In my view, organisations are playing an ever-larger role with and in these changes. This is why we need organisations that are not afraid to express and give concrete meaning to their innovative views on economic and social themes. These are organisations that dare to break out of the old thought and behavioural patterns in order to create room for change and renewal. They are guided by an innovative philosophy and mode of thinking, and show this leadership by translating this body of thought into concrete actions and results. This is why, in the professorship, we call these organisations ‘thought leaders in a society of change’.
The chapter analyses knowledge management paradigms for the understanding and prioritisation of risks (risk assessment), leading to decision- making amongst policy makers. Studies and approaches on knowledge-based risk assessment, and in general risk management, vary depending on perceptions of risk, and these perceptions affect the knowledge scope and, ultimately, affect decisions on policy. Departing from the problems of big data in aviation, the shortcomings of the existing knowledge management paradigms and the problems of data conversion to knowledge in aviation risk management approaches are discussed. The chapter argues that there is a need for transciplinarity and interdisciplinarity for greater understanding of context, deriving from the challenges in the big data era and in aviation policy making. In order to address the challenging dynamic context in aviation, the chapter proposes a strength/knowledge-based inquiry that involves public sector and high-power organisations, in order to gain holistic knowledge and to aid the decision analysis of policy makers.
Epistemological relativism in tourism studies has been conceivably paralyzed by the concept of a, or, the "paradigm." In this review article, Platenkamp metaphorically identifies these paradigms with the islands that Odysseus visited (all those centuries ago) during his well-recorded journey to Ithaca. In this context, therefore, Ithaca is changed (by Platenkamp) from being just an idyllic Greek homeland into a contemporary, hybridized world like-in our time-of the multilayered network society in Africa of the capital of Ghana, Kumasi. The basic question for Platenkamp, then, is that of how tourism studies researchers can (or ought?) leave their safe islands (i.e., their paradigms) and organize their own paradigm dialog (after Guba) with others around them on their uncertain and risky voyage to Kumasi. In an attempt to clarify this vital kind of dialog, Platenkamp introduces Said's principles of reception and resistance, but also focuses on the distinction between different modes of "knowledge production" that have been introduced into the social sciences since the 1990s. In this light, to Platenkamp, the uncertainty of this ongoing/unending epistemological quest remains crucial: to him, all (almost all?) believers in a, or any, paradigm within tourism studies are unhealthily "overimmunized" by the tall claims and the perhaps undersuspected strategies of the particular "paradigm" they follow. (Abstract by the Reviews Editor).
MULTIFILE
Inzet van serious games als scholingsinstrument voor zorgprofessionals of als patiëntinterventie neemt sterk toe. Serious games kunnen kosten besparen en zorgkwaliteit verbeteren. (Potentiële) afnemers vragen, in lijn met het medische onderzoeksparadigma, vaak naar de klinische effectiviteit (internal validity) van deze games. Het gros van de Nederlandse game-ontwikkelaars bestaat echter uit kleine ondernemingen die het aan middelen en expertise ontbreekt om de hiervoor benodigde longitudinale onderzoekstrajecten uit te voeren. Tegelijkertijd tonen mkb’ers, meestal zonder ervan bewust te zijn, tijdens het game-ontwikkelproces al verschillende validiteitsvormen aan volgens het design-onderzoeksparadigma (face validity, construct validity, e.d.). Door dit niet bij hun afnemers kenbaar te maken, komt een constructieve dialoog over validiteit moeilijk op gang en lopen mkb’ers opdrachten mis. Het ontbreekt hen aan een begrippenkader en praktische handvatten. Bestaande raamwerken zijn nog te theorie-gedreven. Om mkb’ers te helpen de 'clash' te overbruggen tussen het medische en het design-onderzoeksparadigma, ontwikkelen lectoraten ICT-innovaties in de Zorg (Hogeschool Windesheim, penvoerder) en Serious Gaming (NHL Stenden Hogeschool) samen met elf mkb’ers, afnemers, studenten en experts in een learning community drie hulpmiddelen: •Checklist: praktische mkb-richtlijnen voor het vaststellen van validiteit; •Beslisboom: op basis waarvan mkb’ers onderbouwd de juiste validatiemethode kunnenselecteren; •Serious game: om samen met (potentiële) afnemers te spelen, zodat verschillende soortenvaliditeit expliciet benoemd worden. De hulpmiddelen worden inhoudelijk gevoed door casestudies waarin mkb’ers gevolgd worden in hoe validiteit momenteel wordt vastgesteld en geëxpliciteerd in het ontwikkelproces. Vervolgens brengen we de ontworpen hulpmiddelen in de mkb-praktijk voor evaluatie. Opgeleverde hulpmiddelen stellen mkb’ers in staat werkbare validatiemethoden toe te passen gedurende het game-ontwikkelproces om acceptabele bewijslast op te leveren voor potentiële afnemers, waardoor hun marktpositie versterkt. Ook draagt het project bij aan operationalisering van bestaande raamwerken en kunnen de hulpmiddelen in game design-curricula worden geïncorporeerd.
In my PD research, I want to focus on how collectivity is practiced in the arts, by learning from the Indonesian multidisciplinary art collective ruangrupa’s use of [the international art exhibition] ‘documenta’ as a tool, and the potential of continuing the experiences outside this group and context. The art practices programmed by ruangrupa can be understood as complex and ambiguous where art is not at the center of attention but part of a larger communal productivity. And where it is not sufficient to be merely critical, and merely voice opposition, but to engage, and create alternatives in everyday life [without being problem-solving or social design]. My research concerns the potential of continuing these practices and experiences outside this particular artist group and exhibition context. Ruangrupa’s work reveals problems of the current Western art system, how it is (hierarchically) organized, the implicit rules, norms and values it is based on. Ruangrupa's practice thus serves as an exercise and point of departure to answer questions about forms of self-organization within the art field. Its collective and multidisciplinary art practice implies the question whether it also can serve as a model for living together on a larger scale (also outside the arts), beyond hierarchies of social and professional structures. There is currently a lack of research on these particular art practices, so that they are not easily accessible for non-participants. For the art field in particular, this concerns the question whether contemporary art can and needs to take place outside established Western gallery/museum, art/curatorial paradigms and what can be learned from ruangrupa's and documenta fifteen's blending of art practice with daily life practice. This is also an urgent practical issue for art schools (including my school Willem de Kooning Academy) that increasingly develop art study programs outside the studio and gallery art paradigm.
