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
Co-creation and social innovation are currently linked concepts in both policy and academic research. Almost always, the attitude towards these concepts is intrinsically positive, although evidence of their added value is lacking. In my research, I looked at the development of social innovation and co-creation in theory and practice. By analysing the use of these notions in EU policies, EU grants and awarded EU projects, I was able to show that both concepts are not only unclear, but are also mutually strengthen and add value to each other. For example, co-creation is seen as an integral part of social innovation and therefore stakeholder involvement is sufficient to qualify as good social innovation, without further evidence. A systematic literature review supports these findings.Because of the ambiguity of both concepts and the fact that they reinforce each other, there is hardly any attention to the quality of co-creation as such within social innovation. We witness this not only in social innovation projects, but also, for example, in so-called living labs. In order to monitor and improve the quality of co-creation within social innovation, an evaluation framework was developed based on a systematic literature review. This framework can be used by both policy makers and participants in social innovation projects.
DOCUMENT
Co-creation as a concept and process has been prominent in both marketing and design research over the past ten years. Referring respectively to the active collaboration of firms with their stakeholders in value creation, or to the participation of design users in the design research process, there has arguably been little common discourse between these academic disciplines. This article seeks to redress this deficiency by connecting marketing and design research together—and particularly the concepts of co-creation and co-design—to advance theory and broaden the scope of applied research into the topic. It does this by elaborating the notion of the pop-up store as temporary place of consumer/user engagement, to build common ground for theory and experimentation in terms of allowing marketers insight into what is meaningful to consumers and in terms of facilitating co-design. The article describes two case studies, which outline how this can occur and concludes by proposing principles and an agenda for future marketing/design pop-up research. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Overdiek A. & Warnaby G. (2020), "Co-creation and co-design in pop-up stores: the intersection of marketing and design research?", Creativity & Innovation Management, Vol. 29, Issue S1, pp. 63-74, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12373. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. LinkedIn: https://nl.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345
MULTIFILE
In the last two decades, co-creation and social innovation have become important concepts in academic research and public policy. The two concepts are conceptually linked, but this relationship has hardly been problematized in academic literature. In addition, social innovation and especially co-creation are not defined in EU policies, but merely included because they support policy aims. The lack of problematization and definition not only hampers progress in the academic field, but is also constringing co-creation into an exercise of merely including stakeholders therefore neglecting the full potential of co-creation. The key question addressed in this article is therefore: how can we evaluate the application of co-creation in EU-funded social innovation projects? A literature review revealed that co-creation and social innovation have become connected only very recently in academic literature. In this publication, we analyse the meta narratives of this emerging body of literature and conclude that we can distinguish three distinct segments with their own characteristics. We used these insights to develop an adaptive evaluation framework. This framework can be used to assess the application of co-creation within social innovation in, for example, EU-funded projects. This could push the emerging academic field forward and open up new research themes and designs. We also suggest that the framework could specifically support policymakers in their efforts to evaluate processes of co-creation instead of focusing on the dominant impact evaluations.
DOCUMENT
Amsterdam Science Park (ASP) is a pearl in the crown of the Amsterdam knowledge economy, with its high-level research institutes (the Faculty of Science of the University of Amsterdam, several institutes of the NWO, the Dutch national science organisation) and a growing number of knowledge-based companies that reside in the multi-tenant Matrix buildings at the park. At ASP, the number of examples of co-creation is steadily growing. Larger tech firms (including Bosch and ASML) have located there and engage in deep collaboration with university institutes. Many more companies have expressed interest in collaborating with researchers located at ASP, not only in order to gain access to promising talent, but also to more extensively involve university researchers in their R&D processes. Another trend is the growth of science-based start-ups, now hosted at ASP’s Start-up Village: an appealing hotspot, made of sea containers. Players from business and university signal a rising need for new and more integrated concepts that facilitate collaborations between larger firms, start-ups and research groups. And also, the ASP management would like to see more co-creation. From its spatial and organisational design, the park is however characterised by a separation of activities: each faculty and institute operates its own building and facilities, with the firms hosted in the multitenant Matrix buildings. ASP is being developed along the lines of a masterplan based on strict zoning (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). This study explores how, and under what conditions further co-creation could be facilitated at ASP.
