Networking as Research Practices: Methodological Lessons Learnt from the Case Studies

2014 ◽  
pp. 235-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelika Bikner-Ahsbahs ◽  
Susanne Prediger
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Lessons Learnt

Puzzling and powering in the city: two case studies on collaborative research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Duiveman
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Knowledge Development ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Living Labs ◽  
Urban Issues ◽  
Policy Problems ◽  
Collaborative Knowledge

Abstract Cities are turning to urban living labs and research consortia to co-create knowledge that can better enable them to address pervasive policy problems. Collaborations within such practices help researchers, officials and local stakeholders find new ways of dealing with urban issues and developing new relations with one another. Interestingly, success in the latter is often closely related to accomplishing the former. Besides of analysing this phenomenon in terms of learning—as is common—this paper also delves into the power dynamics involved in collaborative knowledge development. This perspective contributes to a better understanding of how puzzling and powering are simultaneously involved in making research relevant to policy-making. By presenting two collaborative research consortia in the Netherlands, we demonstrate how developing knowledge involves both re-structuring problems and the urban practices involved in governing such problems. Collaborative research practices are predominantly concerned with learning as long as restructuring the problem leads to research findings that are meaningful to all actors. Power becomes manifest when one actor insists on restructuring (often reproducing) problems in a manner judged unacceptable by others. Analysis of two case studies will show how the familiar three faces of power express themselves in collaborative knowledge development. It is recommended that these new practices also require methods for better orchestrating power besides a methodology for successful structuring learning through collaborative research practices.

International advocacy: Case studies and lessons learnt

2019 ◽  
pp. 193-204
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Grisold ◽  
Anna Klicpera ◽  
Thomas Grisold
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
International Perspective ◽  
Lessons Learnt ◽  
Personal Experiences ◽  
The Voice

This chapter takes an international perspective on advocacy. It focuses on the question of how international advocacy projects can look like and what makes them successful. In doing so, we turn to the practical and applied sides of advocacy. Advocacy activities aim at taking the voice of patients to inform, protect, and support them. In the first part of this chapter, we will present successful cases of advocacy activities in neurology. In the second part, we will reflect on personal experiences where advocacy activities were or should have been implemented. Reflecting on these cases, we present some lessons learnt that advocates may want to consider when they plan and implement international advocacy activities.

Risk-based regulation of technical risks: lessons learnt from case studies in Switzerland

2003 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Flüeler ◽  
Hansjörg Seiler
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Lessons Learnt ◽  
Technical Risks

Why lessons learnt are lost

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 677-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Haris ◽  
Abdur Rehman Cheema ◽  
Chamila Subasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Know How ◽  
Cultural Preferences ◽  
Lessons Learnt ◽  
Cultural Preference ◽  
Housing Reconstruction ◽  
And Training ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reduce the gap in understanding the complexity of barriers, their modifiers and how these barriers and their modifiers result in malpractices and missed good practices in post-earthquake reconstruction contexts. This paper provides insights to the often asked question: why the lessons learnt from one earthquake event are not actually learnt and many of the mistakes around housing reconstruction are repeated? Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on the review of the literature of the top deadliest earthquakes in the developing countries and the two case studies of the 2005 Kashmir and 2015 earthquake in Pakistan. Findings Multifarious barriers, their modifiers, malpractices and missed good practices are deeply interwoven, and endemic and include weak financial standing, lack of technical know-how, vulnerable location, social and cultural preference, affordability and availability of materials, over-emphasis on technical restrictions, inefficient policies, lack of clarity in institutional roles, monitoring and training. Research limitations/implications The study is desk based. Practical implications A better understanding of barriers can help disaster-related organisations to improve the planning and implementation of post-earthquake housing reconstruction. Social implications The study contributes to the understanding concerning various social and cultural preferences that negotiate the Build Back Better (BBB) process. Originality/value The study offers a distinctive perspective synthesising the literature and the two case studies to sharpen the understanding of the complexity of barriers to BBB.

Structural proteomics: lessons learnt from the early case studies

Il Farmaco ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 57 (11) ◽  
pp. 947-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Norin ◽  
Michael Sundström
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Structural Proteomics ◽  
Lessons Learnt ◽  
Early Case
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document