Many of today’s challenges that confront society are complex and dynamic and require new perspectives, new ways of looking at problems and issues, in order to be able to come to solutions that could not be found before. This process is called reframing and we suggest that one of the key stages in this process is thematic research, the search for themes that underlie these complex challenges. These themes generally turn out to be human themes, related to socio-emotional aspects of life. In this paper we report our experiences and lessons learned from a series of cases in which we experimented with various approaches to do this thematic research.
DOCUMENT
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
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
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to find determinants about risk resilience and develop a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises. This approach creates the ability to respond resiliently to major environmental challenges and changes in the short term and adjust the management of the organization, and to learn and transform to adapt to the new environment in the long term while creating multiple value creation. Design/methodology: The authors present a new risk resilience approach for multiple value creation of (agricultural) enterprises, which consists of a main process starting with strategy design, followed by an environmental analysis, stakeholder collaboration, implement ESG goals, defining risk expose & response options, and report, learn & evaluate. In each step the organizational perspective, as well as the value chain/area perspective is considered and aligned. The authors have used focus groups and analysed literature from and outside the field of finance and accounting, to design this new approach. Findings: Researchers propose a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises, based on a narrative about transforming to multiple value creation, founded determinants of risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience. Originality and value: This study contributes by conceptualizing risk resilience for (agricultural) enterprises, by looking through a lens of multiple value creation in a dynamic context and based on insights from different fields, actual ESG knowledge, and determinants for risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience.
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
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
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
We are currently in a transition moving from a linear economy grounded on economic value maximization based on material transformation to a circular economy. Core of this transition is organising value preservation from various yet interlinked perspectives. The underlying fundamental shift is to move away from mere financial value maximization towards multiple value creation (WCED, 1987; Jonker, 2014; Raworth, 2017). This implies moving from mere economic value creation, to simultaneously and in a balanced way creating ecological and social value. A parallel development supporting this transition can be observed in accounting & control. Elkington (1994) introduced the triple bottom line (TBL) concept, referring to the economic, ecological and social impact of companies. The TBL should be seen more as a conceptual way of thinking, rather than a practical innovative accounting tool to monitor and control sustainable value (Rambaud & Richard, 2015). However, it has inspired accounting & control practitioners to develop accounting tools that not only aim at economic value (‘single capital’ accounting) but also at multiple forms of capital (‘multi capital’ accounting or integrated reporting). This has led to a variety of integrated reporting platforms such as Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRC), Dow Jones Sustainable Indexes (DJSI), True Costing, Reporting 3.0, etc. These integrated reporting platforms and corresponding accounting concepts, can be seen as a fundament for management control systems focussing on multiple value creation. This leads to the following research question: How are management control systems designed in practice to drive multiple value creation?
MULTIFILE
ChatGPT’s emergence and subsequent evolution as a generative artificial intelligence tool introduces new ways of assisting students with research design. Fostering research skills with undergraduate students presents opportunities and challenges for faculty to aid with drafting research plans, questions for investigation, and methods for conducting the research. While some educators rightfully voice concerns over the ethical aspects of such a tool, this article will draw on my own experiences using ChatGPT 4.0 as a tool in research project supervision. I demonstrate how to prompt ChatGPT to give useful suggestions that can be used as actionable feedback. I also discuss how to instruct students to include ChatGPT in their research methodology when using the tool to refine research questions.
LINK
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to find determinants about risk resilience and develop a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises. This approach creates the ability to respond resiliently to major environmental challenges and changes in the short term and adjust the management of the organization, and to learn and transform to adapt to the new environment in the long term while creating multiple value creation. Design/methodology: The authors present a new risk resilience approach for multiple value creation of (agricultural) enterprises, which consists of a main process starting with strategy design, followed by an environmental analysis, stakeholder collaboration, implement ESG goals, defining risk expose & response options, and report, learn & evaluate. In each step the organizational perspective, as well as the value chain/area perspective is considered and aligned. The authors have used focus groups and analysed literature from and outside the field of finance and accounting, to design this new approach. Findings: Researchers propose a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises, based on a narrative about transforming to multiple value creation, founded determinants of risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience. Originality and value: This study contributes by conceptualizing risk resilience for (agricultural) enterprises, by looking through a lens of multiple value creation in a dynamic context and based on insights from different fields, actual ESG knowledge, and determinants for risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience.
DOCUMENT
