Compared to macroeconomic factors, the financial situation of the individual may provide better insight into the relationship between debt and crime. However, the relationship between debt and crime is still unclear and little is known about the causality of this relationship and the factors that influence it. To obtain more insight into this relationship, a systematic and scoping literature review was conducted. Five articles were analyzed in the systematic review, and 24 articles in the scoping review. The results of the systematic review show a strong association between debt and crime whereby debt is a risk factor for crime, especially for recidivism and regardless of the type of crime, and crime is a risk factor for debt. The scoping review provided additional and in-depth insight, and placed the results of the systematic review in a broader perspective. Moreover, it emphasized the prevalence of debt among offenders, regardless of age, and identified the factors that influence the relationship between debt and crime.
To adequately deal with the challenges faced within residential care for older people, such as the increasing complexity of care and a call for more person-centred practices, it is important that health care providers learn from their work. This study investigates both the nature of learning, among staff and students working within care for older people, and how workplace learning can be promoted and researched. During a longitudinal study within a nursing home, participatory and democratic research methods were used to collaborate with stakeholders to improve the quality of care and to promote learning in the workplace. The rich descriptions of these processes show that workplace learning is a complex phenomenon. It arises continuously in reciprocal relationship with all those present through which both individuals and environment change and co-evolve enabling enlargement of the space for possible action. This complexity perspective on learning refines and expands conventional beliefs about workplace learning and has implications for advancing and researching learning. It explains that research on workplace learning is itself a form of learning that is aimed at promoting and accelerating learning. Such research requires dialogic and creative methods. This study illustrates that workplace learning has the potential to develop new shared values and ways of working, but that such processes and outcomes are difficult to control. It offers inspiration for educators, supervisors, managers and researchers as to promoting conditions that embrace complexity and provides insight into the role and position of self in such processes.
BackgroundThe challenge of combining professional work and breastfeeding is a key reason why women choose not to breastfeed or to stop breastfeeding early. We posited that having access to a high-quality lactation room at the workplace could influence working mothers’ satisfaction and perceptions related to expressing breast milk at work, which could have important longer term consequences for the duration of breastfeeding. Specifically, we aimed to (1) develop a checklist for assessing the quality of lactation rooms and (2) explore how lactation room quality affects lactating mothers’ satisfaction and perceptions. Drawing on social ecological insights, we hypothesized that the quality of lactation rooms (operationalized as any space used for expressing milk at work) would be positively related to mothers’ satisfaction with the room, perceived ease of, and perceived support for milk expression at work.MethodsWe conducted two studies. In Study 1 we developed a lactation room quality checklist (LRQC) and assessed its reliability twice, using samples of 33 lactation rooms (Study 1a) and 31 lactation rooms (Study 1b). Data were collected in the Northern part of the Netherlands (between December 2016 and April 2017). Study 2 comprised a cross-sectional survey of 511 lactating mothers, working in a variety of Dutch organizations. The mothers were recruited through the Facebook page of a popular Dutch breastfeeding website. They completed online questionnaires containing the LRQC and measures aimed at assessing their satisfaction and perceptions related to milk expression at work (in June and July 2017).ResultsThe LRQC was deemed reliable and easy to apply in practice. As predicted, we found that objectively assessed higher-quality lactation rooms were associated with increased levels of satisfaction with the lactation rooms, perceived ease of milk expression at work, and perceived support from supervisors and co-workers for expressing milk in the workplace.ConclusionsThe availability of a high-quality lactation room could influence mothers’ decisions regarding breast milk expression at work and the commencement and/or continuation of breastfeeding. Future studies should explore whether and how lactation room quality affects breastfeeding choices, and which aspects are most important to include in lactation rooms.
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.
This PD project explores alternative approaches to audiovisual technologies in art and creative practices by reimagining and reinventing marginalized and decommodified devices through Media Archaeology, artistic experimentation, and hands-on technical reinvention. This research employs Media Archaeology to uncover “obsolete” yet artistically relevant technologies and hands-on technical reinvention to adapt these tools for contemporary creative practices. It seeks to develop experimental self-built devices that critically engage with media materiality, exploring alternative aesthetic possibilities through practice-based investigations into the cultural and historical dimensions of media technologies. These developments provide artists with new creative possibilities beyond mainstream commercial standardized tools and infrastructures. A key component of this project is collaborative innovation with artist-run analog film communities, such as Filmwerkplaats. By fostering knowledge exchange and artistic experimentation, this research ensures that reinvented tools remain relevant to both analog film communities and contemporary media art practices. The intended outcomes directly benefit two key groups: • Artist-run film labs gain sustainable methods for evolving their practices, reducing dependence on scarce, out-of-production equipment. • Digital-native artists are introduced to alternative methods for engaging with analog processes and media materiality, expanding their creative toolkit. This collaboration also strengthens art and design education by embedding alternative technological perspectives and research methodologies into curricula, providing students and practitioners with resourceful, sustainable approaches to working with technology. It advocates for a more diverse educational paradigm that incorporates media-technological history and critical reflection on the ideologies of linear technological progress. Ultimately, this research fosters critical discourse on media culture, challenges the dominance of corporate proprietary systems, and promotes innovation, redefining the relationship between creativity and technology.
GAMEHEARTS will seek to maximise the value of the European videogame industry ecosystems (hereafter, EVGIE) within a wider social context of the creative and cultural industries (hereafter, CCI). This will consider the importance of the EVGIE in contributing to economic growth, job creation, physical and mental wellbeing, and social and cultural cohesion, by particularly focusing on, how a stronger and closer working relationship between more the traditional and emergent cultural sectors, can work better to create more inclusive and socially responsible cultural experiences. The consortium will offer policy recommendations and roadmaps setting out how the EVGIE can and should develop, and where it could act as a driver for sustained innovation and economic growth. It will utilise an evidence-based approach that focuses not just on videogame development, but rather adopts a holistic ecosystem approach, utilising both established and more innovative methodologies, to consider the competitiveness and development of the EVGIE, and how videogame know-how and technologies could drive innovation in the wider CCI. In doing so, GAMEHEARTS will develop ‘ludic experiences’, to explore possibilities of more inclusive, engaging, and empowering cultural experiences. Working across seven work packages the universities of Salford (UK), Tampere (Finland), Vienna (Austria), Breda University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands), and Wroclaw University of Economics and Business (Poland) will work in parentship with Ubisoft (France) and other major videogame partners and associations (including the ISFE & EGDF) to explore current and future trends in the EVGIE.
