News

Speedy Xmas this year!

"This is REALLY fun". "A great way to sharpen visions both on your and our side". "Intense and stimulating one-to-one communication". These are a few of the reactions we got from our guests during our First KSI Speed Dating Xmas Knowledge Event ever.

Against a Bing Crosby setting with glühwein, hot chocolate, and Christmas cookies, each of our guests had a series of 20-minute dialogues with our KSI researchers. Participants represented a variety of societal levels and sectors. The low barrier knowledge exchange concept appeared to inspire both sides deeply. General knowledge, science, gossip (!) and paths for collaboration, were exchanged. Both visitors and KSI researchers work on the follow-up right now. To all participants: thanks for joining, and till next year!

Can globalisation become a driver of sustainable development?

For Wolfgang Sachs this was not an easy question to answer. In his words: how can globalising the robbery economy of the West lead to new forms of development that include justice and care for future generations? The only way he could think of answering this question is by looking at the second-order and unintended consequences of globalisation. These might lead to a counter force that might contain seeds for sustainable development. Sachs’ lecture stirred an intense debate in Felix Meritis chaired by John Grin on January 17, 2006, and in Trouw, a Dutch national newspaper.

The globalisation of the western economy will run its course, but might also help to globalise sustainable development. In his introduction to the debate (and in an interview in Trouw published the same day) Sachs proved to be pessimist, or as he himself would put it, realist. Expectations based on rational analysis prove that the world is not heading towards paradise or anything that comes close. The abyss of disaster is much more likely to open up. Still he has hope. This hope is grounded on individuals who take an initiative and make a difference. We only see the surface of what is happening. We cannot see through. There might be positive developments that we do not notice. Yet he made an attempt to drill deeper below the surface and locate emerging trends that might lead to some form of sustainable development. He pointed first of all at the insecurity that will result from globalisation. This insecurity can only be resolved through creating some kind of justice on a world-scale. So globalisation might lead to a development in which justice becomes a matter for realists and will be adopted by those pushing for globalisation. Secondly, he portrayed the rise of a transnational middle class of consumers and citizens that might become the carrier for a push towards news forms of living. At this point in time such a middle class is developing very fast in China and India. Thirdly, western modes of living cannot be globalised or democratised. This will lead to intense resource conflicts. So there will be limits, and these limits might encourage the development of new practices and ways of thinking on how to restructure our forms of wealth creation. Finally also a new global ethics is emerging in institutions for global governance. This new ethics might proliferate and become more dominant.

Paul van Seters (Tilburg University) added in his commentary to this line of thinking. He identified more forces that could help to redirect globalisation. This line incorporates the idea of going with the flow of globalisation, but modulating its direction towards sustainable development instead of overuse and unequal distribution. This fits very nicely into the philosophy of transition management as developed by KSI. Van Seters argued that multinational companies are not only a negative force in this process. Why would they participate in a development that would lead to disasters? Like individuals, companies are beginning to realize that they can follow the vision of sustainable development. New practices are in the making and multinationals can become the very source for developing and diffusing them. They are not working on their own, they need help from non-governmental organisations, and governments (see also his contribution in Trouw January 18).

The Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation Agnes van Ardenne-Van Hoeven agreed with Paul van Seters. In her contribution in Trouw (January 19) she argued that consumers and businesses are not passive passengers on a globalisation trip. They are active shapers, and are increasingly prepared to start working towards sustainable development. A lot of work is still needed though, and it is, for example, disappointing that major institutional investors are not putting their money where their mouth is. She pleaded for a policy of seducing type the consumer. Show him/her all the attractions of sustainable development and also why it is needed!

So where does this leaves us? In is clear, the debate on globalisation and sustainable development is vibrant and timely. There are several schools of thought; optimists who believe that globalisation could bring sustainable development, and pessimists who think the opposite. This difference of opinion was a major red thread in the debate in Felix Meritis. It is a debate that cannot be resolved but needs to continue alongside the struggle to develop new perspectives and practices. Several participants in the debate pointed at the need for individuals to turn inside and look at the spiritual dimensions of the issues at hand. In the end any major and big trend is an aggregate of what individuals do. So human agency is crucial in any change process and therefore there is a moral obligation to hope for the best as Sachs has explained so eloquently.

