"Sociologist of education Annette Lareau is renowned in her field for her compassionate ethnographic work and the insightful ideas she's able to draw from it. With Listening to People, she has given us an extremely practical guide to doing the kind of work she has been celebrated for. Lareau covers just about everything a social scientist needs to know--formulating a topic and honing it down to a good research question, obtaining IRB approval, finding a site and making introductions, conducting high-quality interviews and participant--observation, taking good notes and writing them up later, analyzing the data, and best of all, making clear how much the data analysis and the writing are part of the same process. Her tone throughout is about as straightforward as it gets, and she very generously shares stories of her own mistakes, missteps, and anxieties. Written for students and scholars in sociology, education, communications, social work, and possibly political science, anthropology, and related fields, the book will be an indispensable guide for graduate students and faculty in the social sciences (broadly conceived), and is even suitable for undergraduates"-- Provided by publisher.
LINK
Augmented Play Spaces (APS) are (semi-) public environments where playful interaction isfacilitated by enriching the existing environment with interactive technology. APS canpotentially facilitate social interaction and physical activity in (semi-)public environments. Incontrolled settings APS show promising effects. However, people’s willingness to engagewith APSin situ, depends on many factors that do not occur in aforementioned controlledsettings (where participation is obvious). To be able to achieve and demonstrate thepositive effects of APS when implemented in (semi-)public environments, it is important togain more insight in how to motivate people to engage with them and better understandwhen and how those decisions can be influenced by certain (design) factors. TheParticipant Journey Map (PJM) was developed following multiple iterations. First,based on related work, and insights gained from previously developed andimplemented APS, a concept of the PJM was developed. Next, to validate and refinethe PJM, interviews with 6 experts with extensive experience with developing andimplementing APS were conducted. Thefirst part of these interviews focused oninfluential (design) factors for engaging people into APS. In the second part, expertswere asked to provide feedback on thefirst concept of the PJM. Based on the insightsfrom the expert interviews, the PJM was adjusted and refined. The Participant JourneyMap consists of four layers: Phases, States, Transitions and Influential Factors. There aretwo overarchingphases:‘Onboarding’and‘Participation’and 6statesa (potential)participant goes through when engaging with an APS:‘Transit,’‘Awareness,’‘Interest,’‘Intention,’‘Participation,’‘Finishing.’Transitionsindicate movements between states.Influential factorsare the factors that influence these transitions. The PJM supportsdirections for further research and the design and implementation of APS. Itcontributes to previous work by providing a detailed overview of a participant journeyand the factors that influence motivation to engage with APS. Notable additions are thedetailed overview of influential factors, the introduction of the states‘Awareness,’‘Intention’and‘Finishing’and the non-linear approach. This will support taking intoaccount these often overlooked, key moments in future APS research and designprojects. Additionally, suggestions for future research into the design of APS are given.
Purpose Worldwide, there are 30 million people with dementia (PWD) in 2009 and 100 million in 2050, respectively.These numbers show the need for a change in care for PWD. Leisure is one of these care aspects. Leisure activities can support PWD in several ways: meeting basic needs, providing comfort and social interaction, and reducing boredom, agitation, and isolation. An exemplary activity targeted at meeting these needs is ‘De Klessebessers (KB)’ (The Chitchatters), which aims to stimulate social interaction among PWD and provide comfort with supporting technology. This is innovative since technology for PWD generally concentrates on safety and monitoring activities. The activity comprises a radio, television, telephone, and treasure box. Method This study’s focus follows from the original aim of the KB-designers; to stimulate social interaction. In a nursing home and day care centre, the KB game was played with different groups of PWD (n=21: 12 females, 9 males, mean MMSE=17, range 3-28). In the morning KB (with technology), and in the afternoon an activity called ‘Questiongame’ (without technology) were played for 45 minutes. These activities were played twice in a two-month period, and outcomes were compared in terms of impact on social interaction. Group sizes ranged from 3 to 8 PWD assisted by 1 or 2 activity therapists. Two researchers observed the players during the activity with the Oshkosh Social Behavior Coding (OSBC) scale, which encompasses both verbal and nonverbal social and nonsocial behaviour. These behaviours can have a person-initiated and otherinitiated character (quantitative study). A total of 6 activity therapists were interviewed on the KB afterwards (qualitative study). Results & Discussion The quantitative results showed significantly higher scores for KB for the total of social interaction compared to Questiongame. Most of the behaviour is other-initiated (activity therapist). PWD with a lower MMSE score showed more non-verbal behaviour. For PWD with a MMSE score below 7, there was no difference in social interaction between the two activities. According to the qualitative research, KB triggered more social interaction, since the movies and music were stimulating the players to initiate a conversation, to which other players responded. The results of this research correspond with earlier research, which concludes that leisure activities with technology can show positive results on well-being.
LINK
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.
