Search results

Using a case study analysis of one undergraduate program that focuses on training science majors to perform sustainability outreach in their communities, this study offers pedagogical suggestions for how educators in universities might incorporate sustainability and activism into their curricular design.

This chapter discusses the relationship between the hard academic knowledge of the classroom and the outreach work done by the students by examining how curricular design and classroom activities lead to outreach work. Drawing on interviews, curriculum materials, and observations of staff meetings, this chapter examines how the course teachers use a peer-learning model to collaboratively develop the pedagogy of the classroom.

This model of teacher training through engagement with the content material of the course represents reflective learning practices. By being asked to break down and contextualize class themes and units for themselves as thinkers, the teachers first reflect on their own learning process and disciplinary participation as a way of developing course material for their students, who are themselves not incredibly far behind their facilitators in their own learning development.

The effectiveness of this practice suggests possibilities for using teacher training as a way to model the classroom space that each discipline believes best serve their learning goals. By first reflecting on their own individual relationship to the subject material, the teachers engage in a re-negotiation with knowledge that is synonymous with effective learning. The knowledge of the discipline is constantly re-negotiated around why that knowledge matters for each individual member of the discipline.

By considering how the classroom in this program combines disciplinary knowledge of environmental science with outreach and activist-oriented praxis, this case study analysis allows for pedagogical techniques that instructors might use with similar goals of combining traditional academic discourse with public outreach and participation.

The need for developing new entrepreneurial ways of thinking and acting has been in the agenda for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Union countries. In line with their agenda, the Nordic Council of Ministers has been preoccupied with the development of entrepreneurial mindsets among the adult population. Seeking to meet the urgent need for developing entrepreneurial thinking, the Nordic Network for Adult Learning, together with the Nordic Council of Ministers, has elaborated and tested a Scandinavian model for stimulating entrepreneurial mindsets through the transformative learning circles. Based on the study of the TLC pilot project, this chapter explores the process of facilitation of entrepreneurial learning. The literature on entrepreneurial learning and education emphasises on the importance of facilitation; however, this issue is yet to be addressed in-depth. This chapter seeks to fill in this gap and contribute to our understanding of the role that facilitators play in the entrepreneurial and transformative learning processes. Drawing on the social constructionist approach to learning, this chapter discusses how facilitators and learners (entrepreneurs) become co-creators of knowledge and learning experiences.

Scientific publishing has recently faced challenges in dealing with questionable (predatory and hijacked) journals. The presence of questionable journals in any field, including management science, will yield junk science. Although there are studies about questionable journals in other fields, these journals have not yet been examined in the field of business and management. This study aims to identify facilitators and barriers to dealing with questionable journals in management science.

A Delphi research method consisting of three rounds was used in this study. Data were collected from 12 experts in the first two rounds, and ten experts in the final round.

The present study shows that management science is vulnerable to questionable journals. A total of 18 barriers and eight facilitators to dealing with questionable journals in management science were found. The present study also identifies some new barriers and facilitators for avoiding questionable journals, which are specific to management science and have not been identified in previous research. Most of these barriers and facilitators were identified as “important” or “very important”. Publishers and scientific databases, government, the research community and universities and research centers were identified as critical players in overcoming challenges posed by questionable journals.

The number of articles that investigate predatory journals in management science is limited, and there is no research focused specifically on hijacked journals in this field. This study identifies facilitators and obstacles to dealing with predatory and hijacked journals in the field of management, by gathering opinions from experts. Thus it is the first study to examine hijacked journals in the field of management science. It is also one of the few studies that examine predatory and hijacked journals by conducting exploratory research rather than with a descriptive/conceptual approach.

Relatively few studies have examined the perspectives of informal learning facilitators who play key roles in cultivating an equitable learning environment for nondominant youth and families in making and tinkering spaces. This study aims to foreground the perspectives of facilitators and highlight the complexities and tensions that influence their equity work.

Interviews were conducted with facilitators of making and tinkering spaces across three informal learning organizations: a museum, a public library system and a network of community technology centers. This study then used a framework that examined equity along dimensions of access to what, for whom, based on whose values and toward what ends to analyze both the explicit and implicit conceptions of equity that surfaced in these interviews.

Across organizations, this study identified similarities and differences in facilitators’ conceptualizations of equity that were influenced by their different contexts and had implications for practice at each organization. Highlighting the complexity of enacting equity in practice, this study found moments when dimensions of equity came together in resonant ways, while other moments showed how dimensions can be in tension with each other.

The complexity that facilitators must navigate to enact equity in their practice emphasizes the need for professional development and support for facilitators to deepen their conceptions and practices around equity beyond access – not just skill building in making and tinkering.

This study recognizes the important role that facilitators play in enabling equity-oriented participation in making and tinkering spaces and contributes the “on the ground” perspectives of facilitators to highlight the complexity and tensions of enacting equity in practice.

