Towards Comprehensive Security Related Pedagogy
An Approach to Learning and Resilience
Rauno Pirinen
, Juha Mäkinen
and Arto Salonen
Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Espoo, Finland
The National Defense University, Helsinki, Finland
Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland
Keywords: Action Competence, Adaptive Change, Comprehensive Security, Security Related Pedagogy, Resilience.
Abstract: The indent of this study is in progress of comprehensive security related pedagogy in the forms of national-
international information sharing and knowledge management with the shared policy developing,
collaboration in externally funded research consortiums, structures of security and safety organisations, and
integration of strategic research and development (R&D) agenda with higher education functions. The study
includes multiple case study analysis of integration of R&D projects and higher education functions, revised
viewpoints to comprehensive security pedagogy and R&D related learning, and an approach to adaptive
change process and resilience. The main contribution of study addresses to the progress of emergent
educational aspects for the security related interactions, pedagogy, integration of higher education R&D,
and collective research with national and European Commission research programmes.
In security related higher education, research
activities and achieved high-value impacts have
become globally important for regions and societies,
because requirement of new competence and
competent networked experts to meet current and
future challenges. This progress of a result and high-
value impact in higher education is a complex and
global-interaction based processes, not only within
technology, but merged with the economic,
legislative and social environment, where they are
also influenced by government policy and
programmes, financial instruments, laws and
regulations as well as economic boundary
conditions. In this study, the focus of learners,
partners, education and research system is addressed
to co-creation of: 1) knowledge 2) competence 3)
capability and 4) operative performance & action
In this study, the term “security related learning”
addresses to interactions of learners, here such as
researchers, decision-policy makers, teachers and
students, to explore: environmental and national
critical issues; related adaptive change; and our
relationship with nature, to show how innovation,
design and science can benefit us to solve challenges
and find appropriate ways to communicate ideas,
agenda based issues and implications collectively in
diverse disciplines and policy-decision systems.
In this study, the terms adaptive and catalytic”
addresses to the targets to search and find something
for new valuable purpose and select them to as
learning scopes; the cognitive capability to absorb
them; and the common sense to arrange targets in a
line that learning is addressed into appropriate action
capabilities and performance e.g., interests for:
security institutions; customers; policy; business;
networks and organizations; and for learner’s
motivation and empowerment in line with
purposeful bridging of studies for: 1) knowledge
building 2) competence based curriculum 3)
capability and resilience and 4) management of
operative performance & action related proficiency.
In this study, the term “learning” is related to the
increased rate of interactions and external R&D
pipelines as scopes of learning and catalytic agents
in a processes which shares that knowledge and
higher education can be Humboldtian preserved as
for a service, methodology, product, activity,
capability, performance, policy, or as educational,
innovative, or intellectual assets which can be
exported for a high-value and impact returns.
Pirinen, R., Mäkinen, J. and Salonen, A.
Towards Comprehensive Security Related Pedagogy - An Approach to Learning and Resilience.
DOI: 10.5220/0006090102540262
In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2016) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 254-262
ISBN: 978-989-758-203-5
2016 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
In the educational focus of term action,
capability and performance”, students of higher
education and learners are connected at the center of
the collective regional-global learning as R&D
process, which bearings focused profiles,
stimulations for learning, regional-national learning
capabilities, and related regional configuration of
practice by bridging novel knowledge, competence
and capability-performance co-creation in an
integrative learning process.
In the continuum of this study, the term
“integration” and integrative R&D” is addressed to
an interactive way of learning in where an individual
learns along with a workplace, institution, school,
and R&D community, such as an international
research consortium and alongside a learning &
R&D organization and across borders and
disciplinary silos, as in a collective learning space
that can be regional or individual-global oriented.
In the continuum of this study, the term learner
refers to a student, teacher, researcher, decision-
maker or participant who enriches his or her own
knowledge-competence through collaborative R&D
by sharing expertise and learning from others where
R&D collaboration for learning is used, and student
is used to indicate that a person is registered as a
student in the database of the national Ministry of
Education and Culture (Pirinen, 2015a).
