RiskPACC H2020 Project
Published February 28, 2022 | Version 1
Project deliverable Open

Lab Methodology and Glossary

Authors/Creators

  • 1. University of Stuttgart

Contributors

  • 1. European Organisation for Security
  • 2. University College London
  • 3. University of Stuttgart
  • 4. Trilateral Research
  • 5. University of Warwick

Description

The present Deliverable 3.4 provides a demonstrator for co-creational workshops to be conducted in the following project months and beyond. These workshops are to be conducted both internally within the RiskPACC project and externally under the supervision of the case study leaders. The demonstrator will be used as a prototype, or manual for the methodology and will be implemented in the physical Risk Pack and the digital RiskPACC online platform after project-specific iterations. The main objective of this deliverable is to present the practical expertise on co-creational formats of the institutions in charge of this deliverable to the RiskPACC project consortium.

In the process, this document will provide both scientific and practical information that will be used as the foundation for a workshop format based on the co-creational approach. Integrating the co-creational approach derived from practice with political science concepts, such as collaborative governance, we bridge the gap between practitioners and researchers. Scientific research in relevant research fields (such as political science, communication science and psychology) will be elaborated to approximate the estimated impact of the RiskPACC project’s co-creational approach. Co-creational core values are identified, and their feasibility elaborated.

The result in the form of a demonstrator is a practical guide that is targeted at the case study partners, yet aims at the audience of scientific and technological partners as well. This is the reason why practical tools and sources are mentioned in addition to the scientific research. The newly developed co-creation workshop is directly aligned to the findings of previous endeavours of the RiskPACC project and supplemented with the project’s technology partners’ solutions. To link these three domains – the domains of workshop methodology, case studies, and technological solutions – was one main objective to be achieved in the course of this deliverable and its corresponding task within the project. Therefore, we consider the workshops that include a module with technological solutions to be a design artifact.

Files

RiskPACC_LabMethodologyAndGlossary.pdf

Files (4.8 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:4cb6dbb34ec0dc60d619cc9ca46453f2
4.8 MB Preview Download

Additional details

Funding

European Commission
RiskPACC - Integrating Risk Perception and Action to enhance Civil protection-Citizen interaction 101019707

