Tagged: Collaborative Work RSS

• 

  Vivian Chan 5:07 pm on January 18, 2012 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: Collaborative Work, ideas   
  Categories: Uncategorized, post

  interesting talk 

  I was emailed this link of a talk from a friend about “massive-scale collaboration” and decided to take the time to watch it because of the subject line…

  Really interesting projects related to cloud sourcing, something I know very little about. One of the project the speaker presented is CAPTCHA (the thing you have to type in when you are verifying yourself as a human user on websites) and using that to digitize books. The projects made me wonder, can KT research (or any other research disciplines) benefit from the idea of working together/enabling others? Are there applications for my work?

  I am still pondering the last Q.

  The video is about 16mins long. It’s worth it.
  http://www.ted.com/talks/luis_von_ahn_massive_scale_online_collaboration.html

   

  Reply Cancel reply

  You must be logged in to post a comment.

• 

  Evelyn Cornelissen 6:00 pm on December 19, 2011 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: Collaborative Work, publication ( 5 ), transdisciplinarity ( 2 )   
  Categories: Uncategorized

  new article in Practice, a publication of Dietitians of Canada 

  Hi Everyone,
  Here is a recently published article that highlights the KTTC.  Dietitians of Canada is the national association for Registered Dietitians.  Just click on the link below to access the pdf.
  Knowledge Translation article Winter 2011 Practice

   
• 

  Evelyn Cornelissen 7:00 pm on September 6, 2011 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: Collaborative Work, manuscript possibilities re: KTTC-W ( 2 ), meetings ( 6 ), publication ( 5 )   
  Categories: Uncategorized

  First KTTC paper published in Implementation Science 

  Hi Everyone,

  Several members of the KTTC recently published a paper in Implementation Science about the 2010 Winnipeg meeting and the early development of the KTTC.  It can be found at:  http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/98/abstract. 

  The paper was picked up and publicized in two KT-relevant listservs: E-Watch on Innovation in Health Services (Canadian) and Dissemination and Implementation in Health Listserv (American).  Woo hoo!  EC

  Robin Urquhart is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    Robin Urquhart 8:37 pm on September 14, 2011 Permalink

    More good news – I just noticed that the article has also received “Highly Accessed” status on the Implementation Science website. Congrats everyone!

• 

  Shalini Lal 7:53 pm on May 3, 2011 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: Collaborative Work, interdisciplinary approach ( 2 )   
  Categories: Uncategorized, status

  Ok, i seem to be having a bit of technical difficulties in my first posting to this blog…
  I was trying to respond in the form of comment/reply…but I don’t think it got through? at least I can’t see it…so, I’m going to try it again here…here goes it…

  This post is a response to the call for feedback from members on the topic of interdisciplinary and its relation to KT; the call asked for our thoughts on two questions:

  1) What is my definition of interdisciplinary:

  Cook-Sather & Shore (2007) define interdisciplinarity “not as bringing together and reifying, even through dialogue, fixed disciplines, but rather as bringing into dialogue differently positioned people [emphasis added] with the goal of drawing on disciplines to create something new.”

  This definition resonates with my current understanding of interdisciplinary…and I think my understanding is at least in part influenced by my background in occupational therapy…

  Perhaps interestingly?- Occupational Therapy is a practice of physical and psychosocial rehabilitation that is informed by Occupational Science, which I think epitomizes interdisciplinarity, in that, Occupational Science is a field largely informed by various disciplines including psychology, humanities, anthropology, social sciences, health sciences…the Occupational Science field draws knowledge from these various disciplines for the purpose of addressing one broad research area-understanding the process and outcomes of human engagement in meaningful activities.

  In a similar fashion, Rehabilitation Sciences, the graduate program I am currently studying in, is also an interdisciplinary field that brings together knowledge from several disciplines including, but not exclusive to: physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, kinesiology, psychology, neurosciences etc. to address questions related to improving the functional capacities and quality of life of people experiencing a variety of disabilities.