Johan Schot

Felix Meritis, Trouw, the UN IHDP Industrial Transformation Programme, and KSI have formed a strategic partnership for organising a range of public debates on transitions towards sustainable development. The next one will focus on the issue of hypermobility.

New KSI projects

In the second round of KSI-projects, three projects were accepted:

1. The project II.3 “Multi-level governance of transitions”, managed by professor Geert Teisman (Erasmus University Rotterdam), is a joint project of Teisman’s group (CPM) with several researchers from the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (Drift also at the Erasmus university Rotterdam) of Jan Rotmans.

2. Project III.7 of Paul van Seters is called “Organising transitions through intersectoral partnerships for sustainable development”.

3. Project III.8 “New arrangements: challenges and opportunities for system innovations” is led by John Grin.

Read more about them on the KSI web site

KSI research on health care

On basis of a productive workshop in June, attended by KSI researchers as well as some innovative practitioners from the health care domain, Jan Rotmans & John Grin have drafted a programming note on research on system innovations in health care. In this note, several challenges now facing the health care sector are listed; attempts to deal with them – including the present reforms of the Dutch health care system – often fail because they run into some persistent problems that are tightly institutionally rooted in the current health care system. Against this background, two broad, central questions for KSI research on health are being proposed: 1) In what ways, and to what extent, are existing persistent problems rooted in current institutions (with specific attention to the institutionally rooted factors identified above)?; 2) What solutions to these problems are being explored experimentally, and what do experiences with such attempts teach us on the institutional conditions required for effectively meeting current challenges? Several groups have been invited to submit brief outlines for projects to deal with these questions. Of these, some have been asked to elaborate their outline into a full proposal. Projects may start this Spring.

Challenges include:

I)	There is a growing tension between the felt need amongst policy to control and reduce costs, and the need felt by different parties to improve health care in terms of quality and accessibility.
II)	The pressure on the welfare state also leads to adaptations in other domains in the welfare state, such as changes in sickness leave and labour-incapability (WAO) insurances. Simultaneously, many of the diseases frequently encountered in the labour domain (such as low back pain; RSI; diabetes; irritable bowel syndrome) appear to be caused by a combination of factors: genetic factors, physical labour conditions, stress on the shop-floor, private lifestyles (sport, food, smoking, drinking), family circumstances, etc. This leads to problems in the relation between health care, labour and private domains: unclear competence divisions between family doctors and general health care provisions vs. labour-related doctors and provisions; unclear responsibilities of the different insurance companies involved; questions concerning the possibility and legitimacy of asking patients / employees to adapt lifestyles etc.
III)	General practitioners and some medical specialists (e.g. paediatrics; psychiatrists) ar increasingly confronted by the need to take into account in diagnosis and treatment the diversity in terms of the nature of diseases and the background of patients (various syndromes; psychiatric complaints; but also diseases long seen as ‘unambiguous’, like diabetics).

Institutionally rooted factors that are behind these challenges, and/or complicate their resolution include:

• differences in operational routines, culture and governance mechanisms between health care and other domains
• differences in operational routines, culture and governance mechanisms between health care disciplines;
• incentives structures and legislation that privilege curative measures above prevention; disciplinary approaches above multi-disciplinary ones; and a medical approach above a more integral one;
• existing knowledge: curative rather than preventive; intervention oriented rather than supporting individual responsibility, universalist rather than acknowledging diversity;
• existing routines for evidence-based decision making.

Because these factors are institutionally embedded, real solutions to the five problems identified may require a system innovation, that is an innovation that comprises both different solutions, and a change in institutions.

Report IHDP Open Meeting

Issues of transition and system innovation were discussed at the 6th Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research Community held in Bonn, Germany, 9-13 October 2005. It was even a special theme of the conference (Theme 7 “Industrial transformation”).

Issues of governance and institutional change -highly relevant to transition management-were discussed not only at theme 7 but also at other themes, such as theme 8 “Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change” (in the session “Reflexive governance for sustainable development” co-organised by René Kemp with contributions from KSI researchers John Grin, Rob Weterings and René Kemp and in the session “Analysing and Managing Societal Transitions” co-organised by Jan Rotmans, and with contributions from Derk Loorbach)

People from all over the world (including developing countries) were discussing issues of system innovation, regime change and transitions from various perspectives. They often referred to work by KSI researchers, in particular the work of Frank Geels, Jan Rotmans, René Kemp and Derk Loorbach. This shows that many people across the world are working on KSI topics, often building on contributions of KSI researchers who are viewed as being in the lead.