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In: Kuhl, J.; & Beckmann, J. (Eds.): Action Control. SSSP Springer Series in Social Psychology. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2, last accessed 30/01/2022.
  • Allman, D. (2013). The Sociology of Social Inclusion. SAGE Open. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012471957, last accessed 10/01/2022.
  • Alves, H. (2013). Co-creation and innovation in public services. The service industries journal, 33(7-8), 671-682. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2013.740468, last accessed 27/01/2022.
  • Ansell, C., Doberstein, C., Henderson, H., Siddiki, S., & 't Hart, P. (2020). Understanding inclusion in collaborative governance: a mixed methods approach. Policy and society, 39(4), 570-591. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1785726, last accessed 28/01/2022.
  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032, last accessed 28/01/2022.
  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216-224. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225, last accessed 21/01/2022.
  • Bandura, Albert (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaption and change. In: Adair, J. G.; Belanger, D.; Dion, K. L. (Eds.). Advances in psychological science. Vol. 1: Personal, social and cultural aspects. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
  • Bernauer, J.; Giger, N.; & Rosset, J. (2015). Mind the Gap. Do Electoral Systems Foster a More Equal Representation of Women and Men, Poor and Rich? International Political Science Review 36: 78-98.
  • Booher, D. E. (2004). Collaborative governance practices and democracy. National Civic Review, 93(4), 32-46.
  • Callanan, M. (2005). Institutionalizing participation and governance? New participative structures in local government in Ireland. Public Administration, 83(4), 909-929. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00483.x, last accessed 27/01/2022.
  • citizenlab (2021). Online community workshops. A practical guide on facilitating online workshops. Brussels: CitizenLab SA. Retrievable at https://www.citizenlab.co/ebooks-en/digital-community-workshops-guide, last accessed 17/12/2021.
  • Cluster of Excellence The Politics of Inequality (2021). COVID-19 und Ungleichheit. Constance: University of Constance. Retrievable at https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/53577/In_equality_01_2021_DE_2-1eiga2sxyhlky4.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, last accessed 17/12/2021.
  • Collier, J.; & Esteban, R. (1999). Governance in the participative organisation: Freedom, creativity and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(2): 173-188.
  • CORDIS (n. d.). Success in Public Governance: Assessing and explaining how public problems are sometimes addressed remarkably effectively. Retrievable at https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/694266, last accessed 25/02/2022.
  • Digital.Labor (2020). Vorgehensweise. Retrievable at https://digitallabor.iao.fraunhofer.de/#vorgehensweise, last accessed 21/01/2022.
  • DiMaggio, P.; Hargittai, E. (2001). From the 'Digital Divide' to 'Digital Inequality': Studying Internet Use as Penetration Increases. Princeton, NJ: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.
  • Dixon, J.; Crooks, H.; Henry, K. (2006). Breaking the ice: Supporting collaboration and the development of community online. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l'apprentissage et de la technologie, 32(2). Retrievable at https://www.learntechlib.org/p/42943/, last accessed 27/01/2022.
  • Dörk, M.; & Monteyne, D. (2011, May). Urban co-creation: envisioning new digital tools for activism and experimentation in the city. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference: 7-12.
  • Drambyan, Yvonne (2011). Die Theorie der Schutzmotivation heute: Eine Studie zur Wirksamkeit von schriftlichen und grafischen Warnhinweisen auf Zigarettenschachteln. Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag.
  • Dübner, S. ; Fanderl, N. ; Heydkamp, C. (2017). Co-Creation in der Stadtentwicklung. In Transforming Cities 03/2017: 12-15. München: Trialog Publishers Verlagsgesellschaft.
  • Dübner, S.; Fanderl, N.; & Heydkamp, C. (2018, April). City of the Future Ludwigsburg: Co-Creation in Urban Development Processes. In: REAL CORP 2018–EXPANDING CITIES–DIMINISHING SPACE. Are "Smart Cities" the solution or part of the problem of continuous urbanisation around the globe? Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Urban Planning, Regional Development and Information: 141-146. CORP–Compentence Center of Urban and Regional Planning.
  • Dübner, S.; & Heydkamp, C. (2019). Ludwigsburg: A City of the Future and Living Lab. In: Thomas, H.; Loew, S. (Eds.): Urban Design Group Journal (150): 24-26. London: Urban Design Group. Retrievable at https://www.udg.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/UD150_magazine.pdf, last accessed 26/01/2022.
  • Elsässer, L.; Hense, S; & Schäfer, A. (2017). "Dem Deutschen Volke"? Die ungleiche Responsivität des Bundestags. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 27: 161-180.
  • el-Wakil, Alice (2022, 25/01). Agenda-Setting and Democracy [Speech]. Cluster of Excellence The Politics of Inequality. Constance: University of Constance.
  • European Union (EU) (2012). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2012/C 326/02. Retrievable at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT&from=EN, last accessed 15/12/2021.
  • European Commission (2017). D. Types of action: specific provisions and funding rates. In: Horizon 2020 – Work Programme 2018-2020. General Annexes. Extract from Part 19 – Commission Decision C(2017)7124.
  • Fazey, I.; et al. (2021). Social dynamics of community resilience building in the face of climate change: the case of three Scottish communities. In: Sustainability Science, 16(5): 1731–1747. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00950-x, last accessed 17/12/2021.
  • Frankowski, A. (2019). Collaborative governance as a policy strategy in healthcare. Journal of health organization and management. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-10-2018-0313, last accessed 27/01/2022.
  • Funk, S., & Krauß, J. (2020, September). "Digital. Labor"–Co-Creation for the Digital City of Tomorrow. In SHAPING URBAN CHANGE–Livable City Regions for the 21st Century. Proceedings of REAL CORP 2020, 25th International Conference on Urban Development, Regional Planning and Information Society: 235-241. CORP–Competence Center of Urban and Regional Planning.
  • GFDRR; & World Bank Group (Eds.); Erman, A., De Vries Robbe, S. A., Thies, S. F., Kabir, K., & Maruo, M. (2021). Gender Dimensions of Disaster Risk and Resilience. Retrievable at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/35202/Gender-Dimensions-of-Disaster-Risk-and-Resilience-Existing-Evidence.pdf?sequence=1, last accessed 22/11/2021.
  • Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multi-party problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Greve, Jens (2016). Integration. In: Kopp, J.; Steinbach, A. (Eds.). Grundbegriffe der Soziologie: 143-146. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19892-7, last accessed 10/01/2022.