  Why take an interdisciplinary approach to KT research:

  There are a number of reasons, including: 1) I see KT science as a holistic one that embodies process, effectiveness, temporality, and contextuality among other dimensions and as such necessitates a range of disciplines to give justice to understanding the implementation process, impacts, and outcomes of KT interventions, 2) KT interventions vary in terms of type and KT practitioners may draw from the arts, the information sciences, psychology to inform the development of their interventions …and as such, to evaluate process and effectiveness of these wide ranging interventions an interdisciplinary approach is beneficial.

  For example, if one were to evaluate the effectiveness of an arts-based intervention to translate knowledge, wouldn’t it be important to consider knowledge from the arts and humanities fields in the process of developing an evaluation framework of one’s arts-based KT intervention?

  References cited:

  Cook-Sather, A. & Shore, E. (2007). Breaking the Rule of Discipline in Interdisciplinarity: Redefining Professors, Students, and Staff as Faculty. Journal of Research Practice, 3 (2).

  Evelyn Cornelissen is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    Evelyn Cornelissen 12:51 am on May 4, 2011 Permalink

    Hi Shalini,
    That’s great…that’s exactly the kind of response and input we were hoping to get in response to the original post. Interestingly, I hadn’t thought about the ‘interdisciplinarity’ of my dietetics background, but rather conceptualized it as a distinct discipline. This is perhaps due to the way it is often ‘practiced’. But your comments remind me of my interdisciplinary undergraduate training – physiology, biochemistry, nutrition, health education, pharmacology….etc. Thanks for the reminder.

    In response to your question about evaluation, yes, I agree with your inclusive perspecitve on knowledge.

    Keen to hear from others!

• 

  Evelyn Cornelissen 8:42 pm on April 3, 2011 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: Collaborative Work, get-together ( 3 ), manuscript possibilities ( 2 )   
  Categories: Uncategorized, status

  April Meeting – Writing Workshop

  An invitation…to participate in the writing workshop at the Toronto meeting in April.

  We are interested in having members attend the writing workshop who:
  a) have ideas for other papers (on theme(s) not already selected below), AND
  b) who are interested in collaborating on papers.

  Are you interested in co-writing some papers about the early development of the KTTC? A group of us (Evelyn Cornelissen, Robin Urquhart, Vivian Chan, Ryan DeForge, Heather Colquhoun, Shannon Sibbald, Holly Witteman) have submitted a meeting report to Implementation Science entitled “Creating a knowledge translation trainee collaborative: from conceptualization to lessons learned in the first year”. We would like to take the time devoted to the writing workshop on Wed, April 27 (the first day of our in-person meeting) to develop a solid plan and outlines for the next papers to emerge from this meeting report. Our thoughts (emergent and developmental, so open to change!) are as follows:

  1. We start the writing workshop with a discussion on papers – topics, number of them, content, authorship. Current papers include: envisioning ourselves, who’s a who, happy discensus – based on the principal principles developed at our first meeting in Winnipeg. We don’t have one on the overarching theme of principal principles or on the creating space experience, yet, so if there’s anyone out there who wants to lead one of these or any other topics you think of, please let us know.

  2. What the writing workshop will look like – we’re open to having this evolve to fit the needs of participants. Our original thinking was that we would stay as one large group and go through each manuscript to flesh out from outline/early draft to a more robust draft WHILE ensuring the collection of papers don’t overlap and do complement each other if possible.

  3. The session will include time to explore any new ideas for papers and triage/discuss them accordingly.

  So…if you are interested in participating, please post a response to this posting and/or email Evelyn at ecorneli@interchange.ubc.ca.

  Thanks. We look forward to seeing you in Toronto!