One macro-level doctrine of study is that the
research dimensions and methodology contains
learning, and an authentic real-world research
process is facilitated for collective learning in higher
education institutions. Then, the objectives of
integrative learning “can be associated through
various formal and informal structures, such as R&D
networks and actors, especially in developing
students and learners to specialize in their areas of
novel expertise where applicable knowledge is
produced and mobilized in the collective R&D-
related learning processes, which can be related to
the externally funded R&D projects and research
alongside of regional-national-global consortium’s
targets and the regional-national configuration and
research agenda” (Pirinen, 2009; Pirinen, 2015a).
One micro-level purpose of this study is
addressed to the form of higher education that
focuses on the demands of the individual-national-
global comprehensive security domain and its
development, here teachers, policy and authority
representatives would work more and more together
“closely” in an interaction as a collective learning
community that “can involve students and the
implementation of study units in higher education
and shared R&D, such as learning by national-
international research consortiums and work
packages” as realizations; e.g., in a manners of
knowledge transition, catalytic and adaptive
acquisition, participation and co-creation e.g.,
manners of R&D and learning for building
something new: towards realization of research and
development (Pirinen, 2013) and creating
entrepreneurial universities (Clark, 2007).
The incipient concept of “knowledge economy”
includes here its support for building and co-creation
of knowledge by learners and organizational
employees and its encouragement of individuals to
transfer and utilize their knowledge and
competences that are in line with the goals and
strategies of organizations and the regional-national
R&D agenda: the mind of used term “knowledge
economy” is described early in (Schumpeter, 1939).
In this study, as grounded so far, the emerging
term “resilience” is approached as manners to
enhance the capability at all levels of activities to
create processes that are robust yet flexible, to
monitor and revise risk models, and to use resources
proactively in the face of disruptions or pressures of
ongoing activities such as learning, control,
production, service, trade or industry.
Related resilience genealogy adresses an ability
to recover from or building new position to
misfortune or adaption of mandatory change. The
term “resilience” includes four abilities: 1) to plan
and prepare 2) absorb disturbance 3) recover from
and 4) adapt to known or unknown threats. In this
study, the term resilience” follows (Holling, 1973)
and (Walker and Cooper, 2011) description of
genealogies of resilience.
R&D functions on higher education institutions in
Finland has expanded considerably in recent years,
and established a strong role within regional-
national innovation systems. The followed as
searched literature has described its advances and
challenges; the main challenges for the impact of
R&D include the production of new knowledge,
competence and innovation in R&D processes, and
emergent aspects, such as the relatively new term
“resilience” in environmental and operational
adaptions and readiness for an institutional-regional-
national configuration.
The literature data collection includes followed
pedagogical aspects: the school as a center of
inquiry (Schaefer, 1967); interaction between
learning and development (Vygotsky, 1978); the
Towards Comprehensive Security Related Pedagogy - An Approach to Learning and Resilience
critical theory of adult learning (Mezirow, 1981);
action learning (Revans, 1982); experiential learning
(Kolb, 1984); learning by expanding as an activity-
theoretical approach (Engeström, 1987); situated
cognition and the culture of learning (Brown, et al.,
1989); metaphors of learning (Sfard, 1998); regional
configuration and path-dependency (Harmaakorpi,
2004); knowledge building theory (Scardamalia and
Bereiter, 2006); learning to work creatively with
knowledge (Bereiter, 2007); the new production of
knowledge (Gibbons, et al., 2008); situated learning
(Lave and Wenger, 2009); and learning regions in
the globalising knowledge economy (Asheim, 2012).
In the macro-scale, as in active environment of
this study, higher education institutions are
traditionally seen as providers of new knowledge
and competence (Schaefer, 1967; Scardamalia and
Bereiter, 2006; Clark, 2007); Humboldtian model of
higher education and high value returns are
addresses in the studies for: development of services
(Pirinen, 2013); technology and policy
(Harmaakorpi, 2004); co-creation as manner (West,
2009); value-building (Sawyer, 2008); economic
returns (Etzkowitz, et al., 1998; Nunamaker and
Briggs, 2011); path-dependency (Nelson and Winter,
1982); and living-labs (Ståhlbröst, 2008).
