PROJECT FINAL REPORT

Grant Agreement number: 271574

Project acronym: INSITE

Project title: The Innovation Society, Sustainability and ICT

Funding Scheme: Coordination and Support Action

Period covered: from 01/03/2011 to 31/05/2014

Name of the scientific representative of the project's co-ordinator Title and Organisation:

Prof. David Avra Lane

Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia – European Centre for Living Technology (ECLT)

Tel: +39.0412347549

Fax: +39.0412347588

E-mail: lane@unimo.it

Project website address: http://www.insiteproject.org

Final Report

Executive summary

The INSITE coordination action has been organized around a three year long conversation among scientists,

policy makers and distributed innovation policy (DIPO) leaders, about the Innovation Society and its

sustainability crises. The main focus of the conversation became how to change the way European society

organizes its transformation processes, in order to achieve a higher level of social cohesion and to steer

innovation processes in socially positive directions.

During INSITE’s three years of activities, INSITE participants had integrated social innovation into its initial

critique of the Innovation Society, developing a vision of how social innovation could help European society

to find a new way to organize its transformation processes. This vision provides a key role for future ICT,

which INSITE participants hope to help realize in on-going and future research projects, as a key element in

the construction of Europe 2020.

The INSITE conversation evolved in several different directions, following the threads spun in the seven work

packages, which intertwined to weave a final message that can be briefly summarised as follows:

1. The globalised society is going out of control, for many reasons: the innovation ideology, policies

oriented to priming the pump of technical invention, instead of dynamically evaluating the cascade of

consequences of new artefacts; a discrepancy in dimensionality between knowledge gained and

impact of that knowledge on the environment, which is reaching a tipping point in which the

possibility of a change in the sociotechnical system and not only in single sociotechnical regimes is

imminent.

2. ICT is creating a unique opportunity to transform the extraction-to-waste economy into one that

distributes information-processing capacity and wealth by enabling an important degree of decoupling

between information flows and energy/matter flows. However, at the moment, cascades of change in

ICT are producing the same unpredictable effects as other major technologies past and present, and

our society lacks the concepts and means to orient its development in more socially promising

directions. This is the case because nobody has addressed, so far, with a usable robust methodology,

the problems of monitoring and steering in socially positive directions the cascades of unexpected

social and attributional transformations that the appearance of ICT artefacts has produced during the

last forty years.

3. The social agents, engaged in the development and use of ICT, in the present globalised world, tend to

move in swarms. This kind of social behaviour is not new, but it is reaching an extension and intensity

unknown to previous societies, probably as a consequence of the diffusion of ICT tools, standards and

platforms. This phenomenon is challenging the role of traditional ruling regimes (national states and

international organisations), methodologies of knowledge organisation (schools, universities,

bureaucratic systems), and practices of citizen involvement, empowerment and participation.

4. It is probably possible to design new policy approaches, in line with the evolution of the present

society (in accord with the themes of the INSITE- conversation) and to direct the attention of policy

makers to the cascade of social consequences produced by innovation processes rather than a narrow

focus on technical inventions and short term consensus, attributed by markets and consumers, around

specific “solutions.” The European policy approach needs a change in perspective. Social

mobilization in swarms can be channelled by DIPOs, to develop an exit strategy from the crisis, by

introducing new cultural tools (network thinking, organisation thinking…) and adequate evaluation

systems.

Description of project context and objectives

European society as a whole, and the technical-scientific community in particular, are already committed to

social innovation and sustainability. However their effort, in the present policy making frame, is far from

achieving the desired level of generative potential. The priority given to technical knowledge and good

practices (linear innovation processes, started by officially recognised research institutions), the lack of

dynamic evaluation tools, the limited engagement of distributed innovation policy organisations (DIPO) and

other scaffolding structures in the monitoring and interpreting the cascade of consequences produced by new

families of artefacts, all these features of the existing policy making system, at the European level, are not

aligned with the desired goals.

A new policy making system can change this situation. Narratives (in the precise sense given to this term

during the INSITE project and the connected project MD) can interpret a bootstrapping process and build a

bridge between social problems and technical problems, between society and technical communities.

Narratives are not the mere translation, in common words, of complex scientific and technical interpretations

of the world (linear communication circuit between science and society). Narratives are the basic tool for

designing and monitoring the cascade of interactions that any innovation is introducing in the agents-artefacts

space. In order to increase the generative potential of the European society, investing in communication

literacy, artistic interpretation and also new ICT tools, is essential. In this direction designers and policy

makers can set a completely new approach to social innovation (innovation tout court).

WP2 and WP5 have identified a weak point in the present society: the innovation ideology.

Following that ideology, experts’ interpretation is sufficient to solve the critical problems of the present

society. Society has just to trust the innovation proposals emerging by technical communities, in terms of new

artefacts. If citizens support the policies finalised to prime the pump of technical invention (in this period, for

example, orienting to green techs), they will find on the market, sooner or later, all the desired solutions. They

have just to select the inadequate proposals, in relation to a clear and stable set of needs.

David Lane and Sander van der Leeuw, in different ways, showed that this kind of approach decreases, instead

of increasing, the generative potential of the European society. Since the appearance of new artefacts changes

the interpretation of artefacts’ attributions and even the identity of the agents, designers and policy makers

should carefully consider the cascade of social changes, originated by technical invention. Otherwise they risk

to priming the pump of problems, instead of solutions. And they miss the possibility of a higher level of social

interaction.

This kind of approach is not present in the European policy making system of today.

During the INSITE project evolution we had the opportunity to check this vision with a wide number of

different discussants. At the end the conclusion emerging by the work done is the following:

Technical communities and society continuously interact and concur to the definition of the agents-

artefacts space (in a dynamic process that we call exaptive bootstrapping); thus more attention should

be given to dynamic evaluation tools, enabling designers (technicians/scientists), policy maker and

even final user/citizens (society) to monitor the cascade of innovations derived by a first collective

action;

Technique is not leading the game, on the basis of an autonomous capacity of discovering the hidden

laws that rule the world, but it concurs, together with society, to construct the “narratives” that give

sense to action in a condition of ontological uncertainty; thus it’s important to invest on narrative

production (and narrative ICT tools) in order to overcome the gap between the present ideology and

the future society game.

The European society, also thanks to possible adjustments of the H 2020 Programme, can get out the

Innovation Society Ideology and learn how to better select artefacts’ attributions and evaluate the cascade of

social innovations, induced by qualified selective actions. But the capacity of narrative construction

(intertwining scientific and social processes) should become a key item not only in the funding and evaluation

of H 2020 projects, but also in the shaping of a new European identity.

The “narrative” approach to contents production promises some advancement, but the technical design of

future ICT tools requires a completely new engagement with emerging social problems. Ethnographic analysis

of social evolution, technical support to narrative logic evaluation, communication training. We are just at the

beginning of a very long transition to a new generalised ICT.

The group of scientists participating in the WP3 meetings and publication activities came to the conclusion

that traditional models (logical-mathematical models) cannot be used to interpret complexity beyond a certain

level.

The theoretical consequences of the mentioned WP induced a cascade of positive feedbacks among a wide

range of policy makers, DIPO leaders and social innovation practitioners who got in contact with the INSITE

results, acknowledged the INSITE fundamental messages, and started some interesting rounds of discussion

and field tests.

In WP4 and WP6 two different groups of scientists and practitioners tested WP2 and 3 suggestions in the

environment of on-line games, e-learning platforms, social networks development, long distance co-working

and co-design, e-deliberation processes.

In WP5 and WP7 different kinds of DIPO leaders and project designers, together with a great number of

simple participants to social innovation experiences, have been involved in the discussion of INSITE’s

proposals about facilitation and communication tools, methodologies of citizens’ engagement, narrative

production and dynamic evaluation. WP5 gave special attention to sustainability items and WP7 to urban

development, cultural organisation, on-line art and museums design, in the perspective of new advanced levels

of agents-artefacts interactions.

In particular WP4 leaders (Stefan Thurner and Alberto Lusoli) together with other designers and participants

to the on-line game (knowledge generator) Pardus tested some of the INSITE suggestions about the cascade of

innovations, in a large on line virtual community. The results have been discussed in different workshops.

Furthermore contacts have been created with two different groups of ICT developers:

designers of collective actions, involving common people in scientific experiments, collective

deliberation processes and the like, on the basis of new ICT tools (smart phones, pcs and other

devices);

designers of education platforms, training systems and contents, engaged in exploiting co-working

possibilities and other kind of long distance productive interaction among technical communities and

simple citizens.

A group of “masters of networks” have been involved in a series of experiments (organised by Alberto

Cottica, Giovanni Ponti and Guy Melançon) concerned with network evolution and data representation. Social

network analysis has been applied to the interpretation of different databases and repositories (Edgeriders,

Kublai, MIUR and World Bank development projects databases), in order to give useful feedbacks to policy

makers and designers of social and economic projects.

The world of social innovation (DIPOs, policy makers, local development agents, social facilitators, artists

simple participants) has been involved in the INSITE principles’ discussion, in several occasions, in WP5. All

the social agents involved have underlined the absence of conceptual frameworks, theories and even practical

tools adequate to the task of interpreting what happens in everyday social innovation processes.

INSITE is providing a convincing framework, useful to practitioners and tool developers. The INSITE

approach stimulates the attempt to reading project design and dynamic evaluation (of what emerges in terms

of new attributions and new agents’ identity features) from a new perspective, quite attractive to this

practitioners’ world.

The participants actively contributed to the discussion and testing of new tools (in particular “narrativised”

ICT tools), in the form of prototypes on concepts, narrative structures, in line with social innovation processes

and case studies.

In particular the idea of investing in convenient scaffolding structures has been accepted as a good one. The

idea of contributing to the European identity by creating “narrative communities”, during the H 2020

experience, has been positively commented, although the gap between theory and reality remains quite large.

During the workshops organised by WP7 leaders (Margherita Russo, Denise Pumain and Céline Rozenblat),

great attention has been paid to world and society representations (stories) incorporated in artistic, artisanal

and industrial artefacts.

