The purpose of this study is to review the barriers associated with implementing a campus‐wide smoke‐free policy as perceived by the American Cancer Society's Colleges…
The purpose of this study is to review the barriers associated with implementing a campus‐wide smoke‐free policy as perceived by the American Cancer Society's Colleges against Cancer (CAC) Program chapter representatives.
Four focus group sessions were conducted at the annual CAC National Leadership Summit in October 2006. A total of 109 participants, or 41.4 percent of the total population of CAC member institutions, attended the focus groups.
All participants identified encountering barriers at some stage of the implementation process. Three major themes emerged when participants were asked to identify what they perceived to be the most significant barriers to successfully implementing a campus‐wide smoke‐free policy: lack of administrative and staff support, student involvement, and resources.
With the rising rate of smoking among college students and the release of the 2006 Surgeon General's report citing the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, the need for colleges and universities to take measures not only to curtail the number of smokers, but to limit the exposure to secondhand smoke is intensifying.
A study examining the challenges faced by colleges and universities when trying to implement a campus‐wide smoke‐free policy is absent from the literature. The paper helps in identifying the most significant barriers that may encourage efforts among colleges and universities to lessen or eliminate these barriers.
The critical dimension and the one that can unify knowledge through systemic interrelationships, is unification of the purely a priori with the purely a posteriori parts of total reality into a congruous whole. This is a circular cause and effect interrelationship between premises. The emerging kind of world view may also be substantively called the epistemic‐ontic circular causation and continuity model of unified reality. The essence of this order is to ground philosophy of science in both the natural and social sciences, in a perpetually interactive and integrative mould of deriving, evolving and enhancing or revising change. Knowledge is then defined as the output of every such interaction. Interaction arises first from purely epistemological roots to form ontological reality. This is the passage from the a priori to the a posteriori realms in the traditions of Kant and Heidegger. Conversely, the passage from the a posteriori to a priori reality is the approach to knowledge in the natural sciences proferred by Cartesian meditations, David Hume, A.N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, as examples. Yet the continuity and renewal of knowledge by interaction and integration of these two premises are not rooted in the philosophy of western science. Husserl tried for it through his critique of western civilization and philosophical methods in the Crisis of Western Civilization. The unified field theory of Relativity‐Quantum physics is being tried for. A theory of everything has been imagined. Yet after all is done, scientific research program remains in a limbo. Unification of knowledge appears to be methodologically impossible in occidental philosophy of science.