In this study, an expected new progresses are
taking place with regard to cooperation in emergent
value networks, co-created innovation, the
contribution of pioneering innovations, and regional
development affecting social and global
development: e.g., the term “co-creativity” which is
understood regarding collaboration and described as
the “secret to breakthrough creativity” (West, 2009);
learning is placed in collaboration with innovation
systems and living-labs (Ståhlbröst, 2008); a last-
mile research approach for general utility production
that in the end addresses the value-building and
economic returns on a national-global scale
(Nunamaker and Briggs, 2011); and an integrative
learning space and examples of the use of the
research methodology as continuum and the scale of
the integrated research processes in the context of
international externally funded security related
research projects (Pirinen, 2013).
In this view, new types of learning interaction,
trust, confidence, and collaboration are required for
the stimulation of creative innovation in services,
technology, the economy, and society. In the context
of this study, it was anticipated that learning is
steered by research and worth of new knowledge, as
different forms of R&D-related learning, that are
based on the demand for development of the
institutions and employment market, can be used in
the workplace to generate new competence,
capability and sustain operational performance,
which is seen as the ability to do R&D in sustainable
manner: e.g., the regional capabilities to increase
productivity and development in a region by using a
research-oriented approach (Bereiter, 2007) and
support for a learner’s imagination and creativity in
integrative learning transactions, especially in the
sense of interactions and collaborative functions of
higher education institutions and regional
configuration, governance policy, within regional
science-based clusters and strategy scenarios
(Pirinen, 2013). As a consequence, the knowledge
obtained is also focused and deeper, profiled, and
path-dependent; in this way, focused universities are
making a difference, as (Clark, 2007) anticipated.
Most cyclic, creative and innovative part of
learning processes in higher education institutions
can pedagogically be linked to the principles of
knowledge building and co-creativity as:
“knowledge building provides an alternative that
more directly addresses the need to educate people
for a world in which knowledge creation and
innovation are pervasive; knowledge building may
be described as the production and continual
improvement of ideas of value to a community,
through means that increase the likelihood that what
the community accomplishes will be greater than the
sum of individual contributions and part of broader
cultural efforts; knowledge building, thus, goes on
throughout a knowledge society and is not limited to
education; and knowledge building as applied to
education, however, the approach means engaging
learners in the full process of knowledge creation
from an early age” (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006,
Communication as nexus constitutes the co-
creation of something, reference (Vanderstraeten
and Biesta, 2016, 160-174) addresses to the added
value of pragmatism to human communication,
which is not a question of information but rather of
meaning. Each person must first construct a specific
meaning individually (Vygotsky, 1978). A shared
understanding in interaction becomes shared
property and mind between participants, which
exists in social practices and not in the thoughts of
individuals (Biesta, 2004). These perspectives are in
same line with the Gibbons Mode 2 concept of
socially distributed knowledge (Gibbons, et al.,
Description of Gibbons et al. (2008) characterise
knowledge as follows: Mode 1 knowledge refers to a
conventional knowledge production method in line
with the “old paradigm”. Knowledge is produced
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
and created in a researcher-oriented way within a
specific discipline. This type of knowledge is mostly
theoretical or experimental, hierarchical and static.
The research problems are set and solved within a
science community.
In turn, Gibbons Mode 2 knowledge involves
participation by users and is produced in the context
of application. Knowledge is created in a
transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary framework.
Knowledge can be characterised as heterogeneous
and heterarchical, and is produced in social
processes. Social accountability and responsibility,
reflexivity and new forms of quality control are
related to Mode 2 knowledge production.
The data collection for continuum of this study is
cumulative and systematically used for a qualitative
analysis; followed (n) indicates as an instance of
data collection used for this analysis between
January 2010 and September 2016.
