Search results

The Atmosphere in Open Public Spaces

Introduction:A space’s atmosphere is an important factor in how that space is experienced. In fact, festival visitors consider the atmosphere as the most important factor in how they experience a festival (Van Vliet 2012). Atmosphere is also what distinguishes physical shops from online web shops (Van Vliet, Moes & Schrandt 2015). Much research underlines the influence of atmosphere on cognitive and emotional processes. As early as 1956, research showed that an assessment of facial expressions in photographs depended on the atmosphere of the space in which the photos were viewed (Maslow & Mintz 1956). The importance of atmosphere inspired the search for ways to influence visitors and allowing them to react to, and even (co-)design, a space’s atmosphere – from museum spaces (Noordegraaf 2012) to urban spaces, from consciously-manipulated spaces to the now inevitable layer of digital information that has entered the public sphere (Mitchell 2005). Researchers have been studying the influence of atmosphere for decades, particularly through the lens of environmental psychology, which focuses on the interplay between humans and their environment (Mehrabian & Russell 1974; Steg, Van den Berg & De Groot 2012). A milestone in atmosphere research was the introduction of the concept of ‘atmospherics’ by Kotler (1973). From here, research into atmosphere mainly took place in the context of marketing research into consumer behaviour in shops and service environments such as restaurants, hotels, museums and festivals (Van Vliet 2014). The question here is whether these gathered insights contribute to understanding how atmosphere works in open public spaces.

Coming out of the ivory tower

In recent decades the trend of public accountability, transparency and governance has become a priority in many public sectors, but in de media sector and the public broadcasting sector in particular there have only very recently been attempts to address the public in terms of accountability and responsiveness

Public play space : turning urban space into public places with games and play.

Exploring Ethics in the Practice of Public Welfare Professionals

This thesis is about dilemmas, discretionary space and ethics in public welfare. In my position as a lecturer of ethics in socio-legal practices I am concerned with the way in which these practices open up to an ethical development of their professionals. Thus, this thesis is a search for the most fundamental themes and issues in understanding and judging public welfare as a, perhaps, ethical socio-legal practice. In the field of public services professionals function as the intermediary between government and citizen. In their daily work public welfare professionals take care of the important societal task and goal of poverty alleviation. During the last decades, public welfare has developed into a civil right that involves many obligations on the part of the client in return. The requirement to see to it that the client fulfils these obligations has complicated the public welfare professional’s task of helping citizens in need.

Preparing researchers for patient and public involvement in scientific research

Background: Acquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5-year coaching programme. Objective: To establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants. Methods: A participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation. Findings: The programme comprised a kick-off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor-made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders. Conclusion: Building a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers.

Citizen Science for public health.