Search

Cumulative effects assessment (CEA), as a required practice for the environmental assessment (EA) of projects in many countries, faces several practical challenges, especially related to biodiversity. Drawing on the perspectives and experiences of Canadian EA practitioners, this paper explores options or drivers of change for improving project-based assessment to better tackle cumulative effects on biodiversity. An on-line survey was conducted with 40 professionals from the private sector, government departments/agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations, examining the current challenges and opportunities regarding: CEA process for biodiversity; responsibilities for undertaking CEA tasks; resources to support and promote good CEA practice. In terms of process, there is shared understanding on: (i) the need of EA terms of reference to provide specific directions on CEA; (ii) CEA should capture both human and natural drivers of cumulative change; (iii) spatial boundaries for CEA should be based on ecological boundaries. There are dissenting views about: (i) whether CEA should consider all valued components (VCs) potentially affected by a project or only those for which residual effects are predicted; and (ii) delimitation of future temporal limits. In terms of responsibilities, participants agreed that project proponents should retain a central role in conducting CEA, but government agencies should lead the collection/provision of information about other projects in the study area and baseline VC conditions. Information and knowledge management resources could be also applied in the context of governmental agencies and consultancy firms to support CEA for biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the dissemination of its Innovation Strategy in 2002, the Canadian government further solidified its commitment to a knowledge-based national competitiveness strategy. Through the unfolding of a multi-million dollar Workplace Skills Strategy (WSS) agency, and the launch of two research agencies, the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the Canadian Council for Learning (CCL), the federal government of Canada has expressed a clear interest in shaping knowledge generation and has established conditions for particular forms of knowledge production. In this paper we analyze the knowledge discourse of these intermediary agencies, and consider implications for higher education, particularly in terms of research support and program development. Using methods of critical discourse analysis, we examined the Calls for Proposals and general program descriptions of the CFI, WSS, and CCL, and found that programmatic discourses are conflicting and ambiguous in terms of research foci, partnerships, and roles of individuals and institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conceptually rich classroom learning environments can only be supported by teachers with appropriate mathematical knowledge. A lack of clarity exists as to whether or how such teacher knowledge might go beyond knowledge of the relevant curriculum. This study contributes to the field by investigating further examples of what appropriate teacher mathematical knowledge might be, as rooted and contextualized in teachers' daily classroom practices. Teacher journaling, individual meetings, and teacher focus-group discussions were used to identify relevant examples, and ultimately continue to collectively describe, in a specific, contextually based and practitioner-developed manner, the mathematical knowledge required for elementary teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Organizational Innovation (OI) are seen as the miracle of post-modernity in organizations. In this way, they are supposed to resolve most organizational problems, efficiently and rapidly. OI is highly dependent on the capacity and the investment in knowledge management (internal and external) to support decision making process and to implement significant changes. We know what explains ICT utilization (ICTU) and what determines OI development (OID) in healthcare services. Moreover, the literature tends to link ICTU to OID and vice versa. However, this dependency has never been explored empirically through the lens of roles combination. To identify the existing combined roles profiles of ICTU and OID among healthcare decision makers and determine factors of the shift from a profile to another. We did the following: (1) a structured review of the literature on healthcare management by focusing on ICTU and OID which allowed us to build two indexes and a comprehensive framework; (2) a copula methodology to identify with high precision the thresholds for ICTU and OID; and (3) a cross-sectional study based on a survey done with a sample of 942 decision makers from Canadian healthcare organizations through a multinomial logit model to identify determinants of the shift. ICTU and OID are correlated at 22% (Kendal’s Tau). The joint distribution (combination) of ICTU and OID shows that four major profiles exist among decision makers in Canadian healthcare organizations: the traditional decision maker, the innovative decision maker, the technologic decision maker and the contemporary decision maker. We found out that classic factors act as barriers to the shift from one profile to the desired profile (from 1 to 4, from 2 to 4 and from 3 to 4). We have identified that the attitude toward research and relational capital are transversal barriers of shift. We have also found that some factors have a specific impact such as engaging in activities of research acquisition, the administrative position (being a manager), the preference for applied research results as source of information, the degree of novelty of research results, and the gender. Modern Canadian healthcare organizations need contemporary decision makers who use ICT and develop OI, if performance is the target. Our results let us suggest that the isolated administrative agents profile is no more effective in a dynamic and changing world. Contemporary decision makers need to be more active intellectually and to take risks in their decisions. Relying exclusively on research results and on their social network is no more helpful for a real shift. Moreover, the traditional factors, i.e. organization size, time, experience...are no more effective, especially when we consider combined roles. We propose some practical and theoretical recommendations to support these changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]