The methods we use foster mutual learning and co-creation across disciplines and life worlds, ensuring that knowledge and technologies are more responsive, inclusive, and socially robust. This section outlines several of the approaches we’ve created and use to facilitate inclusive development processes.
Methodologies (co)developed at the Athena Institute
STS Making & Doing
The STS Making & Doing approach that Athena co-developed, innovates knowledge production, expression, and travel in the field of Science, Technology & Society (STS). It encourages the creative application and sharing of STS insights, thereby moving beyond traditional academic formats, like papers and books. This implies that it focuses not only on the creation of knowledge, but also on ways it is expressed and communicated. By doing so, Making & Doing combines the societal relevance and deep learning of STS scholarship. View a video about STS Making & Doing at the conference, EASST-4S 2024.
Transdisciplinary History
At the Athena Institute, we are developing methodologies to bring historical inquiry into dialogue with present day knowledge co-production related to socio-ecological questions. Rather than treating the past as a neutral backdrop, these methods investigate how historical narratives and temporal imaginaries shape stakeholders’ perceptions, decisions, and normative attachments. Through collaborative reflection with all kinds of social actors, we surface forgotten or contested histories and coarticulate questions about the past that matter for present challenges. With this method, we study how history can be mobilized to foster new connections, understanding, and action across disciplines and communities. Transdisciplinary history is being developed through projects at the Athena Institute like Soy Stories.
Digital Patient Knowledge (DiPaK)
Digital Patient Knowledge (DiPaK) is a methodology developed at the Athena Institute, to illuminate public discourse on societal challenges, science, and technology. It analyzes naturally occurring conversations—such as those on social media—using AI tools including natural language processing and structured topic modeling. DiPaK bridges qualitative and quantitative approaches, enabling analysis of large datasets while preserving the emotional and contextual richness of language. It has been extensively used in clinical guideline development but can also be used to support science communications to connect with real-world discussions on topics like climate change or how governmental agencies are perceived by society. For an example of DiPaK in practice, see our project Evidence in Action.
Interactive Learning & Action (ILA)
Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) is a multi-stakeholder, dialogical approach developed by the Athena Institute to engage underrepresented groups—such as citizens, patients, or end-users—in shaping research and innovation. Rooted in decades of practice, ILA integrates experiential and scientific knowledge through iterative, trust-building processes. It unfolds in five phases: exploration, in-depth analysis, integration, priority setting, and implementation. Central to ILA are co-creation, anchoring change in systems, and facilitating inclusive dialogue. The approach supports collective learning and action, enabling more socially robust and context-sensitive solutions to complex societal challenges.
Situated Intervention
Situated Intervention is a theory-methods package developed by professor Teun Zuiderent-Jerak at the Athena Institute that bridges scholarly inquiry and societal change. It starts from the idea that intervening in practices and studying them are not separate endeavors—intervention can be a powerful way to learn. In attempting to change practices, researchers gain both conceptual and normative insights. This method tests theoretical ideas through real-world engagement, often revealing unexpected values and perspectives. Originally developed in healthcare, it has since been applied across diverse domains to foster reflective, transformative learning in context, for example in the project Technologies for Inclusive Employment.
Methodologies regularly used at the Athena Institute
Constructive Technology Assessment
Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) is a methodology grounded in Dutch and Scandinavian traditions. At the Athena Institute, CTA is used to bring citizen experiences, concerns, and insights into the heart of technology development - especially in health-related contexts. It emphasizes dialogue between stakeholders and developers to work towards technologies that respond to societal values and needs in an inclusive, responsive, and ethical way.
Participatory Action Research
Participatory Action Research is a collaborative approach where researchers work alongside communities to address real-world problems. By co-researching and/or co-designing research processes, we ensure that knowledge is produced not only for, but also with communities, driving social and environmental justice. Athena's expertise in PAR supports transformative change by integrating academic knowledge with local insights.
Patent Landscaping
Patent landscaping involves systematic data collection from global patent databases using defined search criteria, combining specific classification codes (e.g., CPC) and keywords to extract relevant documents. The dataset is curated through de-duplication and exclusion criteria to refine its quality. Patent applicant names are harmonized, and non-market participants may be excluded. The curated data is analyzed to assess patent lifecycle trends, geographic distribution, applicant types, technological classifications, and claim content. This methodology generates strategic intelligence and technological foresight, informing stakeholder decision-making and policy development by providing a robust understanding of the innovation landscape.
Memory Studies
At the Athena Institute, we draw on memory studies as a broad theoretical approach — rather than a method or methodology — to understand how narratives of the past are constructed and mobilised in the present to imagine and build futures. We explore how histories, narratives, and places shape collective engagement with complex present day challenges, and how contested memories inform future imaginaries. By attending to the interplay of people, places, and material traces, we foster dialogue across disciplines, communities, and stakeholders towards more inclusive and just futures.
Source Criticism
Source criticism is a fundamental historical method used to evaluate and interpret sources by placing them in their original context. It involves asking critical questions about a source’s origin, purpose, audience, and intent. Rather than taking evidence at face value, historians analyze why it was created and what it aimed to achieve. This method applies to all types of sources—texts, images, objects, even soil patterns—and helps uncover deeper meanings, biases, and agendas, enabling more accurate reconstructions of the past.
Historicizing Knowledge(s)
Historicizing knowledge is a method that examines how different forms of knowledge have been defined, valued, and organized across time and cultures. It challenges the taken-for-granted dominance of academic science by showing that what counts as “science” is historically and culturally contingent. Using tools like historical ethnography and discourse analysis, historians explore how knowledge systems emerge, interact, and shift. This approach reveals the diversity of knowledge traditions and critiques the hierarchies that have excluded certain practices, often for social or political reasons.