There were over 1000 participants from all over the world and dozens of sessions. The following sessions dealt with societal transitions and industrial transformation:

• Analyzing and Managing Societal Transitions (organisers: Marina Fischer-Kowalski, IFF Social Ecology Vienna, Austria, and Jan Rotmans, DRIFT, NL)
• Analyzing the Dynamic of Transitions towards Sustainability - and How to Induce them? (organisers: Anna Wieczorek, IT of IHDP, and Boelie Elzen, University of Twente, NL)
• Entrepreneurship Policy and Global Change. Industrial Transformation in Comparative Cross-Spatial Perspectives (organisers: Heike Grimm, Max Planck Institute for Research into Economic Systems, Jena, Germany, and Pelin Beygirci, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey)
• Sustainable Transition of Infrastructures (organisers: Jochen Markard, CIRUS / EAWAG, Kastanienbaum, Switzerland, and René Kemp, DRIFT, ICIS and MERIT, NL)
• Technological Innovation & Environmental Sustainability (organisers: Fred Steward, BRESE, Brunel University, London, UK, and Frans Berkhout, Free University of Amsterdam, NL)
• Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development: Incorporating Feedback in Social Problem-solving and Dealing with Paradoxes (organised by René Kemp, DRIFT, ICIS and MERIT, NL, and Jan-Peter Voss, Oeko Institute, Berlin, Germany)
• Effects of Postsocialist Transformations on Land Use and Agrarian Institutions (organisers: Thomas Sikor, Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany and Hue Le, Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, Hanoi, Vietnam)
• The Forest Transition (organisers: Alexander Mather, Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK, and Oliver Coomes, Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Canada)
• Urban Transformation and Reform for Sustainability (organisers: Akio Morishima, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan)
• Historical Depth, Temporal Patterns, and Trajector (organisers: Eduardo Brondizio, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA, and William McConnell, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA)

More info can be found on the conference web site

Monitoring report

The Dutch government checks all projects that are co-financed by the so-called “BSIK” subsidy scheme by means of a yearly monitoring exercise. A monitoring team of several actors (SenterNovem, NWO and the Ministry of VROM) judges the results and reports to a “Committee of Wizards”. This Committee in turn reports directly to the cabinet. The baseline monitoring report of KSI was very well received.

Science

Project III.2. Reflexive design

This project is undertaken at the University of Amsterdam under responsibility of John Grin. It focuses on reflexive design: the definition of what a ‘system innovation’ means in a particular context. This cannot be done on basis of some objective, universal guideline, because sustainable development is an essentially contestable concept. Rather, it involves a process of contextually defining system innovation, in the sense of designing a vision and strategies it that are both legitimate and feasible in the eyes of relevant stakeholders and, often also, formal policymakers. This process involves reflexivity, in the sense that assumptions, rules and roles normally taken for granted may be critically scrutinised. The objective of this project is to understand the problems and possibilities of defining system innovations.

First, the fact that defining system innovations involves reflexivity implies that system innovative projects need to be undertaken in settings that facilitate such reflexivity: niches, protected against selected regime elements, in which rules for deliberation prevail over ‘politics of interest’, in which a long term orientation reigns and so on. Experience teaches, however, that designing visions and strategies in such a context also requires strategic action, so as to deal with power plays as well as hidden assumptions, established expectations and so on. Dr Bram Bos¸ as a post-doc, will draw on his experiences and observations in projects for system innovation in livestock systems to better understand this ‘work’ of reflexive design. Bram, who did his PhD at the Vrije Universiteit is working on such projects within the Animal Sciences Group, in programmes led by dr. Sierk Spoelstra.

