This article examines how social innovation (SI) research can co-produce transformative change in cities. A key challenge is to diffuse and sustain SIs in ways that transform the relational webs that constitute local spaces and their governance. The relational approach to SI is conceptually promising in this respect, but its foundations and practices need to be further developed. Therefore, I develop a relational ‘theory–methods package’ of practice theory and action research. By co-producing immediately usable insights, experiences and artefacts in the daily practice of SI, this approach enables researchers to gradually create conditions for a transformative trajectory of learning and change in urban governance. I critically appraise four research practices in the context of SI in Dutch urban governance and reflect on the transformative potential of this relational theory–methods package.
AgarMH (1996) The Professional Stranger. An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. Bingley: Emerald.
2.
AikenGT (2017) Social innovation and participatory action research: A way to research community?European Public & Social Innovation Review2(1): 17–33.
3.
BartelsKPR (2012) The actionable researcher: Cultivating a process-oriented methodology for studying administrative practice. Administrative Theory and Praxis34(3): 433–455.
4.
BartelsKPR (2016) Doing what’s necessary: How encounters in practice shape and improve interactive governance work. In: EdelenbosJVan MeerkerkI (eds) Critical Reflections on Interactive Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 352–375.
5.
BartelsKPR (2017) The double bind of social innovation: Relational dynamics of change and resistance in neighbourhood governance. Urban Studies54(16): 3789–3805.
6.
BartelsKPR (2018) Collaborative dynamics in street level work: Working in and with communities to improve relationships and reduce deprivation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space36(7): 1319–1337.
7.
BartelsKPRWittmayerJM (2014) Symposium introduction: What usable knowledge means in action research practice. Critical Policy Studies8(4): 397–406.
8.
BartelsKPRWittmayerJM (eds) (2018) Action Research in Policy Analysis: Critical and Relational Approaches to Sustainability Transitions. London: Routledge.
9.
BlancoILeónM (2017) Social innovation, reciprocity and contentious politics: Facing the socio-urban crisis in Ciutat Meridiana, Barcelona. Urban Studies54(9): 2172–2188.
10.
BlancoIGriggsSSullivanH (2014) Situating the local in the neoliberalisation and transformation of urban governance. Urban Studies51(15): 3129–3146.
11.
BloklandT (2017) Community as Urban Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
12.
BrownJSDuguidP (1991) Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science2(1): 40–57.
13.
BuegerC (2014) Pathways to practice: Praxiography and international politics. European Political Science Review6: 383–406.
14.
BurnsD (2014) Systemic action research: Changing system dynamics to support sustainable change. Action Research12(1): 3–18.
15.
CerwonkaAMalkkiLH (2007) Improvising Theory: Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
17.
CookSDNWagenaarH (2012) Navigating the eternally unfolding present: Toward an epistemology of practice. The American Review of Public Administration42(1): 3–38.
18.
CornwallA (2004) Introduction: New democratic spaces? The politics and dynamics of institutionalised participation. IDS Bulletin35(2): 1–10.
19.
DomanskiDKaletkaC (eds) (2017) Exploring the Research Landscape of Social Innovation. Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle.
20.
EricksonF (2011) A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage, pp. 43–59.
21.
FrantzeskakiNRokA (2018) Co-producing urban sustainability transitions knowledge with community, policy and science. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions29: 47–51.
22.
FraserJWeningerC (2008) Modes of engagement for urban research: Enacting a politics of possibility. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space40: 1435–1453.
23.
Gemeente Amsterdam (2013) Gebiedsgericht werken: Een kwestie van dóen [Area-focused Working: A Matter of Doing]. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam.
24.
GherardiS (2012) How to Conduct a Practice-based Study: Problems and Methods. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
25.
GreenwoodDJ (1991) Collective reflective practice through participatory action research: A case study from the Fagor cooperatives of Mondragón. In: SchönD (ed.) The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and On Educational Practice. New York and London: Teachers College Press, pp. 84–107.
26.
GreenwoodDJ (2007) Pragmatic action research. International Journal of Action Research3(1–2): 131–148.
27.
GreenwoodDJLevinM (2007) Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
GrinJ (2018) Stasis and change. In: ColebatchHKHoppeR (eds) Handbook on Policy, Process and Governing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 418–437.
29.
GrinJRotmansJSchotJ (2010) Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. London: Routledge.
30.
HargreavesTLonghurstNSeyfangG (2013) Up down round and round: Connecting regimes and practices in innovation for sustainability. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space45: 402–420.
31.
HaxeltineAPelBWittmayerJ, et al. (2017) Building a middle-range theory of transformative social innovation: Theoretical pitfalls and methodological responses. European Public & Social Innovation Review2(1): 59–77.
