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.
Social innovation acknowledges that alternative arrangements between state, market and civil society are called for if innovations are to be sustainable. This chapter examines grassroots-led processes of social innovation in the field of poverty in Flanders, inspired by Ibrahim’s model of grassroots-led development. Inspired by it, we discuss the paradoxes for a politicising approach in the practice of the Flemish grassroots-led social innovation practices, Where People in Poverty Speak Out (WPPSO). We address two central questions. First, we demonstrate that social innovations such as WPPSO that aimed to improve the voice of people in poverty cannot trust only in the quality of the process of grassroots-led social innovation. A process-oriented approach might be a necessary condition for social innovation, but the democratisation of policy processes such as WPPSO do not necessarily create the conditions for concrete enhancements of the living conditions of people in poverty. Our second question was if other factors, outside of the innovation process, also need to be considered. A key external factor was that of encapsulation tendencies in policy production. The participative way of policy making about poverty with the grassroots organisations of people in poverty has brought about a separate domain of poverty policy.
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.
Vanwege veranderende onderwijskundige inzichten - 21st century learning - worden schoolgebouwen verbouwd of vervangen door nieuwbouw. Deze 21st century leeromgevingen blijken in de praktijk niet te voldoen aan de verwachting van de gebruikers. Het ontwikkelen en gebruiken van een 21st century leeromgeving stelt blijkbaar specifieke eisen aan de 21st century competenties van alle betrokkenen. Dit roept vragen op ten aanzien van product en proces. De beantwoording van deze vragen vereist kennis van wisselwerking tussen psycho-sociale leeromgeving en fysieke leeromgeving. Het betreft onder andere de benodigde “ruimtelijke competenties” van de betrokkenen om de fysieke leeromgevingen te ontwikkelen en te gebruiken en - andersom - hoe de fysieke leeromgeving de ontwikkeling van 21st century competenties beïnvloedt. De kiem voor dit onderzoeksproject is gelegd toen scholen en vormgevers deze vragen voorlegden aan experts van de NHL Hogeschool en TU Eindhoven. Dit KIEM project wil de probleemstelling in één of meerdere praktijkvragen articuleren door het uitvoeren van een reeks workshops met een focusgroep van stakeholders. De uitkomsten hiervan zullen worden vertaald naar een voorstel voor een langduriger onderzoeksproject. In dit beoogde vervolgproject zullen de gearticuleerde vragen worden vertaald naar één of meer praktijkonderzoeken waarin wetenschappelijke kennis en methodes worden doorontwikkeld en beproefd op het effectief stimuleren van 21st century vaardigheden van docenten en vormgevers in praktijksituaties. Dit project maakt deel uit van de opbouw van een regionaal kennisnetwerk Onderwijs & Ruimte, wat op een duurzame wijze wil bijdragen aan de kennisontwikkeling en -deling betreffende de 21st century leeromgeving. De kern van dit netwerk wordt gevormd door de initiatiefnemers van deze aanvraag; Adema Architecten (MKB), lectoraat Open Innovation van de NHL Hogeschool (Onderzoeksinstelling) en Next Level (Onderwijs).
In recent years, ArtEZ has worked on a broadly supported strategic research agenda on the themes New Ecologies of Matter (ecological challenges), Social Equity (social-societal issues), (Un)Learning Practices (educational innovations) and (Non)CybernEtic Fabric (technological developments). Building on these strategic themes, the ArtEZ Research Collective as developed an international research strategy to become a valuable partner in the relevant Horizon Europe (HEU) areas of Environment, Industry and Social science and humanities. With its specific knowledge position and approach from arts and creativity, ArtEZ is convinced that it can play a distinctive role in European consortia to tackle various challenges in these areas, in particular from the perspective and research topics of the professorships Fashion and Tactical Design. To achieve its ambitions and goals in its targeted research topics, ArtEZ is convinced that a combination of international connections and local applications is key for successful impact. Building upon existing relations and extending the international research position requires extra efforts, e.g., by developing a strong international framework of state-of-the-art research results, impacts and ambitions. Therefore ArtEZ needs to (further) build on both its international network and its supportive infrastructure. With this proposal ArtEZ is presenting its goals and efforts to work on its international recognition as a valuable research partner, and to broaden its international network in cutting-edge research and other stakeholders. With regards to its supporting infrastructure, ArtEZ has the ambition to expand the impact of the Subsidy Desk to become a professional partner to the professorships. This approach requires a further professionalization and extension of both the Subsidy Desk organization and its services, and developing and complementing skills, expertise and competences to comply to the European requirements.
