01891nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245009100055210006900146260004200215300001000257490000600267520118500273653002001458653001601478653001501494653002701509653002201536100002001558700002501578700002001603856003801623       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aBridging Participatory Policy Trends and Research Traditions through Social Innovation0 aBridging Participatory Policy Trends and Research Traditions thr  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2019  a27-360 v93 aThis study explores whether social innovation may serve as a bridge between participatory policy trends and research traditions when striving for improved societal relevance and impact of research and innovation (R&I). Despite their shared aim of relevance and impact through civic involvement, European R&I policies and participatory action research approaches seldom refer to each other or harness each other’s resources. The study advances the knowledge regarding how the participatory elements in the policies and research approaches relate through a participatory case study of a joint R&I process to develop a model for social innovation support in Sweden. The case study helps distinguish potential synergies between various degrees of involvement advocated in the policies and research approaches, as well as between the reliance on trending policy concepts vs. scientific notions of validity. Social innovation is perceived as a potential bridge between these elements, as it draws upon participatory academic traditions, while simultaneously tapping into current policy trends of co-creation, in the development of new approaches and solutions to societal challenges. 10aaction research10aco-creation10ainnovation10aparticipatory research10asocial innovation1 aLindberg, Malin1 aHallencreutz, Daniel1 aTengqvist, Anna  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123100575nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245004400055210004100099260004200140300000800182490000600190653002000196653001500216653001800231653002700249100001800276700001800294700001900312856003800331       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Action Research (April 2019)0 aEditorial Action Research April 2019  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2019  a3-60 v910aaction research10ainnovation10aparticipative10aparticipatory research1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aHoppe, Magnus1 aLindhult, Erik  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122800571nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245004200055210003900097260004200136300000800178490000600186653002000192653001500212653001800227653002700245100001800272700001800290700001900308856003800327       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Action Research (May 2019)0 aEditorial Action Research May 2019  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2019  a3-50 v910aaction research10ainnovation10aparticipative10aparticipatory research1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aHoppe, Magnus1 aLindhult, Erik  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123602147nas a2200325   4500008004100000022001400041245010100055210006900156260004200225300001000267490000600277520115600283653002001439653001101459653002601470653002501496653002701521653001601548653002301564653002001587653001901607653002401626653002701650653002201677653002401699653002301723100001801746700001901764856003801783       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEmbedded Master’s Students Conduct Highly Relevant Research Using Industry as Their Laboratory0 aEmbedded Master s Students Conduct Highly Relevant Research Usin  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2019  a54-730 v93 aThis article analyzes participatory action research conducted by Systems Engineering master’s students embedded fifty percent in industrial companies for three years. The resulting papers authored by these students identify challenges and effective practices suitable for knowledge transfer between industry and academia. The analysis covers 181 completed master’s projects, with a detailed analysis of 40 papers that have been published in international conferences and journals. The publication rate of about 23% shows that these students contribute actively to the body of Systems Engineering knowledge. This study analyzes master’s projects at three levels – industrial problem and drivers; Systems Engineering methods; and research method feasibility – and provides valuable lessons learned by applying the industry-as-laboratory approach. Embedding students in industry has resulted in publications that do not suffer from the main challenges of participatory research such as delays, repeatability, and only action and not research. These insights are valuable both for industry and for academia in future work to enhance innovations.10aaction research10aenergy10aexperimental learning10aindustrial knowledge10aindustry as laboratory10ainnovations10aknowledge transfer10alessons learned10amaster project10amaster’s students10aparticipatory research10asituated learning10asystems engineering10asystems of systems1 aFalk, Kristin1 aMuller, Gerrit  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/124103136nas a2200181   4500008004100000022001400041245010000055210006900155260004200224300000900266490000600275520255700281653002002838653002702858653001202885100001902897856003802916       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aScientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part I. Rethinking Research Quality0 aScientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research Part   aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2019  a6-210 v93 aA core impetus of participatory and action research is making science relevant and useful for solving pressing problems and improving social conditions, and enabling stakeholders to participate in research and development processes. There are claims in the community of participatory and action research of the potential for heightened scientific excellence, but at the same time, there are critiques in the mainstream community that more engaged, even activist, stances threaten scientific norms or that position these type of research approaches outside the field of science, for example, as issues of application. In the search of clarification of the scientific identity and the specific qualities of participatory and action research, scholars have been moving away from and sometimes have rejected traditional conceptions of quality. This leads to confusion about how to relate to the discourse on research quality and scientific excellence in mainstream science. Integration in this discourse is important in order to attain academic legitimation in prevailing institutions of science, for example, in applications for funding, in seeking to publish research, and in the acceptance of dissertations based on participatory and action research. The purpose of this article is to contribute to this integration by reconstructing the way traditional quality concepts – validity, reliability, and objectivity – can be fruitfully used in expanded frameworks for quality where scientific excellence of participatory and action approaches are visible and where mainstream science approaches also can be harboured. In this conceptual article, reconstruction of understanding of scientific inquiry is first made based on a praxis-oriented epistemology inspired by pragmatism. Through rethinking truth as trustworthiness, new proposals for the conceptualization and frames for research quality and scientific excellence are introduced. Second, a framework for understanding purpose in science and its basis in validity, reliability, and the core characteristics of participatory and action research is developed. Third, the turn to action, practice, and participation enables plural ways of knowing and ways that knowledge claims can be validated and made trustworthy. The article concludes that participatory and action research offers a broader landscape of purpose and validation than more traditional approaches to science. In a subsequent article, reliability and objectivity, and their use in participatory and action research, will be clarified.10aaction research10aparticipatory research10aquality1 aLindhult, Erik  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123702206nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245011200055210006900167260004200236300001000278490000600288520158200294653002001876653001601896653002701912653001601939100001901955856003801974       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aScientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part II. Rethinking Objectivity and Reliability0 aScientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research Part   aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2019  a22-330 v93 aThe purpose of this article is to deal with the following question: Can the concepts of reliability and objectivity be reconceptualized and reappropriated to enable understanding of scientific excellence in participatory and action research? The article shows that it is fruitful to consider the “subjective” and active role of researchers as vital in enabling scientific objectivity and reliability. As an expansion from a replication logic, reliability can be conceptualized as adaptive, goal-seeking, dynamically regulated processes enabled by effective organization of interactive and participatory learning processes where all participants can contribute to learning and correction in inquiry. Instead of erasing subjectivity, objectivity can be enabled by critical subjectivity, intersubjectivity, practical wisdom, impartial norms of inquiry, and open democratic dialogue. Reliability and objectivity in this understanding can be enabled by participatory and action research through skilful performance of research practices such as reflective conversations between parties, dialogue conferences, experimentation, and experiential learning as part of action-research cycles, etc., which are common in participatory and action research initiatives and projects. By rethinking validity, reliability, and objectivity, recognizing the substantially more active and participatory stances enables scientific excellence, it can expand the repertoire of strategies for promoting research quality, and it helps to mainstream this type of approach in the scientific community.10aaction research10aobjectivity10aparticipatory research10areliability1 aLindhult, Erik  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/1238