Routinization and reflexivity are essential ingredients in societal change. Change requires a disruption of the mode of routine, in which action is geared at successively proceeding through a sequence of actions ‘without further thought.’ Reflexivity implies a “dissociative dynamic” (Knorr Cetina, 2001), which renders hitherto unchallenged routines an object of inquiry and possibly critique. Once reflexivity translates into new habits and practices, through processes of normalization, the new situation may become routine. This panel will examine the relation between normalization, routine, dissociation, reflexivity and change, focusing on the continuum between routinization and reflection (Wilk, 2009). It will particularly explore three types of questions involved: 1. By which mechanisms does change play out in the relation between individual and community? Any seemingly individual action is not as individual as it might seem. Being a member of a community, an individual will chose his actions in view of tacit rules of appropriate conduct – either in line with these or deviating from them. In the case of dissociation and reflexivity, controversy is pending as deviant behavior is bound to unsettle existing rules and conventions. Will the community ‘create’ the individual as a defiant case or will an account be developed that brings coherence and legitimacy to the case and allow it to change the identity of the community? 2. How are processes of routinization and dissociation influenced or sparked by policies and technologies of governance? Routines, Boltanski (2011) argues, serve to maintain coordination without risking dispute or demanding authoritarian intervention and hence form the counterpart to (public) reflexivity and deviance. Of interest then are questions about the use of procedures such as participatory (technology) assessment and public debate – do state-led arrangements for public participation impede the emergence of dissociation and deviance, or do they rather spark reflexivity and possibly the formation of new, critical publics? If so, which power dynamics are at play? 3. Methodology: how to observe that which goes without saying – the normalcy rather than the deviant – when studying processes of routinization and reflexivity? How to observe processes of normalization and control that prevent dissociation and reflexivity? How to map routine if not in contrast to reflexivity? How to make ‘the fish talk about the water?’ (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). In this panel, we will examine the relations between normalization and deviance, routine and reflexivity, and the processes of routinization and dissociation involved, including those sparked by policies and publics, the governance of technologies and technologies of governance. We invite contributions that address either three issues of routinization and reflexivity and / or discuss these in relation to one another from an empirical and / or a conceptual perspective.