Social enterprises (SEs) can play an important role in addressing societal problems. SEs are businesses whose primary objective is to generate social impact (e.g. well-being, social wealth and cohesion, and ecology) through a market-based model. SEs achieve this through a hybrid business model, trading-off financial and social value creation objectives. SEs typically face higher costs, for example because of ethical sourcing principles and/or production processes centering around the needs of workers who are vulnerable or hard-to-employ. This results in SEs’ struggling to scale-up due to their relatively costly operating model. Traditional management techniques are not always appropriate, as they do not take into account the tensions between financial and social value creation objectives of SEs. Our project examines how continuous improvement, and in particular the philosophy and tools of Lean can be harnessed to improve SEs competitiveness. Lean organizations share many values with SEs, such as respect for people, suggesting a good fit between the values and principles of Lean and those of SEs. The consortium for this project is a cooperation between the research groups Improving Business and New Marketing of the Center of Expertise Well-Being Economy and New Entrepreneurship and the minor Continuous Improvement of AVANS Hogeschool, and the SME companies Elliz in Company and Ons Label. The project consists of two phases, an exploratory phase during which the question “in what ways can the philosophy and tools of Lean be used by Social Enterprises?” will be addressed. Interviews and focus groups will be conducted with multiple SEs (not only partners). Participant observation will be conducted by the students of the minor Continuous Improvement at the partner SEs. During the second phase, the implementation of the identified principles and tools will be operationalized through a roadmap. Action research will be conducted in cooperation with the partner SEs.
In leaving the more traditional territories of the concert performance for broader societal contexts, professional musicians increasingly devise music in closer collaboration with their audience rather than present it on a stage. Although the interest for such forms of devising co-creative musicking within the (elderly) health care sector is growing, the work can be considered relatively new. In terms of research, multiple studies have sought to understand the impact of such work on musicians and participants, however little is known about what underpins the musicians’ actions in these settings. With this study, I sought to address this gap by investigating professional musicians’ emerging practices when devising co-creative musicking with elderly people. Three broad concepts were used as a theoretical background to the study: Theory of Practice, co-creative musicking, and Praxialism. Firstly, I used Theory of Practice to help understand the nature of emerging practices in a wider context of change in the field of music and habitus of musicians and participants. Theory of Practice enabled me to consider a practice as “a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion, and motivational knowledge” (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 249). Secondly, I drew the knowledge from co-creative musicking, which is a concept I gathered from two existing concepts: co-creation and musicking. Musicking (Small, 1998), which considers music as something we do (including any mode of engagement with music), provided a holistic and inclusive way of looking at participation in music-making. The co-creation paradigm encompasses a view on enterprise that consists of bringing together parties to jointly create an outcome that is meaningful to all (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2014). The concept served as a lens to specify the jointness of the musicking and challenge issues of power in the engagement of participants in the creative-productive process. Thirdly, Praxialism considers musicking as an activity that encompasses “musical doers, musical doing, something done and contexts in which the former take place” (Elliott, 1995). Praxialism sets out a vision on music that goes beyond the musical work and includes the meanings and values of those involved (Silverman, Davis & Elliott, 2014). The concept allowed me to examine the work and emerging relationships as a result of devising co-creative musicking from an ethical perspective. Given the subject’s relative newness and rather unexplored status, I examined existing work empirically through an ethnographic approach (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Four cases were selected where data was gathered through episodic interviewing (Flick, 2009) and participant observation. Elements of a constructivist Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2014) were used for performing an abductive analysis. The analysis included initial coding, focused coding, the use of sensitizing concepts (Blumer 1969 in Hammersley, 2013) and memoing. I wrote a thick description (Geertz, 1973) for each case portraying the work from my personal experience. The descriptions are included in the dissertation as one separate chapter and foreshadow the exposition of the analysis in a next chapter. In-depth study of the creative-productive processes of the cases showed the involvement of multiple co-creative elements, such as a dialogical interaction between musicians and audience. However, participants’ contributions were often adopted implicitly, through the musicians interpreting behaviour and situations. This created a particular power dynamic and challenges as to what extent the negotiation can be considered co-creative. The implicitness of ‘making use’ of another person’s behaviour with the other not (always) being aware of this also triggered an ethical perspective, especially because some of the cases involved participants that were vulnerable. The imbalance in power made me examine the relationship that emerges between musicians and participants. As a result of a closer contact in the co-creative negotiation, I witnessed a contact of a highly personal, sometimes intimate, nature. I recognized elements of two types of connections. One type could be called ‘humanistic’, as a friendship in which there is reciprocal care and interest for the other. The other could be seen as ‘functional’, which means that the relationship is used as a resource for providing input for the creative musicking process. From this angle, I have compared the relationship with that of a relationship of an artist with a muse. After having examined the co-creative and relational sides of the interaction in the four cases, I tuned in to the musicians’ contribution to these processes and relationships. I discovered that their devising in practice consisted of a continuous double balancing act on two axes: one axis considers the other and oneself as its two ends. Another axis concerns the preparedness and unpredictability at its ends. Situated at the intersection of the two axes are the musicians’ intentionality, which is fed by their intentions, values and ethics. The implicitness of the co-creation, the two-sided relationship, the potential vulnerability of participants, and the musicians’ freedom in navigating and negotiation, together, make the devising of co-creative musicking with elderly people an activity that involves ethical challenges that are centred around a tension between prioritizing doing good for the other, associated with a eudaimonic intention, and prioritizing values of the musical art form, resembling a musicianist intention. The results therefore call for a musicianship that involves acting reflectively from an ethical perspective. Doctoral study by Karolien Dons
