social code” — that may allow groups, not only to foster community, but to take action.”

Creating an Event

In the study by Pinto (2009) results point to the need to “originate actions adapted to each specific context”. The event, Network by Doing, is an example of exactly this. The context is Medea, where we experiment with different forms of thinking and doing.

This event is focusing on exploring the aspects of networks and collaborating by doing digital prototyping.

The event has grown from different established personal contacts. Me, Charlotte Uhler and Anna Oscarsson have met at Geek Girl Meetups in Malmö. The networks involved in organizing are: Nätverket Göran, Geek Girls, Medea.

Geek Girl Meetup is a network focusing on “geek girls interested in web, technology and innovation”:

“Geek girl meetup is an un-conference for geeky girls interested in web, code and business development. Our goal is to create new netwoks and elevate female role models in the industry. And have fun of course. We do that by letting each participant share there knowledge with others. That’s how you create great conditions for exchanging knowledge.” It is the local for Öresund that we cooperate with, and who invite this network.

Nätverket Göran is an “an informal network for women who want to share experiences and get tips on how to achieve balance in life, between  leisure and work”.  The network aim to “can help each other, both with  practical tips and by creating a platform for exchange of ideas”.

Medea, is a research center focusing on collaborative media. The formal Medea network consists of a list of organizations that we collaborate with. At Medea the imeediate network is collegues. Like Geek Girl and Nätverket Göran, Medea is involved in different social networked activities. Facebook, Twitter, email lists etcetera.

Social networked media has been used to connect a diversity of people, in inviting people to the event. During the event we will learn from Clara Leivas, a female student, through a facilitated lab on making Arduino prototyping. It will be group work where competences will be mixed.

Expectations of “Network by doing” is the same as for The New York Law School’s do tank: to close the “capability gap” by inspire to take action. For me it will also mean creating more insight to how do tanks kan be understood in relation to innovation and networks. More will be written on this matter after the event.

See you!

References

Leiponen A and Constance E. Helfat (2010) Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strat. Mgmt. J., 31: 224–236.

Pinto, Hugo. “The Diversity of Innovation in the European Union: Mapping Latent Dimensions and Regional Profiles.” In European Planning Studies 17, no. 2 (February 2009): 303-326. 

Stone (2007) Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public Administration Volume 85, Issue 2, pages 259–278, June 2007

Tsai, KH (2009) Collaborative approaches for companies, See Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective  Original Research Article Research Policy, Volume 38, Issue 5, June 2009, Pages 765-778

Valaskakis, K (2010) The case for global governance.  Technological Forecasting and Social Change Volume 77, Issue 9, November 2010, Pages 1595-1598

Van Den Bergh (2008) Optimal diversity: Increasing returns versus recombinant innovation, in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Volume 68, Issues 3-4, December 2008, Pages 565-580

This is an abstract for the conference NordMedia 2011 being presented in August. In my work in this project I study local participatory innovation practices. A lot of people and institutions are wondering and pondering on where innovation takes place and how to understand different forms of innovation. In this paper I try to show how deeply involved we as academics are in the ‘swamp’ of social innovation and how social media is relevant. This paper is written for academia, I will adapt it to other contexts Fall 2011. Comments and thoughts are much appreciated.

Abstract

Title: Exploring Twitter as a network site for research on and in social innovation

Doing research on and in social media highlights the complexity of seeing a researcher as something outside of a media practice. In this paper I articulate and explore my own research presence in social media, framing it in the context of doing research on (and in) ‘social innovation’. I argue that social media tools in fact can be seen as a social innovation of it’s own. Using the microblog tool Twitter I engage in different forms of practice: 1) following my followers social innovation activity on Twitter 2) asking my followers for social innovation examples on Twitter 3) conduct searches for social innovation on Twitter. Discussing production of this scientific knowledge I touch upon social circumstances surrounding social innovation. I present the ability of Putnam’s research on civicness to understand and explore possible value of social media practice in this context. Results implicate an intricate ongoing weaving of connecting practices, what I describe as themes of ‘cross-pollinations’, ‘personal as political’ and ‘dynamic communities’. I claim that the established norm of reciprocity and the forms it can take, is especially interesting to explore more for doing research on and in social media.

This project has a lot to do with ‘co’ as it being placed at MEDEA, a centre of co-production, and its focus on media, innovation and participation.

In this text I will think a bit about the ‘co’ and its link to Mode 2 research.

