Creating synergies among education/research, practice, and policy environments to build capacity for the scholar role in occupational therapy and physiotherapy in the Canadian context.

Scholarly practice (SP) is considered a key competency of occupational therapy and physiotherapy. To date, the three sectors-education/research, practice, and policy/regulation-that support SP have been working relatively independently. The goals of this project were to (a) understand how representatives of the three sectors conceptualize SP; (b) define each sector's individual and collective roles in supporting SP; (c) identify factors influencing the enactment of SP and the specific needs of how best to support SP; and (d) co-develop goals and strategies to support SP across all sectors. We used interpretive description methodology. Consistent with an integrated knowledge translation approach, partners representing the three sectors across Canada recruited individuals from each sector, developed the content and questions for three focus groups, and collected and analyzed the data. Inspired by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we developed the questions for the second focus group. We analyzed the data using an inductive thematic analysis method. Thirty-nine participants from the three sectors participated. Themes related to participants' conceptualization of SP included (a) ongoing process, (b) reflective process, (c) broad concept, and (d) collective effort. Themes describing factors influencing and supporting SP were (a) recognition, (b) appropriate conceptualization, (c) social network, (d) accessibility to resources, and (e) forces outside of practitioners' effort. Goals to support SP included (a) further recognizing SP, (b) sustaining SP competency, and (c) ensuring access to information. SP requires collaborative and integrated intersectoral support and further recognition of its importance through the collaboration of multiple stakeholders.

Scholarly practice in healthcare professions: findings from a scoping review.

Scholarly practitioners are broadly defined as healthcare professionals that address critical practice problems using theory, scientific evidence, and practice-based knowledge. Though scholarly practice is included in most competency frameworks, it is unclear what scholarly practice is, how it develops and how it is operationalized in clinical practice. The aim of this review was to determine what is known about scholarly practice in healthcare professionals. We conducted a scoping review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL from inception to May 2020. We included papers that explored, described, or defined scholarly practice, scholar or scholarly practitioner, and/or related concepts in healthcare professionals. We included a total of 90 papers. Thirty percent of papers contained an explicit definition of scholarly practice. Conceptualizations of scholarly practice were organized into three themes: the interdependent relationship between scholarship and practice; advancing the profession's field; and core to being a healthcare practitioner. Attributes of scholarly practitioners clustered around five themes: commitment to excellence in practice; collaborative nature; presence of virtuous characteristics; effective communication skills; and adaptive change ethos. No single unified definition of scholarly practice exists within the literature. The variability in terms used to describe scholarly practice suggests that it is an overarching concept rather than a definable entity. There are similarities between scholarly practitioners and knowledge brokers regarding attributes and how scholarly practice is operationalized. Individuals engaged in the teaching, research and/or assessment of scholarly practice should make explicit their definitions and expectations for healthcare professionals.

Features of scholarly practice in health care professionals: A scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Health care professionals are expected to embrace and enact the scholarly practitioner role. Scholarly practitioners demonstrate a lifelong commitment to excellence in practice through continuous learning, engagement in evidence-informed decision-making, contributions to scholarship, and knowledge translation. However, the specific features and requirements associated with this role are not uniform. The absence of well-defined and delineated conceptualizations of scholarly practice and the scarcity of empirical research on how scholarly practice is operationalized contribute to a lack of a shared understanding of this complex role. AIM: The purpose of this scoping review is to map the breadth and depth of the literature on what is known about scholarly practice in licensed health care professionals. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's 6-stage scoping review framework will be used to examine the breadth and depth of the literature on the definitions and conceptualizations of the scholar role in health care professionals. We will conduct a comprehensive search from inception to present in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and CINAHL using scholarly practitioner terms and related synonyms, including a grey literature search. Following a calibration exercise, two independent reviewers will screen retrieved papers for inclusion and extract relevant data. Included papers will: (i) explore, describe, or define scholarly practice, scholar or scholarly practitioner, and/or related concepts in the licensed health care professionals; (ii) be conceptual and/or theoretical in nature; (iii) use quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodologies; and (iv) be published in English or French. Numeric and thematic analysis will characterize the data and address the research objectives.

