Valuation judgement bias has been a research topic for several years due to its proclaimed effect on valuation accuracy. However, little is known on the emphasis of literature on judgement bias, with regard to, for instance, research methodologies, research context and robustness of research evidence. A synthesis of available research will establish consistency in the current knowledge base on valuer judgement, identify future research opportunities and support decision-making policy by educational and regulatory stakeholders how to cope with judgement bias. This article therefore, provides a systematic review of empirical research on real estate valuer judgement over the last 30 years. Based on a number of inclusion and exclusion criteria, we have systematically analysed 32 relevant papers on valuation judgement bias. Although we find some consistency in evidence, we also find the underlying research to be biased; the methodology adopted is dominated by a quantitative approach; research context is skewed by timing and origination; and research evidence seems fragmented and needs replication. In order to obtain a deeper understanding of valuation judgement processes and thus extend the current knowledge base, we advocate more use of qualitative research methods and scholars to adopt an interpretative paradigm when studying judgement behaviour.
In this report the concepts services, hospitality and experiences will be discussed. The goal of this report is to provide insight in what is written in literature about services, hospitality and experiences and to help defining the concept hospitality services for the Research Centre of the Saxion Hospitality Business School. Important concepts which are related to hospitality are services and experiences. These three domains are the centre of this report.
MULTIFILE
Research into how and why language teachers use literature as content is presented to explore one aspect of various pedagogical and collaborative practices open to language teachers in CLIL contexts. Language teachers’ beliefs and practices are examined based on a literature review, focus group study, survey, and multiple-case study.The question how and why language teachers shape practices using literature as content is considered, drawing on research into the pedagogical and collaborative practices of language teachers in CLIL contexts. The presentation brings together findings from a literature review, focus group study, survey, and multiple-case study to exemplify and explain the practices of language teachers in CLIL who turn to literature as their content. A dynamic framework for locating and explicating the pedagogical and collaborative practices of language teachers in CLIL contexts (Dale, Oostdam, & Verspoor, 2017) derived from a literature review is presented. The views of different stakeholders in CLIL in the Netherlands in relation to the teaching of literature, based on a focus group study are discussed (Dale, Oostdam, & Verspoor, 2018a). The findings of a survey into the stated beliefs and practices of Teachers of English in Bilingual Streams (TEBs) in the Netherlands with regard to the teaching of literature (Dale, Oostdam, & Verspoor, 2018b) are presented. Two case descriptions representing prototypical practices of language teachers taking literature as content are introduced (Dale, Oostdam, & Verspoor, submitted). ]
Climate change is one of the most critical global challenges nowadays. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration brought by anthropogenic emissions has been recognized as the primary driver of global warming. Therefore, currently, there is a strong demand within the chemical and chemical technology industry for systems that can covert, capture and reuse/recover CO2. Few examples can be seen in the literature: Hamelers et al (2013) presented systems that can use CO2 aqueous solutions to produce energy using electrochemical cells with porous electrodes; Legrand et al (2018) has proven that CDI can be used to capture CO2 without solvents; Shu et al (2020) have used electrochemical systems to desorb (recover) CO2 from an alkaline absorbent with low energy demand. Even though many efforts have been done, there is still demand for efficient and market-ready systems, especially related to solvent-free CO2 capturing systems. This project intends to assess a relatively efficient technology, with low-energy costs which can change the CO2 capturing market. This technology is called whorlpipe. The whorlpipe, developed by Viktor Schauberger, has shown already promising results in reducing the energy and CO2 emissions for water pumping. Recently, studies conducted by Wetsus and NHL Stenden (under submission), in combination with different companies (also members in this proposal) have shown that vortices like systems, like the Schauberger funnel, and thus “whorlpipe”, can be fluid dynamically represented using Taylor-Couette flows. This means that such systems have a strong tendency to form vortices like fluid-patterns close to their air-water interface. Such flow system drastically increase advection. Combined with their higher area to volume ratio, which increases diffusion, these systems can greatly enhance gas capturing (in liquids), and are, thus, a unique opportunity for CO2 uptake from the air, i.e. competing with systems like conventional scrubbers or bubble-based aeration.
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.
Worldwide, a third of all adults is suffering from feelings of loneliness, with a peak at young adulthood (15-25 years old). Loneliness has serious consequences for mental and physical health and should therefore be urgently addressed. However, existing interventions targeting loneliness mainly focus on older adults [1], and rarely consider the physical living environment, while studies prove that the physical environment (e.g. amenities, green, walkability, liveliness) has a significant impact on loneliness. Collaboration between the psychosocial and physical domains is key, to gain insight into the mechanisms and pathways linking characteristics of the physical living environment and loneliness among young adults and which spatial interventions are effective in managing loneliness. The main research questions are thus: how are physical environment and loneliness related, and which interventions should be implemented? The I BELONG proposal aims to build a European consortium that will address these questions. WP1 encompasses collaboration and networking activities that will form the basis for future collaboration, for instance a European research grant application. WP2 will provide insight in the pathways linking spatial attributes and loneliness. This will be achieved by doing a systematic literature review, a photovoice and interview study to collect data on specific locations that affect young people’s experiences with loneliness, and Group Model Building with experts. Building on this, WP3 aims to co-create spatial interventions with partners and young adults, and test ‘proof of concept’ interventions with virtual environments among young adults. WP3 will result in a spatial intervention toolkit. This project has both societal and scientific impact, as it will provide knowledge on pathways between physical environment characteristics and feelings of loneliness among young people, evidence of what spatial interventions work, and design guidelines that can be used in urban design and management that can contribute to managing loneliness and related health risks.
