A large and growing body of empirical research shows that social relationships and the networks these relationships constitute are influential in explaining the processes of knowledge creation, diffusion, absorption, and use. The authors refer to such networks as "knowledge networks." They advance an understanding of knowledge networks at multiple levels by conducting a systematic review and analysis of empirical research published on this topic in leading management, psychology, sociology, and economics journals. The authors develop a comprehensive framework that organizes the knowledge networks literature, which they use to review extant empirical research within and across multiple disciplines and levels of analysis. They identify points of coherence and conflict in theoretical arguments and empirical results within and across levels and identify emerging themes and promising areas for future research.

No abstract

Educators often pose questions about qualitative research. For example, a program director might say: ''I collect data from my residents about their learning experiences in a new longitudinal clinical rotation. If I want to know about their learning experiences, should I use qualitative methods? I have been told that there are many approaches from which to choose. Someone suggested that I use grounded theory, but how do I know this is the best approach? Are there others?'' What Is KnownQualitative research is the systematic inquiry into social phenomena in natural settings. These phenomena can include, but are not limited to, how people experience aspects of their lives, how individuals and/or groups behave, how organizations function, and how interactions shape relationships. In qualitative research, the researcher is the main data collection instrument. The researcher examines why events occur, what happens, and what those events mean to the participants studied. 1,2Qualitative research starts from a fundamentally different set of beliefs-or paradigms-than those that underpin quantitative research. Quantitative research is based on positivist beliefs that there is a singular reality that can be discovered with the appropriate experimental methods. Post-positivist researchers agree with the positivist paradigm, but believe that environmental and individual differences, such as the learning culture or the learners' capacity to learn, influence this reality, and that these differences are important. Constructivist researchers believe that there is no single reality, but that the researcher elicits participants' views of reality.3 Qualitative research generally draws on post-positivist or constructivist beliefs.Qualitative scholars develop their work from these beliefs-usually post-positivist or constructivist-using different approaches to conduct their research. In this Rip Out, we describe 3 different qualitative research approaches commonly used in medical education: grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology. Each acts as a pivotal frame that shapes the research question(s), the method(s) of data collection, and how data are analyzed. 4,5 Choosing a Qualitative ApproachBefore engaging in any qualitative study, consider how your views about what is possible to study will affect your approach. Then select an appropriate approach within which to work. Alignment between the belief system underpinning the research approach, the research question, and the research approach itself is a prerequisite for rigorous qualitative research. To enhance the understanding of how different approaches frame qualitative research, we use this introductory challenge as an illustrative example.The clinic rotation in a program director's training program was recently redesigned as a longitudinal clinical experience. Resident satisfaction with this rotation improved significantly following implementation of the new longitudinal experience. The program director wants to understand how the changes made in the clinic rotation transla...

Background The overall global impact of COVID-19 in children and regional variability in pediatric outcomes are presently unknown. Methods To evaluate the magnitude of global COVID-19 death and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in children aged 0–19 years, a systematic review was conducted for articles and national reports as of December 7, 2020. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020179696). Results We reviewed 16,027 articles as well as 225 national reports from 216 countries. Among the 3,788 global pediatric COVID-19 deaths, 3,394 (91.5%) deaths were reported from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), while 83.5% of pediatric population from all included countries were from LMIC. The pediatric deaths/1,000,000 children and case fatality rate (CFR) were significantly higher in LMIC than in high-income countries (HIC) (2.77 in LMIC vs 1.32 in HIC; p < 0.001 and 0.24% in LMIC vs 0.01% in HIC; p < 0.001, respectively). The ICU admission/1,000,000 children was 18.80 and 1.48 in HIC and LMIC, respectively (p < 0.001). The highest deaths/1,000,000 children and CFR were in infants < 1 year old (10.03 and 0.58% in the world, 5.39 and 0.07% in HIC and 10.98 and 1.30% in LMIC, respectively). Conclusions The study highlights that there may be a larger impact of pediatric COVID-19 fatality in LMICs compared to HICs.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper is dedicated to the memory of MB Sarkar, who passed away in June 2016, during the third round of revisions to the paper. We would like to thank the Senior Editor, Rajshree Agarwal, and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and developmental feedback. This paper also benefited from the comments and suggestions of Alfonso Gambardella, Harry Bowen, attendees at the SMS 2010, AoM 2011, and the Dime 2011 conferences, as well as seminar participants at Universidad Carlos III (2010) and Politecnico di Milano (2011). The authors have contributed equally to this article. ! 2 ! The paradox of openness and value protection strategies: Effect of extramural R&D on innovative performance ABSTRACT: The emphasis in firms on extramural research and development (R&D), involving increased engagement with external entities in the conduct of research, can also result in knowledge leakage. Knowledge leaks can undermine firm competitiveness and to prevent this, firms deploy various isolating mechanisms to protect their knowledge. Integrating insights from the resource based view and evolutionary theory, we hypothesize an inverted curvilinear relationship between extramural R&D and innovation, and explain why the value protection strategies employed by firms change the relationship at various degrees of external knowledge sourcing. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 506 French manufacturing firms using data from three surveys conducted in the period 1998 to 2006. We find an inverted-U shaped relationship between extramural R&D and innovation performance. This relationship is moderated by employee retention and secrecy such that the benefits of extramural R&D are weakened at lower degrees of extramural R&D while its downsides are mitigated at higher degrees of extramural R&D. Our work thus suggests boundary conditions to the paradox of openness.

A rich theory emerged explaining how excellent clinicians, driven by a core philosophy and engaged in deliberate activities, achieve high performance in everyday practice. This theory of the nature of excellent clinicians provides a holistic perspective of individual performance, informs medical education, supports faculty career development, and promotes clinical excellence in the culture of academic medicine.