Thank you for your thoughtful reflection, which I think itself points in the direction of the answer to your question about how to incorporate considerations of reflexivity and contextuality.

Often, a sentence that begins with "Obviously", has content that can offer a rewarding reflection. I make a similar point in the report, with reference to Bernard Williams' reflection on "necessity". In your piece, "obviously" is being followed by a claim that knowledge created/curated/moderated by JRC is implied to be of high quality. My guess is that the obviousness consists in institutional mandate, that is, the function that the JRC is supposed to fulfil and for which it exists, according to the official narrative.

This institutional reality - that knowledge that is placed or mediated in a certain way, is supposed to be of high quality for that reason - does not contradict or violate the norm of reflexivity or the insight of contextuality per se, but it takes work to reconcile them. If one commits to the view that quality is fitness for purpose, quality cannot be assessed without taking purpose into account, which implies a need to specify it (and to decide on the relevance and importance of that purpose). Quality as fitness for purpose cannot be assessed a process that is kept entirely in-house.

In reality, however, quality is itself such a complex entity that it eludes a simple definition. "Fitness for purpose" is one important dimension. Another dimension of quality is indeed the internal one of whether something - a method or a knowledge claim, for example - is evaluated and approved by some kind of closed peer community - a discipline, an expert body, an epistemic community, a thought collective in Ludwik Fleck's words. In practice, this is what "quality" often is taken to mean - for instance that a paper was published in Nature or Science. Both of these dimensions are important and - even more importantly - they are dynamic and complex in themselves in ways that make attempts at formalizing and exhausting them by description, highly prone to error. This was well explained in a popular novel by Robert Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". In it, he presents an argument why we should think of quality in dynamic terms (as something that happens rather than something that is).

Little of what I write here, is easily implemented within the prevailing institutional logic. We are, however, living in turbulent times. This is evident to the young generations that come to our universities to study; it is so blatantly visible now that even middle-aged people like me notice. Our institutions have to change or become obsolete. Looking beyond the EU, it does not seem desirable that our modern institutions of liberal democracy and accountable public administration collapse or disintegrate. So we must change, we must experiment to adapt to new challenges. The K4P initiative seems to be one such site for thinking and experimentation.

Thanks for your reply. 

"Another dimension of quality is indeed the internal one of whether something ... is evaluated and approved by some kind of closed peer community... for instance that a paper was published in Nature or Science."

Well, yes (obviously ;) ) this is the quality I was referring to, as it's almost impossible to know what purpose a (usually anonymous) web visitor has when visiting K4P, so we'll not be able to qualify K4P knowledge in terms of fitness for purpose. So it's not only difficult to translate what you write into something implementable within the prevailing institutional logic, it's also difficult to implement it in terms of this website's content strategy. 

Totally with you re: liberal democracy and accountable public administration, though. Glad you think K4P could be a small part of the solution.