The data collection is comprised according to the
description by Finnish Academia Result Guidance
including eighteen (n=18) cumulative categories: 1)
scientific publication (n=42) according to
publication forum classification 2) number of open
data collections (n=2) facilitated and licensed data
collections (n=3) used 3) collective creation of
international publication (n=6) articles 4) data of
international researcher exchange 5) integration of
education (n=6) study units, related (n=3) thesis and
related (n=3) dissertations 6) data of externally
funded (n=3) research projects in H2020 and data of
new applications (n=3) for H2020 funding 7)
presentations and audiences with (n=6) stakeholders
8) data of (n=4) workshops and (n=6) seminars,
creation of (n=4) events for research and
development 9) participation to public audiences,
such as in a parliament and participation to
statements 10) publication in (n=6) newspapers and
general descriptions according to publication forum
classification 11) invited (n=3) presentations 12)
indicators of social media: Twitter, LinkedIn,
Facebook and (n=3) homepages 13) support of
public events for international, national and regional
audiences; and data of economic indicators, such as
14) investigations 15) patents 16) licenses 17) spin-
offs and 18) start-ups.
In this study, the multiple-case study approach is
used; the method is relatively well known and
explained well in references that address “the case
research strategy in studies of information systems”
(Benbasat, et al., 1987); “building theories from case
study research” (Eisenhardt, 1989); “case studies
and theory development in the social sciences”
(George and Bennett, 2005); qualitative data
analysis” (Miles and Huberman, 1994); “real world
research” (Robson, 2001); and “case study research
design and methods” (Yin, 2009).
The multiple case study followed replication
logic, and the selected cases serve in a manner
similar to multiple experiments, with similar results:
a literal replication or contrasting results in a
theoretical replication predicted explicitly at the
outset of the investigation (Corbin and Strauss,
2008). In this study, the case study analysis brings
an understanding of a complex issue and object and
can extend experience or add strength to what is
already known through previous research and
reviewed literature. Here, case studies emphasize a
detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of
events or conditions and their relationships when the
relevant behavior is not manipulated and the role of
the researcher is that of an objective outsider,” as in
(Herr and Anderson, 2005) positioned.
Reference (Yin, 2009) noted that the simplest
multiple-case design would involve the selection of
two or more cases that are believed to be literal
replications, while a more complicated multiple-case
design would result from more and different types of
theoretical replications, such as middle-range
theories (George and Bennett, 2005). In this study,
“the end of data collection and analysis was
indicated by saturation, when no new information
emerged for the research purpose” (Corbin and
Strauss, 2008).
In this study, the data collection and analysis
includes security related European Commission
Horizon 2020 funded R&D projects (n=3), such as
PERSEUS, ABC4EU and EU_CISE_2020 and data
of tree new applications for H2020 (n=3), such as
MARISA, EPIC and CEA submitted in August
2016, In addition, the data collection of this study
includes the Academy of Finland Strategic Research
Council call of Security in a Networked World
Programmes and accepted and then funded project’s
data and its first analysis of project namely From
Failand to Winland (#WINLandFI).
PERSEUS: “Protection of European Borders and
Seas through the Intelligent Use of Surveillance is
coordinated by INDRA Sistemas with n=29 partners.
The timeframe of the PERSEUS research was
between January 2011 and December 2014.
ABC4EU: “Automated Border Control Gates for
Europe is European Union wide R&D project and
involves a Consortium of 15 partners from 8
Towards Comprehensive Security Related Pedagogy - An Approach to Learning and Resilience
different countries. The purpose is to make border
control more flexible by enhancing the workflow
and harmonizing the functionalities of automated
border control gates. Project started in January 2014
and will last for 42 months.”
EU_CISE_2020: “European Union’s
Information Sharing Environment addresses to steps
forward along the accomplishment of the European
roadmap for Common Information Sharing and
Distributed Systems and Services Environment.
Timeframe of EU_CISE_2020 is between
01/06/2014 and 01/06/2017.”
From Failand to Winland (#WINLandFI), the
Academy of Finland Strategic Research Council
funded research from April 2016 to March 2019 as
ongoing case.
And new H2020 applications data followed:
MARISA: Maritime Integrated Surveillance
Awareness; EPIC: Emergency Response Planning
Capabilities; and CEA: Cybersecurity Economics
and Analysis.
