Suchergebnisse

The effectiveness of societal interaction has become a key aspect in evaluating the success of higher education institutions (HEIs) in performing their duties. These factors have been built into institutional funding models, and the funding of research follows a similar approach. External stakeholders are now having to share in undertaking some of the functions that will define higher education institutions' external activities, societal interaction and impact on society. The European Union's smart specialisation strategy is such a factor. This initiative allows higher education institutions to implement policies by building regional clusters. The counterparts of higher education institutions in these clusters of smart specialisation are knowledge-intensive enterprises, high-tech service providers, educational institutions, the Arctic Smartness Specialisation Platform and other centers of expertise for smart specialisation. In this paper, we have analysed the role of higher education institutions as knowledge brokers in smart specialisation though a qualitative analysis of 20 interviews conducted during the implementation of the smart specialisation project. Our findings show that the knowledge broker role can be promoted from four perspectives: the social dimension of networks; decision-making and control; cluster building; and exchange elements. The clarification and legitimation of the role of higher education institutions as knowledge brokers in these areas would give smart specialisation more impetus to reach its goals.

Chapter 1. Introduction: Setting the stage -- Chapter 2. "There is Freedom of Religion in Finland, but…": The Helsinki Mosque Debate -- Chapter 3. Laestadians in "the world": reading the biggest Christian revival movement in Finland -- Chapter 4. Religious literacy and the governance of religious diversity in multi-faith schools: The Case of Islam -- Chapter 5. Islamic Divorce in Finland and Role of Mosques: Revisiting Binaries -- Chapter 6. Prevention of violent radicalization and extremism in Finland: the role of religious literacy -- Chapter 7. Conclusions: Religious literacy promotes absorptive capacity, inclusion and reflexivity in society.

This article aims to investigate whether national differences in the institutionalization of the binary divide between universities and Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) lead to different outcomes in performing Academics' Societal Engagement (ASE). Two institutional theory-based core differences of European binary higher education (HE) systems were used to select a theory-led purposeful sample: First, the sequence of UASinstitutionalization and ASE-policy emphasis and second the political drive for a practically oriented research drift. Based on the Finnish, German and Portuguese survey data provided by the cross-country study ''Academic Profession in Knowledge Society,'' three dimensions of ASE are derived: techno-commercial ASE, dissemination ASE and training-related ASE. These ASE-dimensions cover the diversity of ASE across different disciplinary fields. Survey results of the Finnish sample show that all three ASE-dimensions are more strongly performed by UAS-academics than by university-academics. In Germany, robust stronger correlations of research (productivity) and all three ASE-dimensions for UAS-academics, compared to university-academics, were observed. In Portugal, convergence of ASE performed by UAS-academics and university-academics was indicated. Thus, core country-differences in the institutionalization of ASE in binary HE-systems are reflected in the results. ; This article aims to investigate whether national differences in the institutionalization of the binary divide between universities and Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) lead to different outcomes in performing Academics' Societal Engagement (ASE). Two institutional theory-based core differences of European binary higher education (HE) systems were used to select a theory-led purposeful sample: First, the sequence of UAS-institutionalization and ASE-policy emphasis and second the political drive for a practically oriented research drift. Based on the Finnish, German and Portuguese survey data provided by the cross-country study "Academic Profession in Knowledge Society," three dimensions of ASE are derived: techno-commercial ASE, dissemination ASE and training-related ASE. These ASE-dimensions cover the diversity of ASE across different disciplinary fields. Survey results of the Finnish sample show that all three ASE-dimensions are more strongly performed by UAS-academics than by university-academics. In Germany, robust stronger correlations of research (productivity) and all three ASE-dimensions for UAS-academics, compared to university-academics, were observed. In Portugal, convergence of ASE performed by UAS-academics and university-academics was indicated. Thus, core country-differences in the institutionalization of ASE in binary HE-systems are reflected in the results.

The paper contributes to the existing literature on reactions to economic shocks by adding a specific comparative focus on core welfare sectors within the Nordic region. Comparing crisis reactions across two countries using a framework of "cost saving", "reorganisation" and "programme" logic reveals patterns and constraints in different institutional settings. The paper concludes that Denmark and Norway initially tried to shelter the health care and higher education sectors, but they have moved on to more radical strategic responses as the crisis has persisted. Many similarities in the crisis reactions are apparent across the two countries and sectors, but important differences are also clear that may be ascribed to the specific institutional contexts.

Healthcare has traditionally been heavily influenced by health professionals and managers, but it is increasingly recognised that patients' experiences and voices can play key roles in the development and design of sustainable healthcare services. In this article, we take an exploratory approach to user involvement (UI) in healthcare in two Nordic countries – Finland and Norway. Our theoretical and analytical approach draws on recent works by Dent and Pahor (2015) and Vrangbæk (2015), focusing on three types of participation – choice, voice and co-production. According to our results, these three types of UI have become more visible and acknowledged at the level of national policies in both countries. However, it seems that UI is more entrenched in the governance structures of Norwegian healthcare. The types of involvement are also different. In Finland, the emphasis seems to be on the consumerist ways of involvement, while in Norway, the focus has been more on co-production and voice.

