This paper examines how a serious game approach could support a participatory planning process by bringing stakeholders together to discuss interventions that assist the development of sustainable urban tourism. A serious policy game was designed and played in six European cities by a total of 73 participants, reflecting a diverse array of tourism stakeholders. By observing in-game experiences, a pre- and post -game survey and short interviews six months after playing the game, the process and impact of the game was investigated. While it proved difficult to evaluate the value of a serious game approach, results demonstrate that enacting real-life policymaking in a serious game setting can enable stakeholders to come together, and become more aware of the issues and complexities involved with urban tourism planning. This suggests a serious game can be used to stimulate the uptake of academic insights in a playful manner. However, it should be remembered that a game is a tool and does not, in itself, lead to inclusive participatory policymaking and more sustainable urban tourism planning. Consequently, care needs to be taken to ensure inclusiveness and prevent marginalization or disempowerment both within game-design and the political formation of a wider participatory planning approach.
MULTIFILE
This study provides an illustration of a research design complementary to randomized controlled trial to evaluate program effects, namely, participatory peer research (PPR). The PPR described in current study was carried out in a small sample (N = 10) of young adults with mild intellectual disabilities (MID) and severe behavioral problems. During the PPR intervention, control and feedback to individuals is restored by training them to become participant-researchers, who collaborate in a small group of people with MID. Their research is aimed at the problems the young adults perceive and/or specific subjects of their interest. The study was designed as a multiple case study with an experimental and comparison group. Questionnaires and a semistructured interview were administered before and after the PPR project. Results of Reliable Change Index (RCI) analyses showed a decrease in self-serving cognitive distortions in the PPR group, but not in the comparison group. These results indicate that PPR helps to compensate for a lack of adequate feedback and control, and in turn may decrease distorted thinking and thereby possibly later challenging behavior.
Background: Acquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5-year coaching programme. Objective: To establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants. Methods: A participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation. Findings: The programme comprised a kick-off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor-made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders. Conclusion: Building a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers.
- MOTIVE: This project (NoSI) constitutes a first step towards a broader research aiming at counteracting the compartmentalization of Dutch education: WO-HBO-MBO. This first step focuses on vocational education and training (VET) in the creative industry (CI) to develop an incubator for an innovative and participatory VET system, that bridges the gap between the professional field and education. It starts from the pioneering experience of No School (NS) (http://noschool.nl/), where teachers and students already work together as co-creators. - RESULTS: 1) incubator of the new creative VET, based on the following activities: NS book-Manifesto; NS Pavilion; international VET movement /network of people working on educational change; 2) design of a large-scale subsidised study. - CONTENT: VET system needs a systematised renovation on both practical and theoretical level. We will furtherly develop the NS experiment into an incubator serving as operational example of co-creation between: HBO/MBO/WO; teachers/students; schools/professional field. We are in line with the CLICKNL agenda (The Human Touch) and NWA routes (Jeugd in ontwikkeling, opvoeding en onderwijs; Kunst: onderzoek en innovatie in de 21ste eeuw). - RELEVANCE: Starting directly from the practical needs of the professionals (VET teachers/students/professionals), NoSI bridges the gap between schools and the professional field towards a new educational system that can match the demands of the 21st century society. - METHODS: NoSI introduces Participatory Action Research (PAR) as on-going approach in which all the stakeholders (researchers, teachers, students/CI professionals) are actively involved in the decision-making process as co-creators in bringing an ‘idea’ directly into reality. It considers ‘action’ as the main criterion to validate any theory, prioritizing practical knowledges. PARTNERS: 1) ArtEZ lectoraat Kunst- en Cultuureducatie (AeCT), 2) No School (Cibap/SintLucas), 3) Studio INAMATT, 4) expert groups (UvA).