Excerpts in a Time of Untruth, or Voltaire's Practice of Excerpting and the Rehabilitation of Justice.

In the history of scholarly practice, Voltaire stands out among eighteenth-century authors for his critical attitude towards erudite reading habits. His contempt for the "compilateurs" is a radical expression of the Enlightenment desire to write free of the traditions and burdens of the past. His famous interventions in Ancien Régime court cases are also emblematic of the action-oriented philosophy of the period. This article investigates the role played in the case of the Chevalier de La Barre by documents that Voltaire called "excerpts." The case was the last Voltaire was involved in and concerned a young man, charged with blasphemy, who was eventually beheaded and burnt in 1766, Voltaire's Dictionnaire philosophique portatif (1764) nailed to his torso. With reference to two texts in particular-Relation de la mort du chevalier de La Barre (1766) and Le Cri du sang innocent (1775)-I focus on Voltaire's practice of excerpting from the court transcripts and on their specific role in his fight for the rehabilitation of the victims.

Open Science Training in TRIPLE.

This case study focuses on the online training activities on Open Science delivered within the H2020 project Transforming Research through Innovative Practices for Linked Interdisciplinary Exploration (TRIPLE, Grant Agreement 863420). The project is dedicated to building a discovery platform for the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) and is committed to promoting and supporting the uptake of Open Science within research practices. In order to address SSH research and training communities' needs for enhanced competencies on Open Science and for stronger support in the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) management of digital training materials, two reusable outputs were produced. The work carried out is presented as a novel approach to tackle the issues related to FAIRifying research and training practices and to create training resources whose reusability and relevance reaches beyond the project lifetime and framework. The case study presents the methods by which the results were produced so as to encourage and enable their future adaptation and reuse. The TRIPLE Open Science training series (result 1) targets SSH researchers, research support personnel and infrastructure developers in need of practical tools and specific skills to integrate Open Science practices in their workflows. The training series provides 12 competence-oriented online training events in Open Access whose training materials are available as Open Educational Resources (OER). The TRIPLE Training Toolkit (result 2) targets training organisers and research performing organisations who wish to design and manage training events as OERs and increase the impact of their training following good practice. The Toolkit is an easily reproducible workflow designed to help trainers minimise the time they spend in managing training events following FAIR practice. The workflow follows a FAIR-by-design method to address the frequent findability and reusability issues related to the management of digital training resources .

What scholarly practice means to respiratory therapists: An interpretive description study.

RATIONALE: Engagement in scholarly practice has been associated with professional empowerment, role satisfaction and improvements in care delivery and patient outcomes across many healthcare professions. However, in evolving professions like respiratory therapy, scholarly practice is excluded from competency frameworks, resulting in a gap in education and subsequent application of this competency in practice. An exploration of scholarly practice in respiratory therapy may provide insights into evolving professions that face tensions between meeting competency requirements as outlined in frameworks and providing quality healthcare to the populations they serve. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to explore what scholarly practice means, and how it manifests in practice from respiratory therapists' (RTs) perspectives. METHODS: We used interpretive description methodology. We purposively sampled participants to obtain varied perspectives of scholarly practice in respiratory therapy. We conducted 26 semistructured interviews with RTs in different roles (clinicians, educators, researchers, leaders and managers) across Canada and analysed the data using inductive analysis. Data collection and analysis proceeded concurrently. RESULTS: We developed five main themes: (i) the identity of a scholarly practitioner in RTs; (ii) factors influencing scholarly practice; (iii) one's impression of their professional self-image; (iv) scholarly practice as a vehicle for changing practice and (v) the complex interconnections between knowledges and practices. CONCLUSION: Scholarly practice appears to be a multifaceted phenomenon encompassing a wide range of activities and skills including conducting research, reflective practice, application of research to practice, and contributing to the advancement of the profession and healthcare. Scholarly practice is influenced by organisational context and culture, available resources, intrinsic motivation and external political context. We identified similarities between professional identity and the description of the scholarly practitioner, suggesting that these two phenomena may be interconnected. Furthermore, participants believed that scholarly practice could enhance the image, credibility, legitimacy and professionalisation of the profession.