mdh.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 8 of 8
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Johnson, M. P.
    et al.
    Department of Public Policy and Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, United States.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Centre for Systems Studies, Business School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
    Wright, J.
    Department of Public Policy and Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, United States.
    Chichirau, G.
    Department of Public Policy and Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, United States.
    Community Operational Research: Innovations, internationalization and agenda-setting applications2018In: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, no 3, p. 761-770Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 2.
    Johnson, Michael P.
    et al.
    Univ Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Univ Hull, England.;Victoria Univ Wellington, New Zealand.;Univ Canterbury, Sch Polit & Social Sci, Christchurch, New Zealand.;Univ Queensland, Sch Agr & Food Sci, Brisbane, Qld, Australia..
    Chichirau, George
    Univ Massachusetts Boston, Boston, USA..
    Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research2018In: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, no 3, p. 1178-1191Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Community Operational Research (Community OR), and its disciplinary relation, Community-Based Operations Research, has an increasingly high profile within multiple domains that benefit from empirical and analytical approaches to problem solving. These domains are primarily concentrated within nonprofit services and local development. However, there are many other disciplines and application areas for which novel applications and extensions of Community OR could generate valuable insights. This paper identifies a number of these, distinguishing between 'emerging trends' (mostly in well-studied areas of operational research, management science and analytics) and 'new frontiers', which can be found in traditions not commonly oriented towards empirical and analytical methods for problem solving, where community-engaged decision modeling represents new ways of generating knowledge, policies and prescriptions. This paper will show how the exploration of emerging trends and new frontiers in Community OR can provide a basis for the development of innovative research agendas that can broaden the scope and impact of the decision sciences. D .

  • 3.
    Lowe, D.
    et al.
    Science and Technology Laboratory, Salisbury, United Kingdom.
    Oliver, P.
    Ministry of Defence, London, United Kingdom.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Ministry of Defence, London, United Kingdom; Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia .
    Yearworth, M.
    University of Exeter, United Kingdom.
    Evaluating how system health assessment can trigger anticipatory action for resilience2017In: Disciplinary Convergence in Systems Engineering Research, Springer International Publishing , 2017, p. 765-776Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In 2014, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory developed and implemented a novel approach to assess the system by which the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence delivers infrastructure projects and services. This approach brought together existing methods to constitute a hybrid problem structuring method that offered the potential to trigger anticipatory intervention by focusing on the health as opposed to the performance of this system. This paper revisits the initial assessment to examine whether use of the method has led to increased system resilience, and in particular to understand what it was about the method that helped to deliver benefits. Insights with regard to the structures and processes necessary to enable anticipatory action for resilience are presented. 

  • 4.
    Midgley, Gerald
    et al.
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Univ Hull, Business Sch, Ctr Syst Studies, Cottingham Rd, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England.;Malardalen Univ, Sch Innovat Design & Engn, Eskilstuna, Sweden.;Victoria Univ Wellington, Victoria Business Sch, Wellington, New Zealand.;Univ Canterbury, Sch Polit & Social Sci, Christchurch, New Zealand.;Univ Queensland, Sch Agr & Food Sci, Brisbane, Qld, Australia..
    Johnson, Michael P.
    Univ Massachusetts, Dept Publ Policy & Publ Affairs, Boston, MA 02125 USA..
    Chichirau, George
    Univ Massachusetts, Dept Publ Policy & Publ Affairs, Boston, MA 02125 USA..
    What is Community Operational Research?2018In: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, no 3, p. 771-783Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Community Operational Research (Community OR) has been an explicit sub-domain of OR for more than 30 years. In this paper, we tackle the controversial issue of how it can be differentiated from other forms of OR. While it has been persuasively argued that Community OR cannot be defined by its clients, practitioners or methods, we argue that the common concern of all Community OR practice is the meaningful engagement of communities, whatever form that may take - and the legitimacy of different forms of engagement may be open to debate. We then move on to discuss four other controversies that have implications for the future development of Community OR and its relationship with its parent discipline: the desire for Community OR to be more explicitly political; claims that it should be grounded in the theory, methodology and practice of systems thinking; the similarities and differences between the UK and US traditions; and the extent to which Community OR offers an enhanced understanding of practice that could be useful to OR more generally. Our positions on these controversies all follow from our identification of 'meaningful engagement' as a central feature of Community OR. 