  • Groves, P. S.; Bunch, J. L.; Cram, E.; Farag, A.; Manges, K.; Perkhounkova, Y.; & Scott-Cawiezell, J. (2017). Priming Patient Safety Through Nursing Handoff Communication: A Simulation Pilot Study. In: Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(11). Retreivable at https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916673358, last accessed 28/02/2022.
  • Hargittai, E. (2003). The digital divide and what to do about it. New economy handbook, 2003, 821-839.
  • Hevner, A. R.; March, S. T.; Park, J.; & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS quarterly, 75-105. Retrievable at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/201168946, last accessed 12/01/22.
  • IDEO. (2012). Design Thinking for Educators, 2nd Edition. Retrievable at https://f.hubspotusercontent30.net/hubfs/6474038/Design%20for%20Learning/IDEO_DTEdu_v2_toolkit+workbook.pdf, last accessed 27/01/2022.
  • Johnson, J., Willis, W., & McGinnis, C. (2020). Building a Collaborative Governance Framework: A Five Step Process. Retrievable at https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ncpp_pub/18, last accessed 27/01/2022.
  • King, Angela. (2002). Gender Mainstreaming an Overview. United Nations, New York: 6-12.
  • Krippendorf, K. (1994). Information Theory. Structural Models for Qualitative Data. Newbury Park (CA).
  • Kontio, J.; Bragge, J.; Lehtola, L. (2008). The focus group method as an empirical tool in software engineering. In Guide to advanced empirical software engineering (pp. 93-116). Springer, London. Retrievable at https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_4 last accessed 01/02/22.
  • Krueger, R. A.; Casey, M. A.; Donner, J.; Kirsch, S.; Maack, J. N. (2001). Social analysis: selected tools and techniques. Social Development Paper, 36. Retrievable at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.607.4701&rep=rep1&type=pdf, last accessed 27/01/2022.
  • Lafont, C. (2015). Deliberation, Participation and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-publics shape Public Policy? Journal of Political Philosophy 23: 40-63.
  • Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In: L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas: A series of addresses: 37–51. New York, NY: Institute for Religious and Social Studies.
  • Lensch, K. (n. d.). Die "Methode 365". Retrievable at http://www.kreativkonferenz.de/ideen/365.html, last accessed 27/01/2022.
  • Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In: Geyer, R. F.; van der Zouven, J. (Eds.). Sociokybernetic paradoxes: Observation, control and evolution of self–steering systems: 172–192. London: Sage.
  • Mair, J.; Gegenhuber, T.; Lührsen, R.; Thäter, L. (2022). UpdateDeutschland: Open Innovation weiterdenken und lernen. Learning Report. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.48462/opus4-4204, last accessed 25/01/2022.
  • Mansbridge, Jane (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent "yes." Journal of Politics 61: 628-657.
  • McConnell, E. A.; Janulis, P.; Phillips II, G.; Truong, R.; & Birkett, M. (2018). Multiple minority stress and LGBT community resilience among sexual minority men. Psychology of sexual orientation and gender diversity, 5(1), 1.
  • Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet in Democratic Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nour, N. N. (2011). Maternal health considerations during disaster relief. Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 4(1), 22.
  • Organizing Engagement (2022). Models: Ladder of Citizen Participation. Retrievable at https://organizingengagement.org/models/ladder-of-citizen-participation/, last accessed 25/01/2022.
  • Parsons, T. (1975). Gesellschaften. Evolutionäre und komparative Perspektiven. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  • Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of Representation (Vol. 75): University of California Press.
  • Pitt, J., & Ober, J. (2018, September). Democracy by design: Basic democracy and the self-organisation of collective governance. In 2018 IEEE 12th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems (SASO) (pp. 20-29). IEEE.
  • Quesenbery, W., & Brooks, K. (2010). Storytelling for user experience: Crafting stories for better design. Rosenfeld Media.
  • Razzouk, R.; Shute, V. (2012). What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429, last accessed 27/01/2022.
  • Reilly, T. (2001). Collaboration in action: An uncertain process. Administration in Social Work, 25(1), 53-74. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v25n01_06, last accessed 27/01/2022.
  • Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology 91: 93-114.
  • Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo, John; & Petty, Richard (Eds.). Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook: 153-176. Retrievable at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229068371_Cognitive_and_physiological_processes_in_fear_appeals_and_attitude_change_A_revised_theory_of_protection_motivation, last accessed 30/01/2022. Schramm, W. (1954). The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  • Schulz, W. (2014). Kommunikationsprozess. In Noelle-Neumann, E., Schulz, W., & Wilke, J. (Eds.). Fischer Lexikon Publizistik Massenkommunikation: 169-199. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag.
  • Shannon, C. E.; Warren, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana (IL).
  • Siebert, Horst (2010). Methoden für die Bildungsarbeit: Leitfaden für aktivierendes Lehren. wbv.
  • Silver, M. S.; Markus, M. L.; & Beath, C. M. (1995). The information technology interaction model: A foundation for the MBA core course. MIS quarterly, 361-390. Retrievable at https://doi.org/10.2307/249600, last accessed 12/01/22.
  • Stock, R. (2003). Teams an der Schnittstelle zwischen Anbieter- und Kunden-Unternehmen: Eine integrative Betrachtung. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH.
  • Trepte, S., & Scharkow, M. (2016). Friends and lifesavers: How social capital and social support received in media environments contribute to well-being. In: The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being, 322-334. Routledge.
  • United Nations (n. d. a). Vulnerable Groups. Retrievable at https://www.un.org/en/fight-racism/vulnerable-groups, last accessed 15/12/2021.
  • United Nations (n. d. b). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrievable at https://sdgs.un.org/goals, last accessed 21/01/2022.
  • UN Women (n. d.). Gender Mainstreaming. Retrievable at https://www.unwomen.org/en/how-we-work/un-system-coordination/gender-mainstreaming, last accessed 31/01/2022.
  • Utrecht University (2020). Collaborative Governance Case Database. Retrievable at https://collaborativegovernancecasedatabase.sites.uu.nl/, last accessed 25/02/2022.
  • WirtschaftsWoche (2021, 13/09). Álvarez, Sonja (Ed.). Die Kosten von Corona – und wie "Nudging" helfen kann. Retrievable at https://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/92-000-euro-fuer-ecmo-beatmung-die-kosten-von-corona-und-wie-nudging-helfen-kann/27603280.html, last accessed 05/10/2021.
  • Wilson, E. J. (2000). Closing the digital divide: An initial review. Briefing the President. Washington DC Internet Policy Inst. May.