The rising rate of preprints and publications, combined with persistent inadequate reporting practices and problems with study design and execution, have strained the traditional peer review system. Automated screening tools could potentially enhance peer review by helping authors, journal editors, and reviewers to identify beneficial practices and common problems in preprints or submitted manuscripts. Tools can screen many papers quickly, and may be particularly helpful in assessing compliance with journal policies and with straightforward items in reporting guidelines. However, existing tools cannot understand or interpret the paper in the context of the scientific literature. Tools cannot yet determine whether the methods used are suitable to answer the research question, or whether the data support the authors’ conclusions. Editors and peer reviewers are essential for assessing journal fit and the overall quality of a paper, including the experimental design, the soundness of the study’s conclusions, potential impact and innovation. Automated screening tools cannot replace peer review, but may aid authors, reviewers, and editors in improving scientific papers. Strategies for responsible use of automated tools in peer review may include setting performance criteria for tools, transparently reporting tool performance and use, and training users to interpret reports.
The first year of study is very exciting for many students. Everything is new: the school, your schedule, the teachers, and your fellow students. How can a university ensure a smooth transition for first-year students? For this, Inholland launched the Students for Students (S4S) project in the 2019-2020 academic year. In this project, second-year students (studentcoaches) support first-year students with their studies. They do this based on their own experience and the training they receive during their year as studentcoaches. Research shows that peer-mentoring is very successful in aiding first-year students through their first year of the study program. Peer-mentoring has the potential to increase well-being, social bonding, the feeling of belonging, and student resilience. It also ensures smoother academic integration, as peer-mentoring focuses on developing academic skills as well. Additionally, a studentcoach is often a low threshold point of contact for students where they can go with questions.
Just what and how eight experienced teachers in four coaching dyads learned during a 1-year reciprocal peer coaching trajectory was examined in the present study. The learning processes were mapped by providing a detailed description of reported learning activities, reported learning outcomes, and the relations between these two. The sequences of learning activities associated with a particular type of learning outcome were next selected, coded, and analyzed using a variety of quantitative methods. The different activity sequences undertaken by the teachers during a reciprocal peer coaching trajectory were found to trigger different aspects of their professional development.
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.
Ouderen hebben bij een stijgende leeftijd een grotere kans op frailty (kwetsbaarheid), een toestand van verminderde reservecapaciteit die ontstaat door afname van fysieke, psychologische en sociale capaciteit. Een relatief kleine aandoening of gebeurtenis kan een sterke achteruitgang in functioneren en zorgafhankelijkheid veroorzaken, waardoor ernstige complicaties kunnen ontstaan, zoals valincidenten, ziekenhuisopname en vroegtijdig overlijden. Het is daarom van belang dat (toekomstige) zorgverleners vroegtijdig en adequaat ingrijpen om frailty te voorkomen/verminderen. Dit project is ingebed in het Centre of Expertise Healthy Ageing (speerpunt FRAILTY), het Lectoraat Healthy Ageing, Allied Health Care and Nursing (LAHC) en het SPRONG-onderzoeksprogramma FAITH, welke focust op frailty. Praktijkpartners maken structureel onderdeel uit van FAITH en van het lectoraat. Het onderzoek sluit aan bij bestaande innovatie-/kenniswerkplaatsen waarin onderwijs, onderzoek en praktijk al samenwerken. Op dit moment worden o.a. de behoeften van werkveldpartners geïnventariseerd door een student aan de hand van interviews. Er zijn veel instrumenten voorhanden om de frailty status van een cliënt te bepalen. Echter deze worden in de praktijk vaak niet gebruikt. De (toekomstige) professional beoordeelt frailty soms helemaal niet of alleen globaal op eigen oordeel. Het gevolg hiervan is dat de cliënt niet optimaal behandeld wordt met alle medische en economische (kosten) gevolgen van dien. Het doel van dit project is om: • Het professioneel handelen te versterken door het concept frailty toepasbaar te maken voor de zorgpraktijk en het zorgonderwijs • Toepasbare assessmenttools te ontwikkelen waarmee frailty beoordeeld kan worden en leidend kunnen zijn in de keuze voor interventies en dit te implementeren in het onderwijs • Te analyseren wat de kostenbesparing is voor de gezondheidszorg als de professional het bruikbare meetinstrument of set instrumenten tijdig en optimaal inzet vergeleken met de huidige situatie waarin dit niet gebeurt (zoals boven beschreven). Bedoeling is om de postdoc-positie na 2 jaar te continueren en structureel te maken.
Mondeling presenteren wordt beschouwd als een essentiële competentie van de hoger opgeleide professional. Toch beschikken ‘young professionals’ zelden over deze competentie en ervaren zij presenteren als één van de meest prominente angsten in sociale situaties. Vooral in tijden waarin studentaantallen toenemen en ruimte voor docent-student interactie afneemt, blijkt het ontwerpen van effectieve leeromgevingen gericht op presenteren een uitdaging. Een systematische literatuurstudie benadrukt dat docentfeedback, peerfeedback én self-assessment cruciale principes zijn voor het ontwerp van effectieve leeromgevingen om te leren presenteren (Van Ginkel, 2019). Hoewel deze drie feedbackbronnen worden beschouwd als essentiële vormen van feedback, toont eerder onderzoek aan dat docentfeedback een significant sterkere impact heeft op de ontwikkeling van presentatievaardigheden dan peerfeedback en self-assessment. In een follow-up veldexperiment is getest of Virtual Reality (VR) als alternatieve feedbackbron kan worden ingezet bij leren presenteren. Deze technologie kan immers zowel reële presentatie-situaties simuleren alsook het leveren van geautomatiseerde feedback faciliteren. Hoewel een eerder veldexperiment de effectiviteit van VR-feedback op leren presenteren aantoonde (Van Ginkel, 2019), blijft het de vraag in hoeverre studenten zelfstandig VR-feedback kunnen interpreteren, omdat destijds de docent nodig was om de rapporten uit de VR-computer te vertalen naar waardevolle feedback voor de student. Recente technologische ontwikkelingen maken het mogelijk om kwantitatieve VR-data automatisch om te zetten naar boodschappen die voldoen aan standaarden van hoogwaardige feedback. Deze postdoc richt zich daarom op het uitvoeren van een uitgebreid veldexperiment om te onderzoeken in hoeverre studenten in staat zijn om de geautomatiseerde feedbackboodschappen, gebaseerd op VR-data, zelfstandig te interpreteren tot effectieve feedback. Bovendien wordt getest of deze geautomatiseerde feedback ook peerfeedback en self-assessment kan verrijken en daarmee de impact op leren presenteren kan verhogen. Deze studies hebben tot doel om onderwijskundige ontwerpprincipes gericht op feedback bij leren presenteren te optimaliseren. Verder beoogt dit onderzoeksproject de resultaten in hoger onderwijscurricula te integreren.
