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
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
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
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.
‘Dieren in de dijk’ aims to address the issue of animal burrows in earthen levees, which compromise the integrity of flood protection systems in low-lying areas. Earthen levees attract animals that dig tunnels and cause damages, yet there is limited scientific knowledge on the extent of the problem and effective approaches to mitigate the risk. Recent experimental research has demonstrated the severe impact of animal burrows on levee safety, raising concerns among levee management authorities. The consortium's ambition is to provide levee managers with validated action perspectives for managing animal burrows, transitioning from a reactive to a proactive risk-based management approach. The objectives of the project include improving failure probability estimation in levee sections with animal burrows and enhancing risk mitigation capacity. This involves understanding animal behavior and failure processes, reviewing existing and testing new deterrence, detection, and monitoring approaches, and offering action perspectives for levee managers. Results will be integrated into an open-access wiki-platform for guidance of professionals and in education of the next generation. The project's methodology involves focus groups to review the state-of-the-art and set the scene for subsequent steps, fact-finding fieldwork to develop and evaluate risk reduction measures, modeling failure processes, and processing diverse quantitative and qualitative data. Progress workshops and collaboration with stakeholders will ensure relevant and supported solutions. By addressing the knowledge gaps and providing practical guidance, the project aims to enable levee managers to effectively manage animal burrows in levees, both during routine maintenance and high-water emergencies. With the increasing frequency of high river discharges and storm surges due to climate change, early detection and repair of animal burrows become even more crucial. The project's outcomes will contribute to a long-term vision of proactive risk-based management for levees, safeguarding the Netherlands and Belgium against flood risks.
communicative participation, language disordersOBJECTIVE(S)/RESEARCH QUESTION(S) Speech and language therapists (SLTs) are the primary care professionals to treat language and communication disorders. Their treatment is informed by a variety of outcome measures. At present, diagnosis, monitoring of progress and evaluation are often based on performance-based and clinician-reported outcomes such as results of standardized speech, language, voice, or communication tests. These tests typically aim to capture how well the person can produce or understand language in a controlled situation, and therefore only provide limited insight in the person’s challenges in life. Performance measures do not incorporate the unobservable feelings such as a patient's effort, social embarrassment, difficulty, or confidence in communication. Nor do they address language and communication difficulties experienced by the person themselves, the impact on daily life or allow patients to set goals related to their own needs and wishes. The aim of our study is give our patients a voice and empower SLTs to incorporate their patient's perspective in planning therapy. We will Aangemaakt door ProjectNet / Generated by ProjectNet: 08-12-2020 12:072Subsidieaanvraag_digitaal / Grant Application_digitaalDossier nummer / Dossier number: 80-86900-98-041DEFINITIEFdevelop a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measure that provides information on communicative participation of people with communication disorders and integrate this item bank in patient specific goal setting in speech and language therapy. Both the item bank and the goal setting method will be adapted in cocreation with patients to enable access for people with communication difficulties.STUDY DESIGN Mixed methods research design following the MRC guidance for process evaluation of complex interventions, using PROMIS methodology including psychometric evaluation and an iterative user-centered design with qualitative co-creation methods to develop accessible items and the goal setting method.RESEARCH POPULATION Children, adolescents and adults with speech, language, hearing, and voice disorders.OUTCOME MEASURES An online patient-reported outcome measure on communicative participation, the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB), CPIB items that are accessible for people with language understanding difficulties, a communicative-participation person-specific goal setting method developed with speech and language therapists and patients and tested on usability and feasibility in clinical practice, and a course for SLTs explaining the use of the goal-setting method in their clinical reasoning process.RELEVANCE This study answers one of the prioritized questions in the call for SLTs to systematically and reliably incorporate the clients’ perspective in their daily practice to improve the quality of SLT services. At present patient reported outcomes play only a small role in speech and language therapy because 1) measures (PROMS) are often invalid, not implemented and unsuitable for clinical practice and 2) there is a knowledge gap in how to capture and interpret outcomes from persons with language disorders.