Second, reflexive design also may be seen as a process of reflexive, transdisciplinary knowledge generation - integrating different pieces of expert knowledge and local knowledge, and often beyond standard assumptions and routines of thinking. Therefore, non-standard methods and practices for knowledge generation are needed. In addition, problems may be expected, for instance because the knowledge workers involved may be strongly influenced by existing quality standards, reward systems and other features of the existing knowledge system; and because experts and non-experts often find it difficult to collaborate beyond established roles. These issues will be analysed in the PhD project by Marlous Blankesteijn, who graduated in cultural studies at Maastricht University, where she also has been a student assistant to prof. Wiebe Bijker. The project is co-supervised by dr. Chunglin Kwa, who did much extensive work on the relation between knowledge practices and sustainable development, as well as on transdisciplinarity.

Third, especially given the fact that the above two points imply that reflexive design involves strategic action, a final crucial question is question how projects may, or may not, achieve democratic legitimacy and accountability. This is the issue that dr. Carolyn Hendriks is working on. Central in her project is the idea, that this can only be understood if one takes into account how such projects influence and are influenced by their social and political context, comprising a diversity of ‘discursive spheres’, such as established policy networks, arrangements for corporate social responsibility, public debate in the media and parliament. Democratic legitimisation and accountability typically take place at the interfaces between these spheres. In order to analyse these processes, Carolyn employs a theoretical framework based on her PhD thesis (Public deliberation and interest organisations: A study of responses to lay citizen engagement in public policy; Canberra: The Australian National University).

Practice

“Acht voor Ruimte”, a threefold mega-transition

Within the over 40 projects funded by BSIK (formally ICES/KIS-3), a dozen of knowledge investment programmes joined under the adage “Kennis voor ruimte, ruimte voor kennis” (Knowledge for space, space for knowledge) a couple of years ago. These programmes share a common objective of innovation and transition applied to multiple land use and the building and construction industry. They call themselves “Acht voor Ruimte”. Their focus is threefold:

1. to build and maintain an affordable high quality of our natural and built environment
2. to strengthen our national economy
3. to adapt our knowledge and innovation system radically

The collaboration continued after the funding was extended after 2003. The term “Acht” not only refers to the number of initial programmes (eight), but also to the Acht(ing) (respect) for space and everything in it. The programmes are geared at transition and system innovation. KSI contributes to these programmes through the development and application of transition knowledge; thinking, doing, and learning. KSI benefits from the lessons learned to improve its theory.

“Acht voor Ruimte” is a public-private collaboration between scientists and end users. It and carries out a coherent national programme to develop and apply knowledge in real world cases. With a total budget of 200 million Euro for a period of 6 years, the programme was approved in 2003, and the transition programmes is 2004. Participating organisations all contribute at least the same amount as they receive, in form of money or person months.

Acht voor ruimte is multi-disciplinary, covering the fields of technology, economy, sociology, spatial planning, communications, management/public administration, climate change, construction, mobility, physical infrastructure, geo-informatics, nature and environment, water management, agriculture etc. Furthermore the programmes are geared at transition and system innovation. KSI, and earlier NIDO, have had a significant input through discussions in the developing phase. Since KSI has been funded also official partnerships have been set up, called Testing Grounds.

Although each programme has its own strengths, their synergy has an added value, increasing the social and economical return on investment. They all have their own web site, the list of which can be found on the web site www.kennisruimte.nl.

The question may rise why to prefer BSIK funds rather than ordinary financing through the institutes or regular subsidies? A few years ago ICES/KIS recognised that a radical change of the knowledge system was necessary for science to address current day problems. Science has historically developed into a range of separate disciplines. Science for science. But the actual societal challenges all relate to several disciplines, and this does not fit with the way science is organised. Therefore, the new knowledge infrastructure must be based on combining different fields of knowledge and on developing the competence of the knowledge users.

By knowledge infrastructure we do not mean universities only, but also technological institutes like TNO, partnerships, research schools, consulting and engineering organisations, governmental expert services, training and education institutes, and intermediaries. Its not only about the knowledge itself, but also about applying it appropriately.

The programmes funded by BSIK should provoke a change in direction. They should do the effort of reformulating questions from the end users, and getting the scientists out of their ivory tower to give a clear and appropriate answer. There is need for arena’s to allow dialogue, creativity and linkage between market and societal values. For this to work, good process management is crucial. Basically system innovation is a quest.

