An Introduction to Researching Student Lives: Methodological and Theoretical Perspectives

The purpose of the article is to present and analyze a document from the fund of the Central Committee of the LCLYU (in Ukr. – LKSMU) from the CSAPO (in Ukr. – TSDAGO) of Ukraine – a transcript of the meeting of rectors and representatives of Komsomol and party organizations of “high schools” of Dnipropetrovsk on November 21, 1967, which held at the initiative of the Central Committee of the LCLYU. Research methods: historical-chronological, historical-genetic, comparative, descriptive. Main results. The published transcript recorded a conversation with the participation of one of the secretaries of the Central Committee of the LCLYU, dedicated to figuring out the state of “communist education” of the city's students. The meeting with the heads of universities and Komsomol and party activists was held on the eve of the December plenum of the Central Committee of the AULYCL (in Ukr. – VLKSM), which was supposed to consider the work of Komsomol unions with students. The conditions of the meeting, the main participants, who represented all institutes of the city – metallurgical, medical, civil engineering, railway transport engineers, agricultural, mining and state university were characterized. The specifics of the meeting were determined by the jubilee dates that fell on 1967–1968, in particular the 50th anniversary of the AULYCL’s founding, as well as ideological crisis of the “exit” from the “Thaw”: the latter significantly strengthened the position of students in the youth movement, reinforced its public and creative activity. Attempts to find an adequate answer to the challenges of the time and to preserve party-Komsomol control over the student body led to the discussion of key issues: concerning the work of Komsomol organizations of higher education institutions in the “formation of the communist worldview”, the scientific-student society, state of studying social disciplines, issues related to labor, aesthetic, physical education, and organizational activities of the Komsomol in universities. Conclusions. The analyzed document reflects one of the difficult periods in the history of Ukrainian higher education and studentship, an important part of the party and Komsomol leadership’s work, reveals the peculiarities of their communication with the heads of higher education institutions, the latter's vision of the problems of the student community. Practical significance: the results of this research will contribute to the expansion of the research topics of local and urban history, history of higher education in certain regions, studentship as an important social category, its role in the development of Ukrainian/Soviet society. The originality lies in the publication and presentation of an archival source on the history of the leading youth organization of Ukraine during the Soviet era – LCLYU, which reveals the features of working with the heads of higher educational institutions on issues of Komsomol activity and student life. Scientific novelty is determined by the problems of studying the Soviet period in the history of Ukraine at the local level, ambiguity, multiplicity of visions of this time on the part of the management of educational institutions and representatives of party and Komsomol organizations. Type of article: archeographical.


 
 
 Jay Dolmage’s (2014) Disability Rhetoric encourages scholars to search beyond normative Aristolean bounds of rhetoric and embrace a critical lens of rhetorical activity as embodied, and disability as an inalienable aspect of said embodiment (p. 289). To that end, this project posits an innovative structure for rhetorically (re)analyzing disability history in higher education through a framework of disability aesthetics. In Academic Ableism, Jay Dolmage (2017) argues that an institution’s aesthetic ideologies and architecture denote a rhetorical agenda of ableism. In Disability Aesthetics, Tobin Siebers (2010) asserts disability is a vital aspect of aesthetic interpretation. Both works determine that disability has always held a crucial, critical role in the production and consumption of aestheticism, as it invites able-bodied individuals to consider the dynamic, nonnormative instantiations of the human body as a social, civic issue (p. 2). Disability, therefore, has the power to reinvigorate the sociorhetorical impact of both aesthetic representation and the human experience writ large. With this framework in mind, this project arranges an archival historiography of disability history in higher education in the late twentieth century at a mid-sized U.S. state institution. During this time, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was finally signed into law, and universities confronted a legal demand to allow all students access. Ultimately, this project seeks to demonstrate how disability scholars and historiographers can widen the view of both disability history and disability rhetoric in higher education through a focus on student aesthetic performance and intervention.
 
 

