Smart mobility innovation policy as boundary work: identifying the challenges of user involvement

References

• Akrich, M. (1994). User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In A. Rip, T. J. Misa, & J. et Schot (eds.), Managing technology in society. The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 167–184). Pinter. Retrieved from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00081749/en/
   Google Scholar
• Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1989). Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 53–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/248700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benevolo, C., Dameri, R. P., & D’Auria, B. (2016). Smart mobility in Smart City. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23784-8_2
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1_suppl), 196–233. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash, D., William, C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., Guston, D., & Mitchel, R. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086–8091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.4.381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Mooij, B. (2013). Better informed on the road. Roadmap 2013–2023. Connekt/Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. Retrieved from https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/20151019_112030_35962_Engelse_versie_BGOW_2015_klein.pdf
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, A., Van Waes, A., Van Est, R., Van Der Meulen, B., & Brom, F. (2015). Enabling participation A vision on public participation in decision-making about long term radioactive waste management. Retrieved from https://www.rathenau.nl/sites/default/files/2018-04/Enablingparticipation-RathenauInstituut.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Geelen, D., Reinders, A., Keyson, D, & . (2013). Energy policy: The international journal of the political, economic, planning, environmental and social aspects of energy. Energy Policy, 61. Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeenepol/v_3a61_3ay_3a2013_3ai_3ac_3ap_3a151-161.htm
   Google Scholar
• Geels, F. W. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471–482. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, J. (2003). The popularization and excommunication of Fred Hoyle’s “life-from-space” theory. Public Understanding of Science, 12(1), 25–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662503012001245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppe, R. (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis & Praxis, 3(3), 199–215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-005-0074-0
   Google Scholar
• Hoppe, R. (2009). Scientific advice and public policy: Expert advisers’ and policymakers’ discourses on boundary work. Poiesis & Praxis, 6(3–4), 235–263. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-008-0053-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hyysalo, S. (2016). New production of users. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/The-New-Production-of-Users-Changing-Innovation-Collectives-and-Involvement/Hyysalo-Jensen-Oudshoorn/p/book/9781138124561
   Google Scholar
• Kaulio, M. A. (1998). Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: A framework and a review of selected methods. Total Quality Management, 9, 141–149. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412989333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S., & Klerkx, L. (2019). Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 48(4), 1062–1075. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujala, S. (2010). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges user involvement: A review of the bene®ts and challenges. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290301782
   Google Scholar
• Löwy, I. (1992). The strength of loose concepts — boundary concepts, federative experimental strategies and disciplinary growth: The case of immunology. History of Science, 30(4), 371–396. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/007327539203000402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C. (2001). Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 478–500. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mont, O. (2004). Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecological Economics, 50(1–2), 135–153. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2004.03.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss, T. (2009). Intermediaries and the governance of sociotechnical networks in transition. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(6), 1480–1495. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/a4116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noy, K., & Givoni, M. (2018). Is ‘smart mobility’ sustainable? Examining the views and beliefs of transport’s technological entrepreneurs. Sustainability, 10(2), 422. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Offermans, A., & Glasbergen, P. (2015). Boundary work in sustainability partnerships: An exploration of the round table on sustainable palm oil. Environmental Science and Policy, 50, 34–45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orsini, A., Louafi, S., & Morin, J.-F. (2017). Boundary concepts for boundary work between science and technology studies and international relations: Special issue introduction. Review of Policy Research, 34(6), 734–743. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oswick, C., & Robertson, M. (2009). Boundary objects reconsidered: From bridges and anchors to barricades and mazes. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 179–193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010902879137
   Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(1), 30–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piller, F. T., Ihl, C., & Vossen, A. (2010). A typology of customer co-creation in the innovation process. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1732127
   Google Scholar
• Riesch, H. (2010). Theorizing boundary work as representation and identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(4), 452–473. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2010.00441.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salas Gironés E., van Est, R., & Verbong, G. (2019). Transforming mobility: The Dutch smart mobility policy as an example of a transformative STI policy. Science and Public Policy, 46(6), 820-833. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz032
   Google Scholar
• Sopjani, L., Stier, J. J., Ritzén, S., Hesselgren, M., & Georén, P. (2019). Involving users and user roles in the transition to sustainable mobility systems: The case of light electric vehicle sharing in Sweden. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71, 207–221. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2018.12.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2013.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanja Manders, T. N., Anna Wieczorek, A. J., & Geert Verbong, G. P. J. (2020). Complexity, tensions, and ambiguity of intermediation in a transition context: The case of connecting mobility. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 183–208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Hoven, J. (2013). Value sensitive design and responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation (pp. 75–83). doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch4
   Google Scholar
• Van De Poel, I. (2000). On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(3), 383–397. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320050130615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., & Van Waveren, B. (2003). Role of systemic intermediaries in transition processes. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 247–279. Retrieved from www.worldscientific.com
   Google Scholar
• Verbong, G. P. J., Beemsterboer, S., & Sengers, F. (2013). Smart grids or smart users? Involving users in developing a low carbon electricity economy. Energy Policy, 52, 117–125. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2012.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vines, J., Clarke, R., Wright, P., McCarthy, J., & Olivier, P. (2013). Configuring participation: On how we involve people in design. In Conference on human factors in computing systems – proceedings (pp. 429–438). doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470716
   Google Scholar
• von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55, 63–78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-004-0002-8
   Google Scholar
• Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1_suppl), 58–99. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03349.x
   Google Scholar