01243nas a2200133 4500008004100000020001400041245005400055210005300109520072000162653008200882100002000964700002400984856010101008 2024 eng d a2364-146800aKeeping it in the family: Student to degree match0 aKeeping it in the family Student to degree match3 a

This paper examines systematic inequalities in the match between students and the university degree they apply to, and enroll in. Using linked administrative data on the population of Portuguese applicants we create a transparent and continuous measure of student-to-degree match employing minimal assumptions. We find that students who are first in the family to attend post-secondary education consistently match to lower quality degrees across the entire achievement distribution. In contrast, only the highest achieving female students relatively undermatch. These gaps are larger at the application stage. We explore the role of student preferences and the consequences for intergenerational mobility.

10ahigher education; educational economics; college choice; mismatch; undermatch1 aMurphy, Richard1 aSilva, Pedro, Luís uhttps://www.cesifo.org/en/publications/2024/working-paper/keeping-it-family-student-degree-match04236nas a2200205 4500008004100000020002200041245010300063210006900166260005200235520351700287653001503804653002603819653002603845653002503871653001803896100002203914700002103936700002303957856005003980 2020 eng d a978-84-09-24232-000aKnowledge Translation and Partnerships in Healthcare: Literature Review on Challenges and Enablers0 aKnowledge Translation and Partnerships in Healthcare Literature  aOnline ConferencebIATED Academyc9-10 Nov 20203 a

In the context of the Knowledge Society advent, scientific knowledge is considered as an asset to serve economic and social development purposes through the collaboration between universities and non-academic institutions. In the case of Healthcare, the system can benefit from scientific evidence in order to improve well-being and healthcare services. However, the persistent gap between scientific evidence and its implementation to the practice has been object of a political concern as it potentially leads to a duplication of efforts and a waste of resources (Rowley et al 2012). This challenge is observed by the difficulty to translate basic scientific knowledge into clinical applications (Kitson et al 2018), and by the time required for a patient to benefit from a proven treatment (Graham 2006).
From this perspective, the Knowledge Translation (KT) paradigm emerges as a strategy to close the evidence-practice gap and to ensure that the knowledge produced by researchers meet real-world needs. More recently, the focus was placed on the collaborative arrangements set between researchers and non-academic stakeholders. In this context, the traditional knowledge users (clinical professionals, policymakers, managers and even patients) take a role as co-producers of knowledge in a research partnership, actively participating in all the phases of the research process.
However, it is not clear how these collaborative arrangements are approached, and what are the main factors required for the establishment of a successful partnership. And this is precisely what this paper aims to better understand, contributing to the debate on research partnerships as a strategy to close the gap between science and practice in the Healthcare area.
A systematic literature review is conducted on the studies covering KT arrangements and the co-production of knowledge between academics and stakeholders from the Healthcare system. For this purpose, a search for both the expressions “knowledge translation” and “co-production of knowledge”, combined with “healthcare” in the database Scopus-Elsevier (in order to restrict the analysis to peer-reviewed material) was undertaken. The articles selected focused on the conceptualization of integrated knowledge translation mechanisms and multi-organizational partnerships.
The literature review reveals a number of factors that have been identified as the main enablers and barriers to KT processes. In this regard, the complex nature of research partnership comprising actors with different priorities and from different organizational cultures entails the main barriers to the KT. On the other hand, regular communication and effective leadership contribute to overcoming these challenges. The existence of a Knowledge Brokering infrastructure, able to engage all the participants since the earlier stages, is perceived as crucial for the co-production of relevant knowledge.
Understanding the factors that can hinder or facilitate effective KT processes allows for the planning and implementation of successful partnerships between academic and non-academic actors. Therefore, KT interventions should be designed, anticipating potential barriers, and optimizing the facilitators. Furthermore, this study sheds light on what should be the role of an intermediate infrastructure aiming to optimize knowledge production and its implementation within a partnership in order to improve the healthcare service.

10ahealthcare10aknowledge translation10aresearch partnerships10ascientific knowledge10aThird mission1 aQueirós, Anabela1 aCarvalho, Teresa1 aRosa, Maria, João uhttps://library.iated.org/view/QUEIROS2020KNO00479nas a2200121 4500008004100000020002200041245012200063210006900185260002600254100001400280700001300294856005000307 2018 eng d a978-84-09-02709-500aKey skills to be an accountant: The gap between the learning outcomes and the opinion of the practitioner accountants0 aKey skills to be an accountant The gap between the learning outc bIATEDc2-4 July, 20181 aLucas, A.1 aDias, D. uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2018.124800553nas a2200181 4500008004100000245005300041210005200094260003200146300001200178100001800190700002100208700002200229700001800251700002000269700001800289700001400307856005000321 2014 eng d00aKnowledge society/economy and managerial changes0 aKnowledge societyeconomy and managerial changes aRotterdambSense Publishers a35–571 aSantiago, Rui1 aCarvalho, Teresa1 aFerreira, Andreia1 aBrankovic, J.1 aKlemenčić, M.1 aLažetić, P.1 aZgaga, P. uhttps://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-94-6209-581-6_300295nas a2200121 4500008004100000245001500041210001500056260002000071300001000091490000700101100001400108856005100122 1999 eng d00aKey issues0 aKey issues bSpringer Nature a5–80 v121 aNeave, G. uhttps://doi.org/10.1057%2Fpalgrave.hep.8391001