Insider ethnographic analysis is used to analyze change processes in an engineering department. Distributed leadership theory is used as conceptual framework.
The 'AgroCycle' project investigates whether a cooperation of farms can become self-sufficient in energy and fertilization by using manure and organic waste streams for the production of energy, green fuel and green fertilizers by means of anaerobic digestion (AD). In the project, the project partners aim to link the nutrient cycle (from manure to digestate to green fertilizer) to a self-sufficient energy system (biomass to biogas to green fuel for processing the land) through the combined production of biogas and green fertilizers. The financial feasibility of a bio-digester is highly dependent on the use and economic value of the digestate. This combined approach increases both feasibility and sustainability (environmental impacts and CO2 emissions). To explore the feasibility of the aforementioned concept, use is made of the existing 'BioGas simulator' model developed by Hanze UAS to simulate the technical process of decentralized production of biogas and the economic cost.
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.
The research, supported by our partners, sets out to understand the drivers and barriers to sustainable logistics in port operations using a case study of drone package delivery at Rotterdam Port. Beyond the technical challenges of drone technology as an upcoming technology, it needs to be clarified how drones can operate within a port ecosystem and how they could contribute to sustainable logistics. KRVE (boatmen association), supported by other stakeholders of Rotterdam port, approached our school to conduct exploratory research. Rotterdam Port is the busiest port in Europe in terms of container volume. Thirty thousand vessels enter the port yearly, all needing various services, including deliveries. Around 120 packages/day are delivered to ships/offices onshore using small boats, cars, or trucks. Deliveries can take hours, although the distance to the receiver is close via the air. Around 80% of the packages are up to 20kg, with a maximum of 50kg. Typical content includes documents, spare parts, and samples for chemical analysis. Delivery of packages using drones has advantages compared with traditional transport methods: 1. It can save time, which is critical to port operators and ship owners trying to reduce mooring costs. 2. It can increase logistic efficiency by streamlining operations. 3. It can reduce carbon emissions by limiting the use of diesel engines, boats, cars, and trucks. 4. It can reduce potential accidents involving people in dangerous environments. The research will highlight whether drones can create value (economic, environmental, social) for logistics in port operations. The research output links to key national logistic agenda topics such as a circular economy with the development of innovative logistic ecosystems, energy transition with the reduction of carbon emissions, societal earning potential where new technology can stimulate the economy, digitalization, key enabling technology for lean operations, and opportunities for innovative business models.
Het publieke debat over issues in de huidige samenleving vindt permanent plaats. Publieke debatten kennen een golfbeweging en veranderen soms in een crisis. De gedigitaliseerde samenleving maakt de reactie van organisaties op issues vele malen ingewikkelder. In dit project staat de vraag centraal hoe communicatieprofessionals van publieke organisaties beter kunnen omgaan met publicitaire golfbewegingen van voortdurend debat, regelmatige issues en incidentele crises. Dit onderzoek is medegefinancierd door Regieorgaan SIA onderdeel van de Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) Doel In dit project bekijken we de online geruchtvorming en mobilisatie en de wijze waarop overheden hier mee omgaan. Het doel van het onderzoeksproject is: om inzicht te krijgen in organisatorische, interactionele, taalkundige aspecten van issuemanagement om bruikbare interventies te ontwikkelen Resultaten Het resultaat is een breed toepasbare aanpak voor communicatie bij issues die spelen in publieke organisaties. Deze aanpak wordt vertaald in een toolbox voor communicatieprofessionals en studenten communicatie. Inzichten laten nu al zien dat de data uit de 2 casussen informatie opleveren over framing vanuit de gemeenschap; de organisatie van de communicatie (Doen de juiste mensen de juiste dingen?) en inzichten óver de geruchtvorming. Het lectoraat heeft daarvoor een instrument ontwikkeld waarmee je patronen in online conversaties kunt ontdekken. Dit instrument hebben we ‘BEP’ genoemd. BEP staat voor Birds Eye Perspective. Het perspectief helpt die conversaties en eventueel daaropvolgende interacties op waarde te schatten. Je kunt inzichten uit BEP gebruiken om bewuster te zijn van de gevoeligheden en weerstanden in gesprekken die gaande zijn en aan te sluiten op wat leeft in het publieke debat. Dit stelt je in staat om in gesprek te blijven én de stap te kunnen maken naar een anticiperende communicatiestrategie.) Opgeleverde producten: Bekijk het ontwikkelde instrument via: https://husite.nl/bep/ Bekijk de slotsessie brochure Looptijd 01 februari 2021 - 01 april 2023 Aanpak In drie rondes worden vijf door de praktijkpartners ingebrachte cases onderzocht. De inzichten uit de eerste casus worden meegenomen in de volgende ronde, de gehanteerde methode blijft hetzelfde. Er wordt een combinatie gemaakt van interactieanalyse van: Online en offline data Interviews met professionals Focusgroepen met burgers. In de laatste ronde van het project worden de ontwikkelde inzichten gedeeld in de praktijk, het onderzoeksveld en het onderwijs. Voor de zomer 2021 worden 2 casussen geanalyseerd. de Schoorlse Duinen (waar bomenkap tot heftige speculaties in de media leidt) en het onderhoud aan bruggen (zoals de weg over de Merwedebrug die plots gesloten moest worden). Begin juni vindt het eerste ‘Vakgesprek’ plaats met het newsroomteam van Rijkswaterstaat, en afgevaardigden uit het beroepenveld: (beroepsvereniging Logeion, Academie voor Overheidscommunicatie), onze Communicatie-opleiding, én lectoren Cok Bakker (HU) en Els van der Pool (HAN). Annette Klarenbeek leidt het gesprek. Bekijk dit document dat een overzicht geeft van de aanpak en methodes in het project Studenten gezocht! Gedurende het project kunnen studenten een bijdrage leveren. Communicatiestudenten die betrokken willen zijn bij het vinden van innovatieve oplossingen voor issuemanagement in de gedigitaliseerde samenleving kunnen contact opnemen. Extra informatie Congres beroepspraktijk Training: Monitoring mobilization: A discursive psychological analysis of online mobilizing practices. Sneijder, P., Stinesen, B., Harmelink, M. & Klarenbeek, A The Discourse Analytical Glasses (DAG) Hoofdstuk wetenschappelijk handboek: Sneijder, P., Baukje, S., Harmelink, M. & Klarenbeek, A. (n.d.). The discourse of social movements: online mobilising practices for collective action. In: Demasi, Mirko A., Burke, Shani, Tileagă, Cristian (Eds.) (Scheduled for publication, 2021). Political Communication: Discursive Perspectives. (K/P