   
• 

  Evelyn Cornelissen 5:35 pm on February 16, 2011 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: academic writing, annobib ( 5 ), Annotated bibliography ( 4 ), Collaborative Work, professional learning community, women in academe, work-life balance, writing workshop approach   
  Categories: Recommended Resources, Annotated Bibliography, Uncategorized, status

  A Group Model for Women Writers 

  As a warm-up to our group writing session at the upcoming KTTC in-person event (Apr. 27-29, 2011):

  Citation: Faulconer, J., Atkinson, T., Griffith, R., Matusevich, M., Swaggerty, E. (2010). The Power of Living the Writerly Life: A Group Model for Women Writers. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 3(1), 207-235.

  Link: http://journals.naspa.org/njawhe/vol3/iss1/10/

  Abstract: Flourishing as a tenure-track faculty member in academia is no small feat. Best practices in writing are often neglected as faculty struggle to balance competing demands on their time. For women who try to balance both home and work responsibilities, this task can be overwhelming. This study documents the outcomes of a writers’ group formed to increase the scholarly output of its members. Findings suggest that this writers’ group model not only has potential to increase writing productivity but also offers the possibility of producing unanticipated outcomes including support and encouragement leading to greater professional and personal balance.

  Why I think it’s interesting: (More …)

   
• 

  Ryan DeForge 10:37 am on March 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: Collaborative Work, manuscript possibilities re: KTTC-W ( 2 )   
  Categories: Uncategorized

  manuscript possibilities re: KTTC-W (Winnipeg) 

  hey all,

  So i’ve been thinking about this notion of (some of) us co-authoring a paper about our experience(s) in Winnipeg. Recall that I and 4 others co-authored a “meeting report” about KTSI’2008, which we had published in Implementation Science. Thinking about new(er) possibilities for us, I thought of 2, well actually, 5 possibilities.

  The first would be for a group of us to emulate that KTSI meeting report: essentially, a descriptive paper that outlines how/why we did what we did. A second possibility would be for a group of us to write a more reflexive piece, something that moves beyond description by embracing our own subjectivities, our own situatedness (as students, persons, learners, KTers, etc). Initially, I thought it would be cool to integrate these two possibilities together: a meeting report with a reflexive component. But, in thinking about how to involve as many of us as possible in opportunities for authorship, writing more than one paper makes good sense, and it also keeps each paper cleaner, so to speak.

  An extension of this second possibility (and where the 3rd, 4th, and 5th possibilities lie) is in the idea of writing a series of reflexive papers about our Creating Safe(r) Space activity. For instance, I might think of calling dibs on the Happy Discensus thread: I’d take the lead on describing the issue (climates of consensus, the risk of silencing others, the discomfort of discensus), reflecting on how we addressed this issue (referring to our flip charts & dialogue), and also how Ian responded to our immersion into the issue (recall he thought it reflected our junior, subordinate status as trainees). I imagine that a paper like this could be “poly-vocal” in that a handful of others (how many is the million dollar question, and depends on interest, time, etc) … a handful of others could contribute their own reflexive pieces that describe how they felt/experienced our dialogue about Happy Discensus (and thus earn themselves co-authorship). An Implications/Considerations for Others section could synthesize and wrap us the paper.

  Other papers in the series could attend to issues of Principal Principles in KTTC-W, Who Made Who in the KTTC(-W), and/or Envisioning Ourselves as KTTCers.

  If we did proceed with a whole series of papers, we might consider making one of them an “anchor paper” wherein we and our context are more fully described; the other papers could then cite that anchor paper. (Maybe the mtg report paper could serve as our ‘anchor’?)

  (I’m almost done my post!) I just wanted to say too that I was a part of the original planning committee’s debriefing teleconference yesterday, and for those of you who were not, you might like to know that the minutes will be circulated within the week, but more specifically, we talked about how the new steering committee will 1) need to meet soon, and 2) spend much of its initial energy on sorting out issues of governance, such that 3) the activities for each of our 4 group goals perhaps lag a touch behind the more pressing issue of getting our structures in place. That said, for any of us interested in writing either a mtg report or a reflexive piece about our KTTC-W experience, time is of the essence in terms of capturing our memories of our experience(s) … thus, i’m throwing this out sooner than later. (I think this is very do-able!)