New knowledge production refers to a novel way of scientific knowledge production. It is what Gibbons et al (1994) and Nowotny et al (2001) mention when they bring forward the thoughts on Mode 2 research: academia as co-production. Where Mode 2 research is context-driven, problem-focused and interdisciplinary, Mode 1 research is investigator-initiated and discipline-based. This would point to that Mode 2 research processes are more co-operative, and participative, as Reason (1999) proposes. This would also mean that there is an ‘intentional interplay between reflection and sensemaking on the one hand, and experience and action on the other’, as Heron and Reason (2001, p 179) claim.

New knowledge production is linked to ‘new media’, i.e. information and communication technologies; digital media. New media is associated with more possible of interaction and participation than ‘old media’, often comparing mass media as top down with networked media as bottom-up. Hine (2006) suggest, that technology development is facilitating new ways of doing science. Jenkins (forthcoming on Transformative Work) builds on concepts of convergence and participatory culture, and declares possibilities of transformative work where the ‘aca-fan’ and academic activism are new interactions.

I start with the phenomena of ‘co’, as something acknowledging ‘a distinct shift from a culture of autonomy to a culture of accountability’ (Nowotny et al, 2005:42) and as something empirically based. Being part of a co-production academic setting since August 2009, this text and my work can be called a self-reflective scientific participative work, or what Nowotny (2005) name as co-evolution, a more integrated system society-science interaction.

New knowledge production has as many discourses on ‘new’ been criticized for not being new, as something that has been there all the time just more or less in different places. I use them as ‘reflective essayes’ (Nowotny, 2001) as valuable analytical propositions for how to think and do co-production from a knowledge production perspective.

Approaching the ‘co’ in this context means making acquaintance with different attachments. So far I have mentioned co-production, co-operative, co-evolution. Co-production is traditionally associated with the making of a film or television programme which is produced by several organizations. In this case it is supposed to signal knowledge production where academic institutions are making knowledge together with organizations and persons outside academia. Co-operative is furthering this production perspective by implying working or acting together toward a common end or purpose. Best highlighter in this triple is co-evolution, as ‘reciprocal interactions between agents and processes to form co-evolutionary dynamics’ (Garnsey and McGlade 2006:10).

The foundations for the ‘co’ can be found in the meanings of dialogue. On a common sense-level dialogue means a conversation between two or more people where there is supposed to be an exchange of ideas or opinions. The opposite of dialogue is monologue. Compare this with Mode 1 and Mode 2 research, where Mode 2 research is supposed to be integrated system society-science interaction; a conversation with exchange of ideas or opinion.

Another relevant attachment to ‘co’ in this context is co-creation (Winsor, 2005; Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010) and co-design (King et al, 1989; Seybold, 2006). Both concepts are used in the context of knowledge production with a stronger focus on creativity and innovation value. This interest in collective creativity has its foundations in Pierre Lévy’s work on collective intelligence (Lévy, 1999). Embodied in concepts such as open source, user generated, open innovation, sward intelligence, crowd sourcing etcetera. The argument is that knowledge societies and networked societies need collective intelligence ‘use collaborative work as a mean to develop collective intelligence’ (van Weert: 31).

In my work as a researcher I use the concept collaborative to go into empirical depth of co-evolution. My main argument is that collaborative naturally embodies both a positive and a negative meaning of co-evolution. To collaborate is to work with another or others on a joint project, but it can also be to cooperate as a traitor, an enemy occupying one’s own culture/nation/country. With ‘collaborating’, I want to pay attention to not only the how of collaboration but also noticing collaboration for what and for whom and with which consequences? Being collaborative cannot be just for it’s own sake. To be able to make meaning of situations of collaboration it must also involve articulating resistance.

Coming close to the ‘co’ is looming around the proposition of a collaborative turn, and recommending a focus on the methodological necessities of collaboration as a performative act. This intends adding a layer to the ethics of cyberspace (Hamelink, 2000) with the ethics of collaboration. How are we to ethically deal with digital media’s participatory possibility as researchers? How are we to resist the individualistic mode and at the same time recognize the self?

The question why is always interesting and hard at the same time. Why does this project exist? Why on earth put one researcher on studying local participatory innovation practices? Why?

Answering this question on project relevance I will use the words of Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons:

Reliable knowledge can become socially robust only if society perceives the process of knowledge production to be participative. This, in turn, depends upon a reciprocity in which the public understands how science works, but, equally, science understands how the public works. This enhanced mutual understanding needs to be guided by a vision, supported by appropriate images as well as transparency about how they have generated and by whom.