Since 2001, the Dutch province of Overijssel has had its own knowledge centre focusing on urban society, called the ‘KennisInstituut Stedelijke Samenleving’ (KISS), alongside national knowledge centres. This essay gives an overview of some relevant KISS meetings devoted to a many kinds of citizen participation. The overview is based on reports made by the author himself. Examples of citizen participation are: the new styles of neighbourhood governance, citizen participation through neighbourhood budgets, the strength of the city and location-based leadership, innovative urban renewal and the promotion of citizen initiatives in the province of Overijssel. Examples are not only from the province of Overijssel (situated in the east of the Netherlands), but also from other parts of the Netherlands and other countries (Flanders, United Kingdom, United States and all over the world). The subject of citizen participation (in connection with urban renewal and administrative leadership) enjoys an ever-increasing popularity as is shown by the number of KISS meetings devoted to this subject.

Given the scientific and social importance attached to productive interactions between science and policy practices, there is a striking lack of insight into current knowledge practices and the dilemmas they lead to. Our special issue can’t solve this deficiency but it can provide an impetus for opening up current knowledge practices, reflect on the role of science in them and instigate a more systematic exchange of methods. A warning is given for the reification of boundary work and Gabrielle Bammers’ Implementation and Integration Sciences is introduced as framework for the analyses.

A transition to a bio based economy requires social and technological innovations. Transition management theory holds that these innovations take place in niches that can bring about structural change in society, politics and the economy in a stepwise manner. However, these innovations are always subjected to systemic barriers, such as regulations and institutional structures, that need to be overcome. This was also the case in a consortium of government, industry and eco-toxicologists that collaboratively developed innovative water monitoring tools. In this contribution the authors investigate how systemic barriers can be made productive in a science-society dialogue by creating reflexivity and learning. They conducted a frame analysis of interviews and policy documents to unravel systemic barriers to innovation – in the form of discursive boundary work: the routinized demarcations of practices. Second, they experimented with a science-society dialogue to reflect on these routinized demarcations and develop alternatives to overcome these boundaries. The research demonstrates that reflective conversations occurred and that participants developed a boundary concept of ‘living water’ that enhanced their innovative collaboration and technology.

When scientific values like objectivity, validity and reliability are inadequate for designing research that enables society’s capacity for dealing with unstructured problems, which values or criteria should we use for designing adequate knowledge practices? Based on the articles in this special issue we answer this question by analysing the methods researchers have used for selecting stakeholders, knowledges, synthesis, context and outcome in new knowledge practices. Although a common language for comparison and documentation is lacking, the analysis provides recommendations for better designing interaction between scientific and other practices. The most important message however is that we need a designated platform for exchanging and evaluating experiences and discussing methods and the outcomes they yield.

De Nederlandse rijksoverheid maakt steeds meer gebruik van DBFM(O)-contracten om grootschalige bouw- en infraprojecten te ontwikkelen en te realiseren (DBFM(O) staat voor Design, Build, Finance, Maintain en eventueel Operate). De organisatie en inrichting van deze contracten en projecten zijn ‘als vanzelfsprekend’ gegroeid en gestandaardiseerd, veelal gebaseerd op de internationale praktijk en buitenlandse voorbeelden. Dit artikel zet uiteen hoe DBFM(O)-projecten georganiseerd en gestructureerd worden door publieke en private partijen. Uit internationaal onderzoek blijkt dat de resultaten wisselend zijn, maar de potentiële voordelen van DBFM(O) zijn groot. Deze potentie blijkt uit de eerste praktijkervaringen in Nederland, maar we kennen inmiddels ook de eerste negatieve gevolgen voor betrokken risicodragende partijen. We onderscheiden bij DBFM(O) zes ‘conventies’ met onderliggende spanningen waar praktijk en wetenschap, in de Nederlandse verhoudingen, kritisch op zullen moeten reflecteren.

Big Data is the new hype in municipal policy and the promise of Big Data is rationalization: better policy that is based on better information. In this article the authors investigate the extent to which the use of Big Data in municipal organizations results in a more rational policy process. Their empirical research was held in two Dutch municipalities: Tilburg, in the south of the Netherlands, and Assen, in the north of the Netherlands. They investigated how Tilburg deploys Big Data for the fight against crime and Assen is trying to improve its traffic management with Big Data. Their analysis shows that policy, more so than in the past, is being steered by specific information because Big Data is being used. The rationalization of policy, however, is limited by the possibilities of Big Data and by political dynamics. Their final conclusion therefore is that the uncertainty, unfamiliarity, complexity and constant change are partly made manageable and controllable by the use of Big Data in municipal organizations. Politics is also partly ‘tamed’ because politicians have to relate to ‘objective data’ from information systems.

