247 research outputs found
Akateemisia opiskelutaitoja oppimassa : opiskelijoiden kokemuksia verkkokurssilta ja tiedonhakutaitojen kehitys lähiopetuksessa
No full textSisältö: Tuutoreille ruusuja! : Vaasan yliopiston opiskelijoiden kokemuksia Akateemiset opiskelutaidot -verkkokurssista vuosina 2003 ja 2004 / Leena Maunumäki & Sannakaisa Holmlund. Informaation luonne ja plagiointi : empiirinen tutkimus opiskelijoiden käsityksestä tiedosta, sen käytöstä ja heidän suhtautumisestaan virtuaaliopetukseen / Olli Mäkinen, Hanna Kuoppala & Katri Rintamäkifi=vertaisarvioimaton|en=nonPeerReviewed|ei tietoa saavutettavuudest
Social Networks in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2016-2021
No full textAineisto sisältää koosteen ryhmäjäsenyyksistä liittyen kansainvälisen ilmastopaneelin (IPCC), kansainvälisen biodiversiteettipaneelin (IPBES), Future Earth -tutkimusohjelman ja Maailman ilmastotutkimusohjelman (WCRP) työhön nimettyjen asiantuntijoiden osalta. Aineisto on kerätty osana Suomalaisen tiedediplomatian tila ja mahdollisuudet VN TEAS -hanketta. Aineistoon on kerätty kansainvälisen ilmastopaneelin (IPCC) ja kansainvälisen biodiversiteettipaneelin (IPBES) vuosina 2016 - 2021 käynnissä olleisiin arviointiprosesseihin virallisesti nimetyt ja työhön osallistuneet tutkijat ja asiantuntijat. Lisäksi aineistoon on kerätty tiedot kahden IPCC:n ja IPBESin toimintaan kiinteästi liittyvän kansainvälisen tiedeorganisaation, Future Earthin ja World Climate Research Programmen (WCRP) toimintaan vuonna 2020 nimetyt tutkijat. Kerätty aineisto esitetään suuntaamattomana, kaksiarvoisena verkostoanalyysimatriisina. Kunkin tutkittavan kohdalta on merkattu, kuuluiko tutkittava mainittuihin foorumeihin. IPCC:n ja IPBESin osalta on jätetty muun muassa kansalliset yhteyshenkilöt ja sihteeristöjen edustajat pois sekä Future Earthin ja WCRP:n osalta sihteeristöjen edustajat ja lukuisat verkostoissa toimivat satunnaiset vapaaehtoiset. Future Earthin ja WCRP:n osalta on otettu mukaan vain ne tutkijat, joiden tiedot ovat olleet löydettävissä organisaatioiden verkkosivuilta, ja jotka ovat osallistuneet tutkitun tiedon arviointeja tai arviointityötä kirjallisesti tukevien foorumien toimintaan (pois lukien foorumit, jotka pyrkivät vain verkottumaan eivätkä arvioi tai tuota tietoa). Havaintomatriisissa jokainen yksittäinen henkilö on merkitty vain yhteen kertaan eli mahdolliset toistot on poistettu. Jäsenyysmatriisin avulla voi analysoida IPCC:n ja IPBESin raporttien kirjoittamiseen ja vertaisarviointiin nimitettyjen asiantuntijoiden sekä täten myös organisaatioiden eri arviointiprosessien tai foorumien välisiä suhteita (jäsenyys foorumeissa on merkitty dataan arvoilla 1 tai 0 eli suhde joko on tai ei ole). Eri foorumeita aineistossa on lueteltuna 101 kappaletta. Aineistosta voidaan analysoida erilaisia verkostoanalyysiohjelmia hyödyntäen yksiulotteisesti esim. IPCC:n sisäisiä suhteita, kuten mitkä ja minkä tyyppiset organisaatiot ovat keskeisiä IPCC:n asiantuntijoiden taustaorganisaatioina tai kaksiulotteisesti kaikkien neljän toimijaryhmän keskinäisiä suhteita. Organisaatioiden luomia verkostoja voidaan myös verrata keskenään. Aineistosta voidaan laskea perustietoja (kuten esiintymisfrekvenssejä) verkostoissa eniten edustetuista maista tai maiden ryhmistä organisaatioista. Taustamuuttujina aineistossa on tutkittavan asiantuntija-asema, kansalaisuus, organisaatiojäsenyys ja oletettu sukupuoli. Niiden tutkijoiden osalta, joilla on jäsenyys useammalla kuin yhdellä foorumilla, on kirjattu se rooli, joka on henkilön kaikista rooleista vastuullisin.The data includes a compilation of group memberships for experts appointed to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the Future Earth Programme and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). The data was collected as part of the Government's analysis, assessment and research activities (VN TEAS) project on the state and potential of Finnish science diplomacy. The data includes scientists and experts formally nominated and participating in the assessment processes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) that took place between 2016 and 2021. In addition, the dataset includes information on the scientists appointed in 2020 to two international scientific organisations closely associated with the IPCC and IPBES, Future Earth and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). The data collected is presented as an undirected, bivariate network analysis matrix. For each respondent, it is indicated whether the respondent belongs to the mentioned forums. For IPCC and IPBES, national contact points and secretariat representatives