Search

Background:  To win first place at the SpaceX Hyper-Loop Pod Competition in both overall point total and speed. Design and build a 1:2 scale Hyperloop pod that utilizes air based levitation andis optimized for a 1 mile test track.Educate and train students in simulation and advanced manufacturing Collaborate with industry partners and students from many disciplines Faculty Advisors: Roger Rangel         rhrangel@uci.eduDr. Jacob Brouwer -  Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering             jbrouwer@uci.eduLorenzo Valdevit                    valdevit@uci.eduFarzin Zareian             zareian@uci.eduDaniel Mumm             mumm@uci.eduGeorge Meier              gdmeier@uci.eduAlexander McDonald                         alexander.mcdonald@gmail.com

This special issue on child and adolescent mental health contains a thoughtful set of papers that address many of the challenges in bridging research and practice. These articles, however, focus predominantly on the supply side of producing research for use by a range of audiences, including practitioners, administrators and policy makers. This commentary emphasizes the importance of attending to, and better understanding, the demand side with regard to how research evidence is evaluated, understood, and utilized. Drawing from work underway at the William T. Grant Foundation, the authors argue for the need to understand three broad topics: user settings and perspectives, political, economic and social contexts, and the various uses of research. Furthermore, understanding the use of research evidence, or the demand side, is itself a topic for empirical investigation. The authors conclude that, when it comes to supplying evidence, don’t forget the demand side.

A self-report, multiple-item measure developed to assess adolescents’ sense of obligation to support, assist, and respect the family is described. The measure was designed to be a simple, straightforward, and meaningful way to the importance of family obligation in adolescents’ daily lives. The development of the measure is described along with a summary of results from a set of studies that have employed it among adolescents from different ethnic and cultural groups. Findings suggest that the measure succeeds at capturing an aspect of family processes that although differentially endorsed across different groups of adolescents, has important consequences for fundamental aspects of adolescent development in a variety of social and cultural groups.

It is a widely accepted idea that knowledge from research needs to be better integrated into practice. Considerable energy is dedicated to strengthening the flow of research to practice. Less attention, however, has been paid to strengthening the ways researchers can learn from practice to improve their work. In this commentary, we draw on our work over the past decade to offer reflections on the nature and pace of practice, the gaps between practitioners' needs and available research, and the importance of trust and relationships. Although there are no easy responses to these challenges, we can create a dialogue about them and begin to work collectively toward overcoming them.

The role of parental socialisation in political learning is emphasized in political science and psychology research. The bidirectional flow of political information between parents and children in immigrant families influences the development and future of these children.

This paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding the uses of research in policy and practice, findings from recent empirical work, and early lessons from the field. The framework describes the ways policymakers and practitioners define, acquire, interpret, and ultimately use research. Relationships are vital conduits for acquiring research. When confronted with questions about a program or reform, agencies and legislators often turn to trusted peers and intermediaries. Translation is also key. Because research does not speak for itself, policymakers and practitioners must always interpret its meaning and implications for their particular problems and circumstances. This means that identifying the right translators and creating productive conditions for translation are critical. Policymakers and practitioners use research in various ways, including instrumental, conceptual, political, imposed, and process uses. Increased knowledge of these nuances should enable researchers to produce more useful work and better engage with policymakers, practitioners, and intermediaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior to the 2021 American Psychologist special issue "Rendered Invisible: Are Asian Americans a Model or a Marginalized Minority?" (Yip et al., 2021), only seven articles on Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) populations were published in the journal in 3 decades. The special issue interrogated sources of invisibility and marginalization of AANHPIs not only in the field of psychology but also in the broader national landscape. The current commentary provides a deeper dive into one of the primary drivers of AANHPI invisibility, anti-Asian biases encountered during the federal grant review process, which contributes to low funding rates and insufficient research on AANHPI communities. Despite comprising over 6% of the U.S. population, less than 1% of the National Institutes of Health's funding portfolio supports science on AANHPI populations. This qualitative study revealed thematic barriers encountered during National Institutes of Health grant reviews. A one-time survey was circulated to professional scientific networks to obtain open-ended responses regarding applicants' and reviewers' experiences proposing research with AANHPI samples, resulting in data from N = 16 respondents. Respondents were asked to indicate their role in the review process (e.g., investigator, applicant, reviewer, other) and to provide open-ended responses detailing experiences of bias. Thematic coding revealed six principal themes: (1) invalidation, (2) limited reviewer knowledge, (3) oppression Olympics, (4) White comparison groups, (5) model minority myth, and (6) homogeneity of AANHPI groups. Building off these themes, this commentary concludes with five actionable policy and institutional recommendations aimed at achieving a more inclusive national research enterprise for AANHPI investigators and communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]