  Okay, that’s it for now: some seeds are sown; let’s see if any take root.

  Happy Wednesday; be well.

  Ryan

  Evelyn Cornelissen, Vivian Chan, Holly Witteman and 4 others are discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    Robin Urquhart 12:51 pm on March 25, 2010 Permalink

    Ryan,

    I think you’re thinking about writing a series of reflective pieces revolving around the four threads of the Creating Safe(er) Space activity is a great idea. I think you’re right about really needing an ‘anchor’ piece for this series, which would naturally be a more straightforward meeting report.

    I’ve been mulling over an idea for a paper (in my head still at this point) which concerns the ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions (e.g., Why a KTTC? How could bringing together a diverse group of trainees advance KT discourse/research/practice?) and delves into the opportunities we can create through this pan-Canadian collaborative. I think this idea could easily be reframed to fit with the ‘Envisioning Ourselves as KTTCers thread from the Creating Safe(er) Space activity. If others are interested in developing such a series, I’m certainly willing and able to take the lead on a Envisioning Ourselves paper. However, as you indicated, time is of the essence and (if we’re going to go ahead with this) I think we should begin as soon as we can.

    Thoughts from anyone?

    Cheers,
    Robin

  • 

    Evelyn Cornelissen 7:26 pm on March 27, 2010 Permalink

    I also like the idea of an anchor piece (a descriptive paper on how we got to, and the specifics of, the Winnipeg meeting) and several reflective papers.

    I’ll throw my hat in for actively pursuing the anchor piece and also the ‘who made who’ (or didn’t we change it to ‘who’s a who’?) theme paper, which I think should delve into the interdisciplinariness or transdisciplinariness nature of the KTTC. We may find that this paper merges well with the ‘envisioning ourselves’ paper, so Robin, let’s stay in touch as these papers progress. In fact, it might serve us all well if we connect regularly as the papers progress to ensure the series works together. We should also discuss whether or not the series should be submitted to the same journal or different ones?

    So, with that, I’m keen to hear from others re: their interest. And I’m also keen to stay connected with you both, Ryan and Robin, to maintain the momentum!

  • 

    Vivian Chan 3:52 pm on April 6, 2010 Permalink

    Re: anchor paper. I think that would be important and agree with previous comments.

    Re: a reflexive paper. I would be interested to explore the idea of happy dissensus. I think what we went through and will be going through in this collaborative will have theoretical implication in other KT/KE endeavours, thus our experiences may/can contribute to the larger KT research field regarding collaborations and engagement and the tension between consensus and diversity (the issues that Ryan raised) … connecting our experiences with theory regarding the negotiation of these tensions…

    I think the trans-disciplinary part comes into play as we talk about consensus/dissensus…

    I think Robin’s question about “Why a KTTC?” is a good starting point for the anchor paper? In the anchor paper we can actually provide reasons for what we are trying to achieve and how this collaborative is unique and addresses a gap. A potential extension would be how this model of engagement can be beneficial for knowledge exchange (how is this model of collaboration different from or similar to existing models of CoP for example?)

    That’s my two cents…
    Vivian

  • 

    Shannon Sibbald 7:05 am on May 3, 2010 Permalink

    So the last post for this thread was April 6, hard to believe, over 1 month ago. Where are we all now? I am keen to help with paper writing – and can see a number of great opportunities in Ryan’s first post. The question I always lean to is the SO WHAT piece. If we write a paper with our reflections on some of the key areas, WHAT will that give to the literature. A descriptive piece, which I think we all agree is an essential anchor, would provide the literature with a description and lessons learned from something (the KTTC) that has never been done before. I can see it helping the COP lit, and others. The next Q is then: who is well-versed in COP literature? I am taking on a lit review right now on TEAMS in healthcare, and I am sure I will be able to assist in writing the background/lit chunk.