Touching Habiforum

2006 will be the take-off year for Habiforum touching KSI and vice versa. Habiforum ('the collective benefit of innovative space use') is the change programme for town and country planning in The Netherlands funded by BSIK. KSI is analysing with Habiforum the extent to which transitions are taking place in the field of spatial planning and development, as well as the actors involved. The outcome will be both a transition analysis and a process framework for further transition management.

On top of current bonds between the two network organizations, DRIFT has started to compare the Gouda methods, insights and practices to those of transition management.

Habiforum's new managing director Hasselaar, by the way, has been the initiator of bringing transition knowledge into the Dutch air quality serial, which managed to block Dutch construction plans so dearly over the last two years.

Habiforum recently published to have made a respectable 151,829 phone calls since their phase II started in January 2004... nice to know and hard to beat them there!

Innovation Network

At the request of diverse societal parties, the central government established the Innovation Network (Innovatienetwerk Groene Ruimte en Agrocluster) in 2000 to promote groundbreaking innovations with respect to green space and agriculture. Radical innovations are required to tackle such complex problems as the growing demand for green space, pressing water issues, agricultural dilemmas, ignorance concerning food production methods, loss of biodiversity and the obliteration of distinctive regional character in the Netherlands.

The Innovation Network was one of the founding fathers of the KSI-network. Also, KSI-director John Grin was directly involved in a monitoring- and evaluation project of the Innovation Network in the past 3 years. In 2006 a new period for Innovation Network has started.

Experience has taught us that fundamental innovations only very rarely come from large, established institutions, partly because innovations of this type tend to place existing structures, ways of thinking and interests are under pressure. The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality has recognised that an institution is needed for this purpose that will have considerable freedom to promote the necessary transitions. the ”InnovatieNetwerk Groene Ruimte en Agrocluster” is this institution.

A new period for Innovation Network has started this year. The promotion of groundbreaking innovations is still the main objective. In the new programme we will strengthen links with developments in other sectors, while looking for new innovation challenges.

Objective: Innovation Network stimulates, initiates, creates, and effectuates wide-ranging modernisations. The complex problems affecting rural areas and agricultural production are often interlinked. Innovation Network therefore aims to develop wide-ranging, novel concepts to achieve goals such as optimum logistics, sustainable land-use, sound animal husbandry, and the environmentally friendly cultivation of vegetables under glass. The so-called Agro Production Parks represent one such modernising concept. This involves the sustainable clustering of companies, which then produce and process food at a single location. At present, these activities are usually distributed throughout the country.

Organisation: The office staff and management form the collective core of this independent organisation, which is based in Utrecht. The efficient staff play a pivotal role. They see to it that involved parties from various organisations participate in projects covered by the several themes at the heart of the Innovation Network's activities.

See also our website: http://www.agro.nl/innovatienetwerk

Column

Transition Management and Globalisation

Bottom up

Evaluation of the KSI Winterschool 2005

The year 2006 started for all PhD students (more than 30) within KSI with a winterschool. An excellent opportunity to acquire a solid knowledge base about transitions and their governance, while making new acquaintances. The programme was full of presentations and discussions. And there was entertainment too: on the evening the students were asked to prepare a transition performance, they didn’t lack the occasion to caricature the KSI directors. One thing is certain: our PhD students are enthusiastic.

Purpose KSI Winterschool 2006: The KSI Winterschool aimed at advancing the understanding of transitions and their governance. Different senior researchers in the field presented their work in relation to transitions in order to give PhD’s a notion of the state-of-the-art in the field of transitions. Herewith a framework of the transition concepts was presented, to be further filled in by the researches of the PhD’s in the upcoming years. Furthermore, it gave students the chance to discuss parallels and differences between their projects and ideas with the purpose to start networking and enhance common knowledge ground.

Structure during the week: The programme during the week consisted of a mixture between lectures of seniors, research outlines of PhD students and social activities. This combination was intended to foster the feeling that the senior researchers and PhD students are all part of the same endeavour rather than emphasizing a hierarchy.

Critical reflection PhD student: The overall experience of the KSI Winterschool was summarised by the PhD students as informative, interesting, intriguing, goal-oriented and amusing. The atmosphere felt by the group can be described as ambitious, cohesive, fruitful and passionate. However, the students thought that the busy schedule of the programme didn’t leave enough room for introductions, getting some fresh air and informal talks in between and after the lectures.

