Adm. Sci., Volume 2, Issue 4 (December 2012) – 3 articles , Pages 221-272

The aim of this paper is to examine government–university–community partnerships for knowledge mobilization (KM) and knowledge transfer (KT) in the area of immigration and settlement research using the illustrative case of the Canadian Metropolis Project. The Metropolis Project in Canada began in 1995 with the goal of enhancing policy-oriented research capacity for immigration and settlement and developing ways to better use this research in government decision-making. Core funding for this partnership was provided jointly by Citizenship Immigration Canada (CIC), a department of the Government of Canada and the primary social science granting agency, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). As of 2012, and subsequent to three successful funding phases, the decision was made to end government and SSHRC core funding for this initiative, however, other non-governmental funding avenues are being explored. The longevity of this partnership and the conclusion of this specific initiative present an opportunity to reflect critically on the nature of such partnerships. This paper is an attempt to identify some of the key themes, issues and challenges related to research partnerships, KM and KT. Also, with the aid of an illustrative case, it aims to specify some of the possibilities and limitations of this kind of policy relevant knowledge mobilization. Special consideration will be placed on the context in which the demand for knowledge mobilization and knowledge transfer has emerged. This examination has considerable international relevance as the Canadian Metropolis Project offers the leading example of a research partnership in the field of immigration and settlement. Full article

Healthcare costs continue to increase dramatically, while quality remains a significant problem. Reform measures initiated by the government will drive expansion of these costs, further stressing taxpayers and employers, and forcing hospitals to adopt fundamental changes as they try to adjust to increased demands for services and to lessening reimbursements from all payers. This struggle is best seen at the point of entry for many at a hospital: the emergency department (ED). It is at the emergency department that patients’ expectations regarding staff communication with patients, wait times, the triage process, capacity and payment will determine a significant part of a hospital’s revenue. Using Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt’s Thinking Process, we will determine what core problem(s) are causing a 362-bed regional West Texas hospital emergency department to lose revenue. Evaluation of the current emergency department will determine the Undesirable Effects (UDE). Using that information will lead to the construction of the Current Reality Tree (CRT), which will bring focus to the core problem(s). To break the constraints, which are the core problem(s), an Evaporative Cloud (EC) is generated. And, the end result will be to construct a Future Reality Tree (FRT), which will validate the idea(s) generated in the EC. It was determined that there are ten major UDE’s that affected this hospital’s emergency department. They were focused around staff communication, wait times, triage process, information management, service provided and bill collections. A conclusion was made that the core problem dealt with triaging patients and utilization of the services provided by the hospital. Since the reimbursement rate is affected by the patient’s satisfaction, the areas to focus on would be: triage, education, communication and retention. Although it may be neither feasible nor desirable to meet all the patient’s expectations, increased focus on those areas may increase the emergency department’s efficiency and the hospital’s bottom line. Full article

With a worldwide sample of students (N = 77, 387), this paper reviews and analyses the psychometric properties of the Student Leadership Practices Inventory [1]. Modest to strong internal reliability coefficients are found across a number of different dimensions. Predictive validity of the instrument is supported, with the instrument being able to differentiate between effective and ineffective leaders using both self-reported and observer (constituent) data. Few significant differences are found on the basis of respondent gender, ethnicity, nationality, or institutional level (high school versus college). Implications for developing student leaders and future research are offered. Full article