are excluded, and for Future Earth and WCRP, secretariat representatives and numerous occasional volunteers from the networks are excluded. For Future Earth and WCRP, only researchers whose details were available on the organisations' websites and who participated in forums that support the evaluation of research data or evaluation work in writing (excluding forums that are only networking and do not evaluate or produce data) have been included. In the observation matrix, each individual has been marked only once, i.e. any duplications have been removed. The membership matrix can be used to analyse the relationships between the experts appointed to write and peer review IPCC and IPBES reports, and hence also between the different review processes or forums of the organisations (membership of forums is indicated in the data with values 1 or 0, i.e. either a relationship exists or does not exist). There are 101 forums listed in the data. The data can be analysed using various network analysis tools, e.g. unidimensionally for relationships within the IPCC, such as which and which types of organisations are key background organisations for IPCC experts, or bidimensionally for relationships between all four groups of actors. The networks created by the organisations can also be compared with each other. From the data, basic information (such as frequencies of occurrence) can be calculated for the countries or groups of countries most represented in the networks. The background variables included the respondent's expert status, nationality, organisational membership and presumed gender. For those researchers who have membership of more than one forum, the role that is the most responsible of all the roles of the person is noted
Katri Valas modernistische (In)konsequenz
No full textIn the article the authors presented the chosen aspects
of the works of Katri Vala, one of the most interesting Finnishspeaking
poets in the 1920s and 30s. She was part of the Nuori
voima (Youth power) group, formed by young Finnish poets and
writers, and later of the Tulenkantajat (The Torch Bearers). Her
early poems are marked by the modernist tendencies which
prevailed in the Sweedish-language poetry in Finland, foremost in
the works of Edith Sodergran.
The new way of writing, which Katri Vala perceived as something
natural and coming from her heart, was never difficult for her and
she never elaborated on it in theory.
The poems written by Katri Vala are considered to be a modernist
breakthrough in the poetry written in Finnish. The author,
however, did not strive to substitute the whole of the Finnish
writing until then, but rather to gain an equal status for the new
poetry.
Her attempt, as well as those of her colleagues, was unsuccessful in
the 1920s and 30s
#ScienceForUkraine, Suomi, tiede ja sota – aika reflektoida
No full textKun Venäjä hyökkäsi Ukrainaan tämän vuoden helmikuussa, kesti vain hetken, että tiedeyhteisön apua kokoava #ScienceForUkraine-aloite sai alkunsa. Kun sodan syttymisestä on kulunut enemmän aikaa, voidaan tarkastella, mitä kokemuksista on opittu. Onko aloitteelle vielä tarvetta
Expert knowledge and institutional interplay: Exploring the epistemic linkages of the IPCC, IPBES, WCRP, and Future Earth
No full textThis article investigates the potential of knowledge interplay between epistemically driven organizations representing diverse institutional epistemologies. The concept of epistemic linkage is proposed to describe the connections that facilitate knowledge-related ties between these kinds of organizations. Epistemic linkages were mapped through experts (n = 2093) appointed to two organizations coordinating global environmental assessment processes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), as well as two international research platforms, the World Climate Research Programme and Future Earth. Epistemic linkages form networks that underpin structures of knowledge interplay between and within the climate change and biodiversity regimes. Structural attributes of these networks, such as polycentricity, fragmentation, and complexity, were determined through the application of social network analysis (SNA). This study evaluates the network structures’ potential implications for knowledge interplay. It further illustrates the value of deliberated epistemic linkages and knowledge interplay in fostering epistemic alignment and mutual awareness. The findings reveal that epistemic linkages between IPCC and IPBES are limited, and the network is structurally constrained. The article concludes with a discussion of how the epistemic linkages have significance for coordination efforts across institutions that aim to address interconnected environmental challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss across regimes.Peer reviewe
