Reflexive Monitoring in Action | Methodology

Wageningen University & Research developed the methodology in collaboration with the Athena institute and DRIFT. 

To conduct action-oriented research for studying and supporting small-scale networks with a system change ambition, reflexive monitoring is integrated into the research designs. In large, transdisciplinary programmes the reflexive monitoring is organised in iterative cycles of observation, analysis, joint reflection and adaptation of planned activities. In short research projects, RMA generally consists of a one-off preparation and intervention to keep the system change ambition high. 

What is RMA and how does it work? Here, you find a few presentations and publications that provide an introduction to the methodology.

• Introduction to RMA with elaborated examples (in Dutch): van Mierlo, B. (2024). Reflexieve Monitoring in Actie: maatwerk voor leren en bijsturen in systeemverandering [Reflexive Monitoring in Action: contextualised approach for learning and adaptation in system change]. Beleidsonderzoek online, 1-26 (Open access).
• Presentation van Mierlo for municipality of Amsterdam (In Dutch): Reflexieve Monitoring in Actie: Leren en bijsturen in transities - openresearch.amsterdam
• Interview PJ Beers (in Dutch):
  Vier kopzorgen voor transitiemakers… en hoe Reflexief Monitoren kan helpen • DRIFT
• Interview (in Dutch): Dr. Barbara van Mierlo over Reflexief Monitoren: “Je monitort een veranderingsproces én jezelf” • DRIFT
• Chapter introducing and comparing RMA with two other established methodologies for action-oriented research to stimulate learning and transformative change: companion modelling and visual problem appraisal. See: van Mierlo, B., van Paassen, A., Lie, R., Damtew, E., & Witteveen, L. (2021). Learning and change. The Politics of Knowledge in Inclusive Development and Innovation (Open access).

• Since its inception in 2005, RMA has become widely used to foster learning for transformative change, as evidenced by more than 150 publications reporting on impact in practice, such as learning and enhanced reflexivity. Here you find a few examples of its use and impact in practice.
• Reflexive monitoring at the municipality of Rotterdam: interview and podcast Carolien de Vries.
• Living labs and power, co-creation and reflexive monitoring in Cropmix, a transdisciplinary programme about stripcropping: longread
• Guide by Lodder, M., Allaert, C. & Mulders, W. (2021). A practical guide to using reflexive monitoring for nature-based solutions.
• Impact at a university: article by Derk Loorbach and Julia Wittmayer, J. (2024). Transforming universities: Mobilizing research and education for sustainability transitions at Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Sustainability science, 19(1), 19-33. 

The theoretical foundations of RMA are rooted in reflections on practical experiences in relation to existing and newly developed theories. They are elaborated in various academic articles. Below is a selection of the most important publications with a brief description of each. If an article you want to read is not open access, feel free to contact us.

• Van Mierlo, B., & Beers, P. J. (2020). Understanding and governing learning in sustainability transitions: A review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 255-269 (Open access).

Four established learning traditions are systematically explored regarding their value for gaining an in-depth understanding of learning in sustainability transitions: collaborative learning (educational studies); social learning in natural resource management (complex system thinking); interactive learning (institutional economics) and organizational learning (organisation studies). None sufficiently addresses the complexity of transitions. They enlighten, however, forms of learning not yet fully recognised in transition studies, such as superficial learning and learning to resist change. We see learning in transitions as a combination of reflective action and discursive interaction.

• Arkesteijn, M., van Mierlo, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2015). The need for reflexive evaluation approaches in development cooperation. Evaluation, 21(1), 99-115 (No open access).

This article is a good starting point for learning about Reflexive Monitoring in Action (referred to as “Reflexive Evaluation” in the article). It 1) positions reflexive monitoring in relation to other forms of monitoring and evaluation, particularly systems approaches; 2) provides an adapted definition of complex problems and explains why they are complex; and 3) offers a brief introduction to the specific characteristics of reflexive monitoring. Although developed for the context of development cooperation, it is applicable in other contexts as well.

• Beers, P. J., & van Mierlo, B. (2017). Reflexivity and Learning in System Innovation Processes. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(3), 415-436 (No open access).

What exactly is the reflexivity of a transition initiative, and how does it relate to learning? We explore this in detail, both theoretically and empirically. We view reflexivity as an emerging feature of a system change initiative whereby it changes itself and, in this process of changing, causes the environment to change as well. Based on the case study in greenhouse horticulture (STAP), we describe three modes of the relationship between learning in a system change initiative and its reflexivity: “easy road,” “paving the way,” and “roadblocks.”

• Beers, P. J., Mierlo, B., & Hoes, A. C. (2016). Toward an integrative perspective on social learning in system innovation initiatives. Ecology and Society, 21(1): 33. (Open access)

In this article, we present the learning theory on which the Learning Mirror tool is based. We apply the theory to the case study in greenhouse horticulture: STAP. We view learning as an interplay of knowledge, relationships, and actions within a conversation, in light of the ambition for system innovation. In doing so, we distinguish between process, outcomes, and impact. The Learning Mirror makes it possible to observe learning within an innovation process during conversations, meetings, and similar settings.

• Regeer, B. J., de Wildt-Liesveld, R., van Mierlo, B., & Bunders, J. F. (2016). Exploring ways to reconcile accountability and learning in the evaluation of niche experiments. Evaluation, 22(1), 6-28  (No open access).

In this article, we explore how the seemingly contradictory goals of monitoring and evaluation can be reconciled. How can learning be encouraged while also ensuring accountability? The research data consists of interviews with policymakers. The inquiry begins with the question: accountability to whom? The article concludes with a revised framework for accountability.

• Mierlo, B., Arkesteijn, M., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Enhancing the Reflexivity of System Innovation Projects with System Analyses. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 143-161 (No open access).

In this first scientific article on reflexive monitoring, we compare RMA with traditional goal-oriented approaches and participatory (constructivist) approaches. Using empirical examples from crop production, we demonstrate how the Collective System Analysis tool was applied and what effect that had on further developments using reflexivity indicators.

• Van Veen, S. C., de Wildt-Liesveld, R., Bunders, J. F., & Regeer, B. J. (2014). Supporting reflective practices in social change processes with the dynamic learning agenda: an example of learning about the process towards disability inclusive development. International Journal of Learning and Change, 7(3/4), 211-233 (No open access).

This article provides a detailed examination of the underlying concepts of the Dynamic Learning Agenda (DLA). It also outlines the steps that can be taken. Using a case study on education for people with disabilities in Ethiopia, the authors illustrate how second-order learning questions were formulated. They also demonstrate how the DLA was used to document the learning and change process.