Voor iedereen die meer wil weten over de rol van taal en tekst in de vorm- en betekenisgeving van onze maatschappij is dit boek een aanrader. Het geeft een inleiding op de kritische discoursanalyse (KDA), een discipline die in de jaren negentig is ontwikkeld en taalkunde en sociologie met elkaar combineert. Kritische discoursanalyse richt zich op de analyse van de relatie tussen taal en de instandhouding van machtsrelaties binnen de maatschappij, binnen organisaties en binnen familieverbanden. U komt in dit boek verschillende filosofen tegen, zoals Foucault, Bourdieu, Habermas en Gramsci. U raakt vertrouwd met centrale begrippen uit de kritische discoursanalyse zoals narratieven, frames, articulatie, intertextualiteit en interdiscursiviteit. Door de vele voorbeelden uit de praktijk en de actualiteit raakt u snel met deze begrippen vertrouwd en zult u ze ook zelf gaan herkennen. U zult zien dat taal niet alleen een instrument is om te communiceren over deze wereld, maar ook een middel om de werkelijkheid vorm te geven. Door taalgebruik legt u een verband tussen uzelf en anderen; u construeert uw beeld van de werkelijkheid en presenteert dit beeld aan uw gesprekspartners. Kritische discoursanalyse richt zich zowel tot het brede publiek als tot (praktijk)onderzoekers en is van belang voor iedereen die zich interesseert voor het verband tussen taal en maatschappelijke en politieke processen. "Met dit eerste boek in het Nederlands over Kritische Discours Analyse (KDA) verschaffen de auteurs een waardevolle bijdrage aan theorie en praktijk van de analyse van de fundamentele rol van tekst en taalgebruik in de vorming en bestendiging van machtsmisbruik in de samenleving." (Teun van Dijk) "This book is a thorough introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and an illustration of its practical application ( ) It is a substantive contribution to the CDA literature ( )" (Norman Fairclough) "This book is an excellent updated and very well written overview and introduction to relevant approaches to Critical Discourse Studies. ( ) The authors have succeeded in writing a book which will become a necessary companion for graduate students and scholars throughout their research." (Ruth Wodak)
With contributions from over 30 international legal scholars, this topical Research Handbook on International Food Law provides a reflective and crucial examination of the rules, power dynamics, legal doctrines, societal norms, and frameworks that govern the modern global food system. The Research Handbook analyses the interlinkages between producers and consumers of food, as well as the environmental effects of the global food network and the repercussions on human health. Chapters explore the development of food law and governance strategies, the regulation of novel foods, including insects, and the application of technology and science in food production, such as genetically engineered food. The insightful contributions examine the legal challenges facing the global food system and suggest practical recommendations for future research and reform. Providing a comprehensive and interdisciplinary perspective on the complex legal landscape of food production and consumption, this Research Handbook will be essential reading for students and scholars of food law, consumer law, public international law, and regulation and governance, as well as food system advocates, international lawyers, and policymakers.
LINK
Eight deaf scholars come together to reflect on their experiences with exclusionary practices in the academy that contribute to feelings of imposterism, otherness, and not-belonging. The combined powers of ableism, audism, and negative attitudes about signed languages generate tension as deaf academics affirm their place within higher education institutions and fields of research. Across individual and shared experiences, they narrate about hostility towards disability and sign languages, reflecting on how such hostilities work towards excluding signing deaf scholars. As disability rights legislation increased access for deaf academics, gaps exist in which ableism continues to function as an institutional barrier. In spite of exclusionary practices and negative attitudes, deaf academics have organized ways to be resilient as they argue they make valuable contributions to scholarly discourses.
LINK
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.
The scientific publishing industry is rapidly transitioning towards information analytics. This shift is disproportionately benefiting large companies. These can afford to deploy digital technologies like knowledge graphs that can index their contents and create advanced search engines. Small and medium publishing enterprises, instead, often lack the resources to fully embrace such digital transformations. This divide is acutely felt in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Scholars from these disciplines are largely unable to benefit from modern scientific search engines, because their publishing ecosystem is made of many specialized businesses which cannot, individually, develop comparable services. We propose to start bridging this gap by democratizing access to knowledge graphs – the technology underpinning modern scientific search engines – for small and medium publishers in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Their contents, largely made of books, already contain rich, structured information – such as references and indexes – which can be automatically mined and interlinked. We plan to develop a framework for extracting structured information and create knowledge graphs from it. We will as much as possible consolidate existing proven technologies into a single codebase, instead of reinventing the wheel. Our consortium is a collaboration of researchers in scientific information mining, Odoma, an AI consulting company, and the publisher Brill, sharing its data and expertise. Brill will be able to immediately put to use the project results to improve its internal processes and services. Furthermore, our results will be published in open source with a commercial-friendly license, in order to foster the adoption and future development of the framework by other publishers. Ultimately, our proposal is an example of industry innovation where, instead of scaling-up, we scale wide by creating a common resource which many small players can then use and expand upon.
The reclaiming of street spaces for pedestrians during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as on Witte de Withstraat in Rotterdam, appears to have multiple benefits: It allows people to escape the potentially infected indoor air, limits accessibility for cars and reduces emissions. Before ordering their coffee or food, people may want to check one of the many wind and weather apps, such as windy.com: These apps display the air quality at any given time, including, for example, the amount of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a gas responsible for an increasing number of health issues, particularly respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Ships and heavy industry in the nearby Port of Rotterdam, Europe’s largest seaport, exacerbate air pollution in the region. Not surprisingly, in 2020 Rotterdam was ranked as one of the unhealthiest cities in the Netherlands, according to research on the health of cities conducted by Arcadis. Reducing air pollution is a key target for the Port Authority and the City of Rotterdam. Missing, however, is widespread awareness among citizens about how air pollution links to socio-spatial development, and thus to the future of the port city cluster of Rotterdam. To encourage awareness and counter the problem of "out of sight - out of mind," filmmaker Entrop&DeZwartFIlms together with ONSTV/NostalgieNet, and Rotterdam Veldakademie, are collaborating with historians of the built environment and computer science and public health from TU Delft and Erasmus University working on a spatial data platform to visualize air pollution dynamics and socio-economic datasets in the Rotterdam region. Following discussion of findings with key stakeholders, we will make a pilot TV-documentary. The documentary, discussed first with Rotterdam citizens, will set the stage for more documentaries on European and international cities, focusing on the health effects—positive and negative—of living and working near ports in the past, present, and future.