Innovatiivinen ruokajärjestelmä : Tutkimusohjelman loppuraportti
No full textInnovatiivinen ruokajärjestelmä- tutkimusohjelman (InnoFood), 2016–2020, visiona on ollut tuottaa ratkaisuja kestävään ruokajärjestelmään, jossa tuotettu ruoka on terveellistä ja sen tuotanto ja kulutus tapahtuvat kestävästi luonnonvaroja säästäen sekä niitä optimaalisesti käyttäen ja kierrättäen. Ohjelmassa toimittiin neljällä fokusalueella, joiden tavoitteina oli: 1) Arvioida ja edistää uusia tuotantomenetelmiä (genomiikka ja jalostus, teknologiat) 2) Parantaa eläintuotantoketjun kestävyyttä ja kilpailukykyä, 3) Lisätä kasvintuotannon kilpailukykyä ja viljelyjärjestelmien monimuotoisuutta sekä 4) Kehittää terveellisiä ja kestäviä korkean lisäarvon ruoka- ja rehukonsepteja. Ohjelmakauden aikana Luke uudisti voimakkaasti tutkimusprofiiliaan, toimipaikkarakennettaan ja tutkimusalustojaan. InnoFood -ohjelma osallistui aktiivisesti tutkimuksen strategisesta suuntaamisesta ja tutkimusalustoista käytyyn keskusteluun, suunnitteluun ja toteutukseen. Ohjelman pitkäjänteinen toiminta tulee jatkumaan Luken uuden ohjelmarakenteen kaikkiin ohjelmiin integroituneena.
InnoFood -ohjelma toimi tiiviissä yhteistyössä BioSociety -ohjelman (Kestävä luonnonvaratalous yhteiskunnassa) kanssa, ja onkin vaikea erottaa näiden kahden ohjelman rooleja ruokajärjestelmän kehittämisessä. Erityisesti kestävyyteen ja kiertotalouteen liittyvät aiheet ovat olleet yhteistä tekemistä. Osa tämän loppuraportin teksteistä on BioSocietyn asiantuntijoiden tuottamia. InnoFood onnistui hienosti ulkopuolisen rahoitusosuuden kasvattamisessa: mm. EU:n H2020 ohjelmasta saatiin neljä koordinoitavaa hanketta, ja lisäksi oltiin partnerina 16 H2020-hankkeessa. Suomen Akatemian rahoitusosuus kasvoi erityisesti ohjelmakauden loppua kohden. Asiakasrahoituksen kasvattamisessa ohjelma on ollut Lukessa edelläkävijä, vuonna 2019 saavutettiin jo yli 3 miljoonan euron asiakasrahoitus. Lisäksi Luken strategisella rahoituksella pyrittiin vahvistamaan osaamista tärkeiksi arvioiduilla tulevaisuuden aloilla, kuten mikrobien ja mikrobiyhteisöjen tutkimus, hyönteisten hyödyntäminen kiertotaloudessa, luomututkimus ja genomien editointi.
Viestinnällä on ollut keskeinen rooli tutkimustulosten ja tutkimuksen tarjoamien ratkaisujen esiintuomisessa. Viestiä ratkaisuista kestävään ruokajärjestelmään on välitetty niin mediatiedotteissa, podcasteissa, blogeissa kuin suuremmissa tapahtumissa, webinaareissa ja yksittäisten hankkeiden pellonpiennartapatumissa. Merkittävää on ollut tutkijoiden osallistuminen yhteiskunnalliseen keskusteluun niin lehtien sivuilla, sosiaalisessa mediassa kuin useissa tapahtumissa. Keskustelut ja tutkimustiedon jalkauttaminen suoraan maatilayrittäjille jatkuu muun muassa Luken vetämässä, alkuvuodesta käynnistyneessä AgriHubi-verkostossa, joka kokoaa yhteen alan maatilayritysten neuvonnan, tutkimuksen ja koulutuksen. Verkoston tavoitteena on edistää maatilayritysten kilpailukykyä ja uudistumista.202
Co-creating great enablers : The Global Venture Lab exploration in Finland
No full textunknown accessibilityei tietoa saavutettavuudest
EBRF 2011 : Conference proceedings
No full textForewordGlobal business creation is a tough game. To welfare societies it is no longer just a game, however, but a matter of life and death. The ability of nations to sustain public services — for example, to pay salaries to researchers and educators — depends upon the jobs and tax income created by their globally growing enterprises. And yet there is no university domain dedicated to producing masters and mastery of this important art.The 11th EBRF Conference — Global Business Creation Games: Co-Creation of Enterprise for Problems Worth Solving — urged us all to make better use of our slack resources, both tangible and intangible. This is equally acutely needed in every sector of society and from every person, both natural and legal. Like in the times of the Great Explorers, bold exploration across murky waters is again called for. Like always, some roads will be dead-ends, but we cannot find the right ones without leaving our sofa.At EBRF 2011, we discussed with concern “time to market” for new products and businesses, but were equally concerned about time to market for the research we conduct — or whether our research has an impact on the marketplace, to begin with. This is how EBRF has challenged us, from the get-go, in 2001. With elements of an unconference, EBRF 2011 sought for ecosystem level impact by engaging entrepreneurs, executives, and