@article{ShawJacobsRudmannetal.2012, author = {Shaw, L. and Jacobs, K. and Rudmann, D. and Magalhaes, L. and Huot, S. and Prodinger, Birgit and Mandich, A. and Hocking, C. and Akande, V. and Backmann, C. and Bossers, A. and Bragg, M. and Bryson, M. and Cowls, J. and Stone, S. D. and Dawe, E. and Dennhardt, S. and Dennis, D. and Foster, J. and Friesen, M. and Galheigo, S. and Gichuri, J. and Hughes, I. and Isaac, A. and Jarus, T. and Kinsella, A. and Klinger, L. and Leyshon, R. and Lysaght, R. and McKay, E. and Orchard, T. and Phelan, S. and Ravenek, M. and Gruhl, K. R. and Robb, L. and Stadnyk, R. and Sumsion, T. and Suto, M.}, title = {Directions for advancing the study of work transitions in the 21st century}, series = {Work}, volume = {41}, journal = {Work}, number = {4}, pages = {369 -- 377}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Objectives: The purpose of this article is to share the details, outcomes and deliverables from an international workshop on work transitions in London, Ontario, Canada. Participants: Researchers, graduate students, and community group members met to identity ways to advance the knowledge base of strategies to enhance work participation for those in the most disadvantaged groups within society. Methods: A participatory approach was used in this workshop with presentations by researchers and graduate students. This approach included dialogue and discussion with community members. In addition, small group dialogue and debate, world cafe discussions, written summaries of group discussion and reflection boards were used to bring new ideas to the discussion and to build upon what we know. Findings: Two research imperatives and six research recommendations were identified to advance global dialogue on work transitions and to advance the knowledge base. Occupational justice can be used to support future research directions in the study of work transitions. Conclusions: Moving forward requires a commitment of community of researchers, clinicians and stakeholders to address work disparities and implement solutions to promote participation in work.}, language = {en} } @article{ShawProdingerJacobsetal.2010, author = {Shaw, L. and Prodinger, Birgit and Jacobs, K. and Shaw, N.}, title = {WORK: A historical evaluation of the impact and evolution of its editorial board}, series = {Work}, volume = {35}, journal = {Work}, number = {3}, pages = {247 -- 255}, year = {2010}, abstract = {Objectives: A historical review of the editorial board and the founding editor of WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation was conducted to examine the understanding of the editorship and contributions of this team to the knowledge in WORK. Participants: The team of four authors worked together to identify an approach to evaluate the contributions and impact of WORK's editorial board (EB) on the journal's scholarship. The editor-in-chief (EIC) and editorial board members were participants in this evaluation. Methods: Informative and formative evaluations were used to investigate how knowledge was shaped through the development of an epistemic community of scholars in the field of work. Metrics of the EB composition and participation in the journal as well as surveys and interviews with the board and the editor-in-chief were analyzed. Results: The EB represents an international community of scholars with a common interest in work and who contribute academically both within WORK and beyond. The epistemic community that has evolved through the editorial board represents a pluralistic perspective on work that is needed to inform practice, and knowledge. Conclusion: Future directions to continue to advance knowledge through WORK's editorial board and EIC are elaborated.}, language = {en} } @article{ShawCampbellJacobsetal.2010, author = {Shaw, L. and Campbell, H. and Jacobs, K. and Prodinger, Birgit}, title = {Twenty years of Assessment in WORK: A narrative review}, series = {Work}, volume = {35}, journal = {Work}, number = {3}, pages = {257 -- 267}, year = {2010}, abstract = {Introduction: The aim of this review was to gain an understanding of the first 20 years of contributions to WORK within the assessment domain and to reflect on the perspectives underscoring this knowledge base. Method: A narrative review of assessment articles using the WORK ARTicle database was conducted. Assessment articles were searched using issues from 1990 to 2009. Descriptive data was analyzed to examine historical trends of the specific types and dimensions of articles, the regional location of the contributions, and the methodological accordance. A reflective process was used by an editorial board member of WORK to inductively interpret perspectives and contextual issues that underpinned the evolution of the assessment domain in WORK. Results: Over half of N= 108 of the articles on assessment in WORK focused on establishing or reporting reliability and validity of assessments used in clinical practice or evaluation research. The majority of the assessment articles were predominantly focused on the person. Contributions of articles were from 5 regions: North America, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa. Conclusions: Assessment articles in WORK have contributed to the development of evidence to support assessment of the worker. These articles represent a knowledge base that emphasizes evidence-based assessments to evaluate what a person can and cannot do to participate in work. Efforts are needed to expand knowledge generation in assessment to include more evaluations on the workplace and occupation dimensions, and that also considers the worker in context.}, language = {en} }