Search

This qualitative study examined employability, also referred to as workplace readiness strengths in this article, for American Millennial health administration baccalaureates. The primary researcher used data collected from focus groups and interviews conducted at two certified Association of University Programs in Health Administration (AUPHA) programs in California, USA. Participants (n = 71) belonged to one of 4 distinct groups: (a) health administration faculty, (b) internship preceptors, (c) alumni, and (d) undergraduate students (interns) enrolled in their internship program. Thematic content analysis was used to evaluate the collected qualitative data, after which descriptive statistics was applied to calculate the frequencies of emergent themes. The National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) Career Readiness Competencies, an employer and university validated list of Career Readiness Competencies for a Career-Ready Workforce, was used as a comparative framework for the workplace readiness strengths provided in the qualitative data. Six strength-based themes emerged, two of which comparatively aligned with two of the NACE Career Readiness Competencies. However, respondents indicated that the rest of the NACE Career Competencies were not overtly expressed by Millennials as workplace strengths and should be embedded into the health administration curriculum. This invaluable information can be used to update the AUPHA health administration curriculum and help their undergraduate students increase their employability index scores.

Performance is enhanced, targeted, tested, specified, reviewed and applauded. In each case, the design of performance is the orchestration of results. Architects might guarantee water resistance, for example, and calibrate this objective against cost, labor or the desire for exposure. Performance frames decision-making by metrics of efficiency, optimization and sacrifice (or yes, satisficing). In this familiar logic of technocratic governance, criteria are also codified in legal terms and challenged by architects who exceed lax building codes or undermine excessive ones. Beyond the technological, as argued in Perform or Else: from Discipline to Performance, engineered performance generates productive friction with that of corporate management and art practice. Employee reviews of workplace efficacy and theatrical events alike alter behavior, just as a building’s program might train or untrain well-worn habits. Issue 03, ‘Performance,’ asks how criteria are established and enforced in architectural research practice. How do designers and researchers define, evaluate and communicate performance and its attendant value system? To what degree can we determine or guarantee performance? How do we acknowledge image and perception as a function of effectiveness? Who is performing? In a ‘demo or die’ culture, how and where is performance tested?, https://www.librarystack.org/arpa-journal-03-performance/?ref=unknown

Performance is enhanced, targeted, tested, specified, reviewed and applauded. In each case, the design of performance is the orchestration of results. Architects might guarantee water resistance, for example, and calibrate this objective against cost, labor or the desire for exposure. Performance frames decision-making by metrics of efficiency, optimization and sacrifice (or yes, satisficing). In this familiar logic of technocratic governance, criteria are also codified in legal terms and challenged by architects who exceed lax building codes or undermine excessive ones. Beyond the technological, as argued in Perform or Else: from Discipline to Performance, engineered performance generates productive friction with that of corporate management and art practice. Employee reviews of workplace efficacy and theatrical events alike alter behavior, just as a building’s program might train or untrain well-worn habits. Issue 03, ‘Performance,’ asks how criteria are established and enforced in architectural research practice. How do designers and researchers define, evaluate and communicate performance and its attendant value system? To what degree can we determine or guarantee performance? How do we acknowledge image and perception as a function of effectiveness? Who is performing? In a ‘demo or die’ culture, how and where is performance tested?, https://www.librarystack.org/arpa-journal-03-performance/?ref=unknown