Museums, like urban sites, are designed in order to facilitate interactions around specific artefacts. They are

itineraries of collective learning and identity construction. Artefacts conceal stories and WP7 events showed

how to embed stories in artefacts, artistic artefacts in particular.

ICT has produced a deep impact in this “cultural” side of social innovation, since the integration of physical

structures with virtual itineraries is multiplying the effects (in cascade) of collective narrative construction.

ICT tools (like Homm) providing solutions for active re-organisation of agents-artefacts interactions create the

possibility of manipulating objects, re-design spaces and lead to new interpretations and stories. This way

museums, trade fairs, exhibitions and even cities and neighbourhoods become living spaces (technologies) of

participation.

Techniques of visual communication are today essential to community interactions, more than texts, face to

face meetings, standardised documents (laws, norms, codified templates). This process is progressively

changing traditional modalities of objects manipulation and information storage. Archives and databases are

today richer and complex, co-designed by hundreds, thousands of connected people.

Ex-post interpretation of these information sources and repositories is, however, becoming difficult. Data

representation, in the traditional forms of statistical analysis, seems to be practically impossible, when the

proper notion of “standard” object is becoming vague. Here the INSITE project has found a contradiction with

some original expectations about ICT.

An ethnographic approach to data collection and storytelling, the introduction of open spaces of artefacts

interpretation, etc. is reducing the possibility of traditional analysis, based on regularities, algorithms and

mathematical theorems.

In line with the emerging messages of each WP, mainly those involving DIPO leaders and local community of

engaged citizens, the INSITE communication team (composed by Filippo Addarii / Team YF (Euclid

Network), Francesco Mureddu (Open Evidence), Andrea Quartarone, Antonio Santangelo, Team ECLT)

started a process of revision of the original tasks attributed to WP8, the website and deliverable design.

At the beginning of the project and after the first amendment of the contract (due to a couple of partners

withdrawal) the guiding vision of WP8 was to use an integrated set of interaction tools (an internal google

group, the website, a blog and eventually an on line journal).

The transition to a new generation of ICT tools (narrativised/generalised ICT) requires a change not only in

the technical interpretation of the above mentioned failures, from the point of view of scientists and technical

experts, but also in a deep change of traditional societal skills. The polarisation between a technical

community of ICT experts and a wide number of standard final users is over. The digital divide has reduced

the distance between daguerreotype magicians, chemical film developers, sound technicians, movie designers,

directors and main characters.

ICT has already created an environment in which social agents are, at the same time, storytellers, directors,

designers, journalists, project managers, facilitators, communication experts, etc..

The digital revolution has introduced an immense literacy divide. Citizens, social agents, are called to re-

interpret their traditional communication skills, by including new narrative expertise, video design and

direction competences, dynamic evaluation skills.

In order to attract the attention of common people, not only of social innovation fans, to this emerging

problem, the INSITE communication team decided to produce a (potentially) viral video finalised to attract

more attention around the INSITE and ECLT future programmes.

Description of the main S&T results/foregrounds

The INSITE coordination action has been organized around a three year long conversation about the

Innovation Society and its sustainability crises. The participants in this conversation included scientists, social

innovators, policy makers and distributed innovation policy organization (DIPO) leaders. The main focus of

the conversation became how to change the way in which European society organizes its transformation

processes, in order to achieve a higher level of social cohesion and to steer innovation processes in socially

positive directions.

During INSITE’s three years of activities, the European Commission concluded the 7th Framework Program

and launched a new one, Horizon 2020. In this same period, the European Union added new members and

also suffered through one of the deepest crisis of its history. In addition (and as a consequence), increasing

attention was paid to the concept of social innovation, and this concept – and its relationship to INSITE’s

primary focus on the relationships among innovation, sustainability and ICT – came under careful scrutiny in

the INSITE conversation.

At the end of their work, INSITE participants had integrated social innovation into INSITE’s initial critique of

the Innovation Society, developing a vision of how social innovation could help European society to find a

new way to organize its transformation processes. This vision provides a key role for future ICT, which

INSITE participants hope to help realize in on-going and future research projects, as a key element in the

construction of Europe 2020.

The INSITE conversation evolved in several different directions, following the threads spun in the seven work

packages, which intertwined to weave a final message that can be briefly summarised as follows:

1. The globalised society is going out of control, for many reasons: the policy prescriptions inherent in

the Innovation Society ideology, which calls for policies oriented to priming the pump of technical

invention but not for the dynamical evaluation of the cascades of social transformations set in motion

by the introduction of new artefacts (see Del. 2.2); a discrepancy in dimensionality between

knowledge gained and impact of that knowledge on the environment (see Del. 5.1), which is reaching

a tipping point in which the possibility of a change in the sociotechnical system and not only in single

sociotechnical regimes is imminent (see Del. 3.2).

2. ICT is creating a unique opportunity to transform the extraction-to-waste economy into one that

distributes information-processing capacity and wealth by enabling an important degree of decoupling

between information flows and energy/matter flows (Del. 5.1). However, at the moment, cascades of

change in ICT are producing the same unpredictable effects as other major technologies past and

present, and our society lacks the concepts and means to orient its development in more socially

promising directions. This is the case because nobody has addressed, so far, with a usable robust

methodology, the problems of monitoring and steering in socially positive directions the cascades of

unexpected social and attributional transformations that the appearance of ICT artefacts has produced

during the last forty years (Del. 2.2).

3. The social agents, engaged in the development and use of ICT, in the present globalised world, tend to

move in swarms (Del.6.2). This kind of social behaviour is not new, but it is reaching an extension

and intensity unknown to previous societies, probably as a consequence of the diffusion of new ICT

tools, standards and platforms. This phenomenon is challenging the role of traditional ruling regimes

(national states and international organisations), methodologies of knowledge organisation (schools,

universities, bureaucratic systems), and practices of citizen involvement, empowerment and

participation.

4. It is probably possible to design new policy approaches, in line with the evolution of the present

society (as envisioned in the INSITE- conversation) and to direct the attention of policy makers to the

cascades of social consequences produced by innovation processes rather than a narrow focus on

technical inventions and short term consensus, attributed by markets and consumers, around specific

“solutions.” For this to happen, the European policy approach needs a change in perspective. Social

mobilization in swarms can be channelled by DIPOs to develop an exit strategy from the crisis, by

introducing new cultural tools (e.g. network thinking, organisation thinking; see Dels.6.2 and 2.2) and

adequate evaluation systems (as described in Del.2.2 and as partially realized in the work of the

INSITE spin-off project MD).

These messages are emerging not only from the INSITE working groups, but also by the interaction of

INSITE participants with other projects, the most important of which is GSDP and its contributions to the

GSS (Global System Science) perspective.

In the next paragraphs we want to present the more interesting S&T implications of the INSITE conversation,

following the work package structure and highlighting personal contributions.

The first working group, operating under the auspices of WP 2, focused on the theme: The Innovation Society.

What it is, how it works – and how European society might escape from its endogenous crises.

This group started off its work from the most relevant results of another EU funded project (ISCOM). This

led to a comprehensive analysis of the so-called Innovation Society (described in INSITE Del.2.1). During the

second half of INSITE, additional ideas emerged from the WP2 team’s work, some of which have been

published in the recent Naples 2.0 Social Innovation Competition volume (authored by David Lane and

Filippo Addarii) and in a manifesto Towards an Agenda for Social Innovation (authored by David Lane),

which appeared on the INSITE website at the end of 2013 and has been widely circulated through INSITE

participant networks. The manifesto has prompted a discussion among several European-level DIPOs as well

as individuals in the EC, OSCE and several national (Italy, Australia) policy-making circles.

Here are the basic conclusions of the WP2 team’s discussions.

Our society’s dependence on innovation cascades is expressed in, and sustained by, an increasingly

widespread way of thinking, which we will term the Innovation Society ideology. This ideology underlies

almost all current discourse about business strategy and governmental policy. The following four propositions

form its central core: (1) the principal aim of policy is sustained economic growth, interpreted as a steady

increase in GDP; (2) the engine of this growth is innovation, interpreted as the creation of new kinds of

artifacts; (3) Which new kinds of artifacts have value is decided by the market; (4) the price to pay for not

innovating, or for subordinating innovation to other values, like cultural enrichment or social justice is

prohibitively high: competition, at the level of firms and of national economies, dooms dawdlers to failure,

which translates into economic decline and social chaos. (Manifesto and Del. 2.2)1

Modern society seems unable to face its crises, because it is locked into this ideology and the way of

organizing its transformation processes that the ideology supports. The private and third sectors are simply

unable to respond to these with new “remedial” innovations, as the ideology prescribes. Therefore it’s

necessary for the public institutions to invest in “priming the pump of invention”, creating seed capital

resources and organisations, scaffolding structures for start-ups and spin-offs. And it’s also necessary to orient

these investment processes towards convenient horizons that cognitive asymmetries hide to the vision of

common people and entrepreneurs. Horizon 2020 is the European tool for compensating the European

society’s weakness. Dels. 2.2 and 6.2 suggest that this won’t suffice, without getting out from under the

organization and ideology of the Innovation Society.

The INSITE discussions also brought to light an underlying narrative structure, which frames the way people

in the Innovation Society think about projects directed towards the construction of the “remedial” innovations

we referred to above. We call this narrative structure, discussed in Del. 2.2, the Happy Project. It can be

summarised as follows:

1 The theme of the Innovation Society is also developed in the context of WP 3’s work: “The Innovation

Society is on the most abstract level a society where innovation is no longer just a means of solving problems:

a state where innovation is ideologically sublimated and has become entrenched at the very heart of how

society functions – where innovation becomes important in itself quite regardless of what gets innovated.”

(Del.3.2). It also runs through WP5 activities (see Del.5.1).

