Critical Review of Research on Families and Family Policies in Europe Conference Report

This report was produced by FAMILYPLATFORM. FAMILYPLATFORM (SSH-2009-3.2.2 Social platform on research for families and family policies) is funded by the EU’s 7th Framework Programme (€1,400,000) and has a duration of 18 months (October 2009 – March 2011). The consortium consists of the following 12 organisations: 1) Technical University Dortmund (Coordinators); 2) State Institute for Family Research, University of Bamberg; 3) Family Research Centre, University of Jyväskylä; 4) Austrian Institute for Family Studies, University of Vienna; 5) Demographic Research Institute, Budapest; 6) Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon; 7) Department of Sociology and Social research, University of Milan-Bicocca; 8) Institute of International and Social Studies, Tallinn University; 9) London School of Economics; 10) Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union (COFACE), Brussels; 11) Forum delle Associazioni Familiari, Italy; 12) Mouvement Mondial des Mères, Brussels; Contact [email protected] or visit http://www.familyplatform.eu for more information.The aim of this Critical Review Report is to describe and report on the international conference "Families and Family Policies in Europe - A Critical Review", wich took place in Lisbon, at the Institute for Social Sciences (University of Lisbon), in May 2010. Organized by FAMILYPLATFORM consortium, the main objective of this 3 day conference was to carry out a critical review of existing research on families and family policies in Europe. Drawing on expert reviews of the state of the art, critical statements by stakeholders and policy makers, and debate on the major challenges for research and policies, the conference was organized with a view to providing a major forum for discussing and identifying the design of future family policies and research.FAMILYPLATFORM (SSH 2009.2.2 Social platform on research for families and family  policies):  funded  by  the  European  Unions 7th Framework Programme for 18 months (October 2009 – March 2011)

To Know is to Be: Three Perspectives on the Codification of Knowledge

This paper presents three perspectives on the codification of knowledge. These perspectives are formed by recent contributions in the fields of economics, business and management studies and of a group of writers who have a ‘relational’ perspective from the field of organisational behaviour. A comparison of these differing views highlights not only epistemological boundaries between different approaches but can also lead to the novel approach to studying knowledge codification presented in this paper. This approach is based on the knowledge topography of Cowan et al. (2000). This paper also develops a research approach for examining the situated intricacies of knowledge sharing in group activities as a means for identifying opportunities for knowledge codification in settings where, so far, only tacit knowledge has been seen as the major focus. Such research may enable us to bridge the dichotomy of explicit versus tacit knowledge and the three perspectives on knowledge codification presented. Moreover, in-depth case studies on the possibilities for knowledge codification can advance both the academic and practical debate. (Cowan, R., David, P.A. and Foray, D. (2000) ‘The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 211-254.)Knowledge Codification, Knowledge Perspectives, Situated Study

From cultural distance to cultural archetypes: an innovative approach to define cultural patterns

The purpose of this thesis is to present an innovative approach in the field of cultural studies, which emerges as the most recent and successful attempt to describe cultural patterns within and across countries. In 2015, cultural archetypes established as an alternative approach to the cultural distance construct, introduced by Geert Hofstede in the 1980s.ope

Creating the Health Care Team of the Future: The Toronto Model for Interprofessional Education and Practice

[Excerpt] In 2000, the Institute of Medicine\u27s landmark report To Err Is Human launched the contemporary patient safety movement with its clarion call to the health care systems all over the globe to act to prevent the errors that kill over 100,000 patients a year and harm many thousands more in the United States alone. Ten years later, in 2010, the World Health Organization\u27s (WHO) Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice was released, as was the Lancet Commission report Health Professionals for a New Century: Transforming Education to Strengthen Health Systems in an Interdependent World. In fact, over the past decade or more, studies have documented that, far from improving, in countries such as the United States and Canada, there has been little progress in preventing patient deaths and harm. Original calculations such as those done by the Institute of Medicine in 2000 are now considered to have been dramatic underestimations of the harm done to patients in health care institutions around the world. Although the complexity of today\u27s high-tech health care systems is often used as a rationalization for the maintenance of the status quo, all these groundbreaking reports argue that team-based, or interprofessional, care is a key strategy to move our current underperforming health care systems toward a more safe, efficient, integrated, and cost-effective model. Contemporary health care institutions do indeed have a bewildering number of players. Despite this, the responsibility for ensuring that patients receive the right care at the right time from the right providers relies on a few basic principles: Practitioners need to understand they are part of a diverse team. Practitioners must communicate effectively with the patient and family, as well as with other members of their team. Practitioners need to know what other team members do to limit duplication and prevent gaps in care. Practitioners need to know how to work together to optimize care so that the patient journey from inpatient care to home care, or from primary care to the specialist clinic is experienced as seamless. Since 2000, the eleven health professional programs at the University of Toronto and the forty-nine teaching hospitals associated with them have developed an Interprofessional Education and Care (IPE/C) program that begins in the first year of a health professional student\u27s entry into his or her program, continues through various educational activities throughout their studies, and straddles the education/practice divide. Over the past decade, the university and teaching hospital partners have been engaged in the co-development and support of the IPE curriculum for learners. They are also investing in the development of faculty and the ongoing training of staff to support and model collaborative practice and team-based care. What we have come to think of as the Toronto Model is integrated across all sites and professions and includes classroom, simulation, and practice education