Using the past to orientate on the present and the future can be seen as one of history’s main contributions to educating future citizens of democratic societies. This thesis defines and explores aims and methods that may support teachers and students in making meaningful connections between the past, the present and the future in history class. Measurements with the Relevance of History Measurement Scale (RHMS), which was specifically developed for the purpose of this thesis, revealed that this type of history teaching positively affects students’ views on the relevance of history. This is an important outcome, because young students in particular have difficulty seeing the benefits of studying the past. Enabling them to see the relevance of history may be an important means to stimulate their motivation and engagement, because students’ appreciation of the value of school subjects is key to their commitment in school work.
MULTIFILE
This study empirically examines individual and organizational factors that influence expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment and job performance. The study was a quantitative research from 117 Thai expatriates who work in Thai multinational companies (MNC) located in Indonesia. The results of the study indicated that financial perceived organizational support influence positively towards Thai expatriates’ overall cross-cultural adjustment in Indonesia. This study found that cross-cultural training influenced positively towards Thai expatriates’ adjustment. A causal relationship between the predicting variables of crosscultural adjustment and Thai expatriates’ job performance was not found. Results suggest important consequences for management strategies providing support to Thai expatriate employees increasing their adjustment in Indonesia. Keywords: Cross-Cultural Adjustment; Job
The purpose of this study was to investigate entrepreneurial intentions and cultural differences. The sample represents 1,110 business students from ten cultural clusters. The students completed a questionnaire that focussed on various dimensions of entrepreneurial intentions. Results indicated various statistically significant differences between the cultures. Country specific strategies related to enhancing entrepreneurship are discussed at the end of the paper.
MULTIFILE
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.
Visual Learning from Family Dairy Tech (Based on the RAAK MKB Family Dairy Tech India) Relevance of the project An evaluation of the Rathenau Institute states that Living Labs only can become successful if they show how knowledge is being developed in the Living Lab. The RAAK MKB project Family Dairy Tech was part of the Indo-Dutch Living Lab Baramati-Pune of Van Hall Larenstein and Agricultural Development Trust Baramati. Van Hall Larenstein University is currently participating in a review research program of Living Labs in various countries. In a first analysis of VHL Living Labs, ‘stimulating reflexivity in learning and innovation for sustainability’ was identified as one of the design principles for Living Labs. The results of this top-up project will facilitate the learning process of all stakeholders in the RAAK project, but also will connect the discussions and learning experiences in this specific project with experiences in other Living labs elsewhere in the world. By doing this, it contributes to the important challenge which was identified by the Rathenau Institute, that learning in Living Labs should exceed the location of one specific Living Lab. The results will also contribute to the development of a ‘ (digital)value chain field school’ (based on the FAO- Farmers’Field School concept) which will be developed further in the Living Lab Baramati. Activities In the project, a video will be produced to facilitate visual learning through reflection on the innovative designs and lessons of te RAAK project Family Dairy Tech India. Participants in the Family Dairy Tech India will be interviewed using the Visual Appraisal technique. The participants that will be interviewed comprise in India: two farmers, one researcher and one entrepreneur and in the Netherlands: three researchers, two entrepreneurs and one student. Project team and target group The project team consists of the project leader of the RAAK Family Dairy Tech project and a senior researcher of VHL, that has broad experience with Visual Project Appraisal (VPA) methods in Africa and India. The video will be employed in educational activities of VHL, Saxion and Baramati College (India), VHL’s Living Lab development in other countries and offered to the participating companies for internal learning and to SIA/Nuffic for their Living Labs development. Project result: a video that can facilitate visual learning strategies. Planning: the project will be carried out between February and August 2018
