This study presents the development of the Working Alliance of Mandated Clients Inventory (WAMCI). The goal of the WAMCI is to measure positive and negative factors of the working alliance from two perspectives: the probationer and the probation officer (PO) in the Dutch context. Data from 302 probationers and 267 POs of all three probation services in the Netherlands were used. Based on two existing and validated instruments and with the addition of supplemental items specific for the Dutch probation context, this new inventory was developed to capture the Dutch and European practice. An initial psychometric evaluation was conducted with this new inventory. A principal components analysis and a structural equation analysis led to a four-factor solution that provided the best fit for the PO and the probationer versions of the WAMCI. The internal consistency of the established scales Trust, Bond and Goal-Restrictions was sufficient, but the internal consistency of the established scale Reactance was not satisfactory. The construct validity of the WAMCI was supported by correlations with other constructs. Higher scores on the WAMCI were related to higher scores on general relationship satisfaction. The Goals-Restrictions subscale was moderately associated with a measure of internal motivation.
In this article we explore our own experiences on working relationships in inclusive research through a collective biography. We aim to contribute to the understanding of how collaboration in inclusive research teams works, and how to realise transformation in ways of working together. In the collective biography we reflected on challenges in inclusive research, and how working together has impacted each one of us. In doing so we draw on Fine’s concept of ‘working the hyphens’: the conscious exploration of what happens where formal and informal roles or contexts overlap. We found that for us, ‘working the hyphen’ means: allowing time for togetherness, which is crucial for the construal of an ‘us’. We experienced the necessity of a permanent meta-conversation on accessibility, growth, and thresholds in our working relationships. By consistently being alert to and transparent about the moveability in the hyphen-space, the relational work between researchers can be deepened and made productive. Finally, we elaborated on several dilemmas in sharing responsibility between researchers.
LINK
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the longitudinal relationship between sitting time on a working day and vitality, work performance, presenteeism, and sickness absence.METHODS: At the start and end of a five-month intervention program at the workplace, as well as 10 months after the intervention, sitting time and work-related outcomes were measured using a standardized self-administered questionnaire and company records. Generalized linear mixed models were used to estimate the longitudinal relationship between sitting time and work-related outcomes, and possible interaction effects over time.RESULTS: A significant and sustainable decrease in sitting time on a working day was observed. Sitting less was significantly related to higher vitality scores, but this effect was marginal (b = -0.0006, P = 0.000).CONCLUSIONS: Our finding of significant though marginal associations between sitting time and important work-related outcomes justifies further research.
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.
GAMEHEARTS will seek to maximise the value of the European videogame industry ecosystems (hereafter, EVGIE) within a wider social context of the creative and cultural industries (hereafter, CCI). This will consider the importance of the EVGIE in contributing to economic growth, job creation, physical and mental wellbeing, and social and cultural cohesion, by particularly focusing on, how a stronger and closer working relationship between more the traditional and emergent cultural sectors, can work better to create more inclusive and socially responsible cultural experiences. The consortium will offer policy recommendations and roadmaps setting out how the EVGIE can and should develop, and where it could act as a driver for sustained innovation and economic growth. It will utilise an evidence-based approach that focuses not just on videogame development, but rather adopts a holistic ecosystem approach, utilising both established and more innovative methodologies, to consider the competitiveness and development of the EVGIE, and how videogame know-how and technologies could drive innovation in the wider CCI. In doing so, GAMEHEARTS will develop ‘ludic experiences’, to explore possibilities of more inclusive, engaging, and empowering cultural experiences. Working across seven work packages the universities of Salford (UK), Tampere (Finland), Vienna (Austria), Breda University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands), and Wroclaw University of Economics and Business (Poland) will work in parentship with Ubisoft (France) and other major videogame partners and associations (including the ISFE & EGDF) to explore current and future trends in the EVGIE.
Last year, in the aftermath of the pandemic, Effenaar invited sixteen musicians to explore the hybrid world during the first edition of Hybrid Music Vibes - made possible by Innovation Lab (an arrangement of Creative Industries Fund NL and ClickNL) and Stichting Cultuur Eindhoven. In this first edition, talent from the region could learn about the use of new technologies, experiment with various techniques, and the artists were also given the opportunity to realize their own concept. With the aim of providing the artist with new possibilities for expression, and thus the creation of a new relationship with the public, and thus possible revenue models. The program consists of four meetings, each of which starts with a knowledge session followed by a workshop. In the knowledge session, leading speakers (including Raynor de Groot and Tim van der Zalm) will inform the participating artists about the opportunities offered by the use of new technologies, for example in relation to 'fan engagement'. In the workshop, the artists are then challenged to apply this in their own work, working towards a concept. After the program has ended, the artists will pitch this concept and a number of artists will be selected together with the program partners and the public to realize their concept.Societal issueMusic inclusion. Help the music industry and beginning artists to make use of new immersive media technologies to create new music experiences and reach new audiences. To not be left out and only the big companies have the knowledge and means to use it.Benifit to societyNew insights how immersive technologies can create new audience connections and means for artisits to express themselves and be included in society.
