This article offers a new interpretation of the coming of state ownership in aluminium-related big businesses in Norway. It shows that the Norwegian aluminium business of the late 1930s and the 1940s was undertaken by a Scandinavian business elite fully capable of filling capital requirements after the war. This elite had, however, entangled itself into the German war effort in Norway mainly by supporting the building of new aluminium plants under the German occupiers’ control. This left it morally vulnerable to the increasing emphasis during the war on aluminium as a strategic metal. The Allied war effort—especially evident in US attitudes—had come to see the cartelized aluminium industry of the 1930s as working against the national interest by impacting national production capacity in a negative way. The Allies bombed the major new plant in Norway in 1943, and after the war the US acted restrictively toward Norwegian capital assets in the US. By pursuing ownership after 1945, the Norwegian state performed strategic ownership roles in large corporations, thereby also protecting these entities from the possible wrath of the US against private owners.

In recent times, there has been increased focus on the utilisation of virtual reality flight simulators in flight training, driven by their advantages compared to conventional methods. However, a paucity of empirical evidence has prevented their widespread introduction and regulatory approval. Existing research focuses on single-user simulators, leaving a gap in studies of collaborative training within virtual environments. Consequently, this paper investigates evidence-based simulator training within a collaborative virtual environment.

A mixed methods approach was adopted, where behaviours related to industry-standard competencies were observed in a virtual reality complex aircraft and thematic analysis applied to a post-experiment participant debrief. The findings showcase the feasibility of utilising a collaborative virtual environment for evidence-based training purposes in scenarios aligned to typical initial First Officer airline training programmes, which is a precursor to supplementing traditional professional pilot training techniques. In addition, the study found that the visual barriers imposed by head-mounted displays were overcome through the adoption of refined communication strategies, thus laying the groundwork for physically separated multi-crew pilot training.

Academic health sciences libraries (“libraries”) offer services that span the entire research lifecycle, positioning them as natural partners in advancing clinical and translational science. Many libraries enjoy active and productive collaborations with Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs and other translational initiatives like the IDeA Clinical & Translational Research Network. This article explores areas of potential partnership between libraries and Translational Science Hubs (TSH), highlighting areas where libraries can support the CTSA Program’s five functional areas outlined in the Notice of Funding Opportunity. It serves as a primer for TSH and libraries to explore potential collaborations, demonstrating how libraries can connect researchers to services and resources that support the information needs of TSH.

As funding for large translational research consortia increases across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), focused working groups provide an opportunity to leverage the power of unique networks to conduct high-impact science and offer a strategy for building collaborative infrastructure to sustain networks long-term. This sustainment leverages the existing NIH investments, amplifying the impact and creating conditions for future innovative translational research. However, few resources exist that detail practical strategies for establishing and sustaining working groups in consortia. Here, we describe how the Coordinating Center for the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) utilized principles derived from the Science of Team Science to develop replicable strategies for building and sustaining an effective working group-led consortium. These strategies include continually engaging community members in strategic planning, prioritizing diversity in leadership and membership, creating multi-level opportunities for leadership and participation, providing intensive community management and facilitation, and incentivizing projects that support the consortium sustainment. When assessing the impact of these interventions through qualitative exit interviews, four key themes emerged: through the C3I working group consortium, members co-created new dissemination products, gained new insights and innovations, enhanced local program implementation, and invested in cross-network collaboration to support sustained engagement in the initiative.

We often seek empathy from others by asking them to listen to our stories. But what exactly is the role of listening in empathy? One might think that it is merely a means for the empathizer to gather rich information about the empathized. We shall rather argue that listening is an embodied action, one that plays a significant role in empathic perspective-taking. We make our case via a descriptive analysis of a paradigm case of empathy mediated by listening or what we can call empathy through listening. On our view, empathy through listening involves three distinctive features: (1) dynamic unfolding, (2) collaboration, and (3) mutual perspective reshaping. Listening contributes to this process by initiating and sustaining a feedback loop of receptivity that occurs between empathizing and empathized agents.

Although collaboration is an intensive way of working together, it is essential for such efforts to achieve shared goals. Health technology assessment (HTA) is transdisciplinary and has an important history of collaboration, with collaboration featuring increasingly in the strategic plans of HTA bodies and stakeholders. Collaboration can be between HTA bodies and between HTA bodies and other stakeholders—most notably regulators but increasingly payers, patient and caregiver organizations, clinicians–clinical societies, and academia. The 2024 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed collaborations involving HTA bodies, reviewing existing and previous collaborations to see what has worked and what can be learned. Core discussion themes included: (i) determining the collaboration purpose is essential but may be dynamic, changing over time; (ii) choosing the collaboration topic takes time, requiring upfront investment and stakeholder mapping; (iii) inviting the right participants and treating them equally is important, including those who can impact HTA, those who will be impacted by HTA and those who bring new information; (iv) collaborations need clear governance, defined roles, responsibilities, metrics, and case study–pilots can be a useful operational model; (v) resourcing collaborations sustainably is a challenge—the time, people, and money required are often under-estimated; (vi) undertaking continual, iterative learning reviews ensures ongoing value and impact of collaborations. Recommendations for future work include the development of a “go/no-go” checklist to determine when collaboration is needed, supplemented with a set of “best practice” principles for establishing and working in collaborations involving HTA bodies.

Effective collaboration between key stakeholders increases the educational opportunities and outcomes of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Although the value of collaboration between the central members of a student’s network has been widely cited, how collaboration occurs between different stakeholder groups in the education of Australian primary and secondary students with ASD is not widely known. The aim of this review was to identify the factors that influence collaborative practices between three primary stakeholder groups supporting the education of Australian students with ASD: family, school, and community. Through this lens, we analysed the intent of the collaborative practices as well as the specific details of the collaborative practices identified across the research literature published since the implementation of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2006). Results from this review indicate existing motivations and processes of collaboration, as well as directions for future research and practice.