This study examined associations between support behavior, i.e. active engagement and protective buffering, and relationship satisfaction in both patients with diabetes and their partners. Active engagement refers to supportive behavior characterized by involving one's partner in discussions, asking how the other feels, and problem solving strategies. Protective buffering refers to less supportive behavior characterized by denying fears and worries, and by pretending everything is fine. Furthermore, we examined whether there were interactive effects of these two support behaviors on patients' and partners' relationship satisfaction. At baseline (T1), 205 couples rated to which degree they received active engagement and protective buffering from their partners, and completed a measure of relationship satisfaction. At three follow-up assessments, couples were asked to fill out the same measures. Using dyadic data analytic approaches, we found relationship satisfaction to be positively associated with active engagement, and negatively with protective buffering, in both patients and partners. Moreover, we found a moderating effect, in that the negative association between protective buffering and relationship satisfaction was only present when levels of active engagement were relatively low. Again, these results were found for patients as well as their partners. We were able to replicate the T1 results at the other three assessment points. Our findings illustrate the need to consider adequate and less adequate support behaviors simultaneously, and to study the effects on both patients and partners.
This paper reports on the effects of an e-cycling stimulation program on travel satisfaction in the province of North-Brabant, the Netherlands. The program was designed to stimulate car-commuters to shift to e-bike in daily commuting, earning a monetary incentive for each kilometre e-cycled. With a longitudinal design, this study shows a significant increase in travel satisfaction when switching from car to e-bike. Starting from an average slightly positive satisfaction with car commuting, participants reported an extremely positive expected travel satisfaction by e-bike. Although a bit less than expected, the experienced travel satisfaction with e-cycling was high after a period of a month and even increased in the following period of half a year. Where the participants can be sub-divided into car-only and multi-modal car-commuters, this distinction does not show in the experienced travel satisfaction with e-cycling. Our study indicates that the hedonic treadmill mechanism does not automatically apply to the satisfaction with e-cycling. Multivariate analyses suggest that the increase in the travel satisfaction is affected by self-reported health, car ownership, urbanization degree, whether car use and e-cycling are experienced as strenuous, congestion on the route and the attractiveness of the cycle route.
LINK
OBJECTIVES: This study compares the scope of practice of Dutch dental hygienists (DHs) educated through a 2- or 3-year curriculum ('old-style DHs') with that of hygienists educated through a new extended 4-year curriculum leading to a bachelor's degree ('new-style DHs'), with the aim to investigate whether an extended scope of practice positively affects perceived skill variety, autonomy and job satisfaction.METHODS: The questionnaires were obtained from old- and new-style DHs (n = 413, response 38%; n = 219, response 59%, respectively), in which respondents had recorded their dental tasks, perceived skill variety, autonomy and job satisfaction. T -tests were used to analyse differences between old- and new-style DHs, and regression analyses were performed to assess the relation between scope of practice and skill variety, autonomy and job satisfaction.RESULTS: New-style DHs have a more extended scope of practice compared with old-style DHs. Despite their more complex jobs, which are theoretically related to higher job satisfaction, new-style DHs perceive lower autonomy and job satisfaction (P < 0.05). Skill variety is the strongest predictor for DHs' job satisfaction (β = 0.462), followed by autonomy (β = 0.202) and caries decisive tasks, the last affecting job satisfaction negatively (β = -0.149). Self-employment is the strongest significant predictor for autonomy (β = 0.272).CONCLUSIONS: The core business of DHs remains the prevention and periodontology services. New-style DHs combine these tasks with extended tasks in the caries field, which can lead to comparatively less job satisfaction, because of a lower experienced autonomy in performing these extended tasks.
One of the mission-driven innovation policies of the Netherlands is energy transition which sets, among others, the challenge for a carbon-neutral built environment in 2050. Around 41% of Dutch houses do not yet have a registered energy label, and approximately 31% of the registered houses have label C or lower. This calls for action within the housing renovation industry. Bound to the 70 percent rule, a renovation plan requires full (or at least 70 percent) agreement on the renovation between relevant parties, including residents. In practice, agreement indicators focus mostly on economic and energy aspects. When indicators include people’s needs and preferences, it is expected to speed participation and agreement, increasing residents’ satisfaction and enhances the trust in public institutions. Tsavo was founded in 2015 to organise the sustainability of buildings for ambitious clients. Its sustainability process aims to accelerate renovation by keeping at their core value the social needs and preferences of residents. In this project Tsavo and TU Delft work together to optimise the sustainability process so, it includes everyone’s input and results in a sustainability plan that represents everyone. Tsavo’s role will be key in keeping the balance between both a sustainable renovation service that is cheaper and fast yet also attractive and with an impact on the quality of living. In this project, Tsavo’s sustainable renovation projects will be used to implement methods that focus on increasing participation and residents’ satisfaction. TU Delft will explore principles of attractive, accessible and representative activities to stimulate residents to decide on a renovation plan that is essential and meaningful to all.
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.
E-cycling intelligence is a research project directly connected to the PhD-research of Joost de Kruijf at the Utrecht University. Within the program the effects of the introduction of e-bikes in daily commuting are being investigated. Using a large-scale incentive program targeting on behavioral change among car-oriented commuters the next four specific components are being :- Modal shift to e-cycling- Well-being and travel satisfaction of e-bikes vs. car- Weather circumstances and e-cycling- Behavioral intention to e-bike vs. actual behavior Using a combination of three surveys (baseline, one month and half a year) and continuous GPS-measurement on the behavior of more than 800 participants makes this research unique. In collaboration with the TU/e the GPS-dataset is being translated into relevant information on modal shift on different trip purposes offering a new range of possibilities to analyses behavioral change. Knowledge on every of the four topics in the project is translated scientific paper. The expected end of the project is July 2021.With the research not new insights are being gained, the Breda University of Applied Sciences also develops a scientific network of cycling related researchers together with a network of cycling engaged road authorities.