In the perspective of national environment, study
revealed that Finland still continues to score high on
the European Innovation Score Board. The national
goal of today is to win up Finland to “Winland” as to
be one of the most competent nations in the world,
which means a huge demand for higher education
and research.
The analysis exposed that, as far as R&D is
concerned; Finland has gained a reputation on a
European level for its innovative research activities
and R&D strategies that particularly focus on the
“knowledge economy” and “resilience”. The
security related higher education as national
educational environment of study gives one
respectable field for higher education to operate
actively and collaboratively with field’s stakeholders
in the region-national even global level and
An emphasis on regional-national development
and R&D is a significant purpose for all higher
education institutions in Finland. In the past few
years, the structural reform of higher education in
Finland is represented, this reform has been widely
and actively discussed nationally in order to develop
the national and regional innovation system and
clarify the shared nature of the higher education
system. This produces new, collaborative knowledge
and competence and searches for creative solutions
for focused problems and challenges at various
levels. The importance of R&D is clearly
emphasised when combining regional competence,
participating in networks and utilising different
partnerships in shared R&D processes. The
functions of R&D at all higher education institutions
can be reasoned by a purposeful and experiential
approach, as producing expertise in processes of
knowledge transfers, transformations and catalytic-
resilience related learning aspects.
In the perspective of higher education in the
security management, a regional-national capacity to
provide security related knowledge-competence-
capability paths and knowledge interconnections
depends on ability to continuously innovate to
ensure technological leadership and be a credible
partner in networks. Then, as examples of necessity
of resilience, current and emergent challenges can be
remarked such as the recent dramatic falls in
investment in R&D and risk management
undermining efforts to support the security and
sector, broader defence and security goals.
The central challenges faced by the realization of
the shared R&D functions in higher education
consisted of the following: 1) the establishment of a
new management forms and culture and control of
the mass of projects through the R&D realizations
and by higher education institutions, with trust and
confidence 2) the balancing and modularizing of
cognitive load and the challenges of learning in
R&D realizations 3) pedagogical development and
continuous, relatively adaptive change in R&D that
pose great challenges for teachers 4) understanding
of the meaning of student-centered R&D in
communities of work and workplaces as research for
work 5) ethical issues 6) the development of
incipient internationalization and individual-global
interactions 7) the measurement of the effects and
development of utility, usability, and strategic
measurement as an evaluation design structure in
higher education and 8) dissemination of the new
R&D-related learning model and ethic in the context
of security related higher education.
However, the continuum of data have revealed
that R&D related learning can be seen as one
proficient mechanism of knowledge transfers in
higher education institutions and can advance such
as: 1) development of R&D capabilities 2) joining
the agenda-based R&D activities for collective
education 3) fitting together the strategies of
domain, emergent R&D profiles, and education
processes 4) improvement of knowledge reserves
and resilience 5) raising the students’ aspiration and
participation in R&D so that they are the activating
forces in the collaborative R&D 6) teachers in
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
continuous interaction with the environment, which
allows for quick reactions to changing, agile and
dynamic needs and 7) a guide of teachers’ R&D-
related activities and collective thinking.
From the viewpoint of regional-national
development and research in higher education, the
research data implicates that new knowledge can be
co-created in the context of the security related
employment sector as well as at institutes of
authorities and higher education, and that learners
and students should be placed at the heart of R&D
activities. Improvement of R&D activities in higher
education institutions should specifically promote
economic, social and cultural development in the
regional and national spheres. For example, the
investigated data included recommendations by
focus groups addressed directly to the Gibbons
Mode 2 knowledge production; user-orientation and
genuine problem-solution based solving.
Study discovered that creativity related
knowledge production emphasises the importance of
broad reflection, scrutiny and continuous
negotiation, e.g., the importance of nexus. The study
revealed also that new knowledge production
demands active participation by various actors and
the social sharing of knowledge. This finding can be
closely linked with discovery process, which brings
about new perceptions, knowledge, innovation,
competence and capability. A precise distinction
between science and technology R&D becomes
increasingly more difficult. This is evident in the
creation of innovation; the competitiveness of the
innovation system is challenged by vary knowledge
models for both cooperation and competition
between producers of new knowledge, competence
and capabilities.
