The impact communities of practice (CoPs) make can be understood in several different ways, depending on which theoretical perspective is used. For example, CoPs have been studied from a learning-theory perspective, from organizational development theory, and from a small-group theory. To understand the effects of participating in a CoP on individuals, groups or the organization in which they function, we could use traditional learning theory, organizational learning theory, information-processing theory or small-group process theory, etc. Or we could look at the internal processes of CoPs; the output they generate, or employ a synthesized view. CoPs can also be seen as impacting different actors in the organization in which they operate; individuals, groups or the whole organization. This means, for example, that we could look at CoPs from an organizational learning perspective to see how CoPs impact strategy development or renewal. At the level of the group, we could look at how CoPs lead to increased group performance and how that in turn leads to a higher output of knowledge products. And as learning is one of the key processes in a CoP, an important aspect of we need to study is how the individual learns, as well as what the individual learns. The complexity of impact a CoP can have on the diverse actors requires a pluralistic and multiperspective approach. However, a review of the literature showed no comprehensive model that neither integrates these different levels of impact nor employs multiple theoretical perspectives. Furthermore, most models of measurement or assessment use traditional types of output measurement, such as ROI, or anecdotal evidence that the CoP has improved organizational capability. Much like any human resource development initiative – which is the perspective of CoPs we take in this paper – there has been no real attempt to develop measures for assessing impact. We try to fill this gap by presenting a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, conceptual model that approaches measuring certain aspects a CoP has on individuals, groups and organizations.
DOCUMENT
In this brief chapter of the report we focus on the model that was developed as part of the evaluation strategy: the local CoP impact measurement model. This model has been described as part of the strategy report as well. For purposes of clarity (as it is one of the main deliverables of work package 3) we briefly present it in this document. Background: Promoting Healthy Ageing, and specifically an Active & Healthy Lifestyle, is one of the biggest societal and economical challenges the EU is facing. A paradigm shift from health care and cure to prevention is essential since the traditional ways have proven to be insufficient to solve this complex problem. An impact-driven multi-sector approach is necessary to develop innovative products and services to change this for the better.ObjectivesThe Knowledge Alliance for Communities of Practice for Healthy Lifestyle aimed at developing and sustaining communities of practice (COP) in order to stimulate innovation and socio-economic development in the area of Healthy Ageing.ImplementationThe Consortium comes from 7 EU Member States and in 5 countries Local COP were developed. A European COP Support Lab and a European COP Alliance were developed that facilitate the set-up and sustainability of COP. An open access Community Knowledge Hub provides pilot-tested formal and informal blended learning material for managing COP and implementing interventions; whilst an entrepreneurship competition lead into an intensive program to develop entrepreneurial skills and stimulate innovation.AchievementsIn total 6 local COP were fully established who all defined their shared interest, organized learning opportunities, meetings and effective local activities that contributed to a common agenda setting for Healthy Lifestyle. Furthermore, the Alliance between businesses and HEI was extended exponentially and over 30 businesses, 18 HEI and 73 public authorities were involved. All 6 COPs are still running beyond the project funding period and supported by an open online platform www.yanuz.eu.
DOCUMENT
AIM To examine which instruments used to assess participation of children with acquired brain injury (ABI) or cerebral palsy (CP) align with attendance and/or involvement constructs of participation; and to systematically review measurement properties of these instruments in children with ABI or CP, to guide instrument selection. METHOD Five databases were searched. Instruments that quantified ‘attendance’ and/or ‘involvement’ aspects of participation according to the family of participation-related constructs were selected. Data on measurement properties were extracted and methodological quality of the studies assessed. RESULTS Thirty-seven instruments were used to assess participation in children with ABI or CP. Of those, 12 measured attendance and/or involvement. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of eight of these instruments were examined in 14 studies with children with ABI or CP. Sufficient measurement properties were reported for most of the measures, but no instrument had been assessed on all relevant properties. Moreover, most psychometric studies have marked methodological limitations. INTERPRETATION Instruments to assess participation of children with ABI or CP should be selected carefully, as many available measures do not align with attendance and/or involvement. Evidence for measurement properties is limited, mainly caused by low methodological study quality. Future studies should follow recommended methodological guidelines.