“The way in which project leaders embedded in the Innovation Society Ideology tell the stories of their project

frequently conforms to a particular narrative structure, which we call the Happy Project. The logic

underlying this narrative structure depends on three key presuppositions. The first is that social problems can

be converted into technical problems. The second key presupposition is that, through the application of

technique by relevant experts, technical problems are resolvable. The third key presupposition is that

technique compels conviction; this endows artefacts linked to technique (the technical problem and the

technical artefact) with the capacity to drive the society-wide attributional alignments that figure in the

denouement. These three key presuppositions have roots in the Enlightenment and are inextricably entwined

with modernity; in particular, they are part of the intellectual subsoil from which the Innovation Society

ideology has sprouted. It is this intimate relationship of its narrative logic with modernity and the Innovation

Society ideology that accounts for the ubiquity with which the Happy Project narrative structure recurs in the

narrative embeddings by leaders while their projects are on-going and in their retrospective “success”

narratives. (Del.2.2)

The combination of social organization, ideology and narrative structure that compose the Innovation Society

has boxed us in, limiting collective action to supporting the design of new technical artefacts to solve well-

defined problems, without paying attention to the unattended consequences, which emerge inevitably in the

wake of these new artefacts. The multiplication of projects and artefacts, instead of solving the social

problems of the society, just creates cascades of new unattended problems: as INSITE researcher declared in

the title of one of his recent papers, “For Every Solution, There are Many Problems.”

ICT innovation processes are of course not special. They too generate cascades of social transformations,

many of which will be implicated in future “crises”, and if they are not followed by an adequate dynamic

evaluation, and a robust distributed policy-making and –doing process is not in place by act on the basis of

what that evaluation reveals,2 they may provide no valuable contribution to sustainability, even though they

are a promising technology today (Del. 5.1).

The second working group, organized by WP 3, investigated the best scientific ways to analyse the dynamics

of innovation (innovation cascades and exaptive bootstrapping in particular), referring to available theory and

models.

After a long interaction with different experts, and three international workshops, the coordinator of this group

(Claes Andersson) came to the conclusion that there is no effective model available. The level of complexity

achieved by the Innovation Society is challenging a great number of analytical tools, used for a long time by

social scientists, and forcing them to look for different and better approaches.

2 See Del. 2.2 for discussions of dynamic evaluation and distributed policy-making and –doing.

A central theme in the discussions of this group is that at the interstices between biology and social sciences

lies a significant generative potential for interpreting social evolution. This potential has been greatly

enhanced by the relatively recent emergence of developmental theories of evolution in biology. In addition,

the increasing interest in the organization and bootstrapping dynamics of hierarchical multi-level complex

systems provides key insights into innovation dynamics.

As a result of the INSITE discussions, Andersson and other working group participants proposed the outlines

of a new synthetic theory of innovation dynamics, intertwining developmental evolutionary theory with

approaches based on historical case studies in the social science, placing organisation thinking rather than

population thinking at the forefront.3 This approach privileges a narrative case study methodology to theory

construction, supported by a particular approach to modelling as discussed in Del. 3.2 and the paper by

Andersson, Tornberg and Tornberg on Wicked Systems, to be published in Future.

This new approach aims at overcoming problems encountered by traditional approaches, deriving from

assumptions about invariance of context, while parts of it undertake simple and measurable changes. INSITE

working group participants claim that “wicked systems” cannot be analysed by this kind of approach. Their

synthetic theory puts together ideas from exaptive bootstrapping theory of David Lane, the generative

entrenchment theory of Bill Wimsatt, and the niche construction theory of Kevin Lalande, along with

associated methodologies.

The Chalmers INSITE team, working with several prominent anthropologists who attended the second and

third workshop organized by WP3, tested the new approach on the emergence of early human sociotechnical

organisations. By studying the transition from different ages, the group discovered that the possibility to shift

from an existing sociotechnical system to a new one is rare. Many different conditions have to be realized

together and the window of time available for it is not wide. If the societal system doesn’t achieve the

required knowledge in time, very often it enters a decline, in which existing functionality is lost.

The adoption of a transition model, enabling the agents to understand the process whereby an existing

sociotechnological “core” (that is, the relatively invariant and historically antecedent part of a hierarchically

organized sociotechnological system) is replaced by a new core, is a promising perspective for the analysis of

complex systems. And it could be useful to understand the possible evolution of the Innovation Society, which

has installed a positive feedback artefact innovation engine at the core of the society.

This way, scientists could come back to the round table with policy makers and innovation practitioners with

some good news for debate. Narrative based historical case studies can be proposed as useful tools for

3 The distinction between organization and population thinking is developed in depth in the first chapter of the book that

INSITE’s predecessor ISCOM produced, Lane, Pumain, van der Leeuw and West (eds), Complexity Perspectives on

Innovation and Social Change (Springer, 2009).

understanding wicked systems (i.e. eco-systems, societies) and, among them, Innovation Society as well.

There is bad news, though: there appear to be no off-the-shelf approaches for organising innovation in ways

that lead to a sustainable path into the future. In fact, taking the deep historical perspective of the WP3

discussion group, the magnitude of the goal of sustainability comes more clearly into view. Deliverable 3.2

describes why.

The third working group of INSITE, organized by WP 5, came to the same conclusion, through a more

traditional and empirical approach, to the same basic questions: is the Innovation Society sustainable? And

given that the answer is no, which was the working group’s conclusion, how can ICT play a role in helping to

understand the apparently unsustainable course of our present society?

Sander van der Leeuw coordinated this group, working together with a number of scientists, DIPO leaders and

social innovators. The results of their discussions are presented in two separate deliverables:

Del.5.1 summarised (in a sort of white paper on sustainability) what emerged from several meetings

and workshops, involving scientists and policy makers of different continents;

Del.5.2 summarises what emerged in Venice, during an international event finalised to test the

possibility of developing in Europe a scaffolding structure for the existing networks committed to

mobilize civil society for a socially sustainable future. This event was held at the end of a series of

workshops and meetings involving scientists and social innovators in different fields.

Del. 5.2 confirms the idea that the present society, grown around the extraction-to- waste-economy principles,

is reaching a tipping point, a point of crisis/transformation/transition. As happened several times in the past

(e.g. in the case of the Roman Empire), present society risks to decline because it is not able to harmonise

information flows and matter flows. Evident imbalances are visible in different parts of the system: energetic,

financial, demographic, urban, etc. Aligned with the analysis in Del. 2.2, Del. 5.2 confirms that a major

problem is posed by the short term orientation of individual choices (extraction to waste), while cascades of

unattended consequences are visible only in the longer run. The material flow of goods is faster than the

information flow and the learning by doing process.

Humans learn about the environment changing it, and they change it more than they learn about it. The more

the society primes the pump of innovation, the more the gap of sustainability is growing. This is slowing

down the rate of growth and driving the Innovation Society to a possible decline. If the productivity of the

knowledge creation system doesn’t increase soon, also thanks to new generalised ICT, the probability of a

decline increases dramatically.

What should be clear to policy makers, innovation leaders and facilitators, is that the information flow is

insufficient. The limit to growth and sustainability of the present regime is internal to the information

society’s structure. Without a new guiding narrative with respect to its development, ICT is not saving the

world.

Of course there are limits in the available natural resources, but the main evolutionary problems are social.

The Innovation Society is a sociotechnical system composed of sociotechnical regimes aiming to codify useful

knowledge. However existing ICT systems are not able to provide information analysis in time and to codify

the drivers of future social behaviour. Nevertheless the INSITE working group proposes that ICT can solve

the problem of the relationship between knowledge production, invention and innovation dynamics, because it

contributes to the emergence of “horizontal networks”, social forms in line with the aim to mobilizing core

components of the society to simulate and envision the future (thanks to a new narrative approach to

ontological uncertainty), to organise distributed innovation policies, bottom up decisions making procedure,

income and wealth new allocation systems.

In order to positively exploit this possibility, scientist and policy makers should interpret ICT evolution in a

new way, aligned with the perspective proposed by INSITE. Mastery in processing the third of the three

fundamental commodities of the universe, information, has only just set in motion another major revolution in

our social, economic and environmental organisation. From the perspective of social change, at least four

different dimensions of the future impact of ICT seem important to us. ICT will:

substantially increase transaction efficiency,

trigger structural changes in the division of labour, including increasing specialisation in the functions

and tasks fulfilled by individuals, groups and institutions,

change the configuration of firms and markets, as well as their roles and shape, and

free up resources for implementing innovations.

The practical experiences analysed during the WP5 work (available on the INSITE website and in part in

Del.5.2) suggest that these expectations could be too optimistic, aligned as they are to a “backward

“interpretation of ICT. The conclusions of Del. 5.2 have been partly challenged by an alternative view,

presented later in this report, which also emerged during the INSITE conversation.

Around this point, the interaction among participants fuelled the design of a new INSITE guiding narrative

about Innovation Society. Beyond traditional approaches to ICT, big data, information and communication

management, INSITE participants have begun to conceive the idea that the evolution of ICT and the resulting

cascades of social and attributional transformations, launched by the diffusion of personal computers (as a

convergence technology for scientific and creative activities), has influenced the societal dynamics in a way

that seems to be quite far from those traditionally indicated by a linear interpretation of innovation processes.

A deep re-interpretation of the cascade of consequences induced by the introduction of ICT might lead to a

more compelling narrative about the real impact of this technology on the sustainability of present society.

The fourth INSITE working group, organized by WP 4 and led by Alberto Cottica and Giovanni Ponti,

assembled policy makers, data analysts and social network. Through a series of meetings, this group aimed to

re-interpret social and economic problems by means of a “network thinking approach” and its instantiation in

ICT. At the end of their discussions, the participants came to the conclusion that, in addition to the structural

and functional issues raised in the discussions of the first three working groups, an imbalance is present also in

the current decision making process. National states and international organisations (like UE, WTO,

UNIDO…) are inadequate forms of social organisation. Citizens and social entrepreneurs participating in

horizontal networks, change the permissions structures that govern their interactions and organise themselves

in “swarms”, beyond traditional the boundaries that delineate, and hierarchical networks that support, existing

governance processes.4

The main conclusions of this working group are described in Del. 6.2. The most important of these is that a

new policy framework is emerging from the cascade of interactions primed by the diffusion of social ICT

tools and networking platforms. A new generation of policy makers, skilled in “swarm-activation” and -

governance is developing, while traditional bureaucrats lose parts of their power and roles, despite the

substantial investment by traditional governments on ICT as a vertical organisation technology.

