Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have continued to attract considerable media coverage as governments and universities respond to the open and online education movement. Three years after the MOOCs began its rise, it is clear that the HE institutions in the EU are gaining speed in this movement. This report on MOOCs intends to contribute to literature on MOOCs in Europe. Its specific aim is to present data on the perception and objectives of European higher education institutions on MOOCs and the main drivers behind the MOOC movement. In addition, the report makes a comparison with similar studies conducted in the United States in 2013 and 2014 and to data produced by the European University Association (EUA) between October and December 2013. The report made clear that involvement is still increasing, but also that arguments to get involved differ from those in the US. The main source is a survey conducted by the project HOME - Higher education Online: MOOCs the European way, partly funded by the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme. The survey was conducted in October - December 2014. In total 67 institutions responded out of 22 European countries representing in total about 2.8 millions of students.
LINK
In 2005 and 2006, almost sixty Dutch National Sport Federations (NSFs) participated in a special program for creating a marketing strategy for the next four years. This program was initiated and organized by NOC*NSF (the Dutch Olympic Umbrella Sports Organization). The NSFs had to joint the project to receive funds. For most of them it was the first time they seriously analyzed the market with the aim of developing new programs. The purpose of this paper is to explore to what extent Dutch NSFs are capable to change their structures to become more market oriented and more market responsive in order to write strategic plans. The changed structures are investigated using the "institutional theory" (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996) and are explained by exogenous (market context and institutional context) and endogenous (interests, values, power dependencies, and capacity for action) dynamics from the neo-institutionalist framework (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). In 2005 NSFs were expected to be in a pre-institutionalized stage, i.e. they were supposed to develop new organizational structures in response to specific problems (Kikulis, 2000). Now, approximately 1½ years after finishing their strategies, the question arises whether they have reached the semi-institutional stage, i.e. whether the new structures or actions are diffused across organizations, yet still subject to change and whether old structures are yet eroding (Kikulis, 2000). Methods Studying the intended structural change of NSFs requires an in-depth study of their social reality and the reactions and interpretations of involved actors, including their applied meanings to certain situations. Greenwood & Hinings (1996) plead for detailed comparative case-studies when studying institutional changes. Therefore three NSFs has been selected: The Royal Dutch Korfball Federation (KorfFed); The Royal Dutch Billiards Federation (BillFed); and the Dutch Jeu de Boules Federation (JeuFed). These three federations differ on size, amount of housed sports, number of associated clubs, sorts of intermediary decision making bodies, employed FTE's, and more. Therefore it is expected that the tempo of institutionalization of the new, market oriented, structures, will differ among them. Sugden & Tomlinson (2002) developed a multi-method style of qualitative research for making sense of the deep, inside information below the surface of everyday life. They call it the "Brighton method. Applying the Brighton method for this research implies that the three cases will be studied with respect to their history, their present marketing actions, their results and the changes in their organization. In-depth interviews, document analysis (policy plans, marketing plans and more), and where possible observations and participations are used to create a critical and investigative view of the organizations in change. Results The KorfFed used the marketing program to further develop existing programs. Although the outcomes of these programs were not new, the program has opened the eyes of the president, director and staff members. They are now conscious of the urgency of a market orientation, and a marketing orientation (a marketing position has already been introduced), and they see opportunities in attracting non-competition playing korfball players. They have, however, not yet reached the phase of semi-institutionalization of the market oriented structures. This can be concluded from the following: - The organization still has an ad-hoc character; - Some board members still make decisions based on their own insights rather than on information from the professional part of the organization; - Decisions to start programs are still grounded on subsidy possibilities rather than on market possibilities. Interest dissatisfaction and power dependencies are the main dynamics that form barriers in the planned organizational change. The BillFed is a federation that covers four disciplines, i.e. pool, snooker, carom, and billiard 3 cushions. The federation used to act upon these four disciplines. The marketing program has made clear that the BillFed should act upon target groups instead of on these disciplines. Therefore, the federation created a vision to reach youth, young adults, as also elderly people. Carrying out this new vision requires a market orientated structure (focus on target groups) instead of an internal orientated structure (focus on discipline groups). This new vision is created on an upper level (general board together with professional staff) in the organization. This federation also introduced a professional marketing position. Unfortunately, the underlying layers remain slightly passive and are not willing to work along the new structures, which mean that the new structures have not been diffused across the whole organization. Interest dissatisfaction, value commitments and power dependencies are the problematic dynamics. The JeuFed used to have a strong competition and tournament (internal) orientation, while many jeu-de-boules players play the game just for fun. The marketing program has created the insight that the just-for-fun players are also an important target group. Hence, 3 projects are developed to make club membership more attractive for all jeu-de-boules players. Since the federation never worked with projects before, they just found out that implementing projects such as these requires new structures. The JeuFed has just arrived in the pre-institutionalized phase, still far away from the semi-institutionalized chapter. Power dependencies and a lack of capacity for change are influencing dynamics in this case. Discussion Although it is already 1½ years ago that Dutch NSFs finished their marketing program, in none of the described cases the new structures have reached the semi-institutional stage. These new structures or actions are not yet diffused across the organizations, and the old structures are not eroding. In all three cases another combination of endogenous dynamics are influencing the process of organizational change. Continuing research is needed to find out whether these federations will ever reach the next stage of institutionalization and which dynamics will play an important role.