DOCUMENT
The research group Teaching, Learning & Technology investigates the didactic use of technology in learning processes. In doing so, it looks at themes such as flexibilisation, personalised learning, activating didactics and the effects of the use of technology in educational practice, particularly in higher vocational education. What had not been investigated so far was whether previously conducted research had a demonstrable impact on educational practice. This study is the first phase in providing insight into the impact of research carried out by the Teaching, Learning & Technology (TLT) research group of Inholland University of Applied Sciences. It looks at research carried out between 2010 and 2021. The objective is to describe how impact factors that can be influenced in previous research have been shaped. On the basis of this description, it may be possible to make recommendations to the research group with which the impact of the research it conducts in relation to these factors can be increased. The research question is: How do stakeholders describe the impact of research carried out by the research group Teaching, Learning & Technology in relation to the impact factors that can be influenced with regard to the research, the dissemination and the user value (experienced)? In order to answer this research question, we used a convergent mixed methods design, in which a new conceptual model served as the basis for the analysis of data from the field research. Three types of data were collected, namely a qualitative document analysis (N=31), a survey (N=6) and semi-structured interviews with survey participants (N=4). The study revealed that stakeholders mainly point to the researcher as the primary source of impact. Impact begins and ends with the researcher, especially in the extent to which he or she makes an effort to make the research relevant and in line with questions from the educational practice. We have listed a number of recommendations with regard to the way in which impact can be achieved in future research. These recommendations are mainly aimed at the way in which researchers of the research group can pay attention in a structured way to the design of the collaboration and to the concrete visualisation of expectations and intended impact at an early stage.
DOCUMENT
Communities of practice (CoPs) impact different actors in different ways. Because using a singular approach would not do justice to the complexity that surrounds CoPs, a multi-disciplinary and pluralistic approach is used here to develop a model for measuring the impact CoPs may have on individuals, groups and the organisations in which they are situated. A review of the literature showed no such comprehensive model. In fact, empirical work on CoPs, in general, is scarce and evaluations of them are underdeveloped. Most assessments are look at process alone, or try to link output to anecdotal evidence. I try to fill this gap by presenting a multi-disciplinary conceptual model that approaches measuring certain types of impact a CoP has on individuals and groups that are functioning as CoPs. I also make a theoretical link to how CoPs may contribute to organisational capability.
LINK
This paper presents a method for Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) to account for the impact of research. The 36 UAS in The Netherlands aim to contribute to global challenges and pressing social issues through practice-based research. Given this aim UAS have a strong responsibility to account for the impact of their research and to show that the public research money is well spent. This paper shows that none of the existing methods for assessing the impact of research are suitable for the research conducted at Dutch UAS. It offers an alternative approach based on narratives supported by empirical evidence.
DOCUMENT
The aim of part 3 is the development of basic instruments to measure respondent resilience to disinformation. Cases and examples of disinformation that will be used in the instruments will be taken from a COVID-19 context when applicable. People who are resilient to COVID-19 disinformation are supposed to be ‘media or information literate’. Therefore, the construct that is aimed to be measured with the instruments is Media and Information Literacy, abbreviated as MIL. Instruments that will be developed must be adaptable for different target groups (pupils, library staff and teachers). The basic instruments will therefore contain for instance scales that can be modified to measure the effectiveness of the train-the-trainer workshops as well as that of fake news workshops in secondary education. Final instruments will be used in the IO3 phase to make recommendations for improvement. Analyses of results of those final assessments will be performed for each country separately. Because the basic instruments that will be developed in output 1 are intended to be used as pre- and post-tests in output 2, the focus will be on the impact of the interventions. For evaluating the processes during the interventions and the participant experiences, extra instruments should be developed.
MULTIFILE
Abstract for the European Association of Sociology for Sport conference in Dublin on the development over time of social impact evaluations in the Netherlands. In total 33 sport events were included that were held between 1980-2015 in the Netherlands. The events were selected to vary in fixed vs. mobile, participative or elite sports. Only mega, large and hallmark events were included. A multiple case study was conducted based on secondary resources. The events’ objectives were identified from documents from the various involved stakeholders. In total over 300 documents were analyzed.
DOCUMENT
Active participation of stakeholders in health research practice is important to generate societal impact of outcomes, as innovations will more likely be implemented and disseminated in clinical practice. To foster a co-creative process, numerous frameworks and tools are available. As they originate from different professions, it is not evident that health researchers are aware of these tools, or able to select and use them in a meaningful way. This article describes the bottom-up development process of a compass and presents the final outcome. This Co-creation Impact Compass combines a well-known business model with tools from design thinking that promote active participation by all relevant stakeholders. It aims to support healthcare researchers to select helpful and valid co-creation tools for the right purpose and at the right moment. Using the Co-creation Impact Compass might increase the researchers’ understanding of the value of co-creation, and it provides help to engage stakeholders in all phases of a research project.
DOCUMENT
