We tested the effects on problem-solving, anxiety and depression of 12-week group-based self-management cancer rehabilitation, combining comprehensive physical training (PT) and cognitive-behavioural problem-solving training (CBT), compared with PT. We expected that PT + CBT would outperform PT in improvements in problem-solving (Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R)), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)), and that more anxious and/or depressed participants would benefit most from adding CBT to PT. Cancer survivors (aged 48.8 ± 10.9 years, all cancer types, medical treatment completed) were randomly assigned to PT + CBT (n = 76) or PT (n = 71). Measurement occasions were: before and post-rehabilitation (12 weeks), 3- and 9-month follow-up. A non-randomised usual care comparison group (UCC) (n = 62) was measured at baseline and after 12 weeks. Longitudinal intention-to-treat analyses showed no differential pattern in change between PT + CBT and PT. Post-rehabilitation, participants in PT and PT + CBT reported within-group improvements in problem-solving (negative problem orientation; p < 0.01), anxiety (p < 0.001) and depression (p < 0.001), which were maintained at 3- and 9-month follow-up (p < 0.05). Compared with UCC post-rehabilitation, PT and PT + CBT only improved in anxiety (p < 0.05). CBT did not add to the effects of PT and had no extra benefits for higher distressed participants. PT was feasible and sufficient for durably reducing cancer survivors' anxiety.
A primary teacher needs mathematical problem solving ability. That is why Dutch student teachers have to show this ability in a nationwide mathematics test that contains many non-routine problems. Most student teachers prepare for this test by working on their own solving test-like problems. To what extent does these individual problem solving activities really contribute to their mathematical problem solving ability? Developing mathematical problem solving ability requires reflective mathematical behaviour. Student teachers need to mathematize and generalize problems and problem approaches, and evaluate heuristics and problem solving processes. This demands self-confidence, motivation, cognition and metacognition. To what extent do student teachers show reflective behaviour during mathematical self-study and how can we explain their study behaviour? In this study 97 student teachers from seven different teacher education institutes worked on ten non-routine problems. They were motivated because the test-like problems gave them an impression of the test and enabled them to investigate whether they were already prepared well enough. This study also shows that student teachers preparing for the test were not focused on developing their mathematical problem solving ability. They did not know that this was the goal to strive for and how to aim for it. They lacked self-confidence and knowledge to mathematize problems and problem approaches, and to evaluate the problem solving process. These results indicate that student teachers do hardly develop their mathematical problem solving ability in self-study situations. This leaves a question for future research: What do student teachers need to improve their mathematical self-study behaviour? EAPRIL Proceedings, November 29 – December 1, 2017, Hämeenlinna, Finland
“Empowering learners to create a sustainable future” This is the mission of Centre of Expertise Mission-Zero at The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS). The postdoc candidate will expand the existing knowledge on biomimicry, which she teaches and researches, as a strategy to fulfil the mission of Mission-Zero. We know when tackling a design challenge, teams have difficulties sifting through the mass of information they encounter. The candidate aims to recognize the value of systematic biomimicry, leading the way towards the ecosystems services we need tomorrow (Pedersen Zari, 2017). Globally, biomimicry demonstrates strategies contributing to solving global challenges such as Urban Heat Islands (UHI) and human interferences, rethinking how climate and circular challenges are approached. Examples like Eastgate building (Pearce, 2016) have demonstrated successes in the field. While biomimicry offers guidelines and methodology, there is insufficient research on complex problem solving that systems-thinking requires. Our research question: Which factors are needed to help (novice) professionals initiate systems-thinking methods as part of their strategy? A solution should enable them to approach challenges in a systems-thinking manner just like nature does, to regenerate and resume projects. Our focus lies with challenges in two industries with many unsustainable practices and where a sizeable impact is possible: the built environment (Circularity Gap, 2021) and fashion (Joung, 2014). Mission Zero has identified a high demand for Biomimicry in these industries. This critical approach: 1) studies existing biomimetic tools, testing and defining gaps; 2) identifies needs of educators and professionals during and after an inter-disciplinary minor at The Hague University; and, 3) translates findings into shareable best practices through publications of results. Findings will be implemented into tangible engaging tools for educational and professional settings. Knowledge will be inclusive and disseminated to large audiences by focusing on communication through social media and intervention conferences.
Het Nederlands Openluchtmuseum (NOM) wil actief bijdragen aan een duurzame samenleving met zijn kennis van materialen, producten, diensten en culturele tradities die eeuwenlang functioneerden binnen circulaire gemeenschappen. Ondanks technologische vernieuwing en globalisering heeft het NOM de overtuiging dat deze historische kennis kan bijdragen aan duurzame producten voor de toekomst. Het NOM wil een structurele samenwerking met de creatieve sector om meetbare impact te realiseren binnen en buiten het museum voor de transitie naar een circulaire samenleving. Daarvoor wil het graag zijn collectie en kennis toegankelijk maken voor ontwerpers. Belangrijke praktijkvragen daarbij zijn: Welke rol kan het museum spelen i.s.m. ontwerpers? Hoe kan relevante kennis van het NOM toegankelijk en toepasbaar worden gemaakt voor ontwerpers? Hoe creëer je samen met ontwerpers de gewenste impact in de samenleving? Op basis hiervan is de onderzoeksvraag geformuleerd: Hoe kunnen maatschappelijke organisaties zoals het NOM relevante kennis en artefacten toegankelijk en toepasbaar maken voor ontwerpers t.b.v. meetbare impact voor een circulaire samenleving? Deze onderzoeksvraag is vertaald naar enkele sub-vragen over definities van duurzaamheid en circulariteit, de verwachte rollen van museum en ontwerpers, de gewenste structuur van samenwerking en over de rol van prototypen om de gewenste impact te realiseren. Naast het NOM als MKB, participeren in dit project twee creatieve ondernemers (1 MKB, 1 ZZP-er) die zijn geselecteerd op basis van hun specifieke ontwerpkwaliteiten, hun ervaringen in samenwerken met partners en hun kennis van circulair ontwerp. Samen met docent-onderzoekers en ontwerpstudenten van ArtEZ onderzoeken zij deze vragen. De belangrijkste projectresultaten zijn: prototypen, getest op gewenste maatschappelijke impact; een rapport dat beschrijft hoe het NOM kan samenwerken met de creatieve sector om bij te dragen aan ‘Nederland circulair’; en presentatie- en netwerkbijeenkomsten om kennis te delen en te bouwen aan het netwerk van stakeholders om beoogde impact te realiseren.
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.
