Search results

This study aims to discuss science governance in Europe and the network of associated nonprofit institutions. The authors posit that this network, which comprises both (partial) learning organizations and non-learning organizations, has been observed to postpone taking up “responsibility” as an issue in science governance and funding decisions.

This paper discusses the challenge of learning and policy implementation within the European science governance system. By exploring how learning on responsible innovation (RI) in this governance system can be provoked, it addresses the question how Senge’s insights in organizational learning can clarify discourses on and practices of RI and responsibility in research. This study explores the potential of a new organizational form, that of Social Labs, to support learning on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in standing governance organizations.

This study concludes that Social Labs are a suitable format for enacting the five disciplines as identified by Senge, and a Social Lab may turn into a learning organization, be it a temporary one. Responsibility in research and innovation is conducive for learning in the setting of a Social Lab, and Social Labs act as intermediary organizations, which not merely pass on information among actors but also actively give substantive shape to what they convey from a practice-informed, normative orientation.

This empirical work on RRI-oriented Social Labs therefore suggests that Social Lab–oriented temporary, intermediary learning organizations present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies in a networked, nonhierarchical governance setting.

Based on this research funding and governance organizations in research, policy-makers in other domains may take up and create such intermediary organizations to aid learning in (science) governance.

This research suggests that RRI-oriented Social Labs present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies, thus integrate learning on and by responsible practices in various governance settings.

European science governance is characterized by a network of partial Learning Organization (LOs) and Non-Learning Organization (nLOs) who postpone decision-making on topics around “responsibility” and “solving societal challenges” or delegate authority to reviewers and individual actors, filtering possibilities for collaborative transformation toward RRI. social lab (SLs) are spaces that can address social problems or social challenges in an open, action-oriented and creative manner. As such, they may function as temporary, intermediary LOs bringing together diverse actors from a specific context to work on and learn about issues of science and society where standing organizations avoid doing so. Taken together, SLs may offer temporary organizational structures and spaces to move beyond top-down exercise of power or lack of real change to more open, deliberative and creative forms of sociopolitical coordination between multiple actors cutting across realms of state, practitioners of research and innovation and civil society. By taking the role of temporary LOs, they may support existing research and innovation organizations and research governance to become more flexible and adaptive.

The aim of this policy brief is to summarize the key priorities and recommendations made by ARC delegates and thought leaders who came together virtually between March 2020 and November 2021 to find ways to support students, parents, teachers, and school leaders in their respective educational communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 was welcome globally, mainstreaming sustainability in all sectors, including education and training under Goal 4, which advocated “inclusive and equitable quality education and promotion of lifelong learning opportunities for all”. However, is it realistic to attain a substantially equitable adult education policy amidst the hegemony of neoliberal regimes and utilitarian approaches? Our data, drawn from the OECD Survey of Adult Skills and the European Adult Education Survey (AES), highlight, in alignment with relevant research, that education and training opportunities are still significantly unequal, failing to reach those adults more at risk, reproducing a “Matthew” effect. Against this backdrop, the present policy brief reiterates important parameters that have emanated from relevant research, which can formulate a set of concrete measures that bear the potential to facilitate the “unreached” not simply to participate, but also to substantially benefit from adult education, mitigating social inequalities.

The purpose of this scoping review is to analyse comparative studies on social-policy measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in Global North welfare states. The authors also consider the potential influence of the regimes on the responses.

The authors conducted a scoping review of six databases including peer-reviewed comparative studies. In an iterative process with exact inclusion criteria, the authors screened 699 titles/abstracts/articles and found 16 comparative research articles to be included in the review and analysis. The review summarises the main themes of the comparative articles and the articles' typical features.

The results show that social-policy measures were directed specifically at working-age people to minimise income loss and to save jobs. The pandemic also increased care-related responsibilities, necessitating the expansion of current policies and the implementation of new instruments. Despite the differences in responses between universalistic and residual welfare states, the influence of welfare regimes on COVID-19 social-policy measures remains unclear. The emergency responses in the different regimes varied widely in terms of coverage.

The results of this review provide a basis on which to conduct future studies, identify new research topics and knowledge gaps and inspire new research questions and hypotheses. Given the accumulation of scientific knowledge in the area of social-policy measures, the need for systematic reviews will grow in the future.

