Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Associate Professor (associate + professor)
Selected AbstractsInterview with a Quality Leader: Dr. Ashish JhaJOURNAL FOR HEALTHCARE QUALITY, Issue 5 2010Kevin C. Park Abstract: Dr. Jha is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. The major themes of his research are: 1. Quality of care provided by healthcare systems, with a focus on healthcare disparities as a marker of poor care. 2. Information technology among other tools as potential solutions for reducing medical errors and disparities while improving overall quality. 3. Organizations that provide care for minorities and underserved populations and the role clinical information systems can play in improving their care. [source] Hydrostatic pressure effects on the structural and electronic properties of carbon nanotubesPHYSICA STATUS SOLIDI (B) BASIC SOLID STATE PHYSICS, Issue 14 2004Rodrigo B. Capaz This issue's Editor's Choice [1] is a theoretical study of the properties of single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) under hydro-static pressure. The cover picture is a snapshot of room-temperature molecular dynamics simulations of a chiral (8,7) SWNT at a pressure of 4 GPa, where a symmetry-breaking collapse of the tube into a flat shape is observed. This paper is an invited presentation from the 11th Interna-tional Conference on High Pressure Semiconductor Physics (HPSP-11), held in Berkeley, California, USA, 2,5 August 2004. The Proceedings of this conference series have been published for the fifth time in physica status solidi (b). The first author, Rodrigo Barbosa Capaz, is Associate Professor of Physics at Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro and works on electronic properties and computer modeling of materials. [source] THE SECOND ANNUAL MEYER ELKIN ADDRESSFAMILY COURT REVIEW, Issue 1 2000The Changing Family in the New Millennium A year ago, our journal had the opportunity to publish the inaugural Meyer Elkin Address by Jonah, Peter, and Marian Wright Edelman. This past summer, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts was honored to have George Thomson speak at its conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. Thomson was presented with this honor for his hard work and dedication to family law in Canada and throughout the world. The Family and Conciliation Courts Review is honored to publish this speech by Thomson. Described by his colleagues as a "miracle worker" and "superman", Thomson has led a fascinating career that has followed several different paths. As an undergraduate student, Thomson attained a B.A. in philosophy and English from Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. He remained at Queen's University and received an LL.B., then completed his formal education with an LL.M. from the University of California. Thomson has had a diverse background in the legal field, serving as an educator, a judge, and a government official. From 1968 until 1971, he worked as both an associate professor and assistant dean at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario. After his brief stint with the university, he was appointed judge of the Provincial Court for the Province of Ontario. Thomson held this position for five years before becoming an associate deputy minister of Community and Social Services, where he served as the head of the Children's Services Division. In the 1980s, Thomson returned to the bench in the provincial court. Additionally, he was the director of education for the Law Society of Upper Canada. Most notably, however, Thomson chaired a provincial committee on social welfare reform. By 1989, Thomson had moved from the bench into governmental work. He briefly served as the deputy minister of citizenship for Ontario. He was then appointed the deputy minister of labor until 1992. From 1992 until 1994, Thomson served as Ontario's deputy attorney general. He then became the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada. Most recently, Thomson has been a special advisor to the minister of justice and attorney general of Canada. The following Meyer Elkin address was presented at the annual Convention of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in Vancouver, Canada, in June 1999. [source] Interior Design at a Crossroads: Embracing Specificity through Process, Research, and Knowledge,JOURNAL OF INTERIOR DESIGN, Issue 3 2008Tiiu Poldma Ph.D. Tiiu Poldma is Vice Dean of Graduate Studies and Research in the Faculty of Environmental Design, and associate professor at the School of Industrial Design at the University of Montreal. Tiiu Poldma received a BID at Ryerson in 1982 (Toronto), MA in Culture and Values in Education in 1999 and Doctor of Philosophy in 2003, both from McGill University in Montreal, Canada. She teaches interior design studio and theory within the Bachelor of Interior Design program at the University of Montreal, and advanced research methodologies in the Masters of Science and Ph.D. programs at the Faculty of Environmental Design. She is currently the Director of the Research Group GRID(Group for Research in Illumination and Design) and heads up the Colour, Light and Form Lab (Laboratoire Forme*couleur*lumiere) at the faculty. She accredits design programs as a site evaluator for CIDAboth in Canada and the United States, and is also a member of the Editorial Board of Inderscience where she is the Regional Editor of the Journal of Design Research (JDR), and serves on the Editorial Board of Design/Science/Planning (Techne Press, Amsterdam). [source] Merton as Harvard sociologist: Engagement, thematic continuities, and institutional linkagesJOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, Issue 1 2010Lawrence T. Nichols In this paper I explore the significance of the initial decade of Robert K. Merton's graduate and professional career, from 1931, when he entered the new doctoral program in sociology at Harvard, until 1939, when he joined the Department of Sociology at Tulane University as an associate professor and acting chairperson. Drawing on archival sources, as well as the professional literature, I examine how Merton engaged the exceptionally rich, interdisciplinary context of Harvard in the 1930s, including both interpersonal networks and diverse intellectual perspectives. In particular, I identify connections between Merton's early writing, "oral publications" and teaching, and three locally developed and dominant paradigms of sociology. Following an assessment of the influence of Merton's works published from 1934 to 1939, I trace continuities between Merton's achievements at Harvard and his subsequent teaching and research at Tulane and Columbia. I conclude that a fuller appreciation of Merton's "less noticed" decade in Cambridge is indispensable for understanding his overall career, and that it clarifies linkages across sociological work at three universities in the mid-twentieth century. