In our research we focus on shared processes of interpretation, knowledge development and innovation in education, developing non-hierarchical research relationships between researchers. Our work is informed by a critical stance towards the current practice in Dutch education where teachers are struggling with student diversity and students with disabilities are excluded from mainstream schools. For the project we present in this book we combined critical discourse analysis, participatory action research and an emergent research design. We worked with teachers and students, supporting and stimulating them to develop a more just and inclusive practice in their schools, where all students get a fair deal. Starting point were the narratives of the teachers involved. Their stories, their struggle and their views were important. Interpretation became a process of shared meaning making at all stages of the research process, systematically integrating insiders’ and outsiders’ perspectives. Thus, the teachers and their students developed contextually-relevant and innovative solutions to the challenges they encountered in their practice, for example regarding power relations in the classroom and managing diversity, making use of the strengths of individual students and those of the group. The researchers involved brought in their knowledge and experience regarding practice-oriented research and introduced a theoretical framework for analysing and understanding current practices. In: Smeyers P., Bridges D., Burbules N., Griffiths M. (eds) International Handbook of Interpretation in Educational Research. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Dordrecht
Over the last two decades, institutions for higher education such as universities and colleges have rapidly expanded and as a result have experienced profound changes in processes of research and organization. However, the rapid expansion and change has fuelled concerns about issues such as educators' technology professional development. Despite the educational value of emerging technologies in schools, the introduction has not yet enjoyed much success. Effective use of information and communication technologies requires a substantial change in pedagogical practice. Traditional training and learning approaches cannot cope with the rising demand on educators to make use of innovative technologies in their teaching. As a result, educational institutions as well as the public are more and more aware of the need for adequate technology professional development. The focus of this paper is to look at action research as a qualitative research methodology for studying technology professional development in HE in order to improve teaching and learning with ICTs at the tertiary level. The data discussed in this paper have been drawn from a cross institutional setting at Fontys University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands. The data were collected and analysed according to a qualitative approach.
Aims and objectives: To describe the process of implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) in a clinical nursing setting. Background: EBP has become a major issue in nursing, it is insufficiently integrated in daily practice and its implementation is complex. Design: Participatory action research. Method: The main participants were nurses working in a lung unit of a rural hospital. A multi-method process of data collection was used during the observing, reflecting, planning and acting phases. Data were continuously gathered during a 24-month period from 2010 to 2012, and analysed using an interpretive constant comparative approach. Patients were consulted to incorporate their perspective. Results: A best-practice mode of working was prevalent on the ward. The main barriers to the implementation of EBP were that nurses had little knowledge of EBP and a rather negative attitude towards it, and that their English reading proficiency was poor. The main facilitators were that nurses wanted to deliver high-quality care and were enthusiastic and open to innovation. Implementation strategies included a tailored interactive outreach training and the development and implementation of an evidence-based discharge protocol. The academic model of EBP was adapted. Nurses worked according to the EBP discharge protocol but barely recorded their activities. Nurses favourably evaluated the participatory action research process. Conclusions: Action research provides an opportunity to empower nurses and to tailor EBP to the practice context. Applying and implementing EBP is difficult for front-line nurses with limited EBP competencies. Relevance to clinical practice: Adaptation of the academic model of EBP to a more pragmatic approach seems necessary to introduce EBP into clinical practice. The use of scientific evidence can be facilitated by using pre-appraised evidence. For clinical practice, it seems relevant to integrate scientific evidence with clinical expertise and patient values in nurses’ clinical decision making at the individual patient level.
In order to achieve much-needed transitions in energy and health, systemic changes are required that are firmly based on the principles of regard for others and community values, while at the same time operating in market conditions. Social entrepreneurship and community entrepreneurship (SCE) hold the promise to catalyze such transitions, as they combine bottom-up social initiatives with a focus on financially viable business models. SCE requires a facilitating ecosystem in order to be able to fully realize its potential. As yet it is unclear in which way the entrepreneurial ecosystem for social and community entrepreneurship facilitates or hinders the flourishing and scaling of such entrepreneurship. It is also unclear how exactly entrepreneurs and stakeholders influence their ecosystem to become more facilitative. This research programme addresses these questions. Conceptually it integrates entrepreneurial ecosystem frameworks with upcoming theories on civic wealth creation, collaborative governance, participative learning and collective action frameworks.This multidisciplinary research project capitalizes on a unique consortium: the Dutch City Deal ‘Impact Ondernemen’. In this collaborative research, we enhance and expand current data collection efforts and adopt a living-lab setting centered on nine local and regional cases for collaborative learning through experimenting with innovative financial and business models. We develop meaningful, participatory design and evaluation methods and state-of-the-art digital tools to increase the effectiveness of impact measurement and management. Educational modules for professionals are developed to boost the abovementioned transition. The project’s learnings on mechanisms and processes can easily be adapted and translated to a broad range of impact areas.
Climate change adaptation has influenced river management through an anticipatory governance paradigm. As such, futures and the power of knowing the future has become increasingly influential in water management. Yet, multiple future imaginaries co-exist, where some are more dominant that others. In this PhD research, I focus on deconstructing the future making process in climate change adaptation by asking ‘What river imaginaries exist and what future imaginaries dominate climate change adaptation in riverine infrastructure projects of the Meuse and Magdalena river?’. I firstly explore existing river imaginaries in a case study of the river Meuse. Secondly, I explore imaginaries as materialised in numerical models for the Meuse and Magdalena river. Thirdly, I explore the integration and negotiation of imaginaries in participatory modelling practices in the Magdalena river. Fourthly, I explore contesting and alternative imaginaries and look at how these are mobilised in climate change adaptation for the Magdalena and Meuse river. Multiple concepts stemming from Science and Technology Studies and Political Ecology will guide me to theorise the case study findings. Finally, I reflect on my own positionality in action-research which will be an iterative process of learning and unlearning while navigating between the natural and social sciences.
- MOTIVE: This project (NoSI) constitutes a first step towards a broader research aiming at counteracting the compartmentalization of Dutch education: WO-HBO-MBO. This first step focuses on vocational education and training (VET) in the creative industry (CI) to develop an incubator for an innovative and participatory VET system, that bridges the gap between the professional field and education. It starts from the pioneering experience of No School (NS) (http://noschool.nl/), where teachers and students already work together as co-creators. - RESULTS: 1) incubator of the new creative VET, based on the following activities: NS book-Manifesto; NS Pavilion; international VET movement /network of people working on educational change; 2) design of a large-scale subsidised study. - CONTENT: VET system needs a systematised renovation on both practical and theoretical level. We will furtherly develop the NS experiment into an incubator serving as operational example of co-creation between: HBO/MBO/WO; teachers/students; schools/professional field. We are in line with the CLICKNL agenda (The Human Touch) and NWA routes (Jeugd in ontwikkeling, opvoeding en onderwijs; Kunst: onderzoek en innovatie in de 21ste eeuw). - RELEVANCE: Starting directly from the practical needs of the professionals (VET teachers/students/professionals), NoSI bridges the gap between schools and the professional field towards a new educational system that can match the demands of the 21st century society. - METHODS: NoSI introduces Participatory Action Research (PAR) as on-going approach in which all the stakeholders (researchers, teachers, students/CI professionals) are actively involved in the decision-making process as co-creators in bringing an ‘idea’ directly into reality. It considers ‘action’ as the main criterion to validate any theory, prioritizing practical knowledges. PARTNERS: 1) ArtEZ lectoraat Kunst- en Cultuureducatie (AeCT), 2) No School (Cibap/SintLucas), 3) Studio INAMATT, 4) expert groups (UvA).