policy makers in the scholarly process through what were called ecosystem level Live Case exercises. Such exercises were undertaken under six grand topics: Capital, Education, Energy, Health, ICT, and Wellbeing. All the approved abstracts and conference presentations were divided between them. The purpose was to jointly discover exciting new ways forward. At least some baby steps were taken.Entrepreneurs can freely choose which type companies they build. They can, for example, concentrate on building businesses aimed at solving big social and ecological problems. Researchers can choose the problems and solutions they investigate, and the purposes they serve. Policy makers and innovation financiers can first define quite exactly what they want and demand plans that fit the bill. Alternatively, they can build agile policies that are fitted to back the most innovative, motivated and committed teams. For a game-change, co-creation across all borders is needed.At EBRF 2011, each of the ecosystem level Live Case exercises produced their own global business creation canvas. One objective was to inspire the presenters of approved abstracts when finalizing their full papers, after the conference. By an ultimate deadline, altogether 20 conference presentations transformed into full research papers, all featured on the following pages. A range of 2–4 full papers emerged under each grand topic. While there are only 2 papers under ICT, there are 3 papers under Capital an Energy and 4 papers under Education, Health, and Wellbeing. To be sure, as these are not business as usual research topics or streams, there may be a paper or two, for example, under Education, with little or nothing to do with education, per se.For important acknowledgement of our work and approach, Technology Innovation Management Review (www.timreview.ca) decided to dedicate a special issue to EBRF 2011 conference papers. Dedicated to “Global Business Creation”, the TIM Review June issue features seven particularly insightful EBRF papers. All but one of the grand topics, namely ICT, is represented in the special issue. Also the authors whose paper did not make the special issue pulled themselves and the fellow members of their ecosystem level Live Case exercises out of their comfort zones, thereby successfully providing value-adding inspiration, provocation and stimulation across many borders. On behalf of all the organizers, I wish to thank each contributing author and participant.In her message to the EBRF 2011 organizers, having to decline a keynote invitation, Kelly Fitzsimmons, an extraordinary lady game changer and serial entrepreneur, pointed how successful business creators come in every size, shape, gender, and colour of skin, and from every kind of family and educational background as well as type of personality. What they share in common, according to her discoveries and observations, is their willingness and ability to tolerate discomfort for unreasonably long periods of time.At EBRF 2011, we were pushed outside our comfort zone only for a few days. Even there, it was educating enough for the organizers to take a time-out on EBRF’s future. Since 2001, the conference has continuously pushed — and stretched — the envelope in the frontier between art and science, theory and practice, having perhaps reached the limit. Consequently, the conference mission and concept are currently being reconsidered, and the conference board reorganized.For closing, I wish to take this opportunity to thank all the participants, co-organizers and sponsors of EBRF 2011 for an invaluable contribution. As co-founder and co-organizer or chairman of the conference since 2001, I wish to warmly thank all the individuals and institutions whose co-creative efforts and support have made 11 consecutive annual international peer reviewed business research conferences possible in Finland. For me, personally, this has been a most educational, rewarding, and worthwhile journey.Wishing all explorers both courage and passion, as well as every health, happiness, and best of luck, when enabling co-creation of great global enterprises, On behalf of the co-organizers of EBRF 2011,MARKO SEPPÄChairman of EBRF BoardForeword
Global business creation is a tough game. To welfare societies it is no longer just a game, however, but a matter of life and death. The ability of nations to sustain public services — for example, to pay salaries to researchers and educators — depends upon the jobs and tax income created by their globally growing enterprises. And yet there is no university domain dedicated to producing masters and mastery of this important art.
