Organizations need to appear legitimate to access resources. Thus, actors often carry out legitimacy work to shape others’ evaluation of something as “desirable, proper or appropriate.” Such research has tended to focus on the cognitive appeal of words. Recently, research has also emerged on the persuasiveness of images, especially for creating emotional appeals. We develop a process model to explain the role of multimodal messages—combining words and images—in legitimacy work. With this model, we aim to answer: Why do certain combinations of multimodal messages (words and images) more forcefully evoke emotion and more reliably capture recipients’ attention, motivate them to process those messages, and (re)evaluate the legitimacy of an organization, its activities, and/or its industry? We conclude by discussing theoretical extensions and connections to other methods such as institutional work and values work.

The “technological singularity” is forecasted to occur in the mid-21st century and is defined as the point when machines will become smarter than humans and thus trigger the merging of humans and machines. It is hypothesized that this will have a profound influence on medicine and population health. This paper describes a new course entitled “Technology and the Future of Medicine” developed by a multi-disciplinary group of experts. The course began as a continuing medical education course and then transitioned to an accredited graduate-level course. We describe the philosophy of the course and the innovative solutions to the barriers that were encountered, with a focus on YouTube audience retention analytics. Our experience may provide a useful template for others.

No abstract

No abstract

This article reports the macro-organizational structure of research articles (RAs) in mathematics, based on an analysis of 30 published pure and applied mathematics articles. Math RAs eschew the Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion (IMRD) structure for an Introduction-Results model that enables researchers to present new knowledge as clearly and succinctly as possible. Notable omissions from the mathematics RA structure are Method and Discussion sections, which mathematicians do not need because of the well-established methodology used in the field (based on deduction and induction) and the relative absence of extended discussion required to interpret research findings. We contextualize the macrostructure of RAs in mathematics within the discourse conventions and disciplinary assumptions about knowledge in the field to suggest the value of such a strategy to teachers and students of academic writing.