The effects of ICT applied to horizontal networks and to creative process are still at the beginning. They seem

to be more important than the expected effects on vertical networks and productive chains. ICT has already

made its positive contribution to process codification, the engineering of procedures, human behaviour and

industrial/scientific knowledge -- but its potential contribution to communication, storytelling, narrative

construction of collective action is still to be realized. From this specific possible development of generalised

ICT will depend to a great extent the resilience of our society, as it seeks to escape from the Innovation

Society’s endogenous crises

Examples of aggregation/mobilisation of citizens and entrepreneurs (in the direction called for in the

manifesto Towards an Agenda for Social Innovation) have been discussed in WP 7 working groups led by

Denise Pumain of the Sorbonne INSITE team and Margherita Russo of ECLT (see Del. 7.1). Examples of

ICT platforms, actual and potential, oriented to exploit the generative potential of collective knowledge

creation, have been discussed in working groups of WP4, launched and led by Stefan Thurner of the Medical

University of Vienna and Alberto Lusoli of ECLT (see Del 4.2). These discussions provide evidence of how

difficult it is to work on these problems and to come to valuable results. Nevertheless these limited

experiences aim at the very center of the Innovation Society. They should be quite useful for the construction

of shared guiding narratives for future possible change

4 This is of course coherent with the conclusions in Dels. 2.2, 3.2 and 5.2 summarized above.

The threads mentioned so far intertwine in different points. Even though each working group of INSITE

followed a specific discussion track, the coherence of the different contributions and the complementarity of

the results are evident. In particular, the conversations in WP2 and WP5 initiated by David Lane and Sander

van der Leeuw on the basis of the ideas they carried over from ISCOM, went quite far from the original

objectives of INSITE. The new ideas that emerged from these conversations provide a promising starting

point not only to support the development of a new wave of discussion about sustainability, innovation and

ICT inside the GSS, FET and Collective Awareness Platforms programs, but also to contribute to the taking

off of a European movement for social innovation aligned to the framework developed in the social innovation

manifesto and Del. 2.2. Last but not least, the conversations led participants to conceive of new research

projects, beyond MD and the other local experiments mentioned in other parts of this report.

At the end of INSITE, beyond the working experience and the learning process activated among all the

participants as described above, the project coordinator came to the conclusion that INSITE concepts create

the basis for effective work on ICT in the near future. Some of the leading partners of INSITE and others who

participated in the INSITE conversations can now design a more consistent research project on ICT, focused

on its impact on the European society, the cascades of unattended consequences that has produced and the

narrative structure that it is following in its evolution. This may be the most relevant result of this coordination

action, in terms of advice for the people involved and the European Commission as funder. The conversation

should continue…

The generation of new ICT artefacts (on which Europe has invested a lot of resources during the last thirty

years and continue to invest today) should be analysed/interpreted in the light of the INSITE results. So far no

research group has attempted to verify what kind of cascade of consequences the appearance of ICT devices

and software solutions has produced in the way of functioning of our society, on the environment and the

technology frameworks and trajectories of different industries. Even the INSITE group had to invest hard in

new methodologies and theoretical approaches in order to define a convenient and promising interpretive

framework. Now that framework is available and can be used for further attempts.

Here are the outlines for such a project:

ICT (in its informatics component) appeared in a historical phase in which the prevalent narrative structure

was: automation. The guiding frame of the majority of the projects was the following one: productive

processes can be standardised (foreseen ex ante) from the beginning. Thanks to the

scientific/engineeristic/informatic approach, sooner or later, every human activity will be codified and

replicated (in automation), without human intervention. The climax in the diffusion and effectiveness of this

narrative structure may be located at the beginning of the Nineties, when Rifkin’s book (The End of Work)

was a bestseller.

The myth of automation has generated several chimeras and monsters (like CIM – Computer Integrated

Manufacturing, Expert Systems, etc.), promoted the birth of several specialised companies (Bull, IMB, SAP,

etc.) and drove the development of DIPOs and scaffolding structures (TQC movement, TQM training courses,

etc.) all over the world. Worldwide associations for standard setting have been created in almost any industry.5

These associations not only multiplied and supported the diffusion of the automation myth and connected

perspectives (like the already named TQC, TQM, TQD practices – Total Quality Control, Total Quality

Management, Total Quality Deployment…), but deeply influenced innovation trajectories. Training schools,

engineering courses, mechatronics departments have been developed for many years, in order to construct the

“standardised” industrial world that the evangelists of automation were promising at the time. Policy making

as well has been deeply influenced by this narrative and the consequent cascade of actions (at any level:

micro, meso and macro).

However, after forty years, not only “the end of work” is no longer a credible perspective, but the mere idea of

automation is no longer a driver of industrial decisions. The end of history, the definitive codification of

human processes, the productive and cognitive ex-ante organisation by ICT development and expert systems

diffusion are out-of-order concepts. During the last twenty years another narrative has started to emerge,

considering creativity and innovation as a continuous hybridisation process, impossible to be codified and

planned ex-ante. The view of innovation as an evolutionary hybridisation experience has begun to overcome

the linear cumulative view, in parallel with the emergence of the developmental biological framework as a

driving paradigm in social sciences (Del.3.2). We may cite collective narrative experiences in parallel with

these conceptual changes: for example, the decline of the traditional pattern of mechanical robots in the

moving picture system (from 2001 – Space Odyssey to Blade Runner) and the declining expectations about

the cloning track after the Dolly sheep experiment.

All these occurred in the middle of the Nineties, when the new generalised ICT wave took place with the

diffusion of Internet, the digital divide in photo and video production, etc… The second side of the ICT coin

(the creative one) took the leadership in the development of the technological framework of information

society. Social components (micro, meso and macro) that emerged during the age dominated by the

automation narrative structure were seen to be unable to finalise the functions and tasks attributed to them.

Only at a small scale had the informatics analysis of industrial and cognitive processes driven to automation

(in manufacturing companies as well as in offices). On the one hand, this happened because an unattended

effect of industrialisation has been a growing demand for out of the box solutions, made to measure products,

a passion for unique and artistic artefacts, a decrease in production series and batches; on the other hand,

because the promises of flexible automation have been betrayed. Only at a small scale did the informatic

5 The analytical work of ISCOM on the Lonworks case has documented this specific cascade in the automated control

industry, as reported in the ISCOM volume cited above.

analysis of information production and distribution, as an emerging internal organisation of the ICT industry,

liberated from the ancillary role of specialised department in large corporations and service organisations (at

the time of EDP), lead to the design of automatic platforms for software and knowledge development

(adopting the master-slave pattern). Instead, the ICT industry and its market system underwent a great

diffusion of open source platforms, network based control patterns, distributed control systems and any other

not hierarchical system.

What kind of artefact are Internet, Office standard packages, Auto-Cad, Google research robots for big data

analysis, FB, Twitter, Youtube, Skype, etc.? They are a hybrid technology composed by two components:

a standardised system in line with the interoperability predicament (unique code, that is limiting the

individual degree of freedom, but fostering collective interaction possibilities)

an open/creative evolving system in line with the need of introducing different meanings,

interpretation possibilities and uses of the same platform by different, heterogeneous users.

After the construction of urban spaces and other physical infrastructures (artefacts with highly specific

functions), the appearance of ICT artefacts and the construction of virtual infrastructures is probably the most

important innovation of humanity from its very first emergence in the past. ICT is a technology open to a great

variety of possible interpretations, uses, functionalities and allows the possibility of to maintaining both the

social need for commons and recognised standards and a very high level of individual freedom and autonomy.

The degree of complexity of the social system that has emerged around new ICT has grown exponentially

during the last forty years, due to a cascade of innovations and unattended consequences absolutely new in the

history of humankind. The governance crisis of the global system of today is partly an effect of this cascade.

While the potentiality of ICT is still interpreted as the hope for the resilience of the modern society,6 there has

been no attempt to perform the dynamic evaluation of the cascade initiated at the end of the Seventies that

could help us to understand how social structures and driving narratives are changing in the world created by

the National Capitalism institutions and the myth of automation. This kind of evaluation could provide us

with a transition model (composed of popular guiding narratives and core social components narratives),

which could help us to face and design the transition to novelty in the ontological uncertainty conditions in

which we find ourselves.

Historical and anthropological studies, like those carried out by INSITE participant Dwight Read on the

increase of social complexity that has accompanied the evolution of machinery for agriculture during the first

industrial revolution, provide us with precious examples of what kind of analytical work we should do. A

6 Del.5.1 underlines the possibility that ICT can help in closing the gap between matter flows, negative consequences on

environmental conditions and information flows / development of knowledge.

research project on ICT as an Agent/Artefact/Attribution space is mature, a space we can map and interpret on

the basis of David Lane’s theory, the A4 language produced by the MD project (as noted, a spin off of

INSITE) and other dynamic evaluation tools today available thanks to the INSITE project’s results and MD.

Such a research project could introduce a powerful bridge between the narrative of the past and the narratives

of the future, those recognised as a driver of future innovations in this important technological hybrid (mainly

in the communication/narrative component).

Here are some hypotheses about what such a project would reveal:

a) Competences designed to serve industrial and administrative processes planning (industrial and office

automation) have been diverted towards now emerging tasks (creativity and communication),

finalised to increase the degree of freedom from standards and the interpretive ability of the final user.

