This research investigates the integration of stakeholders' values into the digital frameworks of Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) within the Dutch music copyright system. Utilizing Q methodology, the study captures diverse perspectives from composers, lyricists, publishers, and CMO representatives on values, value tensions, norms, and system requirements. A pilot study with four experts tested data collection methods and refined the study design for a larger, follow-up study involving 30 participants. Preliminary findings, based on factor analysis of participant rankings of 30 statements, reveal two distinct perspectives: one focused on "Fairness and Accountability," emphasizing trust-building and equitable treatment, and the other on "Technological Efficiency and Transparency," prioritizing clear information, verification mechanisms, and advanced IT systems. Qualitative insights from participant interviews provide nuanced understanding, highlighting the importance of transparency in royalty processes, balanced application of technology, and equitable royalty distribution in the digital age. This research contributes to the modernization of copyright management systems offering a conceptual model adaptable to other creative (Intellectual Property) industries
MULTIFILE
The methodology should be a uniform approach that also is flexible enough to accommodate all combinations that make up the different solutions in 6 OPs. For KPIs A and B this required the use of sub-KPIs to differentiate the effects of each (individual and combination of) implemented solutions and prevent double counting of results. This approach also helped to ensure that all 6 OPs use a common way and scope to calculate the various results. Consequently, this allowed the project to capture the results per OP and the total project in one ‘measurement results’ template. The template is used in both the individual OP reports and the ‘KPI Results: Baseline & Final results’ report where all results are accumulated; each instance providing a clear overview of what is achieved. This report outlines the details of the methodology used and applied. It is not just meant to provide a clarification of the results of the project, but is also meant to allow others who are embarking on adopting similar solutions for the purpose of CO2 reduction, becoming more energy autonomous or avoid grid stress or investments to learn about and possibly use the same methodology.
DOCUMENT
In order to study education and development, researchers can choose among a plethora of methods. The Merriam-Webster dictionary tells us that “method” means: a procedure or process for attaining an object …such as …a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art “ or “a way, technique, or process of or for doing something”, or “a body of skills or techniques”. Methods proper to the scientific study of education and development cover a very broad range of procedures, ranging from how to formulate and ask questions, how to design studies for answering such questions, how to perform such studies in real-world contexts, how to extract data and how to process them, how to relate processed data to answers on questions, how to communicate such questions and answers, and how to apply them to real world activities aimed at promoting education and development. This body of methods is customarily termed “methodology”, which is a concept that includes the methods themselves but also our understanding of their relationships and their rational and scientific justification. Let us call this body of methods and the justifications “Integrative methodology”. Researchers often tend to see this integrative methodology as a more or less autonomous set of good practice prescriptions. This view is consistent with practices of academic training in which methodology courses are offered separate from courses on disciplinarian contents, e.g. courses on development or educational science. As a consequence of this autonomy oriented view of methodology, scientific questions regarding development and education tend to be framed in terms of the available or habitual methods. For instance, we readily transform or translate concrete questions about the influence of some particular educational intervention in terms of a statistically significant difference between 2 representative samples that systematically differ in only one variable or feature of interest, which, in this case, is the intervention. Almost every word in this translation carries the heavy burden of methodological principles, concepts and presuppositions: “statistically”, “significant”, “difference”, “representative”, “sample”, “systematically”, “variable”, and “intervention”. And all these principles, concepts and presuppositions are taken from this autonomous body of integrative methodology, which forms our indisputable cookbook of good practices, outside of which no good — scientific — practices exist. The answers to questions that are shaped by this independent body of methodology will then contribute to existing theories of development and education. In this sense, it is the (allegedly) independent methodology that informs theory.In this chapter, we will move against this current practice and make the — apparently deeply obvious — claim that it must be theory that informs the questions and the way we shall answer these questions. That is, it must be theory – that is, your body of justified knowledge about a particular phenomenon – that informs, influences and determines methodology, that is, the whole of methods, procedures and instruments that you use to study that phenomenon. . The sort of theory that should inform integrative methodology must be an integrative theory, that is to say a theory consisting of a consistent set of general principles and concepts shaping the domains of inquiry, which in this particular case are the related domains of development and education
DOCUMENT
This is the editorial paper for the virtual special issue “Using Q methodology in higher education: Opportunities and challenges”, consisting of nine original research studies from different international contexts. In addition to presenting novel findings, contributors were invited to discuss the following two questions at the center of the special issue call: In what sense has Q methodology served as a fitting approach to investigate subjectivity in higher education? What methodological opportunities and challenges arise with Q methodology in higher education settings? This editorial provides an overview and discussion of the various justifications mentioned for Q methodology. Furthermore, it collates the opportunities and challenges contributors discuss in relation to their studies using this almost 90-year-old methodological approach. The editorial paper concludes with recommendations for future Q methodological studies in higher education and beyond.
