In this paper we discuss the general approach and choices we made in developing a prototype of a social media monitor. The main goal of the museum monitor is to offer museum professionals and researchers better insight in the effects of their own social media usage and compare this with other actors in the cultural heritage sector. It gives researchers the opportunity to consider communication within the sector as whole. In the research project “Museum Compass” we have developed a prototype of a social media monitor, which contains data of current and historic online activities on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Foursquare and Flickr of all registered Dutch museums. We discuss – mostly in a practical sense – our approach for developing the monitor and give a few examples as a result of its usage.
Turkey has received consistent criticism from international media for having many naturalized athletes in its national squad, both in the Olympic Games and other major international sporting events. Similar criticisms have also been a feature of debates for a long time in domestic media, varying in views toward these athletes. This research focuses on media representations of naturalized athletes in Turkey between 2008 and 2020. We investigated the sentiments of news items from four major Turkish newspapers (Milliyet, Cumhuriyet, Sabah and Fanatik) on their stances toward naturalized athletes over the timespan of 2008–2020. Beside analyzing the sentiment of the media content both cumulatively and fragmentedly, we also identified the yearly trends and most featured sports in this context, combining qualitative and quantitative techniques. Our findings showed that sentiments in Turkish media toward naturalized athletes are mostly neutral and negative as well as with differences varying on the basis of the newspapers and news item types. The most criticism underlined pursuing “shortcut” success with naturalized athletes representing Turkey in the international arena. Among the featured sports, basketball, football, and track and field have been the most discussed ones in the naturalization context.
Wereldwijd onderzoek: Hoe gebruiken nieuwsmedia social media? Jongeren lezen geen krant meer, ze kijken op hun smartphone die ze altijd bij de hand hebben. Binnen het lectoraat social media en reputatiemanagement van NHL hogeschool te Leeuwarden heeft een groep internationale studenten in 12 landen onderzoek gedaan. Hierbij hebben ze meer dan 150 social media sites bestudeerd van nieuws media. De resultaten maken deel uit van een internationaal onderzoek van NHL Hogeschool en Haaga Helia University. De onderzoeksvraag was: Wat speelt zich af in de nieuwsmedia? Persbureaus kunnen het overzicht gebruiken om hun social media te optimaliseren. En voor ieder die journalistiek een warm hart toedraagt is het interessante informatie over de nieuwsmedia in een overgangssituatie (2nd edition)
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.
The growing use of digital media has led to a society with plenty of new opportunities for knowledge exchange, communication and entertainment, but also less desirable effects like fake news or cybercrime. Several studies, however, have shown that children are less digital literate than expected. Digital literacy has consequently become a key part within the new national educational policy plans titled Curriculum.nu and the Dutch research and policy agendas. This research project is focused on the role the game sector can play in the development of digital literacy skills of children. In concrete, we want to understand the value of the use of digital literacy related educational games in the context of primary education. Taking into consideration that the childhood process of learning takes place through playing, several studies claim that the introduction of the use of technology at a young age should be done through play. Digital games seem a good fit but are themselves also part of digital media we want young people to be literate about. Furthermore, it needs to be taken into account that digital literacy of teachers can be limited as well. The interactive, structured nature of digital games offers potential here as they are less dependent on the support and guidance of an adult, but at the same time this puts even more emphasis on sensible game design to ensure the desired outcome. The question is, then, if and how digital games are best designed to foster the development of digital literacy skills. By harnessing the potential of educational games, a consortium of knowledge and practice partners aim to show how creating theoretical and practical insights about digital literacy and game design can aid the serious games industry to contribute to the societal challenges concerning contemporary literacy demands.
CRISPR/Cas genome engineering unleashed a scientific revolution, but entails socio-ethical dilemmas as genetic changes might affect evolution and objections exist against genetically modified organisms. CRISPR-mediated epigenetic editing offers an alternative to reprogram gene functioning long-term, without changing the genetic sequence. Although preclinical studies indicate effective gene expression modulation, long-term effects are unpredictable. This limited understanding of epigenetics and transcription dynamics hampers straightforward applications and prevents full exploitation of epigenetic editing in biotechnological and health/medical applications.Epi-Guide-Edit will analyse existing and newly-generated screening data to predict long-term responsiveness to epigenetic editing (cancer cells, plant protoplasts). Robust rules to achieve long-term epigenetic reprogramming will be distilled based on i) responsiveness to various epigenetic effector domains targeting selected genes, ii) (epi)genetic/chromatin composition before/after editing, and iii) transcription dynamics. Sustained reprogramming will be examined in complex systems (2/3D fibroblast/immune/cancer co-cultures; tomato plants), providing insights for improving tumor/immune responses, skin care or crop breeding. The iterative optimisations of Epi-Guide-Edit rules to non-genetically reprogram eventually any gene of interest will enable exploitation of gene regulation in diverse biological models addressing major societal challenges.The optimally balanced consortium of (applied) universities, ethical and industrial experts facilitates timely socioeconomic impact. Specifically, the developed knowledge/tools will be shared with a wide-spectrum of students/teachers ensuring training of next-generation professionals. Epi-Guide-Edit will thus result in widely applicable effective epigenetic editing tools, whilst training next-generation scientists, and guiding public acceptance.