Millions of software engineers and developers have been invited to organise, in a creative and open

way, the contents of communication, hybridizing their original knowledge and competences with new

ones (mainly artistic and creative) in a close interaction with the citizen/user/consumer.

b) In a world permeated by the diffusion of new ICT artefacts (pcs at the beginning and smart phones

today) whose principal scope is no longer calculation and standard software design (towards

automation), open source organizations and social networks have begun to extend their dominion over

communication channels, once the exclusive territory of accredited journalists, copy experts, actors,

directors, authors and other characters of the traditional/hierarchical media system.

c) In parallel with the diffusion of the last generation of ICT and social networks, a new narrative

structure emerged (in strong opposition to the past centuries national state): the network as an open

society, a new advanced form of democracy, off the shelf, far form any standardisation, alternative to

hierarchical institutions dominated by the myth of technical/professional skills (weberian mode).

d) Far from the original ideology of automation and standardisation, the world of the hackers (possible

core of a new sociotechnical system) is producing one of the greatest social organization experiments

that humankind has ever seen, challenging traditional political and governance standards and

institutions created in the age of vertical networks (Big Brothers, National States, Multinational

Corporations, Empires…).

e) The cascade of social innovations produced by the introduction of the first electronic chip, in the

agent/artefact space of modernity, not only is far from being concluded, but is strongly influencing the

re-organisation process of the Innovation Society as it continues to resist to the decline and possible

lack of resilience of the extraction-to-waste economic system.

The participants in INSITE and other observers of the ICT industry and the Innovation Society claim that the

cascade of innovations, launched by the myth of TQC in standard processes at the end of the Seventies, is

driving the global system to embrace new forms of artefacts production and social aggregation (urban, virtual,

industrial) and construct new market systems. A new research project and even another coordination action

(INSITE 2.0) could successfully try to interpret this story, on the basis of the suggestions, methods and tools

developed by INSITE and MD participants: in particular to understand ways in which these underlying social

changes might be directed towards the construction of a sustainable and socially coherent future.

Dissemination activities and exploitation of results

One of the major outcomes that contributed to the implementation of the dissemination strategy is the

Manifesto (Towards an agenda for social innovation) written by David A. Lane that widely circulated among

and outside the project community. This document puts forward a proposal for such a vision, by

contextualizing social innovation as a possible way forward from our society’s current system of organizing

its transformation processes, a system we call the Innovation Society.

Besides, another fundamental document that has been produced during the life of the project is the publication

of the booklet Naples 2.0 International Social Innovation Competition around which of series of

interaction among policymakers, DIPO leaders and social innovators took place after its publication.

A decisive element of the dissemination strategy has been the use of the website www.insiteproject.org

organised in different sections that enabled users to read collection of papers, articles about INSITE themes as

well as interact through the blog and forum section. In additional a mailing list sent to project’s partner

enabled the communication among members of the consortium. Another crucial element is the video product

Is our society sustainable? that constitutes one of the main outputs of WP8 which will encourage

interaction among and outside INSITE members even after the EU funding.

As listed in the project management section of the periodic report, INSITE has organized 13 workshops along

with smaller events such as seminars and conferences in collaboration with the DG Connect, Futurium,

running projects such as GSDP and local civic organisations (72 events). All these activities mainly aimed at

involving representatives from the civil society as well as policymakers at national and European level in

order to get their support in the implementing project’s goals. In total 449 invitees have participated to the

thirteen workshops organized. All the presentations and materials presented at the various workshops and

conferences are uploaded at the INSITE website (total of 63 presentations).

Photographic gallery (selection):

Dan Oprescu Zenda at the workshop Envisioning a Socially Sustainable Future: Models, Narrative, Art 16

October 2012, Venice

Lucas Fulling and other invitees to the workshop Designing a more sustainable Europe: stories for Change and

Innovation 30 January – 1 February 2014, Venice

Informed cities forum 2013

Ruchira Ghoose during her presentation at the workshop Narrations and communities: building communities for

making citizenship 12-15 April 2014, Modena

John Odling Smee, Mary Stiner, Claes Andersson Kristian Kristiansen, Denise Pumain during a break from the

Workshop on New data – old theories: the future of theorizing about innovation in complex adaptive systems 5-8 May

2014, Venice

Céline Rozenblat, Margherita Russo and Valentina Anzoise during the Final INSITE meeting, 9-10 May, Venice

2. Use and dissemination of foreground

Section A (public)

TEMPLATE A1: LIST OF SCIENTIFIC (PEER REVIEWED) PUBLICATIONS, STARTING WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES

NO. Title Main author Title of the

periodical or the series

Number, date or frequen

cy

Publisher Place of publicati

on

Year of publicati

on

Relevant pages

Permanent identifiers (if available)

Is/Will open access

provided to this

publication?

1 The detection of intermediate-level emergent structures and patterns

V illani M, Filisetti A., Benedettini S, Roli A. Lane D., Serra R.

The MIT Press

2013 372-378 DOI 10.7551/978-0-262-31709-2-ch054 http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/ecal13/978-0-262-31709-2-ch054.pdf

YES

2 An evolutionary developmental approach to cultural evolution

Andersson, C., Törnberg, A., Törnberg, P.

Current Antropology

Vol. 55 n. 2

2014 DOI 10.1086/675692 http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/181934/local_181934.pdf

YES

3 Fidelity and the emergence of stable and cumulative sociotechnical systems

Andersson C

PaleoAnthropology

2013: 88−10

PaleoAnthropology Society

2013 DOI 10.4207/PA.2013.ART81 http://www.paleoanthro.org/static/journal/content/PA20130088.pdf

YES

4 Societal systems - complex or worse?

Andersson, C., Törnberg, A., Törnberg,

Futures Elsevieren 2014 Not yet available NO

P.

5 Understanding Mobility in a Social Petri Dish

Szell M., Sinatra R., Petri G, Thurner S., Latora S.

Nature. Scientific reports

2012 DOI 10.1038/srep00457 http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120614/srep00457/full/srep00457.html

YES

6 Developing of the future: scaffolded Darwinism in societal evolution

Andersson, C., Törnberg, A., Törnberg, P.

Commentary in Behavioral and Brain Sciences

2014 Not yet available NO

7 Naples 2.0 International Social Innovation Competition

Addarii, F., Fulling, L.m et. Al

European Commission

DOI 10.2769/29538 YES

8 On some properties of information theoretical measures for the study of complex systems

V illani M, Filisetti A., Benedettini S, Roli A. Poli I., Fiorucci M. Serra R.

WIVACE 2014 proceedings

Not yet available NO

9 Network effects in Schelling’s model of segregation: new evidences from agent-based simulation

Banos A. Environment and Planning B

Volume 39, n°2

2012 DOI 10.1068/b37068 http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=b37068

YES

10 Towards New Metrics for Urban Road Networks. Some Preliminary Evidence from Agent-Based Simulations

Banos A., Genre Grandpierre C.

Agent-Based Models of Geographical Systems

Springer 2012 627-642 DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-8927-4_31 NO

11 Les rôles différenciés des villes européennes dans la diffusion des connaissances

Comin M. N.

Cybergeo, European Journal of Geography

2014 Not yet available NO

scientifiques de pointe en Europe

12 Le Paris des visiteurs étrangers, qu’en disent les téléphones mobiles ? Inférence des pratiques spatiales et fréquentations des sites touristiques en Ile-de-France

OLTEANU-RAIMOND A-M., COURONNE T., FEN-CHONG J., SMOREDA Z.,

Revue Internationale de Géomatique

2012 http://rig.revuesonline.com/article.jsp?articleId=17829

NO

TEMPLATE A2: LIST OF DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES

During the 39-month period of the project, INSITE has directly organized or contributed to various conferences, seminars and workshops of relevance for the

development and dissemination of the INSITE programme. It has also run a blog to which several project beneficiaries and stakeholders have contributed (

http://www.insiteproject.org/home/blog/ ). All the available presentations provided by invited speakers have been made public on the project website, and

additional reports have been produced. Further detailed information on the content of these workshops and contributions is included in Technical Reports as

well as on www.insiteproject.eu

NOTES:

Abbreviations: Industry (I), Scientific Community (SC), Policy Makers (PM), Civil Society (CS)

Main leader: organiser of the event/responsible for the dissemination activity

Consortium participant(s): project beneficiary(ies) who took part in the event / contributed to the dissemination activity

A2: LIST OF DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES

NO. Type of activities Main leader Title Date/Period Place Type of

audience

Size of audience

Countries addressed

1 Conference Main leader: EC Consortium participants: UNIVE, EUCLID

FET11 The European Future Technologies Conference and Exhibition – organization of two satellite seminars Presentations available at: http://www.insiteproject.org/event/innovation-sustainability-and-ict-future-technologies-conference-eu-directorate-for-ict-budapest/

4-6/05/2011 Budapest, Hungary

SC, PM N/A Europe

2 Seminar Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Sustainability, Science and Art”, Invited Lecture, Symposium “A Fluid Resilience”, Fondazione Querini-Stampalia. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

04/06/2011 Venice, Italy SC N/A Italy

3 Conference Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Global Systems Dynamic and Policy: Lessons from the distant past”, paper presented at the First annual meeting of the GSDP Project. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

10-12/10/2011 Berlin, Germany

SC, PM N/A Europe

4 Workshop Consortium participant: UNIVE

“The archaeology of innovation: lessons for the sustainability of our times”, Plenary address to the workshop: “Beyond collapse”, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

26/10/2011 Kyoto, Japan

SC N/A Worldwide

5 Workshop Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Reflexivity and human history: the long view”, invited lecture to the workshop on “Reflexivity and social change”, Central European University/ Institute for New Economic Thinking. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

04/11/2011 Budapest, Hungary

SC N/A Europe

6 Workshop Consortium participant: UNIVE

Workshop about Dynamic Evaluation and future partnerships with Kennisland.