MULTIFILE
Following social constructivism, the Metaverse can be seen as a “boundary object,” allowing “interpretative flexibility” across communities while maintaining a “common identity” to facilitate interactions and consensus. Understanding the social construction of the Metaverse requires acknowledging diverse perspectives that shape the discourse surrounding it. This research employed an internet-based Q methodology study to examine such “boundaries” within the Metaverse discourse. The study involved 46 participants from 14 countries and diverse sectors within the global Metaverse industry, who engaged in online card ranking exercises using statements covering five essential aspects of the Metaverse: Terminology, Cultural Values, Societal Impact, Economics, and Regulation. The factor analysis revealed four prominent frames of perspective: 1) Debating Liberal Globalism; 2) Critiques of the Metaverse as a Threat to Humanity; 3) The Metaverse as Neoliberalization; and 4) the New Prometheans: Techno-Optimism in the Digital Revolution. These frames underscore polarized perceptions related to the political-economic aspects of Metaverse development, particularly concerning affordability, infrastructure limitation, and digital literacy, all crucial for preventing global divisions. The findings contribute to policy dialogues focused on the social impact of technology innovation. Additionally, this research provides hands-on experience in designing and implementing a digitalized Q methodology, resulting in more systematic and transparent Q exercise procedures.
LINK
Although reengineering is strategically advantageous fororganisations in order to keep functional and sustainable, safety must remain apriority and respective efforts need to be maintained. This paper suggeststhe combination of soft system methodology (SSM) and Pareto analysison the scope of safety management performance evaluation, and presents theresults of a survey, which was conducted in order to assess the effectiveness,efficacy and ethicality of the individual components of an organisation’s safetyprogram. The research employed quantitative and qualitative data and ensureda broad representation of functional managers and safety professionals, whocollectively hold the responsibility for planning, implementing and monitoringsafety practices. The results showed that SSM can support the assessment ofsafety management performance by revealing weaknesses of safety initiatives,and Pareto analysis can underwrite the prioritisation of the remedies required.The specific methodology might be adapted by any organisation that requires adeep evaluation of its safety management performance, seeks to uncover themechanisms that affect such performance, and, under limited resources, needsto focus on the most influential deficiencies.
DOCUMENT
In January 2017, relations between Greece and Turkey were under severe strain when warships from both sides engaged in a brief standoff near a pair of uninhabited Greek ‘islets’ in the Aegean, whose sovereignty is disputed by Turkey. Theoretically informed by the literature of foreign policy analysis, we examine how the Greek diplomats, military officers and political analysts interpreted Turkey’s behaviour at that particular time. The article considers the following research question: which factors, from a Greek point of view, explain Turkey’s foreign policy in the Aegean in January 2017? Our theoretical expectation is that, in the aftermath of the coup attempt in Turkey, Greek diplomats, military officers and political analysts would ascribe domestic calculations into Turkey’s activities. We employed Q- methodology to uncover socially shared perspectives on this topic. Based on our findings, we uncovered two viewpoints: (1) Turkey’s diachronic strategy in the Aegean and (2) the strongman style. According to the former and most widely shared viewpoint, a consistent ‘rationalist’ strategy to change the status quo in the Aegean explains Turkey’s behaviour. According to the second one, the belief system of Turkey’s leadership legitimises the use of force in the conduct of foreign policy.
MULTIFILE
This paper proposes and showcases a methodology to develop an observational behavior assessment instrument to assess psychological competencies of police officers. We outline a step-by-step methodology for police organizations to measure and evaluate behavior in a meaningful way to assess these competencies. We illustrate the proposed methodology with a practical example. We posit that direct behavioral observation can be key in measuring the expression of psychological competence in practice, and that psychological competence in practice is what police organizations should care about. We hope this paper offers police organizations a methodology to perform scientifically informed observational behavior assessment of their police officers’ psychological competencies and inspires additional research efforts into this important area.
MULTIFILE
In this document, we provide the methodological background for the Safety atWork project. This document combines several project deliverables as defined inthe overall project plan: validation techniques and methods (D5.1.1), performanceindicators for safety at work (D5.1.2), personal protection equipment methods(D2.1.2), situational awareness methods (D3.1.2), and persuasive technology methods(D4.1.2).
MULTIFILE
The following paper presents a methodology we developed for addressing the case of a multi-modal network to be implemented in the future. The methodology is based on a simulation approach and presents some characteristics that make a challenge to be verified and validated. To overcome this limitation, we proposed a novel methodology that implies interaction with subjectmatter experts, revision of current data, collection and assessment of future performance and educated assumptions. With that methodology we could construct the complete passenger trajectory Door to door in Europe. The results indicate that the approach allows to approach infrastructure analysis at an early stage to have an initial estimation of the upper boundary of performance indicators. To exemplify this, we present the results for a case study in Europe.
DOCUMENT
