Search

Generative experimentation is increasingly used in public policymaking, especially in response to wicked policy problems. A policy solution is refined within its context and informed by feedback from its users. Studies reporting on these approaches, however, rarely consider the role of evaluation and the nature and goals of knowledge produced. This article addresses evaluation in such contexts. We present a case study of a living lab that combined theory-driven and developmental evaluation, and, responding to contradictory pressures, aimed to generate both actionable and academic knowledge to improve asylum seeker reception. We describe how we addressed these diverging demands and the resulting tensions in a politically charged and substantively insecure policy context. We conclude that evaluation should be an explicit part of the broader design concept, and while generative experimenting can produce actionable learning, evaluation should also aim for academic learning, in a manner that is both democratic and robust.