Suchergebnisse

In 2010, the mother of a good friend of mine had a serious stroke. I was upset about the event but not worried: by the time my friend told me what had happened, he spoke about it with relief and optimism. The design of the hospital's rehabilitation unit, he said, made all the difference to his attitude about his mother's recovery. As a graduate student in environmental psychology, I was interested in how the hospital had helped my friend feel so positive. I knew of a study published the previous year that stated specific design recommendations for affording staff efficiency (and reducing error) in acute care units (i.e., noise; lighting; ergonomics, furniture and equipment; and patient room design and unit layout). Because the hospital my friend's mother had been treated in had recently been renovated, I wondered whether these design variables outlined to be so important in the work by Chaudhury, Mahmood, and Valente had been considered. In my study, I took a close look at Chaudhury et al.'s article in order to assess whether any or all of its design recommendations for acute care settings had been implemented in the Neurological Rehabilitation Unit at Victoria General Hospital in British Columbia, Canada. Using informal data provided by my friend about his perceptions of the setting, as well as guided site walk-through, photographs, and an interview with the manager of the unit, I interpreted the extent to which the design of the unit at Victoria General Hospital mirrored elements encouraged by Chaudhury et al.

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to identify proper uses for mixed methods in leadership research and assessment. This article will highlight research and assessment questions that are best served by mixed methods and will offer practitioner‐friendly guides and examples for integrating quantitative and qualitative data to help eat the whole whale "one bite at a time." Sound decision‐making in the design, execution, and presentation of mixed methods studies and outcomes assessments not only produces better outputs, but greatly increases the likelihood of (a) publication in reputable journals, (b) sound program evaluation decisions, and (c) public consumption of study or assessment results.

This author offers of narrative of hope in response to the coronavirus pandemic by viewing it as a wake-up call to lean into the adaptive moral challenge of stewardship for the future of humanity and the planet. Acknowledging the many material and social benefits of a global regime of free market urbanism built on advances in science and technology, this is a point in geohistory, the Anthropocene, when the impact of human activities on the Earth has begun to outcompete natural processes. The coronavirus has illuminated systemic moral failures and new moral challenges of the Anthropocene that call for adaptive response if we are to build a hopeful future for humanity and the planet. Pointing to millennia of human adaptive response to threats and disasters, the author asserts an evolutionary hardiness attributable as much to moral capacities as rational intelligence as a singularly defining trait fueling millennia of human adaptive learning and thrival. The current pandemic is the latest point in humanity's moral evolution of adaptive response to moments of urgent threat that have tested, expanded, and defined our character and moral capacities as a species. Rather than falter under the moral burden of the coronavirus threat and its consequences, the author views this pivotal point as an opportunity to stretch human moral horizons by taking responsibility for the urgent moral challenges we have created and inventing new ethical frameworks and tools that will lead us to new moral understandings and solutions to the moral challenges we face.