The authors identified three main themes: changes in employment protection, changes in care-related income protection and the potential influence of welfare-state regimes on COVID-19-related measures.

The purpose of this paper is three-fold. Firstly, through selected case studies, to provide an overview of how non-traditional data from digital public services were used as a source of knowledge for policymaking. Secondly, to argue for a design for policy approach to support the successful integration of non-traditional data into policymaking practice, thus supporting data-driven innovation for policymaking. Thirdly, to encourage a vision of the relation between data-driven innovation and public policy that considers policymaking outside the authoritative instrumental logic perspective.

A qualitative small-N case study analysis based on desk research data was developed to provide an overview of how data-centric public services could become a source of knowledge for policymaking. The analysis was based on an original theoretical-conceptual framework that merges the policy cycle model and the policy capacity framework.

This paper identifies three potential areas of contribution of a design for policy approach in a scenario of data-driven innovation for policymaking practice: the development of sensemaking and prefiguring activities to shape a shared rationale behind intra-/inter-organisational data sharing and data collaboratives; the realisation of collaborative experimentations for enhancing the systemic policy analytical capacity of a governing body, e.g. by integrating non-traditional data into new and trusted indicators for policy evaluation; and service design as approach for data-centric public services that connects policy decisions to the socio-technical context in which data are collected.

The small-N sample (four cases) selected is not representative of a broader population but isolates exemplary initiatives. Moreover, the analysis was based on secondary sources, limiting the assessment quality of the real use of non-traditional data for policymaking. This level of empirical understanding is considered sufficient for an explorative analysis that supports the original perspective proposed here. Future research will need to collect primary data about the potential and dynamics of how data from data-centric public services can inform policymaking and substantiate the proposed areas of a design for policy contribution with practical experimentations and cases.

This paper proposes a convergence, yet largely underexplored, between the two emerging perspectives on innovation in policymaking: data for policy and design for policy. This convergence helps to address the designing of data-driven innovations for policymaking, while considering pragmatic indications of socially acceptable practices in this space for practitioners.

This paper investigates the internal factors driving public-private partnership (PPP) adoption for water services in South Korea and Singapore.

This study utilizes a comparative cross-national case study of PPPs in the area of water services by focusing on the similarities and differences between the two countries.

The findings show that while South Korea has employed the PPP model mostly to expand and modernize their sewage systems, Singapore has used PPPs to build and operate desalination facilities that produce potable water through the treatment and filtration of wastewater. The study also demonstrates that fiscal stress and political incentives stemming from socio-economic pressures are the respective critical factors in South Korea and Singapore’s execution of PPP-driven water infrastructure.

Through exploring why and how PPPs have been adopted in the specific context, this paper might be helpful to enhance our understanding of the variations and common factors in the policy adoption process within the Asian context.

This paper aims to further our understanding of policy–practice gaps in organizations from an organizational learning perspective. The authors conceptualize and analyze policy–practice gaps in terms of what they label the dual challenge of organizational learning, i.e. the organizational tasks of both adapting ongoing practices to prescribed policy demands and adapting the policy itself to the needs of practice. Specifically, the authors address how this dual challenge can be understood in terms of organizational learning and how an organization can be managed to successfully resolve the dual learning challenge and, thereby, bridge policy–practice gaps in organizations.

This paper draws on existing literature to explore the gap between policy and practice. Through a synthesis of theories and an illustrative practical example, this paper highlights key conceptual underpinnings.

In the analysis of the dual challenge of organizational learning, this study provides a conceptual framework that emphasizes the important role of tensions and contradictions between policy and practice and their role as drivers of organizational learning. To bridge policy–practice gaps in organizations, this paper proposes five key principles that aim to resolve the dual challenge and accommodate both deployment and discovery in organizations.

Because this is a conceptual study, empirical research is called for to explore further and test the findings and conclusions of the study. Several avenues of possible future research are proposed.

This paper primarily contributes by introducing and elaborating on a conceptual framework that offers novel perspectives on the dual challenges of facilitating both discovery and deployment processes within organizations.

The study aims to assess the effectiveness of engaging tutors in designing and using ICT integrated lesson activities in strengthening their pedagogical use of ICT competences.

