Co-creation in a quintuple helix, the art of including natural environments of society in a living lab that includes different types of stakeholders and monitoring the quality of this process of co-creation.In the last decade, co-creation has not only become a widely used concept in academic discourses but also in public policies that aim to tackle so called 'wicked problems', a term coined in the 1970s (Rittel & Webber, 1973) that is nowadays often interchangeably used with societal challenges or SDGs.This focus on tackling societal challenges by governments in collaboration with citizens opened the door for new concepts such as ‘living labs’ in 2006 (Rădulescu et al., 2022) ‘policy labs’, ‘innovation hubs’, ‘co-creation labs’ and recently ‘public sector innovation (PSI) labs’ (Fuglsang & Hansen, 2022; Hansen & Fuglsang, 2020; McGann et al., 2021; Torvinen & Jansson, 2022). The use of labs has also been addressed by the OECD in their publication on innovation in the public sector outlook to make policymakers aware of the importance of public sector innovation (OECD, 2015).Literature research in combination with questionnaires into these types of labs showed that the definitions of PSI labs are quite ‘fuzzy’, sometimes even interchangeable and are heavily dependent on the national, regional and local context as well (McGann et al., 2018). In addition, research also showed that it is difficult to distinguish good practices, let alone to define specific conditions for these good practices (Meister Broekema et al., 2022).In addition, an inductive analysis of a large number of EU policies shows that on a conceptual level, the EU uses specific interpretations of social innovation (Moulaert & MacCallum 2019) and co-creation in open innovation (‘Open Innovation 2.0’ 2013), influenced by the concept of triple- and quadruple helix innovation in which universities, governments and enterprises are collaborating, sometimes for the benefit of society as a whole (Carayannis & Campbell 2012; Leydesdorff 2010). Co-creation as such is used merely as a criterion within social innovation projects that aim to tackle societal challenges, therefore neglecting the quality of the process of co-creation (Meister Broekema et al. 2021).In order to maximise the impact of co-creation and be able to tackle societal challenges such as climate change, it is therefore essential to focus more on the quality of co-creation between 4 helixes in these processes and include the environment as a fifth helix (quintuple helix innovation as defined by Carayannis et. al. 2012). In the talk, a novel framework will be presented that will support collaborators in a project that aims to tackle a societal challenge by including the right stakeholders at the right time and monitor progress and satisfaction continuously (Meister Broekema 2023) in a quintuple helix setting.This presentation will contribute mostly to SDG 17 (partnership for the goals) and SDG4 (Quality Education) and is best suited for SDG13 (Climate Action).The insights can be used to enable multiple stakeholders from government, education and research, enterprises and citizens within a natural environment (mountains & oceans) to co-create in a quintuple helix setting, maximising their impact on climate change and strengthening partnerships for this goal.
DOCUMENT
The transition towards a sustainable and healthy food system is one of the major sustainability challenges of today, next to the energy transition and the transition from a linear to circular economy. This paper provides a timely and evidence-based contribution to better understand the complex processes of institutional change and transformative social-ecological innovation that takes place in the food transition, through a case study of an open innovation and food transition network in The Netherlands, the South-Holland Food Family (Zuid-Hollandse Voedselfamilie). This network is supported by the provincial government and many partners, with the ambition to realize more sustainable agricultural and food chains, offering healthy, sustainable and affordable food for everyone in the Province of South-Holland in five to ten years from now. This ambition cannot be achieved through optimising the current food system. A transition is needed – a fundamental change of the food system’s structure, culture and practice. The Province has adopted a transition approach in its 2016 Innovation Agenda for Sustainable Agriculture. This paper provides an institutional analysis of how the transition approach has been established and developed in practice. Our main research question is what interventions and actions have shaped the transition approach and how does the dynamic interplay between actors and institutional structures influence institutional change, by analysing a series of closely related action situations and their context, looking at 'structure' and 'agency', and at the output-outcomes-impact of these action situations. For this purpose, we use the Transformative Social-Ecological Innovation (TSEI)-framework to study the dynamic interplay between actors and institutional structures influencing institutional change. The example of TSEI-framework application in this paper shows when and how local agents change the institutional context itself, which provides relevant insights on institutional work and the mutually constitutive nature of structure and agency. Above institutional analysis also shows the pivotal role of a number of actors, such as network facilitators and provincial minister, and their capability and skills to combine formal and informal institutional environments and logics and mobilize resources, thereby legitimizing and supporting the change effort. The results are indicative of the importance of institutional structures as both facilitating (i.e., the province’s policies) and limiting (e.g. land ownership) transition dynamics.
DOCUMENT
Hoofdstuk 2 uit Position paper Learning Communities van Netwerk learning Communities Grote maatschappelijke uitdagingen op het gebied van vergrijzing, duurzaamheid, digitalisering, segregatie en onderwijskwaliteit vragen om nieuwe manieren van werken, leren en innoveren. In toenemende mate wordt daarom ingezet op het bundelen van kennis en expertise van zowel publieke als private organisaties, die elkaar nodig hebben om te innoveren en complexe vraagstukken aan te pakken. Het concept ‘learning communities’ wordt gezien als dé oplossing om leren, werken en innoveren anders met elkaar te verbinden: collaboratief, co-creërend en contextrijk. Vanuit het Netwerk Learning Communities is een groep onafhankelijk onderzoekers van een groot aantal Nederlandse kennisinstellingen aan de slag gegaan met een kennissynthese rondom het concept ‘Learning Community’. Het Position paper is een eerste aanzet tot kennisbundeling. Een ‘levend document’ dat in de komende tijd verder aangevuld en verrijkt kan worden door onderzoekers, praktijkprofessionals en beleidsmakers.
