From the article: Research through Design projects in the health domain often involve collaborations of design and healthcare researchers. All partners have their own ideas and expectations with regard to what they consider valid ways to support their work. The evidence-based approach that dominates healthcare research differs from the ways that are common in design research, in which more iterative approaches are applied with focus on developing solutions to fit to the users and their context. The question that we address is twofold: a) How do differences in grounding approaches manifest themselves in projects where design and healthcare researchers collaborate? And b) How do project teams deal with these differences? We analyzed the grounding practices within ten Dutch research projects that address the development of e-health applications to support people as they grow older. All projects are collaborations of design and healthcare researchers and practice partners. We applied a multiple case study research approach in two series of interviews, with a cross-case interpretation after the first series of interviews to direct the second series. Differences in grounding approaches in the projects manifest themselves on four themes, each representing a spectrum: time, structure, control and position. These differences provided challenges, but were also used to strengthen the project.
Background: Traditionally, research integrity studies have focused on research misbehaviors and their explanations. Over time, attention has shifted towards preventing questionable research practices and promoting responsible ones. However, data on the prevalence of responsible research practices, especially open methods, open codes and open data and their underlying associative factors, remains scarce.Methods: We conducted a web-based anonymized questionnaire, targeting all academic researchers working at or affiliated to a university or university medical center in The Netherlands, to investigate the prevalence and potential explanatory factors of 11 responsible research practices.Results: A total of 6,813 academics completed the survey, the results of which show that prevalence of responsible practices differs substantially across disciplines and ranks, with 99 percent avoiding plagiarism in their work but less than 50 percent pre-registering a research protocol. Arts and humanities scholars as well as PhD candidates and junior researchers engaged less often in responsible research practices. Publication pressure negatively affected responsible practices, while mentoring, scientific norms subscription and funding pressure stimulated them.Conclusions: Understanding the prevalence of responsible research practices across disciplines and ranks, as well as their associated explanatory factors, can help to systematically address disciplinary- and academic rank-specific obstacles, and thereby facilitate responsible conduct of research.
![Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20240419024525240089.f5_0352_4033_99e3_b9d3476cb04f_110664_gowri_gopalakrishn-thumbnail-400x300.png)
In spite of renewed attention for practices in tourism studies, the analysis of practices is often isolated from theories of practice. This theoretical paper identifies the main strands of practice theory and their relevance and application to tourism research, and develops a new approach to applying practice theory in the study of tourism participation. We propose a conceptual model of tourism practices based on the work of Collins (2004), which emphasises the role of rituals in generating emotional responses. This integrated approach can focus on individuals interacting in groups, as well as explaining why people join and leave specific practices. Charting the shifting of individuals between practices could help to illuminate the dynamics and complexity of tourism systems.
The pace of technology advancements continues to accelerate, and impacts the nature of systems solutions along with significant effects on involved stakeholders and society. Design and engineering practices with tools and perspectives, need therefore to evolve in accordance to the developments that complex, sociotechnical innovation challenges pose. There is a need for engineers and designers that can utilize fitting methods and tools to fulfill the role of a changemaker. Recognized successful practices include interdisciplinary methods that allow for effective and better contextualized participatory design approaches. However, preliminary research identified challenges in understanding what makes a specific method effective and successfully contextualized in practice, and what key competences are needed for involved designers and engineers to understand and adopt these interdisciplinary methods. In this proposal, case study research is proposed with practitioners to gain insight into what are the key enabling factors for effective interdisciplinary participatory design methods and tools in the specific context of sociotechnical innovation. The involved companies are operating at the intersection between design, technology and societal impact, employing experts who can be considered changemakers, since they are in the lead of creative processes that bring together diverse groups of stakeholders in the process of sociotechnical innovation. A methodology will be developed to capture best practices and understand what makes the deployed methods effective. This methodology and a set of design guidelines for effective interdisciplinary participatory design will be delivered. In turn this will serve as a starting point for a larger design science research project, in which an educational toolkit for effective participatory design for socio-technical innovation will be designed.
The energy transition is a highly complex technical and societal challenge, coping with e.g. existing ownership situations, intrusive retrofit measures, slow decision-making processes and uneven value distribution. Large scale retrofitting activities insulating multiple buildings at once is urgently needed to reach the climate targets but the decision-making of retrofitting in buildings with shared ownership is challenging. Each owner is accountable for his own energy bill (and footprint), giving a limited action scope. This has led to a fragmented response to the energy retrofitting challenge with negligible levels of building energy efficiency improvements conducted by multiple actors. Aggregating the energy design process on a building level would allow more systemic decisions to happen and offer the access to alternative types of funding for owners. “Collect Your Retrofits” intends to design a generic and collective retrofit approach in the challenging context of monumental areas. As there are no standardised approaches to conduct historical building energy retrofits, solutions are tailor-made, making the process expensive and unattractive for owners. The project will develop this approach under real conditions of two communities: a self-organised “woongroep” and a “VvE” in the historic centre of Amsterdam. Retrofit designs will be identified based on energy performance, carbon emissions, comfort and costs so that a prioritisation strategy can be drawn. Instead of each owner investing into their own energy retrofitting, the neighbourhood will invest into the most impactful measures and ensure that the generated economic value is retained locally in order to make further sustainable investments and thus accelerating the transition of the area to a CO2-neutral environment.
Promoting entrepreneurship is an enabler of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and it is one objective EU regions have pursued since the EC included it into 2020 Strategy. Entrepreneurship development has economic and social benefits, since it is not only a driving force for job creation, competitiveness and growth; it also contributes to personal fulfillment and to achieve social objectives. That is why the EU encourages entrepreneurial initiatives and to unlock the growth potential of businesses and citizens. However, only a 37% of Europeans (Eurobarometer 2012) would like to be self-employed. The Entrepreneurship Action Plan adopted by the EC in 2013 to reignite Europe’s entrepreneurial spirit includes initiatives for educating young people on entrepreneurship. To ensure that EU economy remains globally competitive, young generations of Europeans need to be inspired to develop their entrepreneurial mindset. EU 2020 Action Plan argues that young people benefitting of a specialised entrepreneurial education are more likely to start-up a business and to better tackle challenges in their professional career and life in general. Hence, there is good reason to ensure better quality of entrepreneurial education. Most approaches in recent years have focused on improving the skills or competences youngsters should obtain only within the education system. However, an integrated approach is needed, where the school, their friends, family and the social environment, shall play each one a relevant role, contributing to generate a more adequate atmosphere to boost their entrepreneurial mindsets, intrapreneurial attitudes and innovation capacities. This project will identify and exchange – through a quadruple helix approach- good practices for creating friendlier entrepreneurial ecosystems and actions to boost entrepreneurship in young people mindsets. The good practices and lessons learnt will be transferred into Action Plans to be included in regional policies.