More specifically, the students felt they were able to meet a lot of people with similar interests and discuss their research in terms of ambitions, methods and concepts. The PhD students got critical feedback, helping them with the methodological and theoretical development of their research. This was especially the case for the PhD students that presented their research outline. This week was the seed for further cooperation between senior researchers and PhD students as well as between the PhD students that study the same topic. Herewith the students came to understand the different disciplines present in the KSI network and thus increasing its internal coherence.

Interview with Johannes Boshuizen

Johannes Boshuizen (25) has started his PhD in March 2005 at the University of Twente, in Enschede. He is working for the School of Business, Public Administration and Technology.

How did you like the winterschool? It was very interesting to meet the other PhDs and discuss the different interests and opinions. Clearly the group is very motivated. It was also very convivial, not in the least the evening out in Maastricht. Besides the venue was nice.

Are you originally from Enschede? No I grew up in Zwolle and studied in Groningen.

What is your research question? The general topic of our group is spatial transitions, a typical research question is how spatial agglomerations originate and develop. I am currently investigating if network methods are useful to answer this. In the future I plan to compare different regions.

How did you find this place? I have always been interested in subjects at the edge of land use, economy and sociology. Only during my mayor about organisation sociology in the home care sector I discovered I really liked research. So when I started looking for a PhD place, the subject in Enschede appealed to me particularly.

What did you study and how does your experience contribute to your PhD work? I studied sociology in Groningen, and especially the courses in research methodology and statistics are very useful to me now.

What do you think are important qualities for a PhD student you have? I am critical and independent. And also self-motivated, because of my curiosity.

Is there a team spirit at your institute? As we all have different backgrounds in our group, the methods used are quite different, but at the same time I am struck by the similarities. I used to be more sceptical about other disciplines.

What do you see as a challenge in this job? To bring together the domains of sociology, geography, economy and transition theory.

How would you describe yourself in three words? Critical, motivated and responsible.

Is there anything you have always wanted to do, but did not realise yet? To make a long sailing trip on the Mediterranean.

Interview with Niels Schoorlemmer

Niels Schoorlemmer (24) has started his PhD In May 2005 at the Technical University Eindhoven (TU/e). He is working for the section Technology & sustainability studies, within the department History, Philosophy and Technology Studies, part of the Faculty of technology management. Is there a team spirit out there? " Not really, it is found more fruitful to keep one's own identity and then collaborate to obtain cross-fertilisation. Too much integration may inhibit progress."

His cradle standing in Haarlem, Niels spent most of his youth in the 'Achterhoek and then moved to the South. "I did science and technology studies at Maastricht University. It taught me two main things: A solid base of theoretical knowledge (e.g. social constructivism, actor-network theory, large technical systems theory) and most importantly, a critical attitude, thanks to courses in rhetoric, images and discourse analysis."

According to Niels, these lessons are useful for his PhD project, which will focus on the following central question: How may historical knowledge (e.g. perceptions, methods, data) be used in policy processes, and how may this use be improved? Niels expects that "will be a toolkit intended for policy makers informed by historian insights. It will be a challenge to convince the historians of the use of historical knowledge in policy practice, as they are often sceptical about the possibility of using history for present purposes."

Another challenge is "to learn to write a book. And also to learn new methodologies to tackle my research questions, although I find the question and the answer to it more important than the way to answer it." For meeting these challenges, Niels thinks that important qualities are "the pleasure to read, which I think is indispensable, and the will to find out about things." Until now, he is happy with his job. Asked how he imagines himself later, professionally, he replies: " In any case in a job that includes reading and writing. Perhaps in research, also because I very much appreciate the freedom you have there."

Finally, how to summarise Niels' essence in three words? "critical, curious and (as his partner would say) stronteigenwijs!"

Publications

Related topics

PhD defence - 02/12/2005
Peter Hofman, Universiteit Twente
Topic: System Innovation in the electricity sector
Promotor: prof. Hans Bressers

PhD defence - 24/11/2005
Francisca Carion, Vrije Universiteit
Topic: Patient participation in biomedical research
Promotor: prof. Joske Bunders

  Agenda