DOCUMENT
De synergie tussen Robotica en AI biedt vele oplossingsmogelijkheden voor (internationale) maatschappelijke opgaven waarvoor we staan (SDG’s, de EU Grand-Challenges, KIA’s). Een consortium van thans 9 Hogescholen, TKI-HTSM en Holland Robotics (community >600 organisaties) slaan de handen ineen om de ontwikkeling van praktijkkennis te versnellen, kennis te delen en betekenisvolle oplossingen te realiseren voor allehande vraagstukken op het gebied van de zorg, het klimaat, onze veiligheid, duurzame energievoorziening, het verdienvermogen van de Nederlandse (maak)industrie en het onderwijs. Robotisering en AI biedt publiek/private organisaties nieuwe mogelijkheden om taken, diensten en processen meer efficiënt, veilig en (kosten)effectief uit te voeren. Robots werken (steeds meer) samen met mensen en kunnen gevaarlijke en/of moeilijke taken overnemen. Ze creëren ook nieuwe mogelijkheden, die anders niet mogelijk zijn. Dit platform, aansluitend bij de KIA-Sleuteltechnologieën, heeft ambities om praktijkkennis sneller te ontwikkelen, deze te bundelen en toe te passen in relevante applicatiedomeinen. Alle mooie ontwikkelingen ten spijt, is het lerende vermogen en/of het autonoom handelen van robots nog minder dan dat van mensen. Robots hebben bijvoorbeeld moeite met het omgaan met onvoorziene omstandigheden en werken in ongestructureerde omgevingen. Om robots te kunnen laten denken en doen als mensen, is er nog een lange weg te gaan. De echte synergie tussen Robotica & AI, waarop dit platform zich richt, heeft een veelbelovend potentieel om de volgende sprong te maken om de bovengenoemde uitdagingen aan te gaan. Platformdeelnemers willen, op basis van een gezamenlijk roadmap, nieuwe praktijkkennis delen, ontwikkelen en toepassen in relevante (applicatie)domeinen. Zo worden betekenisvolle bijdragen geleverd aan urgente maatschappelijk vraagstukken. Het platform heeft als doel om in de quintuple helix kennis duurzaam te laten circuleren, een wenkend perspectief te bieden voor alle stakeholders, Applied Smart Robotica & AI-onderzoek beter landelijk en internationaal te positioneren, te focussen op meervoudige waardecreatie en gezamenlijk te werken aan iconische projecten.
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.
Een belangrijke opdracht binnen het missiegedreven topsectoren- en innovatiebeleid is het innoveren in de zorg om hiermee een bijdrage te leveren aan vitaal functionerende burgers in een gezonde economie. In het voorgestelde programma worden technologische innovaties geschikt en toegankelijk gemaakt voor mensen met een lagere SES (sociaaleconomische status) om hun gezondheid en welzijn te bevorderen in de regio’s Noord- en Oost-Nederland. Innovaties die daadwerkelijk resulteren in de gewenste effecten bij de doelgroep, maatschappelijke meerwaarde opleveren én financierbaar en organiseerbaar zijn. Innovaties die regie op de eigen gezondheid bieden, inzetbaar zijn in de eigen leefomgeving en bruikbaar en toegankelijk zijn voor zowel burgers met een lagere SES als gezondheidsprofessionals. In het quintuple helix netwerk van Saxion en Hanzehogeschool, Centres of Expertise, MKBs, zorg- en welzijnsorganisaties, kennisinstellingen, burgers en de overheid worden structureel sleutel-methodologieën ingezet om de doelstellingen te behalen. Er worden methoden zoals co-creatie en participatie ingezet in experimentele omgevingen, te weten drie leergemeenschappen: het voorkomen, verplaatsen en vervangen van zorg. Er wordt ingezet op gedrag en empowerment van burgers met een lagere SES en er vindt een continue effectmeting en monitoring plaats van de ingezette technologische innovaties (sleutel-technologieën). Hierbij zullen vraagstukken rondom waardecreatie en opschaling systematisch geagendeerd worden. De SPRONG-onderzoeksgroep werkt de komende jaren interdisciplinair, instelling-overstijgend en met meerdere stakeholders samen in de drie interacterende leergemeenschappen waarbij state-of-the-art kennis, sleutel-methodologieën en netwerken optimaal worden benut en geborgd. Met de samenstelling van dit consortium maken we de transitie van (1) multidisciplinaire naar interdisciplinaire samenwerking, (2) van samenwerking binnen projecten naar project-overstijgend samenwerken, en (3) van incidentele samenwerking naar strategische samenwerkingsverbanden in een doelgericht organisatie-netwerk. De SPRONG-groep heeft over 8 jaar een leidende positie bij het geschikt en toegankelijk maken van technologische innovaties die zorgen voor gezondheidswinst voor burgers met een lagere SES.
