Search results

The call for a new paradigm in politics and governance has become a planetary imperative. Humanity is at a critical juncture; unless we mature as a species and become net-positive to nature the human experiment may (soon) end. We have become our own biggest threat. This chapter explores the foundations, as well as systemic barriers, for the shift to a new and life-centred paradigm in politics and governance. Offering a systemic exploration of the root causes of our sustainability crises and how to address this, based on the cosmology and evolutionary principles of complex living systems. Applying Living Systems Protocols from the EARTHwise Constitution for a Planetary Civilization, and its framework of five Future Archetypes, for developing our transformative capacities to address the systemic thrivability barriers of mechanistic systems and worldviews. With case-study examples of new paradigm tools, systems and technologies that enable a decentralization of governance and democratization of ownership. As such empowering the systemic conditions and maturation pathways for a thriving planetary civilization. The chapter completes with a brief practice for developing our future human capacities and inner consciousness shifts for a new paradigm in politics and governance.

Innovation ecosystems consist of independent and yet interdependent enterprises and actors. This constitutes a challenge for innovation leadership to set the direction to pursue UN SDGs. Enhanced insights and understandings of how collaborative innovation leadership can be conducted in practice are revealed in two cases conducted using a participatory action research approach. Hereby theory and practice are linked by the ecosystem participant actions to reach competitiveness of the offshore wind energy ecosystem compared to traditional/other renewable energy sources pursuing UN SDG number 7 of ‘affordable and clean energy’. The two cases are situated in ports in offshore wind energy innovation ecosystems, respectively in the Baltic Sea and in the North Sea. The first case contains complementary ecosystem participants with both leadership and expert positions. The second case contains both complementary and competitive ecosystem participants with leadership positions. The findings note that both cases can use collaborative innovation leadership through the point of origin in the guiding star of the value proposition at ecosystem level to go beyond their own enterprise self-interest. Next, collaborative innovation leadership is based in heterogeneities of both knowledge domains and individual and organisational behaviours for the innovative imagination of future needed initiatives for collaborative design-based sensemaking. A short-term challenge is present from reduced revenue in own enterprise from future needed initiatives. This short-term impact needs to be addressed for enhanced long-term robustness. The findings are summarised in a model for dissemination of collaborative innovation leadership in ecosystems to pursue UN SDGs in practice.

This chapter provides an overview of the current state of research policy and research management and administration (RMA) in Kenya. Although RMA is an emerging field globally, it is not yet fully recognised in Kenya. The main objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the vibrant research environment in Kenya, its most important challenges in the field of management and administration of research, and how some Kenyan Universities are dealing with them.

The findings in this chapter are based first on a research policy documents analysis and on literature review. In a second phase, qualitative data were collected through desk-based research and informant questionnaires and interviews.

In the conclusions, concrete suggestions are formulated that could support the enrichment of the research environment, find solutions for RMA-related challenges, but also lead to the development and establishment of RMA as a profession in the country.

The fifth industrial revolution, known as Industry 5.0, envisions an industry that is innovative, resilient, socio-centric, and competitive while minimizing negative environmental and social impacts, respecting people, the planet, and prosperity. Industry 5.0 is replacing earlier advancements and it is successful because it reaches the pinnacle of perfection. Additionally, machine work saves human workers time and effort. It is built on the concept of fusing digitalization elements from the fourth industrial revolution with Sustainable Development Goals through human-centric solutions, bio-inspired technologies, and secure data transfer. Industry 5.0 mentions about the various opportunities, constraints, and potential directions for future research. Industry 5.0 places less emphasis on technology and focus on human collaboration for progress, it supposed to have a shift in existing paradigm. Industry 5.0 is necessary in contemporary business with the paid technology advancements in order to get competitive advantages as well as economic growth for the manufacturing and it has three drivers: “green transition”, “digital transition”, and “competitive transition”. The goal of green transition is to prevent climate change and environmental degradation. This necessitates changes to current economic growth strategies. The goal of digital transition is to support the circular economy by modernizing digital strategies in terms of digital skills, data, technologies, and infrastructure. Competitive transition aims to convert marketing policies, regulations, standards to increase people's prosperity and business value. It focuses on business and marketing rules that are fair, competitive, innovative, and adaptable.

The case of Africa is important in understanding the growth of research management as a profession. Africa has rapidly increased its research output in recent years, and its institutions are increasingly in demand as research partners. Yet research management structures have developed from a very low base, and need not be confined by past practice. Through the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA), it has been represented since the origins of International Networks of Research Management Societies (INORMS). Several external donors have sought to help build research management structures on the continent, and the success (or otherwise) of these initiatives can tell us much about the potential for common research management structures globally.

This chapter does not provide a comprehensive account of progress over the past two decades, or a complete list of relevant initiatives. Rather, it reflects on whether international assistance and collaboration have made a meaningful contribution to the progress that has been made, and its strengths and limitations. It considers how far growth would have happened regardless of funder intervention, or indeed whether international partners have inhibited progress by prioritising their own norms and priorities. It asks uncomfortable questions for funders about the way in which they plan and evaluate their work.

Both guidance to transport planning practitioners and scientific literature advocate the adoption of in-depth and inclusive participation and consultation methods when developing new transport plans and measures. The motivations for this normative stance are however unclear, other than general statements that public participation is inherently a good thing, and that new forms of transport planning must be different from what has gone before. However, these documents cite little or no evidence to demonstrate that more participatory transport planning has produced ‘better’ decisions or outcomes. It is also important to note that the legitimacy conferred on governments from adopting this form of participation and consultation is only one of several forms of legitimacy. The purpose of this chapter is thus to attempt to assess whether more participatory approaches to transport planning do indeed lead to ‘better’ decisions and outcomes. It does this by developing, based on the literature, a number of criteria by which to judge the decisions made and outcomes delivered. It then reviews the experience of consultation and participation in a non-random sample of four pairs of transport plans or measures, and evaluates the experience in each against the criteria developed. It finds little evidence that more in-depth and inclusive participation processes that follow the normative stance found in practitioner guidance and the literature lead to better outcomes, and some evidence that such processes may in some cases compromise legitimacy by slowing and changing measure implementation.

This chapter offers an original conceptualization of co-mentoring – situated in the wider literature – together with evidence of its impact and factors facilitating impact across applications of co-mentoring in transnational schooling contexts. Co-mentoring is an alternative to more traditional, hierarchical, and unidirectional approaches to mentoring in education. Extending the extant literature on collaborative mentoring (or “comentoring”), co-mentoring is a collaborative, compassionate, and developmental relationship – informed by specific approaches to mentoring and coaching – that is intended to support participants' professional learning, development, effectiveness, and well-being, and potentially improve their workplace cultures. Detailing three different applications of co-mentoring across the United Kingdom and United States, the chapter evidences the realization of these intended outcomes (professional learning, etc.), and highlights factors found to be instrumental in facilitating the positive impacts of co-mentoring. We end with recommendations for undertaking research and practice that build human and organizational capacity through co-mentoring. A takeaway is that intentional approaches to co-mentoring can have value for participating parties and broader impact, as well as wide applicability.