8-10/11/2011 Amsterdam, Netherlands

SC N/A Europe

7 Seminar Main leader: Unimore Consortium participants: UNIVE

L'agricoltura sociale nell'esperienza della rete delle fattorie sociali. Speaker:dr. Alfonso Pascale

21/11/2011 Modena, Italy

SC, CS 15 people Italy

8 Seminar Main Leader: UNIVE

Towards a research agenda for a theory of ICT innovations (A personal view on ICT in INSITE). Speaker: dr. Balint Domolki

28/11/2011 Venice, Italy SC 15 people Italy

9 Workshop Main leader: Unimore Consortium participants: UNIVE

HOMM (Hands-on Multimedia Museum) workshop http://www.insiteproject.org/event/hands-on-multimedia/

5-6/12/2011 Modena, Italy

SC, CS 25 people Italy, extra-EU

10 Workshop Consortium participant: UNIVE

“For every solution there are many problems: the role and study of technical systems in socio-environmental co-evolution”. Invited paper presented at the workshop “Exploring causalities – The societal effects of climate change” (A. Reenberg, convener). Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

16-18/01/2012 Copenhagen, Denmark

SC N/A Europe

11

Web - Article

Main Leader: EN

Article located in the INSITE project subpage on Euclid’s website. The article presents the INSITE workshop Mobilizing Civil Society to Construct a Socially Sustainable Society with a framework of the proposed discussions. http://www.euclidnetwork.eu/projects/current-projects/research-projects/insite/insite-workshop-jan-2012.html

18/01/2012 Web CS, PM 2000 views Europe

12 Seminar

Main Leader: UNIVE

Commons Goods: a matter of sustainability. Speaker. Pr. Enrico Giovannetti

20/01/2012 Venice, Italy SC 10 people Italy

13

Workshop

Main Leader: UNIVE Consortium participants: EUCLID, CNRS, MCH

Mobilizing Civil Society to Construct a Socially Sustainable Society http://www.insiteproject.org/event/innovation-society-and-complexity-a-dynamics-of-detecting-solving-and-creating-problems/

26-27/01/2012 Venice, Italy SC, PM, CS 37 people Europe

14

Interviews

Main Leader: EN

8 video interviews taken at INSITE Workshop in Venice, 26-27 January 2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NSUxKXjoig

26-27/01/2012 Web SC, PM, CS 200 views Europe

15 Workshop Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Human societal evolution: the cognitive and communication perspective”, invited paper, Transdisciplinary workshop on Social Complexity (P. Turchin and S. Gavrilets, conveners). NIMBioS. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

06-08/02/2012 Knoxville, Tennessee

SC N/A Worldwide

16

Web - Article

Main Leader: EN

INSITE news, at one year... http://www.euclidnetwork.eu/projects/current-projects/research-projects/insite/insite-news-at-one-year.html

16/02/2012 Web SC, PM 2000 users Europe

17

Web - Article

Main Leader: EN

The article presents the INSITE workshop event with a framework of the proposed discussions. http://www.euclidnetwork.eu/projects/current-projects/research-projects/insite/workshop-dynamics-of-detecting-solving-and-creating-problems.html

16/02/2012 Web SC, PM 2000 users Europe

18

Conference

Consortium participant: UNIVE

“How does globalization work at the local scale… An anthropologist’s view”. Invited paper presented in the session “Globalization then and now: scale, complexity, and communication of sustainability” (C. King and J. Tainter, conveners). Annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

19/02/2012 Vancouver, BC, Canada

SC N/A Canada

19 Conference Consortium “Complex system theory, sustainability and innovation”, 27-29/02/2012 Singapore, SC N/A Singapore

participant: UNIVE

Invited paper presented at the “More is different” Conference (J.W. Vasbinder, convener). Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

20

Seminar

Main Leader: UNIVE

“Capitalismo tossico” book review with the author dr. Danilo Corradi http://www.insiteproject.org/event/capitalismo-tossico-presentazione-del-libro-con-lautore/

07/03/2012 Venice, Italy CS 10 people Italy

21

Workshop

Main Leader: CTHA Consortium participants: UNIVE

Innovation, Complexity and Society: a Dynamics of detecting, solving and creating problems http://www.insiteproject.org/event/innovation-society-and-complexity-a-dynamics-of-detecting-solving-and-creating-problems/

21-23/03/2012 Venice, Italy SC 32 people Europe

22

Conference

Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Collective action and the transition to a sustainable society: a research and action proposal”, “International Planet under pressure conference”. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

26/03/2012 London, UK SC N/A Worldwide

23

Seminar

Main Leader: UNIVE

Crisis, Debt and Democracy: the Icelandic case. Speaker Hordur Torfason http://www.unive.it/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=63&event_id=2962617&gruppo=0

16/04/2012 Venice, Italy PM; CS, SC 30 people Italy

24 Conference

Consortium participant: CNRS

“Crises in complex social systems”, OECD Global Science Forum. Speaker Banos A.

18/04/2012 Paris, France

SC, PM N/A Europe

25

Conference

Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Crises, crises all around?”, Invited Panel presentation, Conference on “Financial risks, green growth and jobs. Challenges to Global Systems Science: from climate change to market governance”. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

04/05/2012 Barcelona, Spain

SC, PM N/A Europe

26 Workshop

Main Leader: UNIVE

Discussion about impact investing, philanthropy and possible future collaborations with Luciano Balbo

12/05/2012 Venice, Italy SC, CS N/A Italy

27

Workshop

Consortium participant: CNRS

“Emergence in spatial systems”, International Workshop on « Managing Complexity in Land Use and Environmental Impacts Modelling». Speaker Banos A.

14-15/05/2012 Luxembourg SC N/A Europe

28 Workshop

Main Leader: UNIVE

Discussion about social innovation, social enterprise and possible future collaborations with Claudia Fiaschi (CGM)

14/05/2012 Venice, Italy SC, CS N/A Italy

29

Workshop

Main Leader: THE HUB Consortium participants: UNIVE

Towards a Network of European Sustainability Practitioners http://www.insiteproject.org/event/how-can-we-trigger-innovation-and-collaboration-between-sustainability-practitioners-across-europe/ and http://www.insiteproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Hub-workshop-May-2012.pdf

23-24/05/2012 Venice, Italy CS, PM 25 people Europe

30

Seminar

Main Leader: UNIVE

Seminar by Brian Boyer about planning, predicting and managing rapidly changing complex systems within Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra; following discussion about Identity based local development and evaluation

08/06/2012 Venice, Italy SC N/A Italy

31

Web - Article

Main Leader: EN

Article located in the INSITE project subpage on Euclid’s website. The article presents the Second Open Global Systems Science Conference organised within the GSDP project framework with a summary of the discussions http://www.euclidnetwork.eu/projects/current-projects/research-projects/insite/the-second-global-systems-science-conference-june-2013.html

13/06/2012 Web SC, PM 2000 users Europe

32

Web - Article

Main Leader: MUW

Natureasia.com highlights the Scientific Reports paper “Understanding Mobility in a Social Petri Dish” by Szell, Thurner et.al http://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/1698

15/06/2012 Web SC N/A Worldwide

33

Web – Newspaper article

Main Leader: MUW

Article related to the paper “Understanding Mobility in a Social Petri Dish” by Szell, Thurner et.al in the science section of Austrian online newspaper Der Standard http://derstandard.at/1339637858578/Mobilitaet-in-sozialen-Systemen-Naturgesetzen-menschlichen-Gruppenverhaltens-online-auf-der-Spur

18/06/2012 Web SC, Media, CS N/A Austria, German speaking

34 Seminar

Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Il primo passo: fare rete”, GreeNordEst week. Speaker Paolo Gurisatti

22/06/2012 Santorso (VI), Italy

SC, CS, PM N/A Italy

35 Workshop

Main Leader: UNIVE

Discussion about impact investing, philanthropy and possible future collaborations with Luciano Balbo and collaborators

05/07/2012 Milan, Italy SC, CS N/A Italy

36

Workshop

Main Leader: UNIVE

Discussion about social innovation, social enterprise and possible future collaborations with Claudia Fiaschi (CGM) and other collaborators

12/07/2012 Venice, Italy SC, CS N/A Italy

37

Conference

Main Leader: ISA Consortium participants: UNIVE

Collaborative Visual Methodologies and New Media, Videos and Cyber-Activism on Social and Environmental Issues co-organized sessions at the Second ISA Forum of Sociology “Social justice and democratization” http://www.isa-sociology.org/buenos-aires-2012/tg/TG05-Visual-Sociology-Program.pdf

30/07 – 04/08/2012

Buenos Aires, Argentina

CS, PM, SC 200 people Wordwide

38

Workshop

Main Leader: UNIL Consortium participant: UNIVE, MUW, CNRS

Workshop Networks’ Emergence and sustainability http://www.insiteproject.org/event/networks-emergence-sustainability/

17/09/2012 Venice, Italy SC 19 people Europe

39

Workshop

Main Leader: MUW Consortium participants: UNIVE, UNIL, CNRS

Measuring, Quantifying and Modeling Processes of Scientific Knowledge Creation and Propagation in Online Societies http://www.insiteproject.org/event/measuring-quantifying-and-modeling-processes-of-scientific-knowledge-creation-and-propagation-in-online-societies/

18-19/09/2012 Venice, Italy SC, PM 17 people Europe

40

Event

Main Leader: EUCLID Consortium participants: UNIVE

International Social Innovation Competition: Naples 2.0 http://www.euclidnetwork.eu/projects/current-projects/european-social-innovation-naples-20.html

21-23/09/2012 Naples, Italy CS 100 people Italy

41

Conference

Main Leader: EN Consortium participants: UNIVE

Bridging the Gap - New Survival Strategies: The cow and the squirrel. Session on ICT and Civic Engagement http://www.insiteproject.org/event/euclid-network-annual-conference-bridging-the-gap-new-survival-strategies/ and http://www.euclidnetwork.eu/news-and-events/sector-news/726-ict-tools-for-civic-engagement.html

24-25/09/2012 Malmo, Sweden

PM, CS 100 people Europe

42

Seminar

Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Innovating our way out of, and into, trouble”, Invited lecture. Pennsylvania State University. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

28/09/2012 Pennsylvania, US

SC N/A US

43

Conference

Consortium participant: UNIVE

Convention CGM «Costruire il bene comune, il benessere e la qualità della vita nelle singole comunità», Valentina Anzoise, Paolo Gurisatti

11/10/2012 Mantova, Italy

SC, CS N/A Italy

44

Presentation

Main Leader: UA

TEDx Bologna Designing Collective Intelligence, presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKrM2c-ww_k