In the investigated security projects (n=6), one
advice for future is that creativity and innovative
learning scopes should be more systematically
designed and adopted for research, development and
innovation activities in the context of current
knowledge, competence, capability and performance
(action competence) settings. Hence, the creativity
and innovation approach steers R&D process
planning towards increasingly participatory,
dynamic and creative forums of new competence
production and, it will enhance learning.
Then, one revised view to (Pirinen, 2015a), this
study addressed to the improved understanding and
mind of the term “scope” or learning scope which
can be useful for resilience as for elastic nature and
for focusing on viewpoints, learning paths, and
creativity, especially in perspective of students
integration to R&D. The consortium based
integrative learning spaces involved followed: 1) the
term “scope” was useful to a satisfaction,
atmosphere, mutual trust, confidence and “learning
to like or dislike” in a learning space where a student
takes “a scope” and makes his own individual
meaning, creation, improvements, and validation
into the selected or shared learning target as “shared
scope”, e.g., as in a new application building
process, which resulted from scope-based thinking
2) a “scope” was not loaded by a teacher’s
knowledge in the beginning of studies, so scope-
related knowledge can be composed openly by a
student's viewpoints, interests, aspiration, and
motivation, not only teacher’s or problem-based
viewpoints 3) here, the term learning scope” refers
to a mental or resilient physical target or subject
matter that something deals with in learning 4) the
aim of using the “elastic scopes” in the beginning of
R&D related learning process as frame to support
a student’s imagination and creativity in learning,
and the assumption was that the understanding of
resilience and additivity, the elastic scope
would generate and maintain the motivation and
meaning-spirit for learning, balancing the judgments
and potentials of objectives, goals, and targets; e.g.,
the tuning of a cognitive load in a lifetime of studies
would be balanced by students and teachers by
“scopes” 5) the “scope” addresses the idea that,
between two people, there is third dimension as a
“scope”, e.g., a model, artifact, tool, concept, or
mental or social factor with which students may
share, transfer, adapt and build knowledge; it
communicates, activates, empowers, emancipates,
and motivates their personal or team learning spirit
and confidence; and 6) “the “scope” increases
resilience, “everything does not go as designed” and
elasticity in solution based learning, both views can
be approached in the reactive and proactive sense.
One additional finding of study is that creativity
and innovation related knowledge is produced in
kind of knowledge-creating communities, such as
research consortium and teaching community in
universities and within teacher teams with
participators from the working life. Teacher teams
are characterised here as a supportive working
culture which are open to dialogue, someway similar
that an enriching community, clearly it is significant
for creativity and dignity. Study revealed that
partnership is based on mutual respect and trust,
which is clearly as the base prerequisite for
communities that work creatively in order to achieve
shared demanding goals, such as targets of work
packages in research projects. In this sense, an
“enriching research consortium”, e.g., H2020 can
Towards Comprehensive Security Related Pedagogy - An Approach to Learning and Resilience
rise up to innovation and creativity, which can
increase in an atmosphere and spirit of freedom.
Researchers and innovators should have the freedom
to work creatively towards the vision, but, on the
other hand, this freedom would be achieved through
responsibility, activity, mutual trust, confidence and
deliverables as results. Social and cultural realities
and cultural path-dependency have an impact on the
communal creation of knowledge, and cooperation
and interaction expertise are, therefore, highly
imperative in the learning process. It can even be
comprised that the individuals alone cannot by
themselves even attain close to the deliverables and
results as samples of evidence which are achieved
by a network-based community that works and learn
collaboratively, and which establishes a common
interest, objective, dignity and commitments.
As final remarks: the comprehensive security
related integrative R&D has a great high-value
impact on the pedagogic way of teaching which is
delivered in students’ knowledge, competence and
capability building processes. The crucial factors are
not only subject-specific competence but also a
research-oriented, developmental approach,
interaction skills, the ability to encounter colleagues,
students and partners dialogically, and having the
pedagogical and leadership competence. The
qualities of an expert promote the implementation of
good, high-quality teaching and fostering the
students' motivation, participation and dignity. The
emphasis is on motivation, spirit, dignity, guidance,
learning process, and mutual reflection.
