"Sociologist of education Annette Lareau is renowned in her field for her compassionate ethnographic work and the insightful ideas she's able to draw from it. With Listening to People, she has given us an extremely practical guide to doing the kind of work she has been celebrated for. Lareau covers just about everything a social scientist needs to know--formulating a topic and honing it down to a good research question, obtaining IRB approval, finding a site and making introductions, conducting high-quality interviews and participant--observation, taking good notes and writing them up later, analyzing the data, and best of all, making clear how much the data analysis and the writing are part of the same process. Her tone throughout is about as straightforward as it gets, and she very generously shares stories of her own mistakes, missteps, and anxieties. Written for students and scholars in sociology, education, communications, social work, and possibly political science, anthropology, and related fields, the book will be an indispensable guide for graduate students and faculty in the social sciences (broadly conceived), and is even suitable for undergraduates"-- Provided by publisher.
LINK
Abstract: Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma have a high prevalence and disease burden. Blended self-management interventions, which combine eHealth with face-to-face interventions, can help reduce the disease burden. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions on health-related effectiveness and process outcomes for people with COPD or asthma. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library, Emcare, and Embase were searched in December 2018 and updated in November 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: A total of 15 COPD and 7 asthma randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis of COPD studies found that the blended intervention showed a small improvement in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-0.85) and a significant improvement in the quality of life (QoL; SMD 0.81; 95% CI 0.11-1.51). Blended intervention also reduced the admission rate (relative ratio [RR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.97). In the COPD systematic review, regarding the exacerbation frequency, both studies found that the intervention reduced exacerbation frequency (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.56). A large effect was found on BMI (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.25-1.34); however, the effect was inconclusive because only 1 study was included. Regarding medication adherence, 2 of 3 studies found a moderate effect (d=0.73; 95% CI 0.50-0.96), and 1 study reported a mixed effect. Regarding self-management ability, 1 study reported a large effect (d=1.15; 95% CI 0.66-1.62), and no effect was reported in that study. No effect was found on other process outcomes. The meta-analysis of asthma studies found that blended intervention had a small improvement in lung function (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.62) and QoL (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.50) and a moderate improvement in asthma control (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.40-0.93). A large effect was found on BMI (d=1.42; 95% CI 0.28-2.42) and exercise capacity (d=1.50; 95% CI 0.35-2.50); however, 1 study was included per outcome. There was no effect on other outcomes. Furthermore, the majority of the 22 studies showed some concerns about the ROB, and the quality of evidence varied. Conclusions: In patients with COPD, the blended self-management interventions had mixed effects on health-related outcomes, with the strongest evidence found for exercise capacity, QoL, and admission rate. Furthermore, the review suggested that the interventions resulted in small effects on lung function and QoL and a moderate effect on asthma control in patients with asthma. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions for patients with COPD and asthma; however, more research is needed. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019119894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=119894
Augmented Play Spaces (APS) are (semi-) public environments where playful interaction isfacilitated by enriching the existing environment with interactive technology. APS canpotentially facilitate social interaction and physical activity in (semi-)public environments. Incontrolled settings APS show promising effects. However, people’s willingness to engagewith APSin situ, depends on many factors that do not occur in aforementioned controlledsettings (where participation is obvious). To be able to achieve and demonstrate thepositive effects of APS when implemented in (semi-)public environments, it is important togain more insight in how to motivate people to engage with them and better understandwhen and how those decisions can be influenced by certain (design) factors. TheParticipant Journey Map (PJM) was developed following multiple iterations. First,based on related work, and insights gained from previously developed andimplemented APS, a concept of the PJM was developed. Next, to validate and refinethe PJM, interviews with 6 experts with extensive experience with developing andimplementing APS were conducted. Thefirst part of these interviews focused oninfluential (design) factors for engaging people into APS. In the second part, expertswere asked to provide feedback on thefirst concept of the PJM. Based on the insightsfrom the expert interviews, the PJM was adjusted and refined. The Participant JourneyMap consists of four layers: Phases, States, Transitions and Influential Factors. There aretwo overarchingphases:‘Onboarding’and‘Participation’and 6statesa (potential)participant goes through when engaging with an APS:‘Transit,’‘Awareness,’‘Interest,’‘Intention,’‘Participation,’‘Finishing.’Transitionsindicate movements between states.Influential factorsare the factors that influence these transitions. The PJM supportsdirections for further research and the design and implementation of APS. Itcontributes to previous work by providing a detailed overview of a participant journeyand the factors that influence motivation to engage with APS. Notable additions are thedetailed overview of influential factors, the introduction of the states‘Awareness,’‘Intention’and‘Finishing’and the non-linear approach. This will support taking intoaccount these often overlooked, key moments in future APS research and designprojects. Additionally, suggestions for future research into the design of APS are given.
The impacts of tourism on destinations and the perceptions of local communities have been a major concern both for the industry and research in the past decades. However, tourism planning has been mainly focused on traditions that promote the increase of tourism without taking under consideration the wellbeing of both residents and visitors. To develop a more sustainable tourism model, the inclusion of local residents in tourism decision-making is vital. However, this is not always possible due to structural, economic and socio-cultural restrictions that residents face resulting to their disempowerment. This study aims to explore and interpret the formal processes around tourism decision-making and community empowerment in urban settings. The research proposes a comparative study of three urban destinations in Europe (The Hague in the Netherlands, San Sebastian in Spain and, Ioannina in Greece) that experience similar degree of tourism growth. The proposed study will use a design-based approach in order to understand tourism decision-making and what empowers or disempowers community participation within the destinations. Based on the findings of primary and secondary data, a community empowerment model will be applied in one the destinations as a pilot for resident engagement in tourism planning. The evaluation of the pilot will allow for an optimized model to be created with implications for tourism planning at a local level that can contribute to sustainable destinations that safeguard the interests of local residents and tourists.
Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a significant contributor to work incapacity. Although effective therapeutic options are scarce, exercises supervised by a physiotherapist have shown to be effective. However, the effects found in research studies tend to be small, likely due to the heterogeneous nature of patients' complaints and movement limitations. Personalized treatment is necessary as a 'one-size-fits-all' approach is not sufficient. High-tech solutions consisting of motions sensors supported by artificial intelligence will facilitate physiotherapists to achieve this goal. To date, physiotherapists use questionnaires and physical examinations, which provide subjective results and therefore limited support for treatment decisions. Objective measurement data obtained by motion sensors can help to determine abnormal movement patterns. This information may be crucial in evaluating the prognosis and designing the physiotherapy treatment plan. The proposed study is a small cohort study (n=30) that involves low back pain patients visiting a physiotherapist and performing simple movement tasks such as walking and repeated forward bending. The movements will be recorded using sensors that estimate orientation from accelerations, angular velocities and magnetometer data. Participants complete questionnaires about their pain and functioning before and after treatment. Artificial analysis techniques will be used to link the sensor and questionnaire data to identify clinically relevant subgroups based on movement patterns, and to determine if there are differences in prognosis between these subgroups that serve as a starting point of personalized treatments. This pilot study aims to investigate the potential benefits of using motion sensors to personalize the treatment of low back pain. It serves as a foundation for future research into the use of motion sensors in the treatment of low back pain and other musculoskeletal or neurological movement disorders.
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.