  • 5.
    Midgley, Gerald
    et al.
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Univ Queensland, Australia..
    Nicholson, John D.
    Sheffield Hallam Univ, England..
    Brennan, Ross
    Univ Hertfordshire,England..
    Dealing with challenges to methodological pluralism: The paradigm problem, psychological resistance and cultural barriers2017In: Industrial Marketing Management, ISSN 0019-8501, E-ISSN 1873-2062, Vol. 62, p. 150-159Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper calls for methodological pluralism in industrial marketing research. We discuss three challenges that proponents of methodological pluralism have to address if their practice is to be seen as credible: the paradigm problem; psychological resistance; and lack of cultural readiness to accept pluralism. We review the works of a variety of authors from other disciplines who have tackled these problems, and identify useful ideas to take forward into a model of learning. This addresses the paradigm problem by making it clear that no pluralist methodology can exist without making its own paradigmatic assumptions. It deals with psychological resistance by talking in terms of learning, starting from wherever the researcher is currently situated (a large knowledge base is not needed to begin practicing methodological pluralism). However, this model does not deal with the question of whether the time is right, culturally, for methodological pluralism. We argue that the time will be right when it is widely appreciated that methodological pluralism adds value to industrial marketing research practice. The next step for our research community must be the accumulation of a body of empirical evidence to demonstrate that this added value does or does not exist. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  • 6.
    Nicholas, Graeme
    et al.
    Inst Environm Sci & Res, Christchurch, New Zealand..
    Foote, Jeff
    Univ Otago, Otago, New Zealand..
    Kainz, Kirsten
    Univ N Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC USA. Univ Hull, Kingston Upon Hull, N Humberside, England..
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Univ Queensland Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.;Victoria Univ Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.;Univ Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand..
    Prager, Katrin
    Univ Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland..
    Zurbriggen, Cristina
    Univ Republica, Inst Ciencia Polit, Montevideo, Uruguay..
    Towards a heart and soul for co-creative research practice: a systemic approach2019In: Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, ISSN 1744-2648, E-ISSN 1744-2656, Vol. 15, no 3, p. 353-370Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. White seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics' (Ulrich, 1994) questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.

  • 7.
    Torres-Cuello, M. A.
    et al.
    Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
    Pinzón-Salcedo, L.
    Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom; University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia .
    Developing a Systemic Program Evaluation Methodology: A Critical Systems Perspective2018In: Systems research and behavioral science, ISSN 1092-7026, E-ISSN 1099-1743, Vol. 35, no 5, p. 538-547Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In recent years, there has been an increased interest within the program evaluation field in the introduction of systems thinking concepts. However, most of these introductions have been primarily directed towards supporting the practice of evaluation and not towards making theoretical advancements. This article is focused on introducing systems thinking, and specifically perspectives and concepts from the work in critical systems thinking (CST), at a theoretical level in the program evaluation field, towards a reframing of Fourth Generation Evaluation methodology. The process for carrying out such a reframing is introduced, as well as a description of the major changes produced in the evaluation methodology from incorporating the CST perspective. A new model is proposed, and how this model may be beneficial for conducting an evaluation is discussed. Finally, recommendations are made for future developments. 

  • 8.
    Ufua, Daniel E.
    et al.
    Covenant Univ, Dept Business Management, Coll Business & Social Sci, Idiroko Rd, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria..
    Papadopoulos, Thanos
    Univ Kent, Kent Business Sch, Chatham ME4 4TE, Kent, England..
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Univ Hull, Ctr Syst Studies, Sch Business, Cottingham Rd, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England.;Malardalen Univ, Sch Innovat Design & Engn, Box 325, S-63105 Eskilstuna, Sweden.;Victoria Univ Wellington, Victoria Business Sch, POB 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.;Univ Canterbury, Sch Polit & Social Sci, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.;Univ Queensland, Sch Agr & Food Sci, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia..
    Systemic Lean Intervention: Enhancing Lean with Community Operational Research2018In: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, no 3, p. 1134-1148Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper explores how theory and methodology from Community Operational Research (Community OR) can enhance Lean initiatives. We are driven by the paucity of the literature discussing the involvement of non-obvious stakeholders, particularly local communities, in the adoption of Lean. We present a project undertaken with a food production company in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria, where we employed a Systemic Intervention methodology to integrate theory and methods from Community OR with those from Lean. Based on this example, we argue that the inclusion of community representatives is necessary if Lean waste-reduction initiatives are to benefit both organizations and their local communities. Our only proviso is that, in the spirit of Community OR, the involvement of community representatives must be meaningful, so change is agreed through stakeholder engagements that respect their inputs and framings, and do not result in organizations imposing unwanted 'solutions' on communities. The paper ends with some reflections on the added value that Community OR can offer Lean practitioners. 

1 - 8 of 8
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf