Research on the effectiveness of case studies in teaching engineering ethics in higher education is underdeveloped. To add to our knowledge, we have systematically compared the outcomes of two case approaches to an undergraduate course on the ethics of technology: a detached approach using real-life cases and a challenge-based learning (CBL) approach with students and stakeholders acting as co-creators (CC). We first developed a practical typology of case-study approaches and subsequently tested an evaluation method to assess the students’ learning experiences (basic needs and motivation) and outcomes (competence development) and staff interpretations and operationalizations, seeking to answer three questions: (1) Do students in the CBL approach report higher basic needs, motivation and competence development compared to their peers in the detached approach? (2) What is the relationship between student-perceived co-creation and their basic needs, motivation and competence development? And (3) what are the implications of CBL/CC for engineering-ethics teaching and learning? Our mixed methods analysis favored CBL as it best supported teaching and research goals while satisfying the students’ basic needs and promoting intrinsic motivation and communication competences. Competence progress in other areas did not differ between approaches, and motivation in terms of identified regulation was lower for CBL, with staff perceiving a higher workload. We propose that our case typology model is useful and that as a method to engage students as co-creators, CBL certainly merits further development and evaluation, as does our effectiveness analysis for engineering ethics instruction in general and for case-study approaches in particular.

Co-creation has become a major concern in science and public policy. It aims to give a more central role to end users in producing (public sector) innovation outcomes. This leads to a new variety of end user roles in innovation activities and poses challenges for both practitioners and policy makers. We offer an in-depth, comparative analysis of such end user roles in three cases of co-creative public sector innovation across Europe. We argue that the definition of particular end user roles is crucial in shaping both the inclusiveness and outcomes of co-creative innovation. We offer a typology of end user roles and their respective limits and potentials with regard to co-creation. Our analysis suggests that, for co-creation to produce useful and legitimate outcomes, the process by which roles are assigned to and negotiated with end users must be part of the co-creative process itself.

This article examines the attitudes of the European Union on the development of Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). It looks first at the trajectory of EU positions on ASEM, before specific sections explore the EU perspective on the style and format of ASEM, on the substantive issues under discussion, and on the wider geo-political relevance of the institution. In order to provide a critical assessment of the EU’s position, the article also discusses some of the key alternative relationships the EU has with the Asia-Pacific region, be it multilaterally or bilaterally. By way of conclusion, the article argues that despite the limitations of ASEM, the process still retains an added value in the context of the wider diplomacy between the EU and its Asian partners.

No abstract