Explore the vast range of titles available.

Previous work on institutional complexity has discussed two solutions that organizations internally deploy when externally engaging with multiple institutional logics: blended hybrids, in which logics are combined throughout the organization, and structural hybrids, in which different logics dominate in different compartments within the organization. While blended hybrids have been extensively investigated, few studies have examined how structural hybrids are constructed and maintained. We address this imbalance by studying university–industry research centers as instances of distinct organizational spaces used to engage with a minority logic. We found that these spaces require three kinds of work: (a) leveraging, where dominant logic practices are drawn on to achieve minority logic objectives; (b) hybridizing, where the practices inside the space are modified to allow engagement with the minority logic; and (c) bolstering, where the space is shielded against excessive minority logic influence and anchored back into the organization. Furthermore, contrary to the existing literature, we found that the spaces were hybrid, rather than being dominated by a single logic. Our finding is likely generalizable across many instances of structural hybrids given the integration problems that organizations with pure single logic spaces would face, combined with the usefulness of hybrid spaces. Our study is novel in revealing the work needed to sustain hybrid spaces and questioning the previously held conceptualization of structural hybrids as made up of single-logic compartments. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1228 .

Background Collaborations involving partnerships between academic researchers and knowledge users can improve the relevance and potential adoption of evidence in health care practices and decision-making. However, descriptions of partnering practice characteristics are often limited to self-report from the lead academic researcher, with no comparison among team members. The primary objective of this study was to determine the extent to which nominated principal investigator (NPI) respondents of a questionnaire about funded Canadian partnered health research projects agreed with other team researchers and knowledge users (KU) on partnership practices. Methods We conducted secondary analysis of a subset of data from 106 respondents from 53 partnered Canadian health research projects funded between 2011 and 2019. We organized projects into NPI-researcher and NPI-KU dyads, and analyzed 23 binary variables about types of knowledge users involved and approaches for involving knowledge users in the project. We calculated Kappa scores and examined if agreement varied by dyad type and time across three blocks of years of project funding using a two-way ANOVA. We also explored how agreement varied by question type (independent t-test) and by variable (Pearson Chi-Square). Results Overall agreement on partnership practices was minimal (mean Kappa = 0.38, SD 0.27). NPI- researcher dyads had higher Kappa scores than NPI-KU dyads ( p  = 0.03). There were no significant differences across funding year blocks ( p  > 0.05). Agreement on the types of knowledge users engaged in the project was weak (mean Kappa = 0.43, SD 0.32), and there was no difference by dyad type. Agreement was minimal on the approaches for involving knowledge users the project (mean Kappa = 0.28, SD 0.31), and NPI-researcher dyads had significantly higher Kappa scores than NPI-KU dyads ( p  = 0.03). Variable-level agreement ranged between 47 and 98%. Conclusions The overall low level of agreement among team members responding about the same project has implications for the continued study and practice of partnered health research. These findings highlight the caution that must be used in interpreting retrospectively assessed self-report practices. Moving forward, prospective documentation of partnered research practices offers the greatest potential to overcome the limitations of recall-based retrospective analyses.

Background By integrating Youth–Adult Partnerships (Y‐APs) in organizational decision making and programming in health‐care settings, youth can be engaged in decisions that affect them in a way that draws on their unique skills and expertise. Despite challenges, Y‐APs can have many benefits for youth and adults alike, as well as for the programmes and initiatives that they undertake together. Objective This article describes the development, implementation and success of a Y‐AP initiative at the McCain Centre at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, a large urban hospital. Method The McCain Y‐AP implementation model was developed based on the existing literature, guided by the team's progressive experience. The development and implementation procedure is described, with indicators of the model's success and recommendations for organizations interested integrating youth engagement. Results The McCain Y‐AP has integrated youth into a wide range of mental health and substance use‐related initiatives, including research projects, conferences and educational presentations. The model of youth engagement is flexible to include varying degrees of involvement, allowing youth to contribute in ways that fit their availability, interest and skills. Youth satisfaction has been strong and both the youth and adult partners have learned from the experience. Discussion Through the McCain Y‐AP initiative, youth engagement has helped advance numerous initiatives in a variety of ways. Flexible engagement, multifaceted mentorship, reciprocal learning and authentic decision making have led to a successful partnership that has provided opportunities for growth for all those involved. Health‐care organizations interested in engaging youth can learn from the McCain Y‐AP experience to guide their engagement initiatives and maximize success.

In the last decades an increasing deal of research has investigated the phenomenon of opinion misperception in human communities and, more recently, in social media. Opinion misperception is the wrong evaluation by community’s members of the real distribution of opinions or beliefs about a given topic. In this work we explore the mechanisms giving rise to opinion misperception in social media groups, which are larger than physical ones and have peculiar topological features. By means of numerical simulations, we suggest that the structure of connections of such communities plays indeed a role in distorting the perception of the agents about others’ beliefs, but it is essentially an indirect effect. Moreover, we show that the main ingredient that generates misperception is a spiral of silence induced by few, well connected and charismatic agents, which rapidly drives the majority of individuals to stay silent without disclosing their true belief, leading minoritarian opinions to appear more widespread throughout the community.