This is the editorial paper for the virtual special issue “Using Q methodology in higher education: Opportunities and challenges”, consisting of nine original research studies from different international contexts. In addition to presenting novel findings, contributors were invited to discuss the following two questions at the center of the special issue call: In what sense has Q methodology served as a fitting approach to investigate subjectivity in higher education? What methodological opportunities and challenges arise with Q methodology in higher education settings? This editorial provides an overview and discussion of the various justifications mentioned for Q methodology. Furthermore, it collates the opportunities and challenges contributors discuss in relation to their studies using this almost 90-year-old methodological approach. The editorial paper concludes with recommendations for future Q methodological studies in higher education and beyond.
MULTIFILE
The methodology should be a uniform approach that also is flexible enough to accommodate all combinations that make up the different solutions in 6 OPs. For KPIs A and B this required the use of sub-KPIs to differentiate the effects of each (individual and combination of) implemented solutions and prevent double counting of results. This approach also helped to ensure that all 6 OPs use a common way and scope to calculate the various results. Consequently, this allowed the project to capture the results per OP and the total project in one ‘measurement results’ template. The template is used in both the individual OP reports and the ‘KPI Results: Baseline & Final results’ report where all results are accumulated; each instance providing a clear overview of what is achieved. This report outlines the details of the methodology used and applied. It is not just meant to provide a clarification of the results of the project, but is also meant to allow others who are embarking on adopting similar solutions for the purpose of CO2 reduction, becoming more energy autonomous or avoid grid stress or investments to learn about and possibly use the same methodology.
Objectives: Despite the many proven advantages of a physically active lifestyle in patient populations, prescription of exercise is currently not widely implemented in routine clinical practice. The aims of this study were twofold: (1) to assess perceptions of clinicians on the current practice of exercise is medicine (E=M) prescription in two Dutch university medical centres and (2) to determine their perceived barriers and facilitators for the implementation of E=M in routine clinical care in Dutch university medical centres. Design: A mixed methodologies study, using both online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Setting: Dutch university medical centres. Participants: Clinicians working within the departments of medical oncology, orthopaedics and rehabilitation medicine of two university medical centres. Results: Forty-five clinicians (response rate of 51%) completed the questionnaire, and 19 clinicians were interviewed. The results showed that even though clinicians had a positive attitude towards prescribing E=M, only a few reported to regularly prescribe E=M to their patients. The 52 identified facilitators and barriers for implementation of E=M were categorised into four main themes: (1) beliefs toward the implementation of E=M (eg, clinicians knowledge and skills, and social support), (2) factors related to the patient perspective (eg, patient priorities or motivation), (3) factors related tothe referral options (eg, knowledge of and trust in local referral options) and (4) practical considerations when implementing E=M (eg, time constraints). Conclusions: Our study showed that even though many clinicians have a positive attitude toward an active lifestyle, many are not prescribing E=M on a regular basis. In order for clinicians to effectively implement E=M, strategies should focus on increasing clinicians E=M referral skills, improving clinicians knowledge of E=M referral options and develop a support system to ensure that E=M is high on the priority list of clinicians.
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.
communicative participation, language disordersOBJECTIVE(S)/RESEARCH QUESTION(S) Speech and language therapists (SLTs) are the primary care professionals to treat language and communication disorders. Their treatment is informed by a variety of outcome measures. At present, diagnosis, monitoring of progress and evaluation are often based on performance-based and clinician-reported outcomes such as results of standardized speech, language, voice, or communication tests. These tests typically aim to capture how well the person can produce or understand language in a controlled situation, and therefore only provide limited insight in the person’s challenges in life. Performance measures do not incorporate the unobservable feelings such as a patient's effort, social embarrassment, difficulty, or confidence in communication. Nor do they address language and communication difficulties experienced by the person themselves, the impact on daily life or allow patients to set goals related to their own needs and wishes. The aim of our study is give our patients a voice and empower SLTs to incorporate their patient's perspective in planning therapy. We will Aangemaakt door ProjectNet / Generated by ProjectNet: 08-12-2020 12:072Subsidieaanvraag_digitaal / Grant Application_digitaalDossier nummer / Dossier number: 80-86900-98-041DEFINITIEFdevelop a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measure that provides information on communicative participation of people with communication disorders and integrate this item bank in patient specific goal setting in speech and language therapy. Both the item bank and the goal setting method will be adapted in cocreation with patients to enable access for people with communication difficulties.STUDY DESIGN Mixed methods research design following the MRC guidance for process evaluation of complex interventions, using PROMIS methodology including psychometric evaluation and an iterative user-centered design with qualitative co-creation methods to develop accessible items and the goal setting method.RESEARCH POPULATION Children, adolescents and adults with speech, language, hearing, and voice disorders.OUTCOME MEASURES An online patient-reported outcome measure on communicative participation, the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB), CPIB items that are accessible for people with language understanding difficulties, a communicative-participation person-specific goal setting method developed with speech and language therapists and patients and tested on usability and feasibility in clinical practice, and a course for SLTs explaining the use of the goal-setting method in their clinical reasoning process.RELEVANCE This study answers one of the prioritized questions in the call for SLTs to systematically and reliably incorporate the clients’ perspective in their daily practice to improve the quality of SLT services. At present patient reported outcomes play only a small role in speech and language therapy because 1) measures (PROMS) are often invalid, not implemented and unsuitable for clinical practice and 2) there is a knowledge gap in how to capture and interpret outcomes from persons with language disorders.