The rapid innovation of artificial intelligence (AI) technology promotes the prosperity of the AI product market. However, consumers seem to have negative attitudes (e.g. prejudice, aversion) toward AI products and services. Those negative attitudes are rooted in the fear that AI might replace humans. The authors thus propose that turning the image of AI from substitutes to facilitators can alleviate identity threat perception. This paper aims to examine how the image of AI products (facilitators vs substitutes) influences consumer evaluation and explores the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions.

This study uses four experiments with between-subjects designs to investigate whether the image of AI products (facilitators vs substitutes) will affect consumer evaluation in specific consumption and service scenarios. The same products (or services) were manipulated as “substitute” or “facilitator” through advertisement slogans. Participants were randomly assigned to a condition and read the advertisement, then they reported their evaluation. The mediator perceived identity threat and the moderator preconceived perceptions of AI risks were measured by scales. The moderator, self-affirmation, was manipulated through the instruction of the experiment.

This study demonstrates that consumers give higher evaluation of AI products in the image of the facilitator than in the image of the substitute (Study 1). The underlying mechanism is that the perceived identity threat caused by “facilitator” products is lower than “substitute” products (Study 2). The effect of AI image is moderated by consumers’ preconceived perceptions of AI risks (Study 3) and self-affirmation (Study 4). Specifically, for consumers who have a strong AI risk-perception, this effect exists, but it disappears for consumers who have a weak AI risk perception. When consumers are given a strong self-affirmation, the negative impact of the “substitute” image disappears.

This paper analyzes the psychological root of consumers’ negative evaluation of AI technology from the perspective of AI’s image. The proposed typology of “substitutes” and “facilitators” helps expand the vision on brand/product image and enriches the research on consumer self-identity in today’s highly informatized market. The findings shed light on how to choose appropriate image for AI products, which will be crucial for increasing consumers’ acceptance of AI products.

The purpose of this paper is to examine an essential component of enacting an improvement network: facilitation. In it, the author surfaces synthesizing as a core, power-laden facilitation practice that brought together network members from disparate institutions to converge on a shared network aim and theory of improvement.

This study is situated within a teacher preparation improvement network. Forty-four teacher educators from seven university-based teacher preparation programs participated in the network. Guided by practice theory (Feldman and Orlikowski, 2011), the author collected and analyzed network meetings and artifacts to unveil facilitation practices and their relation to power.

Synthesizing emerged as a central facilitation practice. Facilitators' engagement in this practice produced power by constraining and enabling how network members participated. Finally, facilitators were systematically and advantageously positioned to prioritize some network members' perspectives while peripheralizing others'.

This paper offers a concrete, detailed window into a core facilitation practice in a network and problematizes it to enable network leaders to be deliberate about facilitation decisions.

Facilitation is a central component of effective networks (Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan, 2016) and is considered central to the work of networked improvement (Bryk et al., 2015), but there exists a dearth of research that offers insights into how facilitation comes to be enacted in practice. This study offers detailed insights into one such facilitation practice.

The aim of this paper is to analyse the nature of the facilitators of continuous improvement (CI), proposing a classification of them and identifying the different profiles of companies based on them.

To achieve this objective, first, a literature review was done in order to identify the main facilitators; second, some of them were included in a survey based on experts' opinions; third, a survey was conducted amongst people responsible for implementing CI; and finally factorial and cluster analysis were applied.

Based on the results, three main factors were identified: “cultural facilitators”, “tactical facilitators” and “human resources involvement facilitators”. Additionally, five clusters were defined.

As many companies still struggle when implementing CI, the results of this study can help all them to focus on the most important aspects in order to guarantee the sustainability of the CI system.

From a theoretical point of view, this work contributes to the CI field by analysing the nature of the main facilitators companies can find when implementing these initiatives. Thus, not only does this study provide a hierarchy of the most important facilitators, but also classifies them. As far as authors are concerned, this is the first attempt to categorise CI facilitators.

This study aims to explore the utility of collaborative knowledge sharing with stakeholders in developing and evaluating a training programme for health professionals to implement a social intervention in dementia research.

The programme consisted of two phases: 1) development phase guided by the Buckley and Caple’s training model and 2) evaluation phase drew on the Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model. Survey and interview data was collected from health professionals, people with dementia and their supporters who attended the training programme, delivered or participated in the intervention. Qualitative data was analysed using the framework analysis.

Seven health professionals participated in consultations in the development phase. In the evaluation phase, 20 intervention facilitators completed the post one-day training evaluations and three took part in the intervention interviews. Eight people with dementia and their supporters from the promoting independence in dementia feasibility study participated in focus groups interviews. The findings show that intervention facilitators were satisfied with the training programme. They learnt new knowledge and skills through an interactive learning environment and demonstrated competencies in motivating people with dementia to engage in the intervention. As a result, this training programme was feasible to train intervention facilitators.

The findings could be implemented in other research training contexts where those delivering research interventions have professional skills but do not have knowledge of the theories and protocols of a research intervention.

This study provided insights into the value of collaborative knowledge sharing between academic researchers and multiple non-academic stakeholders that generated knowledge and maximised power through building new capacities and alliances.