MedTech firms experience barriers when entering the healthcare sector, although their solutions could solve healthcare challenges. The study provides a conceptual framework for MedTech firms' business environment including institutional alignments and misalignments. These insights support MedTech firms' business model development when aiming for successful commercialization. The research is conducted with a multiple case study analyzing MedTech firms' and healthcare organizations' perspective regarding the business environment and relationship dynamics. The study generated three main findings. Firstly, an organizational and institutional logic analysis outlined essential problem areas where MedTech firms and healthcare organizations align differently. Secondly, suggestions on how the MedTech firm can respond to the identified problem areas through their business model are presented. Thirdly, the study provides an example of how social- and business literature can be connected to understand complex business environments. In contrast to a majority of prior research, the study is designed for the MedTech firm's perspective where the final result answering how the business model can be improved based on healthcare organizational and business insights.

The study looks at the applicability of integrating a Bus Only Shoulder (BOS) into the intermittently congested segment of US 101 in southern San Luis Obispo County. Policy, infrastructure and implementing criteria derived from case studies in Minnesota, Florida and California (San Diego) and the 2007 California Decision Document on BOS are applied to conditions in the region. One measure of performance, time savings, is projected to 2025 to determine the value of integrating the program by that horizon year. Given the substantial potential for time savings in that future year, recommendations are made to create the appropriate policy and infrastructure environment for the program.

No description available.

While rankings of presidents are quite common, rankings of Supreme Court justices are much rarer. Herein I produce one and make use of both to see if perceived greatness of one actor can effect perceptions of greatness for the other. This work examines those influences that indicate success for Supreme Court Justices by seeking to determine what the historically great justices have in common. I first develop a composite score of all the Supreme Court Justices based on the limited previous ranking research and relevant indictors to rank the Justices 1-112. Next, I examine potential indicators of such success; previous experience, personal characteristics, conformation vote, and most interestingly the perceived greatness of their appointing president. This research finds a direct relationship between perceptions of presidential greatness and perceptions of judicial quality. Overall the great Justices are statistically more likely to be appointed by a great president, consistent with the appointment literature that often describes an appointer-appointee relationship as a legacy impacting one.

Hyperbole is the common response in the wake of any Supreme Court decision, but which cases have a lasting negative impression and why? This work seeks to clarify which rulings of the Court cause consternation among several different audiences. Through an experimental framework I conduct an examination of reactions to rulings in controversial cases among political scientists, legal scholars, and the public. I discover that there are some commonalities among the respondents, but also significant disagreement along issue areas, particularly cases decided based on economic property rights. Additionally I observe that partisan ideology has little impact on the perception of historic decisions, but in contemporary rulings the opposite is discovered. This finding suggests that time serves to mitigate partisan bias in evaluating the Supreme Court. Ultimately this work details information concerned with responses to previous Court decisions, but also provides context clues for predicting various reactions to future controversial rulings.

No description available.

The resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers in Germany since reunification in 1990 has been challenged by two peaks in asylum seeker applications in 1992 and again in 2016. From the 1992 peak, which was fueled by asylum seekers fleeing the former Yugoslavia, extensive research has already been conducted over the past thirty years. These studies have demonstrated the actual outcomes of these primarily Yugoslavian asylum seekers and refugees with these findings indicating legal and economic uncertainty having a detrimental effect even years after resettlement. Using Germany as a case study, this analysis aims to survey the available information in the more recent example of asylum seekers arriving in Germany from 2014 onwards primarily from the Syrian Arab Republic, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Ultimately, successful resettlement equates to successful integration measures. The issues of policy legacy and learning as well as elements of the available support network for asylum seekers in housing, Integrationskurse (integration courses), and advice centers are examined to understand how each relates to successful integration and security for asylum seekers. The findings indicate that Germany has achieved successful resettlement and integration of asylum seekers through policy learning from the early 1990s onwards and a strong support network available for those seeking asylum, yet the exclusion of certain groups from integration measures unfairly leaves some behind. A continuous evaluation of these integration measures is necessary to ensure the successful resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers in Germany in anticipated future peaks in asylum seeker applications.

Spikes of militancy, intolerance, ethnic division and sectarianism have all risen within Pakistan in recent years, yet Pakistan’s continuous battle to deter violent extremism fails to be successful. Following the December 16, 2014 Army Public School (APS) massacre in Peshawar Pakistan little empirical attention has been paid on how the Pakistani government, in the Northwest region of Pakistan, is countering violent extremism (CVE). As well as, its link to policy-making decisions on CVE. This dissertation study sought to analyze the currently active CVE narrative that Pakistan implemented into its Constitution in 2014. This qualitative explanatory case study project focused on operational links that could be traced over time. A content analysis of secondary sources of Pakistani political briefings and press conferences relating to the Pakistani 21st amendment was carried out to identify important themes that emerged. The qualitative analysis of the data generated five themes: (1) word-based agency, (2) knowledge & governance, (3) accountability, (4) closure, and (5) deontic orientation. To assist in addressing the research question, a critical holistic historical qualitative case study analysis was preferred because of its unique strength in incorporating various sources of evidence. Several suggestions of the findings are discussed. These include suggestions for practice and theory, bench-marking of the 21st amendment, and the inclusion of stakeholders in the CVE process.

This study focuses on experiences of refugee parents who have experienced war and displacement. There is a lack of academic research in the area of parenting and war, and this study hopes to begin to fill that gap. Research that is based on personal experiences is the ultimate guide to forming policy and programs that meet real needs. This study employed Grounded Theory methodology and in-depth interviewing to explore the questions of how parents manage to meet their own needs, the needs of their children, and overall cope with the experiences of war and displacement. Through intense analysis of interviews (employing Grounded Theory methods of coding, categorizing, and theory development), a theory was generated that identified key processes that participants underwent throughout their war-related experiences. This study’s employment of Constant Comparative Analysis of the data resulted in a substantive theory: the Theory of Maintaining a Strong Commitment to Parenting Principles Enables Parents to Parent Effectively Throughout the War Experience. This emergent theory states that having a strong sense of what it is to be a “good parent” guides parents’ actions and decision-making throughout the difficult war experience. It also entails the development of parenting principles during childhood, and using these to maneuver through the challenges of the active war experience and the resulting experiences of displacement and resettlement. To explore these aspects and others, it is recommended that further qualitative research be conducted into the experience of parenting and war for a larger population of resettled refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced persons.

In this study, the policies and legislation connected to the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act between 2001 and 2012 were reviewed and analyzed to identify how the DREAM Act perpetuates structural violence. The DREAM Act purported to assist many undocumented immigrant children and young adults in becoming legal residents of the United States of America. This study applied both the qualitative content analysis approach and a policy analysis methodology guided by David Gil’s methodology for analysis and development of social policies. Data collection sources included legislative bills crafted on the DREAM Act, research articles and studies, progress reports, films, and archived newspaper articles, prior interviews, and memoranda. The theory of structural violence presented in this study was analyzed in terms of Johan Galtung’s account, particularly pertaining to undocumented children who are unserviceable or remain within the gray areas of the DREAM Act’s policies and legislative efforts. Additionally, the goals and objectives of the Act were evaluated against the disqualifying factors with which otherwise eligible children are faced, leading such children and young adults to become confined to substandard social and economic conditions. The leading research question was, “What is the impact of the DREAM Act policies on undocumented immigrant young adults?” The single follow-up question was, “How does failure to pass the DREAM Act affect undocumented children?” The study also aimed to detect signs, symbols, and traits of structural violence found through the analysis of the DREAM Act.