Due to changes in technology and customer behaviour, entrepreneurial firms have to constantly innovate. Here, service innovation has appeared as a successful way to overcome the dead-end road of competition (Bouwman & Fielt, 2008). Thus, entrepreneurial firms are increasingly asked to develop competences to engage in digitally-enabled innovation processes for services as reflected in recent competence frameworks (European Commission, 2019). Consequently, universities need to update entrepreneurship education to these new demands through a multi-perspective research approach to co-research and co-design future entrepreneurship education.First, we aim at developing an up-to-date digital innovation process to enhance the limited scientific knowledge on the use of digital tools for innovation processes (Akaka & Vargo, 2014; Helmer et al., 2021). Second, we aim at developing digital platforms to enhance the engagement of industry in education and vice versa. Third, we aim at gaining insights to develop modern entrepreneurship course curricula in this context.
Due to changes in technology and customer behaviour, entrepreneurial firms have to constantly innovate. Here, service innovation has appeared as a successful way to overcome the dead-end road of competition (Bouwman & Fielt, 2008). Thus, entrepreneurial firms are increasingly asked to develop competences to engage in digitally-enabled innovation processes for services as reflected in recent competence frameworks (European Commission, 2019). Consequently, universities need to update entrepreneurship education to these new demands through a multi-perspective research approach to co-research and co-design future entrepreneurship education.First, we aim at developing an up-to-date digital innovation process to enhance the limited scientific knowledge on the use of digital tools for innovation processes (Akaka & Vargo, 2014; Helmer et al., 2021). Second, we aim at developing digital platforms to enhance the engagement of industry in education and vice versa. Third, we aim at gaining insights to develop modern entrepreneurship course curricula in this context.
The premise for this paper is that tourism scholars researching in Israel and Palestine are, in effect, actors in the geopolitical landscape of the Holy Land. Political tourism is a significant factor in how the Israel–Palestine geopolitical conflict is represented. The current paper provides an analysis of how tourism academics address the situation. A research team of Israeli, Palestinian and a third country origins collaborated to produce a narrative synthesis by systematically reviewing 35 academic papers selected through defined criteria. This approach minimized bias and aimed for analytical robustness and validity. Two main conclusions are derived from the analysis. First, papers tend to focus on the social, touristic and religious aspects of tourism not on the core issues of the geopolitical conflict. Second, the works did not contribute to dialogue between parties but reinforced separateness thus reflecting the political conflict.
LINK
12/31/2016Due to the existing pressure for a more rational use of the water, many public managers and industries have to re-think/adapt their processes towards a more circular approach. Such pressure is even more critical in the Rio Doce region, Minas Gerais, due to the large environmental accident occurred in 2015. Cenibra (pulp mill) is an example of such industries due to the fact that it is situated in the river basin and that it has a water demanding process. The current proposal is meant as an academic and engineering study to propose possible solutions to decrease the total water consumption of the mill and, thus, decrease the total stress on the Rio Doce basin. The work will be divided in three working packages, namely: (i) evaluation (modelling) of the mill process and water balance (ii) application and operation of a pilot scale wastewater treatment plant (iii) analysis of the impacts caused by the improvement of the process. The second work package will also be conducted (in parallel) with a lab scale setup in The Netherlands to allow fast adjustments and broaden evaluation of the setup/process performance. The actions will focus on reducing the mill total water consumption in 20%.
The Academy for Leisure & Events has always been one of the frontrunners when it comes to the development, design and implementation of cultural tourism and creative industry business models as well as lifelong learning programmes.These programmes are attended by a variety of leisure and tourism professionals, including public authorities in leisure, culture and nature fields.The CULTURWB project addresses the need for strengthening the development of the cultural tourism industry.The experts from BUas together with the other project partners have utilised diverse research methodologies (marketing and branding, strategy business planning, digital tourism, sustainable development, strategy and action plan implementation, etc.) to develop and pilot a toolkit for Lifelong Learning courses in the field of cultural tourism and heritage. They have also designed and implemented a master’s programme in the WB countries and created an online platform for communication between stakeholders, industry leaders, managers, workforce, and academia.PartnersHochschule Heibronn, FH Joanneum Gesellschaft, World University Service - Österreichisches Komitee (WUS Austria), Dzemal Bijedic University of Mostar (UNMO), University of East Sarajevo (UES), The University of Banja Luka (UBL), University of NIS (UNI), University of Montenegro (UoM), Sarajevo Meeting of Cultures (SMOC), rovincial Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments (PZZZSK), Tourism Organisation of Kotor Municipality (TO Kotor)
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
