Background: Kawa is a client-centered and culturally sensitive occupational therapy model. Discussion has aroused if Kawa would be a suitable model for the clientele, which is culturally more diverse than before. Aim: To investigate how occupational therapists have applied Kawa for the occupational therapy process. Material and Methods: This qualitative study involved 15 occupational therapists, who had applied Kawa to their clients. They got selected on social media by ‘snowball sampling’. Data was collected using an electronic questionnaire. Directed content analysis was conducted, guided by The Occupational Therapy Intervention Process Model. Results: Kawa was considered a client-centered model enhancing therapeutic relationships. By using Kawa, therapists gained relevant information through the client’s subjective self-report. However, observation of the client’s occupational performance omitted. Kawa did not provide sufficient tools, and therapists had to apply knowledge from other models. Conclusions: Kawa provided a strong starting point for the occupational therapy process by enhancing the therapeutic relationships and the client’s subjective self-report, but it did not guide the therapist to complete the whole occupational therapy process. Significance: This study proved that Kawa is a useful model for developing therapeutic rapport and gaining information through self-report. The study suggests that Kawa should be developed further or combined with occupation-based models.

No description available.

Many of the technological and social systems our society has come to depend on can be classified as complex adaptive systems (CAS). These systems are made of many individual parts that self-organize to respond and adapt to changing outside and inside influences affecting the system and its actors. These CAS can be placed on a spectrum ranging from loosely- to tightly-coupled, depending on the degree of interrelatedness and interdependence between system components. This research has explored how the process of collaboration occurs in both a loosely- and tightly-coupled setting using one exemplar of each system. The loosely-coupled exemplar related to disaster risk reduction in two Canadian communities while the tightly-coupled one involved the implementation of a surgical information management system in a Canadian hospital. A list of core elements of collaboration that should be considered essential to the success of all collaborative endeavours was developed as a result: Engagement, Communication, Leadership, Role Clarity, Awareness, Time, and Technical Skills and Knowledge. Based on observing how the core elements of collaboration interacted with one another within each of these example systems, two models were created to represent their relationships. A list of considerations that collaborative tool designers should consider was also developed and the implications of these considerations were discussed. As businesses and other organizations increasingly incorporate team-based work models, they will come to depend more heavily on technology-based solutions to support collaboration. By incorporating collaborative technologies that properly support the activity of these teams—based on the specific type of complex adaptive system in which their organization exists—organizations can avoid wasting time and resources developing tools that hinder collaboration.

Abstract Research indicates that understanding the influence of leadership and partnership development can inform the need to improve public education (Penuel & Gallagher, 2017). Although leadership theory and change theory support the need for partnerships in education, less attention has been given to how such partnerships develop and the role that leadership plays in that process. Therefore, the present study explored the role of leadership within researcher-practitioner partnerships and the process of developing sustainable partnerships in education as documented in a set of federal grant proposals, their final reports, and other descriptions of their efforts. Grant documents examined were awarded from the 2013 funding announcement of the U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships (RPP) in Education Research program. In-depth qualitative document analysis provided a means to unobtrusively examine and interpret comprehensive, historical data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Patton, 2002). Directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Kaid & Johnston-Wadsworth, 1989) of the documents directed the process of data collection. This process used key concepts from the literature on transformational leadership, shared leadership, and leadership for change as the initial framework for data collection. Data analysis employed Eisner’s (1998) process of educational criticism using description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematics. Hatch’s (2002) process of typological analysis led to four typologies to organize the data for description and interpretation: capacity building; strategies for partnership development; approaches to communication; and the role of reflection in partnership development. The evaluation dimension of educational criticism indicated that partnerships employed shared leadership with evidence of internal and external support and a cultivation of shared commitment. Themes indicated that partnerships focused on both rigorous research and reflective practice, leaders engaged partners in establishing the infrastructure and strategic plans of the partnership, and partnerships galvanized support to address complex social issues beyond their formal organizational structure. Recommendations for future research include the need: (a) to explore the dynamics of communication in partnership work; (b) to clarify and facilitate the process of change in grant and project development; and (c) to develop of a process for sustainability beyond a specific grant or project. Recommendations for practice include the need: (a) to explore the cultivation of relationships in support of partnership development; (b) to identify clearly the primary issue to be addressed in the work of the partnership, and (c) to clarify mutual outcomes. Conclusions from the present study indicate the importance of a focus on the deliberate development of the researcher-practitioner partnerships themselves, the importance of concrete strategies for sharing leadership, and the importance of the development of professional relationships that support sustainability in partnership development.