Symposium ESWRA - ECSWR 2016: empirical ethics in social work. Objective: ethical aspects of social work (esp. at home) Structure: cooperation of the research group of UAS Utrecht Netherlands with six regional welfare organizations Method: practice based ethics research Focus on professional practice: learning from moral experiences in frontline practice (cf. Van Doorn, 2008) Hybrid approach: combining theoretical resources and professional practice (cf. Banks & Gallagher, 2009) Mixed methods: desk research, interviews, best practice units (BPU), development of ethical tools
This paper aims to offer a critical reflection on the way Talent Management (TM) is investigated in practice, by addressing the key issues regarding the quality (in terms of rigor and relevance) of academic empirical TM research and therefore the critical scrutiny of TM scholars’ work. We will argue that despite the growth in the quantity, the quality of many empirical TM papers is lagging behind and hindering the progress of the academic field of TM.
Expectations are high for digital technologies to address sustainability related challenges. While research into such applications and the twin transformation is growing rapidly, insights in the actual daily practices of digital sustainability within organizations is lacking. This is problematic as the contributions of digital tools to sustainability goals gain shape in organizational practices. To bridge this gap, we develop a theoretical perspective on digital sustainability practices based on practice theory, with an emphasis on the concept of sociomateriality. We argue that connecting meanings related to sustainability with digital technologies is essential to establish beneficial practices. Next, we contend that the meaning of sustainability is contextspecific, which calls for a local meaning making process. Based on our theoretical exploration we develop an empirical research agenda.
MULTIFILE
The production, use, disposal and recovery of packaging not only generates massive volumes of waste, it also consumes raw materials, water and energy (Fitzpatrick et al. 2012). Simultaneously, consumers have shown an increasing interest in products incorporating sustainable and social attributes (Kletzan et al., 2006). As a result, environmentally friendly packaging, also called ecofriendly or sustainable packaging, has become mainstream. In this context, packaging is more than just ensuring the product's protection and easing transportation, it is also a communicative tool (Palmer, 2000) and it becomes associated with multiple drivers of the purchasing process. Consequently, companies face pressure to innovate responding to consumer demands, and focusing on sustainable solutions that reduce harmful materials and favour green alternatives for both, the product and the packaging. Although the above has triggered research on consumer choice for sustainable products and alternatives on sustainable packaging, the relation between sustainable packaging and consumer behaviour remains underexplored. This research unpacks this relationship, i.e., empirically verifies which dimensions (recyclability, biodegradability, reusability) of sustainable packaging are perceived and valued by consumers. Put differently, this research investigates consumer behaviour towards the functions of sustainable packaging in terms of product protection, convenience, reliability of information and promotion, and scrutinises the perceived credibility of the associated ethical responsibility claims. It aims to identify those packaging materials and/or sustainability characteristics perceived as more sustainable by consumers as well as the factors influencing actual consumer choice towards sustainable packaged products. We aim to gain more insights in the perceptual frame that different types of consumers apply when exposed to sustainable packaging. To this end, we will make use of revealed preference methods to measure consumer valuations of sustainable packaged products. This game-theoretic approach should provide a more complete depiction of consumers' perceptions and preferences.
Hogeschool Rotterdam wil in samenwerking met IT-Campus en Rotterdamse mkb-bedrijven onderzoeken of de dataskills die studenten in hun opleiding verwerven, aansluiten op de datageletterdheid die van hen als startende professionals wordt verlangd. Om dit te beoordelen vragen we Rotterdamse ondernemers naar de datagedreven uitdagingen en problemen die zij voor zich zien en of zij bij de instroom van startende professionals voldoende kennis en skills zien om die uitdagingen het hoofd te bieden. Met de uitkomsten kunnen kennisinstellingen een helder beeld krijgen van het concept datageletterdheid en hiermee een handvat bieden aan opleidingen om dataskills in de curricula aan te laten sluiten op de behoefte in de arbeidsmarkt van de Metropoolregio Rotterdam-Den Haag (MRDH). We werken toe naar een ontwerp Data Skills-set. Misschien is het beter om te spreken van datacompetenties, hetgeen onderdeel is van de zoektocht in dit onderzoek. Welke terminologie is het meest behulpzaam in het oplijnen van onderwijs en werkveld op het gebied van data: geletterdheid, competenties, skills of een combinatie daarvan. Is het van belang of juist contraproductief om daarin (merk)specifieke tooling een plek te geven? We vragen ons ook af of datageletterdheid als een generiek concept domeinoverstijgend bruikbaar is, bijvoorbeeld tussen het economisch en technisch domein. De verwachting is dat de bevindingen op het gebied van datageletterdheid in de regio Rotterdam te generaliseren zijn naar andere delen van Nederland. Ook die hypothese willen we verkennen in dit onderzoek. Door het beantwoorden van deze vragen willen we een start maken voor het ontwerp van een instrument voor professionele ontwikkeling in het werkveld als ook een referentiekader voor het gesprek met onderwijspartners en overheid. Daarnaast kan zo’n ontwerp DataSkills-set ervoor zorgen dat de onderwijsdomeinen in gesprek blijven met elkaar ten aanzien van nieuwe methoden en onderwijsvormen voor vaardigheden.
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.