DOCUMENT
This paper investigates how firms adapt their innovation strategies to cope with constraints in national institutional environments. It is a comparative case study of Dutch and British dedicated biotechnology firms focusing on a particular type of strategy, the hybrid model. Patterns of skill accumulation and learning present in the Dutch hybrids are indications of how they use institutional advantages to focus on low-risk innovation and build deeper competences while also pursuing high-risk innovation strategies. The Dutch hybrid model offers insight into how firms comply with the dominant logic of the biotechnology field even when their institutional frameworks encourage the pursuit of low-risk innovation strategies.
LINK
The transition to a circular, resource efficient construction sector is crucial to achieve climate neutrality in 2050. Construction stillaccounts for 50% of all extracted materials, is responsible for 3% of EU’s waste and for at least 12% of Green House Gas emissions.However, this transition is lagging, the impact of circular building materials is still limited.To accelerate the positive impact of circulair building materials Circular Trust Building has analyzed partners’ circular initiatives andidentified 4 related critical success factors for circularity, re-use of waste, and lower emissions:1. Level of integration2. Organized trust3. Shared learning4. Common goalsScaling these success factors requires new solutions, skills empowering stakeholders, and joint strategies and action plans. Circular TrustBuilding will do so using the innovative sociotechnical transition theory:1.Back casting: integrating stakeholders on common goals and analyzing together what’s needed, what’s available and who cancontribute what. The result is a joint strategy and xx regional action plans.2.Agile development of missing solutions such a Circular Building Trust Framework, Regional Circular Deals, connecting digitalplatforms matching supply and demand3.Increasing institutional capacity in (de-)construction, renovation, development and regulation: trained professionals move thetransition forward.Circular Trust Building will demonstrate these in xx pilots with local stakeholders. Each pilot will at least realize a 25% reduction of thematerial footprint of construction and renovation
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.
The projectThe overarching goal of DIGNITY, DIGital traNsport In and for socieTY, is to foster a sustainable, integrated and user-friendly digital travel eco-system that improves accessibility and social inclusion, along with the travel experience and daily life of all citizens. The project delves into the digital transport eco-system to grasp the full range of factors that might lead to disparities in the uptake of digitalised mobility solutions by different user groups in Europe. Analysing the digital transition from both a user and provider’s perspective, DIGNITY looks at the challenges brought about by digitalisation, to then design, test and validate the DIGNITY approach, a novel concept that seeks to become the ‘ABCs for a digital inclusive travel system’. The approach combines proven inclusive design methodologies with the principles of foresight analysis to examine how a structured involvement of all actors – local institutions, market players, interest groups and end users – can help bridge the digital gap by co-creating more inclusive mobility solutions and by formulating user-centred policy frameworks.The objectivesThe idea is to support public and private mobility providers in conceiving mainstream digital products or services that are accessible to and usable by as many people as possible, regardless of their income, social situation or age; and to help policy makers formulate long-term strategies that promote innovation in transport while responding to global social, demographic and economic changes, including the challenges of poverty and migration.The missionBy focusing on and involving end-users throughout the process of designing policies, products, or services, it is possible to reduce social exclusion while boosting new business models and social innovation. The end result that DIGNITY is aiming for is an innovative decision support tool that can help local and regional decision-makers formulate digitally inclusive policies and strategies, and digital providers design more inclusive products and services.The approachThe DIGNITY approach combines analysis with concrete actions to make digital mobility services inclusive over the long term. The approach connects users’ needs and requirements with the provision of mobility services, and at the same time connects those services to the institutional framework. It is a multi-phase process that first seeks to understand and bridge the digital gap, and then to test, evaluate and fine-tune the approach, so that it can be applied in other contexts even after the project’s end.Partners: ISINNOVA (Italy), Mobiel 21 (Belgium), Universitat Politechnica deCatalunya Spain), IZT (Germany), University of Cambridge (UK), Factualconsulting (Spain), Barcelona Regional Agencia (Spain), City of Tilburg(Netherlands), Nextbike (Germany), City of Ancona (Italy), MyCicero (Italy),Conerobus (Italy), Vlaams Gewest (Belgium)
