Finnish doctoral dissertations of nursing education research

Nursing education research has confirmed its place in the discipline of nursing and caring sciences being one of the most central research areas. However, extensive and systematic analysis of nursing education research has been lacking both nationally and internationally. The aim of this study was to describe the focus of nursing education research in Finnish doctoral dissertations in the field of nursing and caring sciences between the years 1990–2014. In addition, the characteristics (i.e. methods, study informants and reporting of validity, reliability, and research ethics) of the dissertations were described. Also, international reviews (N=39) focusing on nursing education research were analysed for a background literature. A literature review was carried out. Altogether 51 (=N) Finnish doctoral dissertations of nursing and caring sciences in the field of nursing education research were included in the final analysis. The data for this research was collected from the open publication lists of each university offering education in nursing and caring sciences in Finland. The dissertations were published in 1990–2014. The data were analysed by content analysis both deductively and inductively. This study consists of a scientific article manuscript and a background literature review. Nursing education research has focused both nationally and internationally on four main areas: structural factors in nursing education, nurse teacherhood, teaching activities, and learning and learning outcomes in nursing education. In Finland, the most central focus area was learning (84.3 %) whereas nurse teacherhood and structural factors in nursing education were studied the least. Students were the predominant study informant group while nurse staff including nurse mentors were next and nurse educators only the third. Surveys and interviews were the most common data collection methods. In the findings there were a lot of similarities with international reviews of nursing education research. Finnish nursing education research has been very student-centred yet studies focusing on the education of other nursing based professions or different levels of education are rare. Future research about nurse teacherhood, curricula and structural factors in nursing education is recommended. There is also a need for experimental designs. In addition, nursing education research should focus on the central phenomena of nursing education and working life. All in all, more nursing education research is needed. Nursing education dissertations cover only 12.3 % of all the dissertations of nursing and caring sciences in Finland.

A Business Incubator, Accelerator, or Coworking Space? Case Health Innovation Village at GE

Health Innovation Village at GE is one of the new communities targeted for startup and growth-oriented companies. It has been established at the premises of a multinational conglomerate that will promote networking and growth of startup companies. The concept combines features from traditional business incubators, accelerators, and coworking spaces. This research compares Health Innovation Village to these concepts regarding its goals, target clients, source of income, organization, facilities, management, and success factors. In addition, a new incubator classification model is introduced. On the other hand, Health Innovation Village is examined from its tenants’ perspective and improvements are suggested. The work was implemented as a qualitative case study by interviewing GE staff with connections to Health Innovation Village as well as startup entrepreneurs and employees’ working there. The most evident features of Health Innovation Village correspond to those of business incubators although it is atypical as a non-profit corporate business incubator. Strong network orientation and connections to venture capitalists are common characteristics of these new types of accelerators. The design of the premises conforms to the principles of coworking spaces, but the services provided to the startup companies are considerably more versatile than the services offered by coworking spaces. The advantages of Health Innovation Village are that there are first-class premises and exceptionally good networking possibilities that other types of incubators or accelerators are not able to offer. A conglomerate can also provide multifaceted special knowledge for young firms. In addition, both GE and the startups gained considerable publicity through their cooperation, indeed a characteristic that benefits both parties. Most of the expectations of the entrepreneurs were exceeded. However, communication and the scope of cooperation remain challenges. Micro companies spend their time developing and marketing their products and acquiring financing. Therefore, communication should be as clear as possible and accessible everywhere. The startups would prefer to cooperate significantly more, but few have the time available to assume the responsibility of leadership. The entrepreneurs also expected to have more possibilities for cooperation with GE. Wider collaboration might be accomplished by curation in the same way as it is used in the well-functioning coworking spaces where curators take care of practicalities and promote cooperation. Communication issues could be alleviated if the community had its own Intranet pages where all information could be concentrated. In particular, a common calendar and a room reservation system could be useful. In addition, it could be beneficial to have a section of the Intranet open for both the GE staff and the startups so that those willing to share their knowledge and those having project offers could use it for advertising.