In the Netherlands citizens increasingly unite in cooperatives to realize common facilities and services in their neighborhood themselves. Apparently neither markets nor governments succeed in providing all the public goods and services that citizens strive for. Although these forms of self-organization are still young and their success is far from sure, they are seen as sources of social innovation and new ways of organizing that inspire many. Their example is followed widely: cooperatives seem to be rapidly emerging almost everywhere. Yet not much systemic knowledge is available on their nature, drivers, and impacts, nor on the conditions under which they flourish. In this special issue the state of the art regarding these cooperatives is examined in the areas of energy, care, broadband connections and housing. The various contributions show that the main challenge that cooperatives have to deal with is finding the balance between the ambition to preserve their identity as grass root organizations and the need for professionalization. Also they have to learn to build and maintain relationships with other organizations and actors in their environment on which they are dependent: governments, private parties and professionals.

Based on a database with 75 rural community broadband initiatives in the Netherlands and a longitudinal analysis of a specific initiative in the municipality of Oldambt, the authors discuss how citizens campaign for improved internet connections in a cooperative setting. The authors present an 8-step model which shows that at each step citizens, governments and private telecom companies affect the completion of the step. Both telecom companies and governments, however, stick to their old way of working. The market parties try to slow down the process and prevent their market areas from being affected by the initiatives, while governments are unclear about (potential) policies. Community broadband initiatives learn ‘on the job’ and they need perseverance as well as social, intellectual and financial capital in order to be successful. The realization of rural broadband requires efforts from citizens and the involvement of facilitating and supportive governments.

In a column a journal editor or an author expresses his or her opinion on a particular subject.

In his much praised book on mayors, Benjamin Barber argues it’s up to cities to address the world’s most acute problems. These include wicked problems such as climate change, terrorism, poverty and trafficking of drugs, weapons and humans. Cities are not only excellent problem solvers, they are also given a prominent role in innovation and economics, democracy and citizenship, and more recently domestic care. Complicated, wicked and thus knowledge intensive problems are stacking up at the local level. But where to get the appropriate knowledge to tackle these issues?

In this closing article we summarize the results of the individual articles of this themed issue and draw common lessons. With regard to cities as living labs, we conclude that three challenges need more attention: (1) unclear or contradictory goals and expectations, (2) organizational confusion, and (3) the lack of institutional links. Based on these, we offer a number of recommendations for research and practice in public administration.

Over the last couple of decades, metropolitan areas around the world have been engaged in a multitude of initiatives aimed at upgrading urban infrastructure and services, in an effort to create better environmental, social and economic conditions and to enhance cities’ attractiveness and competitiveness. Reflecting these developments, many new categories of ‘cities’ have entered the policy discourse: ‘sustainable cities’; ‘green cities’; ‘digital cities’; ‘intelligent cities’; ‘smart cities’; ‘information cities’; ‘knowledge cities’; ‘resilient cities’; ‘eco-cities’; ‘low carbon cities’; ‘liveable cities’; and even combinations, such as ‘low carbon eco-cities’ and ‘ubiquitous eco-cities’. Each of these terms apparently seeks to capture and conceptualize key aspects of ongoing urban sustainability efforts. Closer examination, however, reveals that the terms are often used interchangeably by policy makers, planners and developers alike. In this article we examine the reflection of the wider policy debate in academic discourse. By subjecting the twelve most frequently encountered categories mentioned above to bibliometric analysis, we aim to identify the distinct conceptual perspectives harbored by each of them.

The city is hot: solutions to the world’s everyday problems are increasingly sought at the local level. Local administrations are handed more responsibilities through decentralizations and much is expected of the pragmatic skills of mayors. A great deal of hope is directed at the self-organizing abilities of cities, which can be seen as laboratories for social change and improvement. In this themed issue we will critically review these high expectations of cities and the local level. Can cities live up to these expectations, and at what point does ‘hope’ become ‘hype’? This introductory article mainly focuses on the concept of living labs, which are presented as an accessible, innovative and pragmatic way to address social issues in neighbourhoods.