Survey data from an intervention group of 70 tutors from two teachers colleges (TCs) were used to compare their level of ICT competences and domains of professional practice before and after the intervention. Document analysis, lesson observations and feedback from the learning management system (LMS) were used to describe tutors’ experiences from the intervention.

There was a statistically significant increase in tutors’ level of pedagogical use of ICT competences and domains of professional practice associated with hands-on practice in designing and implementing the intervention.

The intervention focus on hands-on practice, actual teaching and learning needs, and the use of active learning strategies like flipped classroom and the LMS, were useful means for tutors to make sense of pedagogical use of ICT competences.

The results offer useful insights to teacher education institutions and policymakers on how to prepare professional learning and supportive policies to enhance teaching and learning with ICT for addressing the learning needs of the subject matter.

Creating 16 ICT integrated lesson activities helped tutors to learn pedagogical use of ICT competences by doing. Use of such intervention could be a useful strategy in teacher education institutions to reposition ICT competence development from reproducing technological competences toward developing knowledge creators who could innovate their pedagogical practice with support from mentors, digital learning resources and networks.

This article focuses on the assessment of entrepreneurship competence by selected vocational teachers in Italy. The exploratory research question addresses the extent to which entrepreneurship assessments are competence based, and the research seeks to identify fully fledged assessment programmes with both a formative and summative component, and the use of assessment rubrics. It also explores the extent to which entrepreneurship competence is referred to in school documentation and later assessed, and the tools and strategies used for such assessment.

This case study is part of a larger European research project promoted by Cedefop; in Italy it focused on six selected vocational IVET and CVET programmes and apprenticeship schemes. It used a wide range of instruments to ensure triangulation and multiple perspectives: analysed policy documents and undertook online interviews with experts and policy makers. At VET providers' premises it deployed: analysis of school documents; observations of learning environments; interviews and focus groups with (in schools) teachers, directors and vice directors, learners and alumni (in companies) instructors, company tutors and employers, apprentices and alumni.

Assessment tasks were rarely embedded within fully fledged assessment programmes involving both formative and summative tasks, and assessment rubric for grading. Most of the time, entrepreneurship programmes lacked self-assessment, peer assessment and structured feedback and did not involve learners in the assessment process. Some instructors coached the students, but undertook no clear formative assessment. These findings suggest institutions have a testing culture with regard to assessment, at the level of both policy and practice. In most cases, entrepreneurship competence was not directly assessed, and learning outcomes were only loosely related to entrepreneurship.

One limitation concerned the selection of the VET providers: these were chosen not on a casual basis, but because they ran programmes that were relevant to the development of entrepreneurship competence.

At the policy level, there is a need for new guidelines on competence development and assessment in VET, guidelines that are more aligned with educational research on competence development. To ensure the development of entrepreneurship competence, educators need in-service training and a community of practice.

So far, the literature has concentrated on entrepreneurship education at the tertiary level. Little is known about how VET instructors assess entrepreneurship competence. This study updates the picture of policy and practice in Italy, illustrating how entrepreneurship competence is developed in selected IVET and CVET programmes and apprenticeships.

The relative success of East Asian countries in controlling the spread of COVID-19 at its onset was widely attributed to their capacity to learn from previous experience of epidemics, their preparedness to deal with new threats to health, and public acceptance of the need to comply unquestioningly with stringent measures to contain the virus. The conditions were very different when Europe was recognised as the epicentre of the pandemic in March 2020. In a climate of uncertainty, intensified by inconsistent scientific advice and intractable political dilemmas, European governments embarked on a steep learning curve. They experimented with packages of measures based on limited and often conflicting evidence about their effectiveness in preventing transmission of the disease and high excess death rates, amid growing concern about the collateral damage being caused to public health, and to social and economic life.

Drawing on a wide range of multi-disciplinary published materials and official statistics, research articles, reports, briefings and academic debates, as well as media headlines and commentary, this briefing assesses policy learning during the first wave of the pandemic in Europe and asks:

What lessons did European countries, individually and collectively, draw from their own experiences and from the policy responses of neighbouring countries when Europe was the epicentre of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Were decision-takers better prepared to contain further waves of the disease and to improve outcomes?