Search results

This chapter argues that the near-universal exclusion from the academy of the Shakespeare Authorship Question (or SAQ) represents a significant but little-understood example of an internal threat to academic freedom. Using an epistemological lens, this chapter examines and critiques the invidious and marginalizing rhetoric used to suppress such research by demonstrating the extent to which it constitutes a pattern of epistemic vice: that, by calling skeptics “conspiracy theorists” and comparing them to Holocaust deniers rather than addressing the substance of their claims, orthodox Shakespeare academics risk committing acts of epistemic vice, injustice and oppression, as well as foreclosing potentially productive lines of inquiry in their discipline. To better understand this phenomenon and its implications, the chapter subjects selected statements to external criteria in the form of the Association of College and Research Libraries’ 2015 Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, which provides a set of robust normative dispositions and knowledge practices for understanding the nature of the scholarly enterprise. The analysis reveals that the proscription against the SAQ constitutes an unwarranted infringement on the academic freedom not only of those targeted by this rhetoric, but – by extension – of all Shakespeare scholars as well.

This paper aims to describe service user experiences of an art psychotherapy group which drew on occupational therapy perspectives to help adults with severe and enduring mental health difficulties move forward in their recovery.

A case study approach incorporating outcome data was used. The data gathered comprised attendance, facilitators’ clinical notes, photographs of participant artworks, the Psychological Outcome Profiles questionnaire (PSYCHLOPS: www.psychlops.org), a post-therapy feedback form, discussion at post-therapy individual review sessions and participants’ achievements post-group.

All but one participant scored the group as “very helpful” or “helpful” and all felt that the group had helped them with the personal aims they had identified. The PSYCHLOPS questionnaire yielded a large average effect size, indicating positive change in terms of problems, functioning and well-being. Participants identified several ways in which the group was helpful, and their artwork and reflections indicate how they used the art making in the group to pursue their recovery goals. The service user experiences and outcomes suggest that this group was effective in facilitating recovery for these adults with severe and enduring mental health difficulties.

This group was innovative in integrating approaches from the different professional specialisms and the findings encourage further investigation into this way of working.

It is no surprise that it is difficult to teach critical thinking skills. Are students willing to question the very basis of the society in which they hope to succeed? Often not. Ironically, it seems that the two courses most able to teach students how to critically approach a topic are the two courses that receive the least amount of respect from students and faculty. These two courses, composition studies and research instruction, are often thought to be “training wheel” courses. Everyone needs to know these foundations of scholarship, but few educators are willing to give the necessary time or money to teach the acquisition of these skills.

Introduces the special issue on environmental sustainability initiatives in higher education. Highlights the work accomplished by students on college and university campuses around the world. Notes that the papers illustrate the challenges and success students have encountered while working toward sustainability.

The impetus was to assess pluses and minuses of a national mandate with specific paratransit guidelines per “the” 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) model. Two European countries were chosen to explore other ways to serve persons with disabilities, not driven by ADA.

This research compared mandates in each area (via a tri-lingual survey) both as related to ADA’s most common practices and the European model of “Persons with Reduced Mobility” (PMRs). After data collection, analysis compared and contrasted ADA and PMR schemes.

Even in California, differences were found among survey sites; for instance, the organization type and mix of services varied greatly, despite a national framework. In Europe, there were more similar approaches among regions where, without a national framework, there was flexible, regional decision-making. In Europe, the national focus is on more regular transit accessibility, maximizing transit use rather than special services.

Five recommendations resulted and apply most directly to California and equally for agencies with or without ADA. The strengths of the PMR approach are transferable to California and the trend among a few California partners to go beyond ADA, while only a local option, reinforces the strength of the PMR solution.

How to improve service and financial performance and enlarge the private sector role are put forward. Existing methods, whether Federal or California-driven, need revisiting to achieve true benefits of coordination.