13/10/2012 Bologna, Italy

SC, PM, Media 100 people in the room, about 1000 video’s views

N/A

45

Workshop

Main Leader: UNIVE Consortium participants: UA, EUCLID, CTHA, CNRS, MCH, UCCNUIC, TL

Envisioning a Socially Sustainable Future: Models, Narrative, Art Towards an INSITE action agenda http://www.insiteproject.org/slides/envisioning-a-socially-sustainable-future/ and http://www.insiteproject.org/2012/09/18/road-to-envisioning-a-socially-sustainable-future-models-narratives-art-conference/

15-16/10/2012 Venice, Italy PM, SC, CS 69 people Europe

46

Workshop

Main Leader: UNIVE

Discussion about impact investing, philanthropy and possible future collaborations with Luciano Balbo and collaborators

29/10/2012 Venice, Italy SC, CS N/A Italy

47

Seminar

Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Complex Systems, Sustainability and Innovation”, Wrigley Lecture, Arizona State University. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

15/11/2012 Phoenix, US SC N/A US

48

Workshop

Main Leader: UA Consortium participants: UNIVE

Masters of Networks (Policy hackathon) http://www.insiteproject.org/event/masters-of-networks/

21-22/01/2013 Venice, Italy SC, PM 30 people in the room + blog posts and online views

Europe

49

Presentation

Main Leader: EN

Global Solutions Network Launch Meeting http://prezi.com/ahqnn22cjtlw/global-solutions-network-launch-meeting/

29/01/2013 Toronto, Canada

SC, PM 2500 views Europe, Canada

50

Conference

Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Sustainability as culture”, Some comments on the symposium “The whole of culture: Anthropology back on track”, Annual meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

15/02/2013 Boston, Massachusetts, US

SC N/A US

51 Participation to competition

Main leader: EC Consortium

1st European Social Innovation Competition http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/social-innovation/past-editions/index_en.htm

09-13/03/2013 Brussels, Belgium

CS N/A Europe

participant: UNIVE

52

Workshop

Main Leader: EUCLID Consortium participants: UNIVE

Visions in Global Systems Science: Narratives as a Communication Tool for Scientists http://www.insiteproject.org/event/visions-in-global-systems-science-narratives-as-a-communication-tool-for-scientists/

13-14/03/2013 Brussels, Belgium

SC, PM, CS 25 people Europe

53

Interviews

Main Leader: EN

10 video interviews taken at INSITE event on Science and Narratives in Brussels - March 2013 http://www.euclidnetwork.eu/projects/current-projects/research-projects/insite/workshop-visions-in-global-systems-science-narratives-as-a-communication-tool-for-scientists.html

13-14/03/2013 Web SC, PM Around 500 views

Europe

54

Workshop

Main Leader: CTHA Consortium participant: UNIVE

Transition and stasis in society and biology: models, theories and narratives http://www.insiteproject.org/event/transition-and-stasis-in-society-and-biology-models-theories-and-narratives/

18-22/03/2013 Venice, Italy SC 22 people Europe

55 Workshop

Consortium participant: UNIVE

Workshop “Festa dell’Acqua” 2013, Sassinoro (BN). Speaker Paolo Gurisatti.

20-24/03/2013 Sassinoro, Italy

CS, PM N/A Italy

56

Conference

Consortium participant: UA

First Conference of Herbert Simon Society, Columbia University, presentation of Iryna Sikora on “Creative Production and Exchange of Ideas: An Experiment” http://herbertsimonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/HSS-conference_program_april-2013.pdf

8-10/04/2013 New York, USA

CS, PM Worldwide

57

Conference

Consortium participant: CNRS

AAG Conference 2013. Speaker: Julie Fen-Chong. Presented a way of integrating knowledge from mobile phone big data in the management of urban mobility

09-13/04/2013 Los Angeles, US

SC N/A Worldwide

58

Conference

Consortium participant: UNIVE

Speech on “La casa, il quartiere e il distretto” within the Conference “Riqualificazione urbana: normative europee come opportunità per l’internazionalizzazione edilizia”. Speaker Paolo Gurisatti

23/05/2013 Vicenza, Italy

CS, SC, PM N/A Italy

59 Conference

Main Leader: ICLEI Consortium

Presentation at Informed Cities Forum 2013 http://informed-cities.iclei-europe.org/index.php?id=8515

06-07/06/2013 Berlin, Germany

SC, PM 120 people Europe

participants: UNIVE

60 Seminar

Consortium participant: UNIVE

Green Communities: politiche di innovazione sostenibile per le aree interne. Speaker Paolo Gurisatti

14/06/2013 Venice, Italy SC, CS, PM N/A Italy

61

Conference

Main Leader: Crossover project Consortium participant: UA

International conference on policymaking 2.0 - Thinking in Networks: What It Means For Policy Makers, keynote http://www.crossover-project.eu/InternationalConferenceonPolicyMaking20.aspx

17/06/2013 Dublin, Ireland

SC, PM 80 people Europe

62

Conference

Consortium participant: UNIVE

“For every solution there are many problems: the role and study of technical systems in socio-environmental co-evolution”, invited lecture at the “Bejing Forum on Landscape Sustainability”. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

27-29/06/2013 Bejing, PRC SC N/A PRC

63 Conference

Consortium participant: UNIVE

Session on Rural Design, at the Convention “Best practice”. Speakers Valentina Anzoise and Stefania Sardo

29/06/2013 Mercogliano, Italy

CS, PM N/A Italy

64

Conference

Main Leader: CNR Consortium participant: UNIVE

Paper presentation at WIVACE 2013 http://wivace2013.disco.unimib.it/

01-02/07/2013 Milan, Italy SC Around 200 people

Italy

65

Conference

Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Resilience and sustainability: science and governance”, Invited presentation at the “International workshop on Complexity and Governance”, Nanyang Technical University. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S

18-20/07/2013 Singapore SC N/A Singapore

66 Workshop

Consortium participants: UNIVE

Workshop on the possible construction of a Social Innovation Centre

30-31/07/2013 Maruggio, Italy

CS, SC N/A Italy

67

Conference

Consortium participants: CNRS

“Introducing coordination between agents: one on the sources of urban sustainability?” IET/IEEE Second International Conference on Smart and Sustainable City. Speaker, Banos A.

19-20/08/2013 Shanghai, China,

SC N/A Worldwide

68

Workshop

Consortium participant: UNIVE

“Invention and innovation: the long term”. Paper presented at the workshop “Opening the black box of innovation”. Sante Fe Institute. Speaker: Van Der Leeuw S.

23/08/2013 Santa Fe, New Mexico, US

SC N/A US

69 Conference

Consortium participants: UNIVE

Paper presentation at ECAL 2013 http://www.dmi.unict.it/ecal2013/press.php

02-06/09/2013 Taormina, Italy

SC 500 people Wordwide

70

Conference

Main Leader: CNRS

18th European Colloquium on Theoretical and Quantitative Geography. Organization also of a Special session on network analysis

05-09/09/2013 Dourdan, France

SC N/A Europe

71 Conference

Consortium participants: UNIVE

Paper presentation at ECSS 2013 http://www.eccs13.eu/index.php/program

15-19/09/2013 Barcelona, Spain

SC 500 people Wordwide

72

Workshop

Main Leader: MUW Consortium participants: UNIVE

Games, Science and Society. How computer games, gamification, and crowd sourcing influence and shape knowledge creation, science and its teaching http://www.insiteproject.org/event/games-science-and-society/

10-11/10/2013 Laxenburg, Austria

SC, PM 19 people Europe

73

Conference

Main Leader: UA

Conference “Living On The Edge 3”. Organization of sessions: “Skilling up for online collaboration” and “Creativity how to measure how to foster” https://edgeryders.eu/lote3/program

30/ 10 – 3/11 / 2013

Matera, Italy N/A Europe

74 Web - Blog posts

Main Leader: UA

6 posts on cottica.net under the Networks Notebook category

Throughout 2013

Web SC, PM, CS N/A Worldwide

75

Workshop

Main Leader: UNIVE

Designing a more Sustainable Europe: Stories for Change and Innovation http://www.insiteproject.org/event/designing-a-more-sustainable-europe-stories-for-change-and-innovation/

31/01-01/02/2014

Venice, Italy PM; CS 40 people Europe

76

Presentation

Main Leader: UNIVE

Sassinoro Paese dell’acqua http://benevento.ottopagine.net/2013/03/24/la-prima-giornata-della-festa-dellacqua/

21-23/03/2014 Sassinoro, Italy

CS Around 250 people

Italy

77

Workshop

Main Leader: UA Consortium participants: UNIVE

Masters of Networks 2 (Policy hackathon) http://www.insiteproject.org/event/masters-of-networks-2/

9-10/04/2014 Rome, Italy SC, PM 21 people in the room + blog posts and online views

Europe

78 Workshop

Main Leader: UNIVE, Officina Emilia

Narrations and communities: building communities for making citizenship in collaboration with Unimore – Officina Emilia

12-5/04/2014 Modena, Italy

CS, PM, SC 66 people Europe, extra EU

http://www.insiteproject.org/event/generalized-ict-how-cities-and-museums-augment-human-learning-individually-and-collectively/

79

Workshop

Main Leader: CTHA Consortium participants: UNIVE

New data – old theories: the future of theorizing about innovation in complex adaptive systems http://www.insiteproject.org/event/new-data-old-theories-the-future-of-theorizing-about-innovation-in-complex-adaptive-systems/

05-08/05/2014 Venice, Italy SC 20 people Europe, USA

80

Workshop

Main Leader: UNIVE Consortium participants: CTHA, UA, EUCLID, UNIL, TL

INSITE Final meeting http://www.insiteproject.org/event/insite-final-conference/

09-10/05/2014 Venice, Italy SC 33 people Europe

81

Conference

Main Leader: Sigma Orionis, iMinds-SMIT, Artshare Consortium participant: UNIVE

FET-ART Final Event ICT & Art Connect so far: elements to orient the future and ICT ART CONNECT STUDY http://www.ictartconnect.eu/ictartconnect/

