Traces of condom lubricants in fingerprints can be valuable information in cases of sexual assault. Ideally, not only confirmation of the presence of the condom but also determination of the type of condom brand used can be retrieved. Previous studies have shown to be able to retrieve information about the condom brand and type from fingerprints containing lubricants using various analytical techniques. However, in practice fingerprints often appear latent and need to be detected first, which is often achieved by cyanoacrylate fuming. In this study, we developed a desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (DESI-MS) method which, combined with principal component analysis and linear discriminant analysis (PCA-LDA), allows for high accuracy classification of condom brands and types from fingerprints containing condom lubricant traces. The developed method is compatible with cyanoacrylate (CA) fuming. We collected and analyzed a representative dataset for the Netherlands comprising 32 different condoms. Distinctive lubricant components such as polyethylene glycol (PEG), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), octoxynol-9 and nonoxynol-9 were readily detected using the DESI-MS method. Based on the analysis of lubricant spots, a 99.0% classification accuracy was achieved. When analyzing lubricant containing fingerprints, an overall accuracy of 90.9% was obtained. Full chemical images could be generated from fingerprints, showing the distribution of lubricant components such as PEG and PDMS throughout the fingerprint, while still allowing for classification. The developed method shows potential for the development of DESI-MS based analyses of CA treated exogenous compounds from fingerprints for use in forensic science.
MULTIFILE
Praktisch: Motivation Studenten Theoretisch: Eigentümlichkeiten des professionellen Handelns Nicht algorithmisch, linear und geradlinig sondern heuristisch, zyklisch und rekursiv: ↔ statt →. (Van Strien, 1986) Nicht die Anwendung von Theorie auf Praxis: knowing-in-practiceund reflecting-in-practice(Pragmatismus) statt technische Rationalität (Positivismus). (Schön, 1983) Wichtig ist implizites Wissen: tacitknowledge(Polanyi) Die professionelle Praxis kann nicht ohne weiteres theoretisch bewältigt werden
Objectives: Promoting unstructured outside play is a promising vehicle to increase children’s physical activity (PA). This study investigates if factors of the social environment moderate the relationship between the perceived physical environment and outside play. Study design: 1875 parents from the KOALA Birth Cohort Study reported on their child’s outside play around age five years, and 1516 parents around age seven years. Linear mixed model analyses were performed to evaluate (moderating) relationships among factors of the social environment (parenting influences and social capital), the perceived physical environment, and outside play at age five and seven. Season was entered as a random factor in these analyses. Results: Accessibility of PA facilities, positive parental attitude towards PA and social capital were associated with more outside play, while parental concern and restriction of screen time were related with less outside play. We found two significant interactions; both involving parent perceived responsibility towards child PA participation. Conclusion: Although we found a limited number of interactions, this study demonstrated that the impact of the perceived physical environment may differ across levels of parent responsibility.
MULTIFILE
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.
In the coming decades, a substantial number of electric vehicle (EV) chargers need to be installed. The Dutch Climate Accord, accordingly, urges for preparation of regional-scale spatial programs with focus on transport infrastructure for three major metropolitan regions among them Amsterdam Metropolitan Area (AMA). Spatial allocation of EV chargers could be approached at two different spatial scales. At the metropolitan scale, given the inter-regional flow of cars, the EV chargers of one neighbourhood could serve visitors from other neighbourhoods during days. At the neighbourhood scale, EV chargers need to be allocated as close as possible to electricity substations, and within a walkable distance from the final destination of EV drivers during days and nights, i.e. amenities, jobs, and dwellings. This study aims to bridge the gap in the previous studies, that is dealing with only of the two scales, by conducting a two-phase study on EV infrastructure. At the first phase of the study, the necessary number of new EV chargers in 353 4-digit postcodes of AMA will be calculated. On the basis of the findings of the Phase 1, as a case study, EV chargers will be allocated at the candidate street parking locations in the Amsterdam West borough. The methods of the study are Mixed-integer nonlinear programming, accessibility and street pattern analysis. The study will be conducted on the basis of data of regional scale travel behaviour survey and the location of dwellings, existing chargers, jobs, amenities, and electricity substations.
This PD project explores alternative approaches to audiovisual technologies in art and creative practices by reimagining and reinventing marginalized and decommodified devices through Media Archaeology, artistic experimentation, and hands-on technical reinvention. This research employs Media Archaeology to uncover “obsolete” yet artistically relevant technologies and hands-on technical reinvention to adapt these tools for contemporary creative practices. It seeks to develop experimental self-built devices that critically engage with media materiality, exploring alternative aesthetic possibilities through practice-based investigations into the cultural and historical dimensions of media technologies. These developments provide artists with new creative possibilities beyond mainstream commercial standardized tools and infrastructures. A key component of this project is collaborative innovation with artist-run analog film communities, such as Filmwerkplaats. By fostering knowledge exchange and artistic experimentation, this research ensures that reinvented tools remain relevant to both analog film communities and contemporary media art practices. The intended outcomes directly benefit two key groups: • Artist-run film labs gain sustainable methods for evolving their practices, reducing dependence on scarce, out-of-production equipment. • Digital-native artists are introduced to alternative methods for engaging with analog processes and media materiality, expanding their creative toolkit. This collaboration also strengthens art and design education by embedding alternative technological perspectives and research methodologies into curricula, providing students and practitioners with resourceful, sustainable approaches to working with technology. It advocates for a more diverse educational paradigm that incorporates media-technological history and critical reflection on the ideologies of linear technological progress. Ultimately, this research fosters critical discourse on media culture, challenges the dominance of corporate proprietary systems, and promotes innovation, redefining the relationship between creativity and technology.