    Has anyone taken a stab at a first draft of this paper?

    thanks
    s

  • 

    Heather Colquhoun 11:59 am on May 12, 2010 Permalink

    I like many of the ideas we are discussing here. I suspect that these reflective papers on our principal principles will require a great deal of thought and work. We would need to elevate these papers beyond just a reflection of what happened in Winnipeg and add in more broad literature, etc. I wonder if it makes sense to get started on the anchor paper and get that written and published before there is too much distance from our Winnipeg event. I like the idea of a series put wonder if that is a big chunk to tackle. Should we get started an a paper that is a meeting report? We could still have sections on the principal principles (in a Winnipeg only context) that would “set-up” future papers to further delve into these topics. Just a thought. I would commit to working with 2-3 others on getting a draft started for a meeting report paper. I can do face to face meetings with the Toronto and area folks easily and then I am in Halifax (Robin) two times in the month of June. Any takers?

    Heather

  • 

    Evelyn Cornelissen 4:58 pm on May 14, 2010 Permalink

    I’m happy to take a lead on the meeting report paper. And I’m happy to get help with the lit/background section Shannon. I agree that keeping the working group small will make this more do-able.

    Heather – sounds like you’re in, especially for fleshing out the section(s) for the reflective paper(s)?

    Robin and Ryan, what do you think?

    And Viv – I’m assuming you’ll participate in the anchor paper?

    I can get started on this at the beginning of June.

    Thoughts? Feel free to send me emails or add to the blog with ideas, etc., then I’ll consider all the thoughts as I develop the outline.

  • 

    Ryan DeForge 5:06 pm on May 14, 2010 Permalink

    I’m in for leading the reflective piece. Similar to Evelyn, a timeline of having a draft ready for/in June seems reasonable.

  • 

    Heather Colquhoun 10:52 am on May 21, 2010 Permalink

    Great. I’m in for the anchor paper. I won’t send you anything now Evelyn, I’ll let you develop an outline and then give feedback from there. Should we confirm the group for the anchor paper and then move to e-mail? Just a thought.
    We have Evelyn, Ryan, Shannon, Vivian, Robin and me on this thread. Ryan, did you mean leading the 4 reflective papers or the reflective portion of the anchor paper?

    Heather

  • 

    Holly Witteman 1:07 am on May 26, 2010 Permalink

    Sorry — just realized that I have said so at meetings but had not commented on this post. I am happy to contribute but don’t care to take a leadership role on any of these. But especially if any of the papers are going to draw from things where I have contributed substantially (MDP report, mission statement & values, web strategy and blog, the four goals, etc.) then I would definitely like to contribute to the paper.

    I’m also happy to write a reflective piece as ‘data’ for the reflective paper if that ends up being part of the plan.

  • 

    Vivian Chan 9:44 pm on June 14, 2010 Permalink

    Sorry have been out of commission for awhile…

    Yes interested to be involved on the anchor paper (and I see that I am copied on the email with the first draft from E … thanks!)

    and also interested to be involved in the associated reflective papers

    As the anchoring paper develops, I can think of perhaps areas where ‘happy discensus’ would arise… I don’t mind leading on that paper but would probably wait till we finish the anchoring paper first to see how to fit that piece in. Some ideas for ‘happy discensus’… there is positive and negative aspects to transdisciplinarity … and we can raise issues from our experiences and resolutions… we can draw from literature around org psych and org theory

    Does that make sense to you guys? That is, finish the anchoring paper; reflect on what we have; then start with the other four papers?

  • 

    Evelyn Cornelissen 6:19 pm on June 16, 2010 Permalink

    Yes, that’s what I was thinking also Viv…get the anchor paper done and then discuss, as a group, a plan for the reflective papers. I’m keen to hear feedback on the outline for the anchor paper soon, as I plan to start drafting the paper this week.