The 11th EBRF Conference — Global Business Creation Games: Co-Creation of Enterprise for Problems Worth Solving — urged us all to make better use of our slack resources, both tangible and intangible. This is equally acutely needed in every sector of society and from every person, both natural and legal. Like in the times of the Great Explorers, bold exploration across murky waters is again called for. Like always, some roads will be dead-ends, but we cannot find the right ones without leaving our sofa.
At EBRF 2011, we discussed with concern “time to market” for new products and businesses, but were equally concerned about time to market for the research we conduct — or whether our research has an impact on the marketplace, to begin with. This is how EBRF has challenged us, from the get-go, in 2001. With elements of an unconference, EBRF 2011 sought for ecosystem level impact by engaging entrepreneurs, executives, and policy makers in the scholarly process through what were called ecosystem level Live Case exercises. Such exercises were undertaken under six grand topics: Capital, Education, Energy, Health, ICT, and Wellbeing. All the approved abstracts and conference presentations were divided between them. The purpose was to jointly discover exciting new ways forward. At least some baby steps were taken.
Entrepreneurs can freely choose which type companies they build. They can, for example, concentrate on building businesses aimed at solving big social and ecological problems. Researchers can choose the problems and solutions they investigate, and the purposes they serve. Policy makers and innovation financiers can first define quite exactly what they want and demand plans that fit the bill. Alternatively, they can build agile policies that are fitted to back the most innovative, motivated and committed teams. For a game-change, co-creation across all borders is needed.
At EBRF 2011, each of the ecosystem level Live Case exercises produced their own global business creation canvas. One objective was to inspire the presenters of approved abstracts when finalizing their full papers, after the conference. By an ultimate deadline, altogether 20 conference presentations transformed into full research papers, all featured on the following pages. A range of 2–4 full papers emerged under each grand topic. While there are only 2 papers under ICT, there are 3 papers under Capital an Energy and 4 papers under Education, Health, and Wellbeing. To be sure, as these are not business as usual research topics or streams, there may be a paper or two, for example, under Education, with little or nothing to do with education, per se.
For important acknowledgement of our work and approach, Technology Innovation Management Review (www.timreview.ca) decided to dedicate a special issue to EBRF 2011 conference papers. Dedicated to “Global Business Creation”, the TIM Review June issue features seven particularly insightful EBRF papers. All but one of the grand topics, namely ICT, is represented in the special issue. Also the authors whose paper did not make the special issue pulled themselves and the fellow members of their ecosystem level Live Case exercises out of their comfort zones, thereby successfully providing value-adding inspiration, provocation and stimulation across many borders. On behalf of all the organizers, I wish to thank each contributing author and participant.
In her message to the EBRF 2011 organizers, having to decline a keynote invitation, Kelly Fitzsimmons, an extraordinary lady game changer and serial entrepreneur, pointed how successful business creators come in every size, shape, gender, and colour of skin, and from every kind of family and educational background as well as type of personality. What they share in common, according to her discoveries and observations, is their willingness and ability to tolerate discomfort for unreasonably long periods of time.
At EBRF 2011, we were pushed outside our comfort zone only for a few days. Even there, it was educating enough for the organizers to take a time-out on EBRF’s future. Since 2001, the conference has continuously pushed — and stretched — the envelope in the frontier between art and science, theory and practice, having perhaps reached the limit. Consequently, the conference mission and concept are currently being reconsidered, and the conference board reorganized.
For closing, I wish to take this opportunity to thank all the participants, co-organizers and sponsors of EBRF 2011 for an invaluable contribution. As co-founder and co-organizer or chairman of the conference since 2001, I wish to warmly thank all the individuals and institutions whose co-creative efforts and support have made 11 consecutive annual international peer reviewed business research conferences possible in Finland. For me, personally, this has been a most educational, rewarding, and worthwhile journey.
Wishing all explorers both courage and passion, as well as every health, happiness, and best of luck, when enabling co-creation of great global enterprises, On behalf of the co-organizers of EBRF 2011,
MARKO SEPPÄ
Chairman of EBRF Boar
BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM UNDER CONSTRUCTION
No full textIn recent years, we have seen the rise in interest on new service concepts that would take the advantage of capabilities of ecosystems instead that of single companies. In this paper we describe the initial steps on a new business initiative and how the ecosystem starts developing around the core. We use action research approach in one case of building joint service, sports receipt, for health exercise and wellbeing markets. The research paper concludes with an ecosystem modepeerReviewe
- …