11-13/05/2014 Brussels, Belgium

SC, PM 22 people Europe

82

Multimedia content

Main Leader: EN

INSITE Final meeting video interviews, pictures and tweets http://euclidnetwork.eu/projects/current-projects/research-projects/insite/insite-final-event-venice-may-2014.html

May 2014 Web SC, PM, CS 4000 users Europe

83

Conference

Main Leader: CNR Consortium participants: UNIVE

Paper presentation at WIVACE 2014 http://wivace2014.icar.cnr.it/content/organization

15-16/05/2014 Vietri, Italy SC Around 100 people

Italy

84

Web-Article

Main Leader: EN

Euclid at INSITE: Is our society of innovation sustainable? (Euclid Network newsletter article) http://euclidnetwork.cmail3.com/t/ViewEmail/d/61728801585820CA/770C09B7B2FCFE6B9A8E73400EDACAB4

16/05/2014 Web CS, PM 4000 users Europe

85 Seminar Main Leader: Amigdala

Seminar Ostinata mente – prendersi cura dello spazio pubblico speakers. C. Bianchetti, M. Bressan in the

23/05/2014 Modena, Italy

CS Around 20 people +

Italy

Consortium participant: UNIVE

framework of the city festival Periferico 2013/2014 https://it-it.facebook.com/pages/Periferico/112155352177056 and http://amigdala.mo.it/periferico/

diffusion through social network

Section B (Confidential or public: confidential information to be marked clearly)

Part B1

TEMPLATE B1: LIST OF APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, REGISTERED DESIGNS, ETC.

Type of IP Rights

Confidential Click on YES/NO

Foreseen embargo date dd/mm/yyyy

Application reference(s)

(e.g. EP123456) Subject or title of application

Applicant (s) (as on the application)

Not applicable to INSITE project

Part B2

Type of Exploitable Foreground

7

Description of

exploitable foreground

Confidential Click on YES/NO

Foreseen embargo

date dd/mm/yyyy

Exploitable product(s) or measure(s)

Sector(s) of application

8

Timetable, commercial or any other use

Patents or other IPR exploitation (licences)

Owner & Other Beneficiary(s) involved

Not applicable to INSITE project

19 A drop down list allows choosing the type of foreground: General advancement of knowledge, Commercial exploitation of R&D results, Exploitation of R&D results via standards,

exploitation of results through EU policies, exploitation of results through (social) innovation. 8 A drop down list allows choosing the type sector (NACE nomenclature) : http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/index/nace_all.html

4.1 Report on societal implications

A General Information (completed automatically when Grant Agreement number is

entered.

Grant Agreement Number: 271574

Title of Project: The Innovation Society, Sustainability and ICT

Name and Title of Coordinator: Prof. David Avra Lane

B Ethics

1. Did your project undergo an Ethics Review (and/or Screening)?

If Yes: have you described the progress of compliance with the relevant Ethics

Review/Screening Requirements in the frame of the periodic/final project reports?

Special Reminder: the progress of compliance with the Ethics Review/Screening Requirements should be

described in the Period/Final Project Reports under the Section 3.2.2 'Work Progress and Achievements'

No

2. Please indicate whether your project involved any of the following issues (tick

box) :

YES

RESEARCH ON HUMANS

Did the project involve children? NO

Did the project involve patients? NO

Did the project involve persons not able to give consent? NO

Did the project involve adult healthy volunteers? NO

Did the project involve Human genetic material? NO

Did the project involve Human biological samples? NO

Did the project involve Human data collection? NO

RESEARCH ON HUMAN EMBRYO/FOETUS

Did the project involve Human Embryos? NO

Did the project involve Human Foetal Tissue / Cells? NO

Did the project involve Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs)? NO

Did the project on human Embryonic Stem Cells involve cells in culture? NO

Did the project on human Embryonic Stem Cells involve the derivation of cells from Embryos? NO

PRIVACY

Did the project involve processing of genetic information or personal data (eg. health, sexual

lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction)?

NO

Did the project involve tracking the location or observation of people? NO

RESEARCH ON ANIMALS

Did the project involve research on animals? NO

Were those animals transgenic small laboratory animals? NO

Were those animals transgenic farm animals? NO

Were those animals cloned farm animals? NO

Were those animals non-human primates? NO

RESEARCH INVOLVING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Did the project involve the use of local resources (genetic, animal, plant etc)? NO

Was the project of benefit to local community (capacity building, access to healthcare, education

etc)?

NO

DUAL USE NO

Research having direct military use NO

Research having the potential for terrorist abuse NO

C Workforce Statistics

3. Workforce statistics for the project: Please indicate in the table below the number of

people who worked on the project (on a headcount basis).

Type of Position Number of Women Number of Men

Scientific Coordinator 1

Work package leaders 1 4

Experienced researchers (i.e. PhD holders) 1 1

PhD Students 3

Other

4. How many additional researchers (in companies and universities) were

recruited specifically for this project?

6

Of which, indicate the number of men:

5

D Gender Aspects

5. Did you carry out specific Gender Equality Actions under the project?

X

Yes

No

6. Which of the following actions did you carry out and how effective were they?

Not at all

effective

Very

effective

Design and implement an equal opportunity policy x Set targets to achieve a gender balance in the workforce x Organise conferences and workshops on gender x Actions to improve work-life balance x Other:

7. Was there a gender dimension associated with the research content – i.e. wherever people were

the focus of the research as, for example, consumers, users, patients or in trials, was the issue of gender

considered and addressed?

Yes- please specify

x No

E Synergies with Science Education

8. Did your project involve working with students and/or school pupils (e.g. open days,

participation in science festivals and events, prizes/competitions or joint projects)?

Yes- please specify

x No

9. Did the project generate any science education material (e.g. kits, websites, explanatory

booklets, DVDs)?

x Yes- please specify Video on project themes and results (format chosen: cartoon)

No

F Interdisciplinarity

10. Which disciplines (see list below) are involved in your project?

Main discipline9:

Associated discipline9: 5.2 Economics;

5.4 Other Social Sciences, 1.1

Computer Science

Associated discipline9:

G Engaging with Civil society and policy makers

11a Did your project engage with societal actors beyond the research

community? (if 'No', go to Question 14)

x

Yes

No

11b If yes, did you engage with citizens (citizens' panels / juries) or organised civil society

(NGOs, patients' groups etc.)?

No

Yes- in determining what research should be performed

9 Insert number from list below (Frascati Manual).

x Yes - in implementing the research

x Yes, in communicating /disseminating / using the results of the project

11c In doing so, did your project involve actors whose role is mainly to

organise the dialogue with citizens and organised civil society (e.g.

professional mediator; communication company, science museums)?

x

Yes

No

12. Did you engage with government / public bodies or policy makers (including international

organisations)

No

Yes- in framing the research agenda

x Yes - in implementing the research agenda

x Yes, in communicating /disseminating / using the results of the project

13a Will the project generate outputs (expertise or scientific advice) which could be used by

policy makers?

x Yes – as a primary objective (please indicate areas below- multiple answers possible)

Yes – as a secondary objective (please indicate areas below - multiple answer possible)

No

13b If Yes, in which fields?

Agriculture

Audiovisual and Media

Budget Competition

Consumers Culture

Customs

Development Economic and Monetary Affairs

Education, Training, Youth

Employment and Social Affairs

Energy

Enlargement

Enterprise Environment

External Relations External Trade

Fisheries and Maritime Affairs

Food Safety Foreign and Security Policy

Fraud

Humanitarian aid

Human rights

Information Society X

Institutional affairs

Internal Market

Justice, freedom and security Public Health

Regional Policy

Research and Innovation X Space

Taxation

Transport

13c If Yes, at which level?

Local / regional levels

National level

X European level

International level

H Use and dissemination

14. How many Articles were published/accepted for publication in

peer-reviewed journals?

12

To how many of these is open access10

provided? 6

How many of these are published in open access journals? 6

How many of these are published in open repositories? 0

To how many of these is open access not provided? 6

Please check all applicable reasons for not providing open access:

publisher's licensing agreement would not permit publishing in a repository

no suitable repository available

no suitable open access journal available

no funds available to publish in an open access journal

X lack of time and resources

lack of information on open access

other11

: ……………

15. How many new patent applications (‘priority filings’) have been made? ("Technologically unique": multiple applications for the same invention in different

jurisdictions should be counted as just one application of grant).

0

16. Indicate how many of the following Intellectual

Property Rights were applied for (give number in

each box).

Trademark

Registered design

Other

17. How many spin-off companies were created / are planned as a direct

result of the project?

0

Indicate the approximate number of additional jobs in these companies:

18. Please indicate whether your project has a potential impact on employment, in comparison

with the situation before your project: Increase in employment, or In small & medium-sized enterprises

Safeguard employment, or In large companies

Decrease in employment, X None of the above / not relevant to the project

Difficult to estimate / not possible to quantify

10 Open Access is defined as free of charge access for anyone via Internet. 11

For instance: classification for security project.

19. For your project partnership please estimate the employment effect

resulting directly from your participation in Full Time Equivalent (FTE =

one person working fulltime for a year) jobs:

Difficult to estimate / not possible to quantify

Indicate figure:

I Media and Communication to the general public

20. As part of the project, were any of the beneficiaries professionals in communication or

media relations?

X Yes No

21. As part of the project, have any beneficiaries received professional media / communication

training / advice to improve communication with the general public?

X Yes No

22 Which of the following have been used to communicate information about your project to

the general public, or have resulted from your project?

Press Release Coverage in specialist press

Media briefing Coverage in general (non-specialist) press

TV coverage / report Coverage in national press

Radio coverage / report X Coverage in international press

Brochures /posters / flyers X Website for the general public / internet

X DVD /Film /Multimedia X Event targeting general public (festival, conference,

exhibition, science café)

23 In which languages are the information products for the general public produced?

Language of the coordinator X English

Other language(s)