The comprehensive security related education and
new pedagogical solutions have possibilities to
further current R&D activities in a way that brings
creativity and innovation building related knowledge
towards of competence-capability and sustain
performance, action resilience and competence. The
academia-consortium retains and external funding
structures of research activities already exist, as
investigated here, however, the comprehensive
security integration need more action competence
and capability related future studies.
There are many reasons for future progress and
discussion of the term “resilience”, such reasoning
as: the number of systems, interconnections and
transaction elements increases over time; the system
complexity increases and the resulting interactions
becomes challenging to maintain, e.g., number of
updates, difficulties in using and facilitation, life
cycles, continuity management and for
understanding emergent relations between the terms
“resilience”, “elastic”, “robustness”, “complexity”
and “persistence”. In this discussion, the term
“resilience” would be first related to the term
“robustness”. In this setting, as first encompassing
that, the term robustness” addresses to “the degree
to which a system is able to withstand an unexpected
internal or external event or change without
degradation of in system’s performance.” Then, the
term “robustness” indicates the degree to which
system operates correctly in the presence of
exceptional conditions.” On the other hand, the
“resilience” refers to the system’s ability to recover,
retrieve, restore or regenerate its performance after
unexpected impact that declined its performance, as
(Kott and Abdelzaher, 2014) proposes.
In this context, as understood so far, the
significance of the term “resilience” addresses to the
ability of a system, community or society exposed to
security related threats to resist, absorb,
accommodate to and recover from the effects of a
threat in a timely and efficient manner, including
through the preservation, restoration and adaption of
its essential basic structures and functions to state
that it is possible to going on and continuity.
Regardless that the term “resilience” includes strong
relations to reactive nature in the cases of study,
such reactive terms as respond, recover, retrieve,
restore and adapt, our furthered viewpoint is that
there are many proactive dimensions, such as
prepare, prevent, configure and protect as well.
Currently, in the #WINLandFI and EPIC
application, there are ongoing discussions of
followed: resilience and stability of ecological
systems (Holling, 1973); community and mechanism
of critical and resilient digital services (Pirinen,
2015b); resilience in globalization and transitional
pathways (Wilson, 2012); genealogies of resilience
(Walker and Cooper, 2011): from systems ecology
to the political economy of crisis adaptation and
management (Brassett and Vaughan-Williams,
2015); resilient systems (Suri and Cabri, 2014); and
resilience engineering (Atooh-Okine, 2016).
The future discussion of knowledge economy in
higher education institutions can be addressed the
use of knowledge-intensive technologies and
services, such as knowledge co-creation and
knowledge management, to produce information-
intensive economic benefits and new workplace
creation integrated into R&D-related themes and
integrative learning. The comprehensive security
related education shows possibilities to further
current R&D activities. It means more creativity and
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
innovation building related knowledge towards of
competence-capability and sustainability.
Asheim, B., 2012. The changing role of learning regions
in the globalising knowledge economy. Regional
Studies, 46(8), 9931004.
Atooh-Okine, N. O., 2016. Resilience Engineering Models
and Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., Mead, M., 1987. The case
research strategy in studies of information systems.
MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369386.
Bereiter, C., 2002. Education and Mind in the Knowledge
Age. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Bereiter, C., 2007. Learning to work creatively with
knowledge. In Powerful Learning Environments:
Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions.
Bingley: Emerald Publishing, 5568.
Biesta, G. J. J., 2004. Mind the Gap: Communication and
the educational relation. In C. Bingham and A.
Sidorkin, (Eds.) No Education without Relation. New
York: Peter Lang.
Brassett, J., Vaughan-Williams, N., 2015. Security and the
performative politics of resilience: Critical
infrastructure protection and humanitarian emergency
preparedness. Security Dialogue, 46(1), 3250.
Brown, J., Collins, S., Duguid, A., 1989. Situated
cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Research, 18(1), 3242.
Clark, B., 2007. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities:
Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 2008. Basics of qualitative
research: techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 3
Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989. Building theories from case
study research. Academy of Management Review,
14(1), 532550.
