"uuid","repository link","title","author","contributor","publication year","abstract","subject topic","language","publication type","publisher","isbn","issn","patent","patent status","bibliographic note","access restriction","embargo date","faculty","department","research group","programme","project","coordinates"
"uuid:6955de61-d81f-4786-845f-a760bdf763c3","http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:6955de61-d81f-4786-845f-a760bdf763c3","Publishing Research in Digital Government: A Discussion with Editors-in-Chief of Key Journals","Tambouris, Efthimios (University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki); Chen, Yu Che (University of Nebraska, Omaha); Chun, Soon Ae (City University of New York); Janssen, M.F.W.H.A. (TU Delft Information and Communication Technology); Meijer, Albert (Universiteit Utrecht); Rana, Nripendra (Bradford University); Visvizi, Anna (SGH Warsaw School of Economics)","Lee, Jooho (editor); Pereira, Gabriela Viale (editor); Hwang, Sungsoo (editor)","2021","Publishing research in reputable academic journals is an important objective for researchers in digital government, as in any scientific field. Researchers are under constant pressure to publish their work in highly reputable journals. As a result, a number of facts and myths exist regarding publishing in reputable digital government journals. The aim of this panel is to discuss prevalent facts and myths in an attempt to demystify publication of digital government research. For that purpose, editors-in-chief of five key journals in the area have been invited to provide guidance and answer relevant questions.","Digital government; editors-in-chief; journal; research","en","conference paper","Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)","","","","","","","","","","Information and Communication Technology","","",""
"uuid:70a9d4f2-292a-4eff-a90d-7f818b13e75a","http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:70a9d4f2-292a-4eff-a90d-7f818b13e75a","PCQ: Preferred Comfort Questionnaires for product design","Anjani, S. (TU Delft Applied Ergonomics and Design); Kühne, Manon (vhp Human Performance); Naddeo, Alessandro (University of Salerno); Frohriep, Susanne (Grammer AG); Mansfield, Neil (Nottingham Trent University); Song, Y. (TU Delft Mechatronic Design); Vink, P. (TU Delft Materials and Manufacturing)","","2021","BACKGROUND: Selecting the most suitable questionnaire(s) in comfort research for product design is always a challenge, even for experienced researchers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to create a list of Preferred Comfort Questionnaires (PCQ) for product design to help researchers in the selection of questionnaires for comfort research. METHODS: Fifteen questionnaires that are often used in comfort research for product design were selected as candidate questionnaires. During the Second International Comfort Congress (ICC 2019), 55 researchers and practitioners working in the field of comfort joined together in a workshop to rate these questionnaires individually as well as rank them in groups based on their experience. The criteria of rating and ranking included easiness to answer, easiness for data interpretation, time needed to complete, the need for prior training, as well as mapping the applicable design phases and field of application. RESULTS: The elicited responses related to each questionnaire were analyzed. For comfort research in five proposed application fields and four design phases, the preferred questionnaires were highlighted and categorized into four categories: preferred questionnaire, suitable for less prior training, suitable for fast completion and generally applicable, which led to a list of PCQ for product design. CONCLUSION: We expect that the PCQ list can be used as a useful instrument to help researchers in selecting questionnaires for comfort research in product design.","Comfort; discomfort; product design; questionnaire; research","en","journal article","","","","","","","","","","","Applied Ergonomics and Design","","",""
"uuid:1d18ff74-8ad6-470a-9e32-bed01fb43eb5","http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:1d18ff74-8ad6-470a-9e32-bed01fb43eb5","Crossing borders in Landscape Architecture: Discussing internationalisation","","Bobbink, I. (editor); Niederer, Danielle (editor); Janssen, C. (editor)","2020","Internationalisation is felt everywhere: more and more professional practices seek clients abroad, and the number of international researchers, teachers and students in higher education is increasing. While observing, responding and anticipating to these trends, the most important question is overlooked: how can internationalisation add value to the quality of higher education, research and professional practice?
In this booklet, teachers, students, researchers and landscape architect designers – from a Dutch and a non-Dutch background – share their experiences and sketch their perspective, both professionally and personally. What does internationalisation mean for the practice and competences of (future) landscape architects who work abroad and vice versa? How does internationalisation change schools and curricula? How do we guarantee quality in education? How do we work on international positioning of Dutch landscape architecture? And last but not least how do we deal with our core topic: operating site-specific? Let’s start talking!","internationalisation; Landscape Architecture; education; research; practise","en","book","Dutch School of Landscape Architecture","978-90-9033150-8","","","","","","","","","Landscape Architecture","","",""
"uuid:3a076c59-98aa-4469-a5e7-74a587f1ae8e","http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:3a076c59-98aa-4469-a5e7-74a587f1ae8e","Women's Studies at the Architecture Department of Delft Technical University","van Wijk, C.A. (TU Delft OLD History of Architecture & Urban Planning)","Seražin, Helena (editor); Garda, Emilia Maria (editor); Franchini, Caterina (editor)","2018","This paper discusses the section for Women’s Studies at the Department of Architecture in Delft (ca. 1978-2000). It describes the circumstances that made it possible that such a section came to exist. And it investigates what the activities of the section were, and what the impact of this section has been.","women's studies; education; research; architecture; urbanism","en","conference paper","France Stele Institute of Art History","","","","","","","","","","OLD History of Architecture & Urban Planning","","",""
"uuid:0b472322-ab50-4c3d-ad48-e6946e2b754d","http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:0b472322-ab50-4c3d-ad48-e6946e2b754d","SDI Research and Strategies towards 2030: Renewing the SDI Research Agenda: Workshop Report","Vancauwenberghe, G. (TU Delft OLD Geo-information and Land Development); van Loenen, B. (TU Delft OLD Geo-information and Land Development)","","2018","In the past 30 years, public administrations in Europe and worldwide have invested considerable resources in the development and implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs) for promoting, facilitating and coordinating the exchange and sharing of geographic data. SDI research has been an important driver and enabler for SDI development and implementation. Researchers across the world have been exploring various issues around the development and implementation of SDIs. While over the last decade SDIs significantly matured, new research challenges emerged and new researchers and research disciplines entered the domain of SDI research. There is, however, a risk of SDI research becoming more fragmented into separate – disciplinary, organizational and geographic – silos, due to a lack of initiatives enabling and facilitating collaboration and exchange of knowledge and experiences among SDI researchers. The ‘SDI Research and Strategies towards 2030’ workshop wanted to build further and continue the work done in past initiatives to promote knowledge sharing and collaboration among SDI researchers. In 2009 and 2010 two SDI research workshops were held at the GSDI Conferences in Rotterdam (the Netherlands) and Singapore, allowing especially early stage researchers in the domain of SDI to present their ongoing research and exchange views and ideas on new research challenges. One of the last attempts to develop an SDI research agenda already dates from 2005, when Bernard et al. drafted their proposal for an SDI research agenda, identifying several key research issues raised by the transition from GIS to SDIs. The ‘SDI Research and Strategies towards 2030’ workshop aimed to initiate the definition of a renewed Spatial Data Infrastructure Research Agenda. This report summarizes the presentations and discussions held during the workshop.
Method: The method is what might be called a 'reflective argument' based on the authors’ lengthy engagement in the field and their recent metatheoretical work on CREM.
Findings: MetaCREM is identified together with multiple meta-objects that are forms of meta-work applicable to metaCREM. This established that meta-work already occurs in CREM. A landscape of potential areas for research was identified that encompassed existing work and potential areas of future endeavour.
Implications: The paper's implications are largely for theory and theorisation. Relevance to practice is secondary through potential improvements to theorisation of problems that may flow on to practice.