The current policy brief is the second one out of three that will be published during the PE2020 project. This policy brief has three aims: 1) it describes how we conceptualise public engagement, 2) it introduces a model of public engagement that supports dynamic and responsible governance of research and innovation and 3) it presents the lessons learned from seven pilot projects of the PE2020 project. Policy implications are included. Discussions at the policy conference will be utilized in the development of concrete policy recommendations that will be sent to the conference participants in early December 2016.

The field of public participation is developing fast, with phenomena such as citizen science and crowdsourcing extending the resource base of research, stimulating innovation and making science more accessible to the general population. Promoting public participation means giving more weight to citizens and civil society actors in the definition of research needs and in the implementation of research and innovation. As yet, there is limited understanding of the implications of widespread use of public participation and as a result, there is a risk that it will become a burden for research and an obstacle to bridging the gap between research and society. This volume presents the findings of a three-year international study on innovative public participation. The resulting work studies the characteristics and trends of innovative public participation through a global sample of 38 case studies. It provides theoretical generalisations on the dynamics of public participation, suggestions for an evaluation framework and clear empirical examples of how public participation works in practice. Illustrated by best practice cases, the authors identify characteristics which contribute to successful public participation. The book is aimed primarily at scholars and practitioners of public participation, as well as research managers, policy makers and business actors interested in related issues. There is also a secondary market for students and scholars of European governance studies, sociology and political sciences.

The field of public participation is developing fast, with phenomena such as citizen science and crowdsourcing extending the resource base of research, stimulating innovation and making science more accessible to the general population.Promoting public participation means giving more weight to citizens and civil society actors in the definition of research needs and in the implementation of research and innovation. As yet, there is limited understanding of the implications of widespread use of public participation and as a result, there is a risk that it will become a burden for research and an obstacle to bridging the gap between research and society. This volume presents the findings of a three-year international study on innovative public participation. The resulting work studies the characteristics and trends of innovative public participation through a global sample of 38 case studies. It provides theoretical generalisations on the dynamics of public participation, suggestions for an evaluation framework and clear empirical examples of how public participation works in practice. Illustrated by best practice cases, the authors identify characteristics which contribute to successful public participation. The book is aimed primarily at scholars and practitioners of public participation, as well as research managers, policy makers and business actors interested in related issues. There is also a secondary market for students and scholars of European governance studies, sociology and political sciences.

The field of public participation is developing fast, with phenomena such as citizen science and crowdsourcing extending the resource base of research, stimulating innovation and making science more accessible to the general population. Promoting public participation means giving more weight to citizens and civil society actors in the definition of research needs and in the implementation of research and innovation. As yet, there is limited understanding of the implications of widespread use of public participation and as a result, there is a risk that it will become a burden for research and an obstacle to bridging the gap between research and society. This volume presents the findings of a three-year international study on innovative public participation. The resulting work studies the characteristics and trends of innovative public participation through a global sample of 38 case studies. It provides theoretical generalisations on the dynamics of public participation, suggestions for an evaluation framework and clear empirical examples of how public participation works in practice. Illustrated by best practice cases, the authors identify characteristics which contribute to successful public participation. The book is aimed primarily at scholars and practitioners of public participation, as well as research managers, policy makers and business actors interested in related issues. There is also a secondary market for students and scholars of European governance studies, sociology and political sciences.

This title is published in Open Access with the support of the University of Helsinki. ; The field of public participation is developing fast, with phenomena such as citizen science and crowdsourcing extending the resource base of research, stimulating innovation and making science more accessible to the general population. Promoting public participation means giving more weight to citizens and civil society actors in the definition of research needs and in the implementation of research and innovation. As yet, there is limited understanding of the implications of widespread use of public participation and as a result, there is a risk that it will become a burden for research and an obstacle to bridging the gap between research and society. This volume presents the findings of a three-year international study on innovative public participation. The resulting work studies the characteristics and trends of innovative public participation through a global sample of 38 case studies. It provides theoretical generalisations on the dynamics of public participation, suggestions for an evaluation framework and clear empirical examples of how public participation works in practice. Illustrated by best practice cases, the authors identify characteristics which contribute to successful public participation. The book is aimed primarily at scholars and practitioners of public participation, as well as research managers, policy makers and business actors interested in related issues. There is also a secondary market for students and scholars of European governance studies, sociology and political sciences.

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- List of figures -- List of tables -- List of boxes -- Notes on contributors -- Foreword -- Preface -- Acknowledgement -- Acronyms and abbreviations -- PART I Analytical framework: how to study public engagement -- 1 Introduction: PE in the context of research and innovation -- 2 Methodology: exploring and evaluating innovative PE processes -- 3 Conceptual framework: PE as part of dynamic and responsible governance of R&I -- 4 Research questions -- PART II Results: learnings from innovative PE processes -- 5 Empirical data: what kind of cases are studied -- 6 What makes PE innovative -- 7 What is participatory performance? -- 8 How to evaluate PE -- 9 Discussion: what are the benefits and limitations of PE in developing better R&I activity? -- References -- Index