Engeström, Y., 1987. Learning by expanding. An
activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Etzkowitz, H., Wester, A., Healey, P., 1998. Capitalizing
knowledge. New Intersections of Industry and
Academia. New York: State University.
George, A. L., Bennett, A., 2005. Case studies and theory
development in the social sciences. Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman,
S., 2008. The new production of knowledge. Los
Angeles: Sage Publications, 12
Harmaakorpi, V., 2004. Building a competitive regional
innovation environment: The
regional development platform method as a tool for
regional innovation policy. Dissertation. Helsinki:
Helsinki University of Technology: Monikko.
Herr, K., Anderson, G. L., 2005. The action research
dissertation: A guide for students and faculty.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Holling, C. S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological
systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,
4, 123.
Kolb, D., 1984. The process of experimental learning. In
Kolb, D. (1984). The process of experimental learning.
In ExpExperience as the source of learning and
development. New Jerse: Prentice-Hall, 1938.
Kott, A., Abdelzaher, T., 2014. Resiliency and Robutness
of Complex Systems and Networks. In Adaptive,
Dynamic, and Resilient Systems. Boca Raton: Taylor
and Francis Group, 6785.
Lave, J., Wenger, E., 2009. Situated learning:
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
University Press.
Mezirow, J., 1981. Critical theory of adult learning and
education. Adult Education, 32, 324.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., 1994. Qualitative data
analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Nelson, R., Winter, S., 1982. An evolutionary theory of
economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University
Nunamaker, J. F., Briggs, R. O., 2011. Toward a broader
vision for information systems. ACM Transactions on
Management Information Systems, 2(4), 112.
Pirinen, R. 2009. Research Framework of Integrative
Action. Proceedings of Americas Conference on
Information Systems (AMCIS 2009), San Francisco,
California, USA. 110.
Pirinen, R., 2013. Towards realization of Research and
Development in a University of Applied Sciences.
Kuopio: Dissertation. Publications of the University of
Eastern Finland.
Pirinen, R., 2015a. Studies of Externally Funded Research
and Development Projects in Higher Education:
Knowledge Sources and Transfers. Creative
Education, 6, 315330.
Pirinen, R., 2015b. Mechanism of Critical and Resilient
Digital Services for Design Theory. Lodz, Poland,
IEEE Digital Library, 9095.
Revans, R., 1982. The origins and growth of action
learning. Bromley: Charwell-Brat.
Robson, C., 2001. Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2
Sawyer, K., 2008. Group genius: The creative power of
collaboration. Cambridge: Perseus Books Group.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., 2006. Knowledge building:
Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer,
(Ed.) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 97118.
Schaefer, R., 1967. The school as a center of inquiry. New
York: Harper and Row Publishing.
Schumpeter, J., 1939. Business Cycles: A theoretical,
historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist
process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Towards Comprehensive Security Related Pedagogy - An Approach to Learning and Resilience
Sfard, A., 1998. On two metaphors of learning and the
dangerous of choosing just one. Educational
Researcher, 27(2), 413.
Ståhlbröst, A., 2008. Forming future IT: The living lab
way of user involvement. Dissertation.
Luleå: University of Technology. Luleå: University of
Suri, N., Cabri, G., 2014. (Eds.) Adaptive, Dynamic, and
Resilient Systems. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis.
Walker, J., Cooper, M., 2011. Genealogies of resilience:
from systems ecology to the political economy of
crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue, 143160.
Vanderstraeten, R., Biesta, G., 2016. How is Education
Possible: Pragmatism, Communication and the Social
Organisation of Education. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 54(2), 160174.
West, R. E., 2009. Communities of innovation: Exploring
collaborative creativity within a community of
graduate instructional designers. Dissertation.
University of Georgia.
Wilson, G., 2012. Community resilience, globalization,
and transitional pathways. 43(6), Geoforum, 1218
Vygotsky, L. S., 1978. Interaction between learning and
development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner,
E. Souberman, (Eds.) L.S. Vygotsky mind in society.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 7991.
Yin, R. K., 2009. Case study research design and methods.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 4
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing