In this article, we elaborate on the role of dialogical learning in identity formation in the context of environmental education. First, we distinguish this kind of learning from conditioning and reproductive learning. We also show that identity learning is not self-evident and we point out the role of emotions. Using Dialogical Self Theory, we then suggest that individuals do not have an “identity hierarchy” but a dialogical self that attaches meaning to experiences in both conscious and unconscious ways. We describe the learning process that enables the dialogical self to develop itself, and we elaborate on the characteristics of a good dialogue. We conclude with some remarks expanding room for a dialogue that would foster identity learning. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources5010011 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of innovative forms of collaboration between different types of enterprises – aimed at scaling social impact – and address the challenges and complexities inherent to these specific types of partnerships. The particular focus is on strategic collaboration between workintegration social enterprises (WISEs) and mainstream, or for-profit enterprises (FPEs) with the shared objective to create more and better employment opportunities for disadvantaged individuals in the labour market. Design/methodology/approach – This study used a qualitative research design. The total sample consisted of 16 small- and medium-sized enterprises (both WISEs and FPEs), which were selected for their proven,business-to-business revenue model and their explicit ambition to create more inclusive jobs for disadvantaged individuals. Data collection and analysis took place between 2021 and 2023 and consisted of: semi-structured interviews with representatives of the participating enterprises to get a better understanding of the way in which current partnerships operate; and co-creative research methods to facilitate change processes – within and outside these partnerships – aimed at creating more social impact. Findings – Most collaborations between WISEs and FPEs start purely transactional, with the exchange of products or services, but once they become more familiarised with each other, the realisation of (joint) social impact becomes more significant. The ambition to further coordinate and integrate operations is prominent, but the partnership process is not without challenges and requires time, commitment and trust. So far, only few collaborations can be considered truly transformational. Originality/value – This study contributes to the discussion on strategic alliances and cross-sector collaborations by providing a conceptual framework and a practical instrument to shape strategic collaboration between social enterprises and FPEs that aim to create more social impact.
LINK
Anthropology is traditionally broken into several subfields, physical/biological anthropology, social/cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, archaeology, and sometimes also applied anthropology. Anthropology of the environment, or environmental anthropology, is a specialization within the field of anthropology that studies current and historic human-environment interactions. Although the terms environmental anthropology and ecological anthropology are often used interchangeably, environmental anthropology is considered by some to be the applied dimension of ecological anthropology, which encompasses the broad topics of primate ecology, paleoecology, cultural ecology, ethnoecology, historical ecology, political ecology, spiritual ecology, and human behavioral and evolutionary ecology. However, according to Townsend (2009: 104), “ecological anthropology will refer to one particular type of research in environmental anthropology—field studies that describe a single ecosystem including a human population and frequently deal with a small population of only a few hundred people such as a village or neighborhood.” Kottak states that the new ecological anthropology mirrors more general changes in the discipline: the shift from research focusing on a single community or unique culture “to recognizing pervasive linkages and concomitant flows of people, technology, images, and information, and to acknowledging the impact of differential power and status in the postmodern world on local entities. In the new ecological anthropology, everything is on a larger scale” (Kottak 1999:25). Environmental anthropology, like all other anthropological subdisciplines, addresses both the similarities and differences between human cultures; but unlike other subdisciplines (or more in line with applied anthropology), it has an end goal—it seeks to find solutions to environmental damage. While in our first volume (Shoreman-Ouimet and Kopnina 2011) we criticized Kottak’s anthropocentric bias prioritizing environmental anthropology's role as a supporter of primarily people's (and particularly indigenous) interests rather than ecological evidence. In his newer 2 publication, Kottak (2010:579) states: “Today’s ecological anthropology, aka environmental anthropology, attempts not only to understand but also to find solutions to environmental problems.” And because this is a global cause with all cultures, peoples, creeds, and nationalities at stake, the contributors to this volume demonstrate that the future of environmental anthropology may be more focused on finding the universals that underlie human differences and understanding how these universals can best be put to use to end environmental damage. This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in "Environmental Anthropology: Future Directions" on 7/18/13 available online: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203403341 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
The postdoc candidate, Giuliana Scuderi, will strengthen the connection between the research group Biobased Buildings (BB), (collaboration between Avans University of Applied Sciences and HZ University of Applied Sciences (HZ), and the Civil Engineering bachelor programme (CE) of HZ. The proposed research aims at deepening the knowledge about the mechanical properties of biobased materials for the application in the structural and infrastructural sectors. The research is relevant for the professional field, which is looking for safe and sustainable alternatives to traditional building materials (such as lignin asphalt, biobased panels for bridge constructions, etc.). The study of the mechanical behaviour of traditional materials (such as concrete and steel) is already part of the CE curriculum, but the ambition of this postdoc is that also BB principles are applied and visible. Therefore, from the first year of the programme, the postdoc will develop a biobased material science line and will facilitate applied research experiences for students, in collaboration with engineering and architectural companies, material producers and governmental bodies. Consequently, a new generation of environmentally sensitive civil engineers could be trained, as the labour market requires. The subject is broad and relevant for the future of our built environment, with possible connections with other fields of study, such as Architecture, Engineering, Economics and Chemistry. The project is also relevant for the National Science Agenda (NWA), being a crossover between the routes “Materialen – Made in Holland” and “Circulaire economie en grondstoffenefficiëntie”. The final products will be ready-to-use guidelines for the applications of biobased materials, a portfolio of applications and examples, and a new continuous learning line about biobased material science within the CE curriculum. The postdoc will be mentored and supervised by the Lector of the research group and by the study programme coordinator. The personnel policy and job function series of HZ facilitates the development opportunity.
Phosphorus is an essential element for life, whether in the agricultural sector or in the chemical industry to make products such as flame retardants and batteries. Almost all the phosphorus we use are mined from phosphate rocks. Since Europe scarcely has any mine, we therefore depend on imported phosphate, which poses a risk of supply. To that effect, Europe has listed phosphate as one of its main critical raw materials. This creates a need for the search for alternative sources of phosphate such as wastewater, since most of the phosphate we use end up in our wastewater. Additionally, the direct discharge of wastewater with high concentration of phosphorus (typically > 50 ppb phosphorus) creates a range of environmental problems such as eutrophication . In this context, the Dutch start-up company, SusPhos, created a process to produce biobased flame retardants using phosphorus recovered from municipal wastewater. Flame retardants are often used in textiles, furniture, electronics, construction materials, to mention a few. They are important for safety reasons since they can help prevent or spread fires. Currently, almost all the phosphate flame retardants in the market are obtained from phosphate rocks, but SusPhos is changing this paradigm by being the first company to produce phosphate flame retardants from waste. The process developed by SusPhos to upcycle phosphate-rich streams to high-quality flame retardant can be considered to be in the TRL 5. The company seeks to move further to a TRL 7 via building and operating a demo-scale plant in 2021/2022. BioFlame proposes a collaboration between a SME (SusPhos), a ZZP (Willem Schipper Consultancy) and HBO institute group (Water Technology, NHL Stenden) to expand the available expertise and generate the necessary infrastructure to tackle this transition challenge.
PBL is the initiator of the Work Programme Monitoring and Management Circular Economy 2019-2023, a collaboration between CBS, CML, CPB, RIVM, TNO, UU. Holidays and mobility are part of the consumption domains that PBL researches, and this project aims to calculate the environmental gains per person per year of the various circular behavioural options for both holiday behaviour and daily mobility. For both behaviours, a range of typical (default) trips are defined and for each several circular option explored for CO2 emissions, Global warming potential and land use. The holiday part is supplied by the Centre for Sustainability, Tourism and Transport (CSTT) of the BUas Academy of Tourism (AfT). The mobility part is carried out by the Urban Intelligence professorship of the Academy for Built Environment and Logistics (ABEL).The research question is “what is the environmental impact of various circular (behavioural) options around 1) holidays and 2) passenger mobility?” The consumer perspective is demarcated as follows:For holidays, transportation and accommodation are included, but not food, attractions visited and holiday activitiesFor mobility, it concerns only the circular options of passenger transport and private means of transport (i.e. freight transport, business travel and commuting are excluded). Not only some typical trips will be evaluated, but also the possession of a car and its alternatives.For the calculations, we make use of public databases, our own models and the EAP (Environmental Analysis Program) model developed by the University of Groningen. BUAs projectmembers: Centre for Sustainability, Tourism and Transport (AT), Urban Intelligence (ABEL).
