The Internet offers many opportunities to provide parenting support. An overview of empirical studies in this domain is lacking, and little is known about the design of webbased parenting resources and their evaluations, raising questions about its position in the context of parenting intervention programs. This article is a systematic review of empirical studies (n = 75), published between 1998 and 2010, that describe resources of peer and professional online support for parents. These studies generally report positive outcomes of online parenting support. A number of recent experimental studies evaluated effects, including randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs (totaling 1,615 parents and 740 children). A relatively large proportion of the studies in our sample reported a content analysis of emails and posts (totaling 15,059 coded messages). The results of this review show that the Internet offers a variety of opportunities for sharing peer support and consulting professionals. The fi eld of study refl ects an emphasis on online resources for parents of preschool children, concerning health topics and providing professional support. A range of technologies to facilitate online communication is applied in evaluated websites, although the combination of multiple components in one resource is not very common. The fi rst generation of online resources has already changed parenting and parenting support for a large group of parents and professionals. Suggestions for future development and research are discussed.
LINK
This report maps different programs that supportrefugees on the road to entrepreneurship. The municipality of The Hague, along with the refugee and migrant support organization EnterStart (MigrantINC) asked for an evaluation of the program The Hague Test Garden (from now on called The Test Garden) where refugees can ask for help starting their own businesses. The evaluation is not just based on the experiences in The Test Garden; other programs have been included in the evaluation to come to a broader view of the road to entrepreneurship and the obstacles encountered. The increased inflow of refugees in Dutch society and on the Dutch labor market has generated different support programs for starting-up a business. Some of these programs already existed but shifted to accommodate the needs of this specific target group. Other programs were initiated to support refugees because of perceived barriers in Dutch society. Most programs are private initiatives, funded on a project basis. In the Netherlands, refugees that hold a residence permit are called ‘status holders’. Upon arrival, they received a temporary permit for at least five years. They need to follow a civic integration and language program and they are expected to be part of the (regular) education system or labor market as soon as possible. The Test Garden started in 2016, a time when multiple support systems for refugee-entrepreneurs began their programs. This report starts with a short overview ofrefugee flows to the Netherlands. The main part of the report consists of the comparison and evaluation of the different programs. The information was gathered through literature, websites, and in-depth interviews with program managers and others involved. Interviews with the participants are only included for The Test Garden (Appendix 1 gives an overview of the meetings and interviews). LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karijn-nijhoff-89589316/
Behaviour Change Support Systems (BCSS), already running for the 10th time at Persuasive Technology, is a workshop that builds around the concept of systems that are specifically designed to help and support behaviour change in individuals or groups. The highly multi-disciplinary nature of designing and implementing behaviour change strategies and systems for the strategies has been in the forefront of this workshop from the very beginning. The persuasive technology field is becoming a linking pin connecting natural and social sciences, requiring a holistic view on persuasive technologies, as well as multi-disciplinary approach for design, implementation, and evaluation. So far, the capacities of technologies to change behaviours and to continuously monitor the progress and effects of interventions are not being used to its full potential. The use of technologies as persuaders may shed a new light on the interaction process of persuasion, influencing attitudes and behaviours. Yet, although human- computer interaction is social in nature and people often do see computers as social actors, it is still unknown how these interactions re-shape attitude, beliefs, and emotions, or how they change behaviour, and what the drawbacks are for persuasion via technologies. Humans re-shape technology, changing their goals during usage. This means that persuasion is not a static ad hoc event but an ongoing process. Technology has the capacity to create smart (virtual) persuasive environments that provide simultaneously multimodal cues and psycho-physiological feedback for personal change by strengthening emotional, social, and physical presence. An array of persuasive applications has been developed over the past decade with an aim to induce desirable behaviour change. Persuasive applications have shown promising results in motivating and supporting people to change or adopt new behaviours and attitudes in various domains such as health and wellbeing, sustainable energy, education, and marketing. This workshop aims at connecting multidisciplinary researchers, practitioners and experts from a variety of scientific domains, such as information sciences, human-computer interaction, industrial design, psychology and medicine. This interactive workshop will act as a forum where experts from multiple disciplines can present their work, and can discuss and debate the pillars for persuasive technology.
MULTIFILE
In the past decades, we have faced an increase in the digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation of our work and daily life. Breakthroughs of digital technologies in fields such as artificial intelligence, telecommunications, and data science bring solutions for large societal questions but also pose a new challenge: how to equip our (future)workforce with the necessary digital skills, knowledge, and mindset to respond to and drive digital transformation?Developing and supporting our human capital is paramount and failure to do so may leave us behind on individual (digital divide), organizational (economic disadvantages), and societal level (failure in addressing grand societal challenges). Digital transformation necessitates continuous learning approaches and scaffolding of interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation practices that match complex real-world problems. Research and industry have advocated for setting up learning communities as a space in which (future) professionals of different backgrounds can work, learn, and innovate together. However, insights into how and under which circumstances learning communities contribute to accelerated learning and innovation for digital transformation are lacking. In this project, we will study 13 existing and developing learning communities that work on challenges related to digital transformation to understand their working mechanisms. We will develop a wide variety of methods and tools to support learning communities and integrate these in a Learning Communities Incubator. These insights, methods and tools will result in more effective learning communities that will eventually (a) increase the potential of human capital to innovate and (b) accelerate the innovation for digital transformation
The Dutch main water systems face pressing environmental, economic and societal challenges due to climatic changes and increased human pressure. There is a growing awareness that nature-based solutions (NBS) provide cost-effective solutions that simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help building resilience. In spite of being carefully designed and tested, many projects tend to fail along the way or never get implemented in the first place, wasting resources and undermining trust and confidence of practitioners in NBS. Why do so many projects lose momentum even after a proof of concept is delivered? Usually, failure can be attributed to a combination of eroding political will, societal opposition and economic uncertainties. While ecological and geological processes are often well understood, there is almost no understanding around societal and economic processes related to NBS. Therefore, there is an urgent need to carefully evaluate the societal, economic, and ecological impacts and to identify design principles fostering societal support and economic viability of NBS. We address these critical knowledge gaps in this research proposal, using the largest river restoration project of the Netherlands, the Border Meuse (Grensmaas), as a Living Lab. With a transdisciplinary consortium, stakeholders have a key role a recipient and provider of information, where the broader public is involved through citizen science. Our research is scientifically innovative by using mixed methods, combining novel qualitative methods (e.g. continuous participatory narrative inquiry) and quantitative methods (e.g. economic choice experiments to elicit tradeoffs and risk preferences, agent-based modeling). The ultimate aim is to create an integral learning environment (workbench) as a decision support tool for NBS. The workbench gathers data, prepares and verifies data sets, to help stakeholders (companies, government agencies, NGOs) to quantify impacts and visualize tradeoffs of decisions regarding NBS.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