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [source] PERSPECTIVE: Establishing an NPD Best Practices FrameworkTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2006Kenneth B. Kahn Achieving NPD best practices is a top-of-mind issue for many new product development (NPD) managers and is often an overarching implicit, if not explicit, goal. The question is what does one mean when talking about NPD best practices? And how does a manager move toward achieving these? This article proposes a best practices framework as a starting point for much-needed discussion on this topic. Originally presented during the 2004 Product Development Management Association (PDMA) Research Conference in Chicago, the article and the authors' presentation spurred a significant, expansive discussion that included all conference attendees. Given the interest generated, the decision was made to move forward on a series of rejoinders on the topic of NPD best practice, using the Kahn, Barczak, and Moss framework as a focal launching point for these rejoinders. A total of five rejoinders were received and accompany the best practices framework in this issue of JPIM. Each rejoinder brings out a distinct issue because each of the five authors has a unique perspective. The first rejoinder is written by Dr. Marjorie Adams-Bigelow, director of the PDMA's Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS), PDMA Foundation. Based on her findings during the CPAS study, Adams comments on the proposed framework, suggesting limitations in scope. She particularly points out discrepancies between the proposed framework and the framework offered by PDMA's emerging body of knowledge. Dr. Elko Kleinschmidt, professor of marketing and international business at McMaster University, wrote the second rejoinder. Based on his extensive research with Robert G. Cooper on NPD practices, he points out that best practices really raise more questions than answers. Thomas Kuczmarski, president of Kuczmarski and Associates, is the author of the third rejoinder. Kuczmarski highlights that company mindset and metrics are critical elements needing keen attention. Where do these fit,or should they,in the proposed framework? The fourth rejoinder is written by Richard Notargiacomo, consultant for the integrated product delivery process at Eastman Kodak Company. Notargiacomo compares the proposed framework to a best practices framework Kodak has used for new product commercialization and management since 1998. The distinction of the Kodak framework is the inclusion of a product maturity model component. Dr. Lois Peters, associate professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), is the author of the fifth rejoinder. She brings out issues of radical innovation, a natural focal issue of RPI's radical innovation project (RRIP). It is highlighted that radical innovation may require unique, distinctive process characteristics a single framework cannot illustrate. Multiple layers of frameworks may be more appropriate, each corresponding to a level of innovation desired. The overall hope is that the discourse on best practices in this issue of JPIM generates more discussion and debate. Ultimately, the hope is that such discourse will lead to subsequent continued study to help discern what NPD best practice means for our discipline. [source] Discretion unbound: Reconciling the Charter and soft lawCANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION/ADMINISTRATION PUBLIQUE DU CANADA, Issue 4 2002Lorne Sossin This study explores the relationship between discretion and the Charter and argues for a broader, more contextual approach to remedying the source of unconstitutional discretion. Guidance as to how to exercise broad discretionary authority comes in the form of "soft law," which encompasses a variety of non-legislative instruments such as policy guidelines and training materials, and which, more informally, extends to administrative culture. Administrative discretion involves choices and judgements usually shaped by a range of legal, bureaucratic, social and personal factors. Under present jurisprudence, the less precise a statutory discretion and the greater the reliance on non-legislative guidelines, the more difficult that discretion will be to subject to constitutional scrutiny. This article challenges this logic and concludes that respect for governmental accountability and the rule of law require bringing soft law out of the constitutional shadows. The first part of the analysis examines the regulation of discretion generally and soft law specifically outside the Charter. The second part analyses the leading case law on the regulation of discretion under the Charter. The third section explores the intersection of discretion, soft law and the Charter. Finally, the fourth section considers the problem of remedying unconstitutional exercises of discretionary authority. Alternative principles are suggested for the development and application of soft law, which envisions a central role for the Charter in rendering the discretionary decision-making process more accountable and just. A version of this paper was first presented at a workshop for the Twenty Years Under the Charter Conference, Association of Canadian Studies, Ottawa, 19 April 2002. The author is associate professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. He is grateful to those who participated in that workshop for their suggestions and comments, as well as to Robert Chamey, David Dyzenhaus, Ian Greene, Nicholas Lambert, Ian Morrison and David Mullan, who commented on an earlier version of this paper. He is also indebted to his colleagues Sujit Choudhry and Kent Roach, who have shared their work on related themes. He would like to thank Laura Pottie and Aaron Delaney for their superb research assistance. He wishes to acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, and the Connaught Foundation for their generous financial support of this research. Finally, he acknowledges the Journal's anonymous reviewers for their comments. [source] Changes in biological anthropology: Results of the 1998 American Association of Physical Anthropology Membership SurveyAMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, Issue 2 2002Trudy R. Turner Abstract In response to the results of the 1996 survey of the membership of the American Association of Physical Anthropology (AAPA), the Executive Committee of the Association sponsored a follow-up survey designed to assess gender and specialty differences in training, employment, academic status, mentoring, and research support. A total of 993 questionnaires was analyzed, representing approximately 62% of the 1998 membership of the Association. There has been a marked shift in the number of males and females in the discipline from the 1960s to the 1990s. While 51.2% of all respondents are female and 48.8% are male, 70% of the students are female. Chi-square tests indicate significant differences between males and females by highest degree, age, status, obtaining a tenure-track position, receiving tenure, and taking nontenure-track employment before receiving a tenure-track position. In recent years, there has been an increasing number of females in the ranks of assistant and associate professors; however, this is not true for the rank of professor. There are also significant differences between males and females by specialty within the discipline: researchers in primatology, human biological variation, skeletal biology, and paleopathology are primarily female, while researchers in human and primate evolution are increasingly female. Am J Phys Anthropol 118:111,116, 2002. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] | ||||||||||