PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to conduct a critical analysis to address cultural metaphors – a much overlooked aspect of cross-cultural studies. Mainstream cultural metaphors (e.g. the iceberg, the software of the mind, the onion, and the distance) are not only limited in number, but are also overwhelmingly based on the static paradigm – as opposed to the dynamic paradigm that is often sidelined in academic discourse.Design/methodology/approachThe paper introduces the Diagram of Diversity Pathways – an interdisciplinary framework that sheds some light on how the inherent meaning and heuristic orientation of static cultural metaphors may stand at odds with evidence from the newly emerged field of neurobiology.FindingsThe implications of these metaphors are called into question, namely, culture is all about differences; values are stable; values guide behaviors; and values are seen as binaries.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper suggests that theorists and practitioners should pay more attention to the contribution and scholarly work of the dynamic paradigm since there appears to be substantial compatibility between them.Originality/valueThe matching of neurobiology and dynamic paradigm brings into focus alternative metaphors which not only offer insightful perspectives but also may open doors to perceive culture in a new way. Furthermore, cultural metaphors deserve more academic scrutiny because metaphors and theory development can have a symbiotic existence.
Aim. Although cultural dimensions theory is a topical strand of quantitative cultural research, few intercultural simulation games use it. We present the design and review of the application of OASISTAN, an intercultural role-playing simulation game that is specifically based on cultural dimensions theory. Method. OASISTAN was first designed in 1999 for use in Master’s courses on cross-cultural management at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, attracting 20-23 year old students with a Bachelor degree in engineering and from various cultural backgrounds. Since its first design the game has been played approximately 45 times at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and three times at Harbin Institute of Technology in China in the years 2006-2008. We reviewed their experiences designing and facilitating OASISTAN since 1999. Results. The game has a no-tech role-play design and revolves around the geopolitically complex region of the Caspian Sea, specifically the fictional country of ‘Oasistan’. The game consists of students forming small teams of Oasistani, Western and non-Western public/private actors collaborating with each other to try and reach the common goal of oil exploration and production in this country. In total 15-30 students were involved. We found that OASISTAN allowed its players not only to intensely experience the difficulty and awkwardness of being confronted with cultural differences, but also to interpret and understand these differences through cultural dimensions. Students who played OASISTAN identified ten out of the 12 dimensions by Maleki and De Jong. The two dimensions that students were not able to identify are uncertainty avoidance and collaborativeness. Conclusion. OASISTAN shows how a game design field (i.e., intercultural simulation gaming) can be reinvigorated in light of new or updated scientific theories pertaining to the field’s subject matter (i.e., cultural dimensions). Several opportunities for future research are identified.
MULTIFILE
This study empirically examines individual and organizational factors that influence expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment and job performance. The study was a quantitative research from 117 Thai expatriates who work in Thai multinational companies (MNC) located in Indonesia. The results of the study indicated that financial perceived organizational support influence positively towards Thai expatriates’ overall cross-cultural adjustment in Indonesia. This study found that cross-cultural training influenced positively towards Thai expatriates’ adjustment. A causal relationship between the predicting variables of crosscultural adjustment and Thai expatriates’ job performance was not found. Results suggest important consequences for management strategies providing support to Thai expatriate employees increasing their adjustment in Indonesia. Keywords: Cross-Cultural Adjustment; Job
The project aims to improve palliative care in China through the competence development of Chinese teachers, professionals, and students focusing on the horizontal priority of digital transformation.Palliative care (PC) has been recognised as a public health priority, and during recent years, has seen advances in several aspects. However, severe inequities in the access and availability of PC worldwide remain. Annually, approximately 56.8 million people need palliative care, where 25.7% of the care focuses on the last year of person’s life (Connor, 2020).China has set aims for reaching the health care standards of the developed countries by 2030 through the Healthy China Strategy 2030, where one of the improvement areas in health care includes palliative care, thus continuing the previous efforts.The project provides a constructive, holistic, and innovative set of actions aimed at resulting in lasting outcomes and continued development of palliative care education and services. Raising the awareness of all stakeholders on palliative care, including the public, is highly relevant and needed. Evidence based practice guidelines and education are urgently required for both general and specialised palliative care levels, to increase the competencies for health educators, professionals, and students. This is to improve the availability and quality of person-centered palliative care in China. Considering the aging population, increase in various chronic illnesses, the challenging care environment, and the moderate health care resources, competence development and the utilisation of digitalisation in palliative care are paramount in supporting the transition of experts into the palliative care practice environment.General objective of the project is to enhance the competences in palliative care in China through education and training to improve the quality of life for citizens. Project develops the competences of current and future health care professionals in China to transform the palliative care theory and practice to impact the target groups and the society in the long-term. As recognised by the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), palliative care competences need to be developed in collaboration. This includes shared willingness to learn from each other to improve the sought outcomes in palliative care (EAPC 2019). Since all individuals have a right to health care, project develops person-centered and culturally sensitive practices taking into consideration ethics and social norms. As concepts around palliative care can focus on physical, psychological, social, or spiritual related illnesses (WHO 2020), project develops innovative pedagogy focusing on evidence-based practice, communication, and competence development utilising digital methods and tools. Concepts of reflection, values and views are in the forefront to improve palliative care for the future. Important aspects in project development include health promotion, digital competences and digital health literacy skills of professionals, patients, and their caregivers. Project objective is tied to the principles of the European Commission’s (EU) Digital Decade that stresses the importance of placing people and their rights in the forefront of the digital transformation, while enhancing solidarity, inclusion, freedom of choice and participation. In addition, concepts of safety, security, empowerment, and the promotion of sustainable actions are valued. (European Commission: Digital targets for 2030).Through the existing collaboration, strategic focus areas of the partners, and the principles of the call, the PalcNet project consortium was formed by the following partners: JAMK University of Applied Sciences (JAMK ), Ramon Llull University (URL), Hanze University of Applied Sciences (HUAS), Beijing Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Guangzhou Health Science College (GHSC), Beihua University (BHU), and Harbin Medical University (HMU). As project develops new knowledge, innovations and practice through capacity building, finalisation of the consortium considered partners development strategy regarding health care, (especially palliative care), ability to create long-term impact, including the focus on enhancing higher education according to the horizontal priority. In addition, partners’ expertise and geographical location was also considered important to facilitate long-term impact of the results.Primary target groups of the project include partner country’s (China) staff members, teachers, researchers, health care professionals and bachelor level students engaging in project implementation. Secondary target groups include those groups who will use the outputs and results and continue in further development in palliative care upon the lifetime of the project.
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.
