Search results

“Since films attract an audience of millions, the need and appetite for information about them is enormous.” So said Harold Leonard in his introduction to The Film Index published in 1941. The 1970's has produced more than enough — too much — food to satisfy that appetite. In the past five years the number of reference books, in this context defined as encyclopedias, handbooks, directories, dictionaries, indexes and bibliographies, and the astounding number of volumes on individual directors, complete histories, genre history and analysis, published screenplays, critics' anthologies, biographies of actors and actresses, film theory, film technique and production and nostalgia, that have been published is overwhelming. The problem in film scholarship is not too little material but the senseless duplication of materials that already exist and the embarrassing output of items that are poorly or haphazardly researched, or perhaps should not have been written at all.

The emphasis of this survey is on motion picture reference material that has been published since 1982. This update does not, for the most part, include titles covered in a prior RSR article (1:4; 1983), written by myself, or in an even earlier article by Leslie Kane (7:1; 1979). In those few instances where titles that have appeared in the earlier RSR film surveys are discussed, it is because they now have a new subject emphasis.

As in past years the volume of material published about film is staggering. Though there are fewer theatrical movies released now than in the days when Hollywood studios cranked pictures out on an almost weekly basis, the need for information, particularly of a reference nature, continues to expand. Just the number of books on film including studies of individual directors, producers, actresses and actors, genre studies, biographies and autobiographies, how‐to, technique, general histories, period histories, histories of film in particular countries, reference and quasi‐reference — is overwhelming. During 1977 and through November of 1978 Choice and Library Journal reviewed more than 300 books on film.

Even in the context of marginalization, agency as a feminist academic exists and, in some cases, the marginalization enables us to continue our feminist projects. This paper describes my experience as a marginalized feminist academic. It is based on fieldwork practice, academic training, and encounters as a professor at several universities in the United States, Russia, and Latin America. Currently, in the milieu of the USA Patriot Act, when academic freedom seems to be on the cutting block, we must, more than ever, continue to be grrrila fighters in order to continue our feminist projects and move feminist perspectives from the margins to the center.

University rankings and metrics have become an increasingly prominent basis of student decisions, generalized university reputation, and the resources university’s attract. We review the history of metrics in higher education and scholarship about the influence of ranking on the position and strategic behavior of universities and students. Most quantitative analyses on this topic estimate the influence of change in university rank on performance. These studies consistently identify a small, short-lived influence of rank shift on selectivity (e.g., one rank position corresponds to ≤1% more student applicants), comparable to ranking effects documented in other domains. This understates the larger system-level impact of metrification on universities, students, and the professions that surround them. We explore one system-level transformation likely influenced by the rise of rankings. Recent years have witnessed the rise of enrollment management and independent educational consultation. We illustrate a plausible pathway from ranking to this transformation: In an effort to improve rankings, universities solicit more applications from students to reduce their acceptance rate. Lower acceptance rates lead to more uncertainty for students about acceptance, leading them to apply to more schools, which decreases the probability that accepted students will attend. This leads to greater uncertainty about enrollment for students and universities and generates demand for new services to manage it. Because these and other system-level transformations are not as cleanly measured as rank position and performance, they have not received the same treatment or modeling attention in higher education scholarship, despite their importance for understanding and influencing education policy.

Having a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) can cause significant professional strain for parents. Compared to parents of typically developing children or children with other types of special needs, parents of children with ASD report being underemployed, having more difficulty accomplishing important work tasks or taking on new work assignments, and being viewed less favorably by supervisors. They also may be more likely to perceive themselves as stigmatized by coworkers, negatively impacting their abilities to develop or maintain meaningful relationships with others at work. All of these factors lead to parents of children with ASD earning less annual income than other types of parents and being more likely to experience loss of workplace motivation or lower overall job satisfaction. The negative career experiences of parents of children with ASD may also impact employers. Employees experiencing lower levels of motivation are less productive and more likely to quit their jobs, resulting in increased turnover expense. Because the number of working parents of children with ASD continues to grow as ASD rates increase, organizations would benefit from supporting parents of children with ASD through adopting flexible work–life balance policies, encouraging leaders to promote values of diversity and inclusiveness, and implementing workplace programs designed to support parents and educate coworkers.

The emergence of gender-nonconforming behavior in a child presents an opportunity and, often, significant pressure for parents to question the gender beliefs they have taken for granted. The purpose of this research is to examine how parents of gender-diverse youth respond to such pressures and ultimately come to understand and support their children’s gender identity.

This research is guided by Ridgeway’s theoretical concept of gender as a primary frame for coordinating social life. Using in-depth interviews with 36 supportive parents of gender-diverse children, the author details the process by which parents developed a critical consciousness of gender and subsequently adopted trans-affirming beliefs in response to their children’s gender-nonconformity.

Findings illustrate the power of gender as a primary frame for organizing life within the family as well as the circumstances under which hegemonic gender beliefs can be disrupted and alternative beliefs can be formed. The analysis shows that the process of making space for gender diversity within the home, which is taken on almost exclusively by mothers, invokes competing maternal mandates of raising “proper” children versus modeling selfless devotion to children’s happiness and well-being. As mothers navigate these conflicting requirements to create greater gender freedom for their children, they reinforce and perpetuate gender stereotypes that cast women as natural caregivers. Ironically, the work of intensive mothering is also the mechanism through which women come to develop alternative gender beliefs that they then use to expand gender possibilities for their children.