32.
HealeyP (2007) Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times. New York: Routledge.
33.
HealeyP (2009) The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research28(3): 277–292.
34.
HowaldtJButzinADomanskiD, et al. (2014) Theoretical Approaches to Social Innovation: A Critical Literature Review. Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle.
35.
IsonRGrantABawdenR (2014) Scenario praxis for systemic governance: A critical framework. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32(4): 623–640.
36.
JasanoffS (ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge.
37.
KarlsenJLarreaM (2017) Moving context from the background to the forefront of policy learning: Reflections on a case in Gipuzkoa, Basque Country. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space35(4): 721–736.
38.
KensenSTopsPW (2003) Interaction research: Joining persons, theories and practices. In: BogasonPKensenSMillerH (eds) Tampering with Tradition: The Unrealised Authority of Democratic Agency. Lanham, MD: Lexington, pp. 149–171.
39.
KhanAZMoulaertFSchreursJ (2013) Epistemology of space: Exploring relational perspectives in planning, urbanism, and architecture. International Planning Studies18(3–4): 287–303.
40.
KindonSPainRKesbyM (eds) (2007) Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.
MayT (2017) Urban crisis: Bonfire of vanities to find opportunities in the ashes. Urban Studies54(9): 2189–2198.
49.
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken (2013) De doe-democratie. Kabinetsnota ter stimulering van een vitale samenleving. [The do-democracy. White paper for stimulating a vibrant society]. The Hague: Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken.
50.
MoulaertFMartinelliFSwyngedouwE, et al. (2005) Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Studies42(11): 1969–1990.
51.
MoulaertFSwyngedouwEMartinelliF, et al. (eds) (2010) Can Neighbourhoods Save the City? Community Development and Social Innovation. London: Routledge.
52.
NicoliniD (2012) Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
PainRKindonS (2007) Participatory geographies. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space39: 2807–2812.
54.
PaschenJABeilinR (2015) ‘Avoiding the certainty trap’: A research programme for the policy–practice interface. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy33(6): 1394–1411.
55.
PelBDorlandJWittmayerJ, et al. (2017) Detecting social innovation agency: Methodological reflections on units of analysis in dispersed transformation processes. European Public & Social Innovation Review2(1): 110–126.
56.
PickeringAGuzikK (eds) (2008) The Mangle in Practice. Science, Society, and Becoming. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
57.
PierreJPetersBG (2012) Urban governance. In: MossbergerKClarkeSEJohnP (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 71–86.
58.
PrusR (1996) Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
59.
ReasonPBradburyH (eds) (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage.
60.
ReckwitzA (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory52: 243–263.
61.
RichardsonLDuroseCPerryB (2018) Coproducing urban governance. Politics and Governance6(1): 145–149.
62.
SchatzE (ed.) (2009) Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Politics. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.
63.
SchönDA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
64.
SeyfangGHaxeltineA (2012) Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30(3): 381–400.
65.
SeyfangGSmithA (2007) Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics16: 584–603.
66.
ShoveE (2010) Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space42(6): 1273–1285.
67.
ShoveEPantzarMWatsonM (2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. London: Sage.
68.
SmithA (2007) Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management19(4): 427–450.
69.
VandenbusscheLEdelenbosJEshuisJ (2017) Pathways of stakeholders’ relations and frames in collaborative planning practices: A framework to analyse relating and framing dynamics. Planning Theory16(3): 233–254.
70.
VygotskyLS (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71.
WagenaarH (2007) Philosophical hermeneutics and policy analysis: Theory and effectuations. Critical Policy Studies1(4): 311–341.
72.
WagenaarHCookSDN (2003) Understanding policy practices: Action, dialectic, and deliberation in policy analysis. In: HajerMAWagenaarH (eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–171.
73.
WagenaarHCookSDN (2011) The push and pull of the world: How experience animates practice. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research Debate and Practice7(2): 193–212.
74.
WengerE (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75.
WertschJV (1984) The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. In: RogoffBWertschJV (eds) Children’s Learning in the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’: New Directions for Child Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
76.
WittmayerJMHölscherKWunderS, et al. (2017b) Transformation Research: Exploring Methods for an Emerging Research Field. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt.
77.
WittmayerJMPelBBaulerT, et al. (2017a) Editorial synthesis: Methodological challenges in social innovation research. European Public & Social Innovation Review2(1): 1–16.
78.
WittmayerJMSchäpkeNVan SteenbergenF, et al. (2014) Making sense of sustainability transitions locally: How action research contributes to addressing societal challenges. Critical Policy Studies8(4): 465–485.
