mdh.sePublikasjoner
Endre søk
Begrens søket
1 - 10 of 10
RefereraExporteraLink til resultatlisten
Permanent link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Treff pr side
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sortering
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Forfatter A-Ø
  • Forfatter Ø-A
  • Tittel A-Ø
  • Tittel Ø-A
  • Type publikasjon A-Ø
  • Type publikasjon Ø-A
  • Eldste først
  • Nyeste først
  • Skapad (Eldste først)
  • Skapad (Nyeste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Eldste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyeste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidligste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (siste først)
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Forfatter A-Ø
  • Forfatter Ø-A
  • Tittel A-Ø
  • Tittel Ø-A
  • Type publikasjon A-Ø
  • Type publikasjon Ø-A
  • Eldste først
  • Nyeste først
  • Skapad (Eldste først)
  • Skapad (Nyeste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Eldste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyeste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidligste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (siste først)
Merk
Maxantalet träffar du kan exportera från sökgränssnittet är 250. Vid större uttag använd dig av utsökningar.
  • 1.
    Bammer, G.
    et al.
    he Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    O’Rourke, M.
    Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
    O’Connell, D.
    CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    Neuhauser, L.
    University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom; Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.
    Klein, J. T.
    ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
    Grigg, N. J.
    CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    Gadlin, H.
    Retired, Bethesda, MD, United States.
    Elsum, I. R.
    The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    Bursztyn, M.
    University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
    Fulton, E. A.
    CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
    Pohl, C.
    ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
    Smithson, M.
    The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    Vilsmaier, U.
    Leuphana University of Lueneburg, Lueneburg, Germany.
    Bergmann, M.
    Institute for Social-Ecological Research, Frankfurt, Germany.
    Jaeger, J.
    Independent Scholar, Vienna, Austria.
    Merkx, F.
    Kenniscocreatie, Onderzoek & Advies, The Hague, Netherlands.
    Vienni Baptista, B.
    ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
    Burgman, M. A.
    The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    Walker, D. H.
    Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    Young, J.
    International Network for Advancing Science and Policy (INASP), Oxford, United Kingdom.
    Bradbury, H.
    Action Research Plus Foundation (AR+), Portland, OR, United States.
    Crawford, L.
    Faculty of Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
    Haryanto, B.
    University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia.
    Pachanee, C. -A
    Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
    Polk, M.
    University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
    Richardson, G. P.
    University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, United States.
    Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened?2020Inngår i: Palgrave Communications, ISSN 2055-1045, Vol. 6, nr 1, artikkel-id 5Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into ‘knowing-that’ and ‘knowing-how.’ We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining ‘when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,’ we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering ‘where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,’ we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring ‘what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,’ we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained. 

  • 2.
    Gregory, Amanda J.
    et al.
    Univ Hull, Business Sch, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England..
    Atkins, Jonathan P.
    Univ Hull, Business Sch, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England..
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. Univ Hull, Ctr Syst Studies, Business Sch, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England.;Linnaeus Univ, Fac Technol, Dept Informat, Vaxjo, 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..
    Hodgson, Anthony M.
    Decis Integr Ltd, Pitlochry, Scotland..
    Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions2020Inngår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 283, nr 1, s. 321-340Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper addresses the under-researched issue of stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions. A concise framework is proposed to aid critical reflection in the design and reporting of stakeholder identification and engagement. This is grounded in a critical-systemic epistemology, and is informed by social identity theory. We illustrate the utility of the framework with an example of a problem structuring workshop, which was part of a green innovation project on the development of a technology for the recovery of rare metals from steel slag. The workshop was initially going to be designed to surface stakeholder views on the technology itself. However, it became apparent that a range of other strategic issues concerning the future of the site were going to impact on decision making about the use of steel slag. It therefore became important to evolve the agenda for the problem structuring, and this is where the critical-systemic approach made a difference. It enabled the workshop to be reframed as a community-based event looking at how the former steelworks site could be developed for new purposes. Evaluation of this problem structuring intervention revealed significant stakeholder learning about the issues needing to be accounted for, and a range of possible options for the development of the steelworks site were explored. The paper ends with a discussion of the utility of social identity theory for understanding the processes and outcomes of the workshop, and reflections are provided on its implications for operational research practice more generally. 

  • 3.
    Johnson, M. P.
    et al.
    Department of Public Policy and Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, United States.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. 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 applications2018Inngår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, nr 3, s. 761-770Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
  • 4.
    Johnson, Michael P.
    et al.
    Univ Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. 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 research2018Inngår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, nr 3, s. 1178-1191Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    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 .

  • 5.
    Lowe, D.
    et al.
    Science and Technology Laboratory, Salisbury, United Kingdom.
    Oliver, P.
    Ministry of Defence, London, United Kingdom.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. 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 resilience2017Inngår i: Disciplinary Convergence in Systems Engineering Research, Springer International Publishing , 2017, s. 765-776Kapittel i bok, del av antologi (Annet vitenskapelig)
    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. 

  • 6.
    Midgley, Gerald
    et al.
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. 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?2018Inngår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, nr 3, s. 771-783Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    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. 

  • 7.
    Midgley, Gerald
    et al.
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. 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 barriers2017Inngår i: Industrial Marketing Management, ISSN 0019-8501, E-ISSN 1873-2062, Vol. 62, s. 150-159Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    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.

  • 8.
    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
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. 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 approach2019Inngår i: Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, ISSN 1744-2648, E-ISSN 1744-2656, Vol. 15, nr 3, s. 353-370Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    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.

  • 9.
    Torres-Cuello, M. A.
    et al.
    Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
    Pinzón-Salcedo, L.
    Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. 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 Perspective2018Inngår i: Systems research and behavioral science, ISSN 1092-7026, E-ISSN 1099-1743, Vol. 35, nr 5, s. 538-547Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    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. 

  • 10.
    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
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. 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 Research2018Inngår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, nr 3, s. 1134-1148Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    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 - 10 of 10
RefereraExporteraLink til resultatlisten
Permanent link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf