Zoekresultaten

OPTIMAX

This year, OPTIMAX was warmly welcomed by University College Dublin. For the sixth time students and teachers from Europe, South Africa, South America and Canada have come together enthusiastically to do research in the Radiography domain. As in previous years, there were several research groups consisting of PhD-, MSc- and BSc students and tutors from the OPTIMAX partner Universities or on invitation by partner Universities. OPTIMAX 2018 was partly funded by the partner Universities and partly by the participants.

OPTIMAX 2018: a focus on education in Radiology

Brain and Technology: to an argument based practice!

Since the emergence of modern man some 200,000 years ago, people and technologyhave been inextricably linked to each other. However, unlike traditional technology -such as leverage (and derivative applications such as hammers, wheels and crankshafts),and control of fire - smart technology is equipped with adaptive capacity. Whereas intraditional technology people have to think and handle in terms of technology in orderto apply technology successfully and purposefully, technology with, for example, itsown learning ability adapts to humans. This means that smart technology influencesdevelopment in a different way than traditional technology. Changes in the relationship between human development (brain) and smarttechnology - technology with its own learning capacity and adaptability - have led tothe articulation of 4 requirements technology should meet: 1. it must be sustainable, 2. it must not block development and if it does it must be clear how, 3. there must bea logical argument why the technique can be used and how it can be explained, also in terms of psychological development and, finally, 4. the social and ethical discoursemust be stated in a transparent way. At a fast pace, futurologists and management gurus are presenting “theories” abouthow smart technology will change us permanently as individuals. Requirements 1(sustainability) and 2 (technology influencing human development) are at stake here.However, these ideas cannot be substantiated by scientific research. Psychology(and the other social and human sciences) have not yet been able to generate a convincing interpretation of what is going on in the area of brain and technology (living technology). In fact, there is a need for argumentation. In order to arrive at an argument-based psychology, insight into the non-linearityof processes is indispensable.  The Brain & Technology research group is exploring the great possibilities to bridge the distance between people and their limitations by using smart technology, or possibilities, especially when it comes to argument based applied psychology!  In this document, mainly the argument requirement is considered, because in the rapidly changing technological processes, the argument often does not sufficiently develop and the argument lies pre-eminently at the level of applied psychology, brain and technology.

Lowlands sociotechnical design theory and lean production

Lean Production (LP) can be regarded as a design approach in search of a theoretical foundation. In this paper we show that Lowlands’ Sociotechnical Design Theory (STSL) could function as such a foundation. To reach this goal, we first describe STSL as a system theoretical reformulation of Original Sociotechnical Theory (OSTS). Then, we introduce the Toyota Production System as the origin of LP and the challenge it poses for the academic field of organization design. This academic field should (1) assess LP’s success, (2) generalize it by embedding it in more abstract concepts and theories in order to be able to (3) re-specify it for different manufacturing and non-manufacturing contexts. Next, we give an exposition of STSL as a structural design approach based on developments in system theory. At last, we reformulate lean production in STSL terms and so show that LP is a subcase within the more general theory of STSL. We discuss the merits of both approaches and clarify some misunderstandings of lean both outside and inside the lean community. Embedding LP in the more general language of STSL should enable us to discover similarities and differences, to start a process of mutual learning, to integrate diverse design approaches in a theory of organizational design and to add content to redesign proposals of for example the health care system as proposed by Porter and Teisberg (2006) and Christensen et al. (2009). We quote extensively from the lean literature (to convince our sociotechnical friends) and embed both STSL and LP in the broader literature on organization design. We hope this adds a new perspective to the one given in the Operations Management literature on LP. Again, mutual learning is the goal.

A Behaviorally Informed Financial Education Program for the Financially Vulnerable: Design and Effectiveness

Financially vulnerable consumers are often associated with suboptimal financial behaviors. Evaluated financial education programs so far show difficulties to effectively reach this target population. In our attempt to solve this problem, we built a behaviorally informed financial education program incorporating insights from both motivational and behavioral change theories. In a quasi-experimental field study among Dutch financially vulnerable people, we compared this program with both a control group and a traditional program group. In comparison with the control group, we found robust positive effects of the behaviorally informed program on financial skills and knowledge and self-reported financial behavior, but not on other outcomes. Additionally, we did not find evidence that the behaviorally informed program performed better than the traditional program. Finally, we discuss the findings and limitations of this study in light of the financial education literature and provide implications for policymaking and directions for future research.

Twice random, once mixed: applying mixed models to simultaneously analyze random effects of language and participants

Psychologists, psycholinguists, and other researchers using language stimuli have been struggling for more than 30 years with the problem of how to analyze experimental data that contain two crossed random effects (items and participants). The classical analysis of variance does not apply; alternatives have been proposed but have failed to catch on, and a statistically unsatisfactory procedure of using two approximations (known as F 1 and F 2) has become the standard. A simple and elegant solution using mixed model analysis has been available for 15 years, and recent improvements in statistical software have made mixed models analysis widely available. The aim of this article is to increase the use of mixed models by giving a concise practical introduction and by giving clear directions for undertaking the analysis in the most popular statistical packages. The article also introduces the djmixed add-on package for SPSS, which makes entering the models and reporting their results as straightforward as possible.