DOCUMENT
In this study, we regard co-creation as a collaborative process where students, lecturers and working field professionals from outside the university jointly develop innovative products, processes or knowledge. In co-creation all stakeholders equally contribute to the collaborative process and aim to create beneficial outcomes for each participant. Co-creation can be used as a valuable pedagogical method to support continuous interaction between learning and working in higher education to foster innovation. However, this process is not necessarily mastered by co-creation groups. In order to identify which components of this collaboration process can be further improved, we developed a questionnaire to assess co-creation processes in higher education. Students, lecturers and working field professionals participating in co-creation projects completed the questionnaire. We validated the questionnaire using a principal component analysis. The seven extracted scales proved to be sufficiently reliable. The final questionnaire consists of seven components: positive interdependence, individual accountability, collaboration, shared mental models, safe and supporting conditions, creative community, and group evaluation. We described how the tool can be used in practice.
DOCUMENT
Citizens and urban policy makers are experimenting with collaborative ways to tackle wicked urban issues, such as today’s sustainability challenges. In this article, we consider one particular way of collaboration in an experimental setting: Urban Living Labs (ULLs). ULLs are understood as spatially embedded sites for the co-creation of knowledge and solutions by conducting local experiments. As such, ULLs are supposed to offer an arena for reflexive, adaptive, and multi-actor learning environments, where new practices of self-organization and novel (infra-) structures can be tested within their real-world context. Yet, it remains understudied how the co-creation of knowledge and practices actually takes place within ULLs, and how co-creation unfolds their impacts. Hence, this paper focuses on co-creation dynamics in urban living labs, its associated learning and knowledge generation, and how these possibly contribute to urban sustainability transitions. We analyzed empirical data from a series of in-depth interviews and were actively involved with ULLs in the Rotterdam-The Hague region in the Netherlands. Our findings show five distinct types of co-creation elements that relate to specific dynamics of participation, facilitation, and organization. We conclude with a discussion on the ambivalent role of contextualized knowledge and the implications for sustainability transitions.
LINK
Social innovation and co-creation have been discussed in academic literature for the last twenty years. However, the interrelatedness and application of these concepts in European Union policy deserves more attention. In our study, we focus on this relationship and application, by analysing the value of co-creation for social innovation. By analysing a large EU dataset, we showed that social innovation and co-creation were used more and more widely and that their use took off after 2010 and 2015 respectively. By applying a contextual analysis, we also revealed that both concepts became connected in EU policy on research and innovation. Our analysis also shows that co-creation became an indicator for successful social innovation in the Horizon Europe Framework programme. These results show the importance of co-creation in policies, but because the concept has not been defined properly, this carries the risk of simplifying co-creation into a box-ticking exercise.
DOCUMENT
This article is based on five years of longitudinal participatory action research on how former pre‐bachelor programme students with a refugee background experience finding their way into Dutch higher education and society. The four‐member research team and authors (two of which were former refugees), found that refugee students face a significant barrier of “us‐versus‐them,” especially in an educational context. We explored how creative co‐creation contributed to rethinking difference and sameness in higher education by breaking through or transcending this divide. Creative co‐creation through play, storytelling, or constructing artefacts enables “alterity,” approaching the other from the other’s position. Movement and action help to shape the world around us: Connecting and shifting positions creates sameness while leaving space for difference. Creative co‐creation during our research process included making co‐creation artefacts and activities, thus involving outreach to broader audiences for engagement. In the research process, it became clear that successful participation matters to all students and provides more opportunities for all, not just refugee students. A new notion of “we” in Dutch higher education and society that does not perpetuate the divide between “us” and “them” requires a shared responsibility. Higher education needs the university authorities and the teachers to make room for student stories and should provide spaces for dialogue and community development.
LINK
This study describes the process of developing a typical dish for a slow city, using the lens of co-creation and coproduction. The slow movement argues that appreciation of local cuisine increases through events and developing slow food practices. Participant observation and interviews with actors involved in the development process revealed the symbolic components used to enhance the cultural heritage of Vizela, Portugal as a slow city. The research shows that the slow city initiative has gradually provided the basis for a gastronomic attraction to support tourist development. The development of a typical dish for the city was found to aid the recovery and revalorization of local knowledge, while the support of gastronomic culture by the local authority and community participation helped to strengthen regional identity and to develop an attractive and sustainable tourist offer. Thus, this study revealed the importance of residents in this development process as well as showed requirements that may support the rescue and cocreation of typical dishes for tourism.
MULTIFILE