June 01 2019 For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America. By CharlesDorn. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2017. Pp. x, 308. $35.00 cloth.) Andrea L. Turpin Andrea L. Turpin Andrea L. Turpin is associate professor of history at Baylor University. She is the author of A New Moral Vision: Gender, Religion, and the Changing Purposes of American Higher Education, 1837–1917. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information Andrea L. Turpin Andrea L. Turpin is associate professor of history at Baylor University. She is the author of A New Moral Vision: Gender, Religion, and the Changing Purposes of American Higher Education, 1837–1917. Online Issn: 1937-2213 Print Issn: 0028-4866 © 2019 by The New England Quarterly2019The New England Quarterly The New England Quarterly (2019) 92 (2): 333–336. https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq_r_00751 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Andrea L. Turpin; For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America. The New England Quarterly 2019; 92 (2): 333–336. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq_r_00751 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsThe New England Quarterly Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2019 by The New England Quarterly2019The New England Quarterly Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Reviewed by: Allies for Inclusion: Disability and Equity in Higher Education: ASHE Volume 39, Number 5 by Karen A. Myers, Jaci Jenkins Lindburg, & Danielle M. Nied Edlyn Vallejo Peña Karen A. Myers, Jaci Jenkins Lindburg, & Danielle M. Nied. Allies for Inclusion: Disability and Equity in Higher Education: ASHE Volume 39, Number 5. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2014. 152pp. Paperback: $29.00. ISBN: 978-1-118-84611-7 Today, 11% of college students report having a disability (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Federal legal mandates, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, coupled with growing enrollments of students with disabilities, have increasingly prompted postsecondary institutions to serve the unique and complex needs of their students over the past 25 years. In their monograph, Allies for Inclusion: Disability and Equity in Higher Education, Myers, Lindburg, and Nied (2014) bring attention to the ways in which institutional allies can support the needs and successes of college students with disabilities. The monograph is useful “to serve as a guide to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities” (p. 5) for researchers and higher education practitioners. The seven-chapter monograph departs from the majority of publications about students with disabilities in higher education. That is, the central purpose of Allies for Inclusion is to underscore and explore the role of faculty, staff, and administrators as allies in the lives of students with disabilities. The authors move a step beyond placing the onus of responsibility for postsecondary success on students with disabilities and disability service providers themselves toward a shared model of campus ownership and responsiveness toward students. The authors begin their first chapter with a discussion on preparing institutions of higher [End Page 310] education for a future of equity and inclusion for students with disabilities. It effectively establishes the significant role of allies and argues that the inclusion of people with disabilities is the responsibility of all campus constituents, not just those who work in disability and affirmative action offices. This theme of shared responsibility is woven into the fabric of the rest of the chapters. The second chapter details an overview of disability history in higher education. The authors describe critical pieces of legislation, policies, and cases that made an impact on disability movements in society, and in turn, institutions of colleges and universities. The unfolding descriptions of key decisions made in the United States capture the “spirit of change” over the last 60 years for students with disabilities. The authors describe different types of disabilities in the third chapter, with the majority of college students having been diagnosed with a learning disability or ADD/ADHD. Meanwhile, autism spectrum disorders and psychological disabilities are on the rise. The chapter summarizes research studies that report students’ experiences with faculty, disability services, and navigating campus cultures. The authors remind their readers that the whole campus is responsible for cultivating an inclusive climate. “Disability education is for everyone, by everyone. Through collaborative efforts and open communication, an entire campus community has the potential for providing a welcoming, inclusive environment” (p. 47). The next chapter focuses on “Understanding Campus Complexities: Problems, Challenges, and Marginalization.” The authors detail different theoretical lenses through which people with disabilities are viewed and treated, not just in society but in higher education. The models range from perpetuating damaging perceptions toward people with disabilities to a framework rooted in social justice. These models and frameworks include the moral model, the medical model, the functional limitations framework, the minority group paradigm, the social construction model, and the social justice perspective. Ultimately, the goal is to move toward a lens that “challenges those [traditional] assumptions, celebrating the uniqueness of individual differences while focusing on social change and transforming oppressive structures” (p. 53). The chapter also delves into attitudes about disability, as well as campus services, including serving veterans with disabilities. While the topics in the fourth chapter provide practitioners and researchers with critical information about ways in which to frame and serve students with disabilities, the major drawback of the monograph reveals itself in this very chapter, alerting the readers to a limitation that is systemic to the monograph. That is, Myers, Lindburg, and Nied fail to explain the ways in...

Reviewed by: For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America by Charles Dorn David B. Levy Charles Dorn. For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press, 2017. 320 pp. Hardback: $35.00 ISBN 9780801452345 In the book, Dorn wants to use the model he sketches in history to shed light on the so-called crisis in Higher Education (HE) today. This method has implications for policy and funding to better understand the nature of HE and its history, which can inform and guide decision making in HE today. A purpose of the book is to examine the stated purposes of HE institutions and to shed more light on HE and its relationship to the common good, whereby the common good includes intellectual thriving. Dorn seeks to go to deeper issues. As much debate in HE today asks superficially whether the purpose of HE is individual job preparation, or occupational training vulgarized in marketing statements such as "learn to earn," or on the opposite spectrum some nobler notion of contributing to the common good and an end beyond the individual private interests that envisions some form of community. Thus, the private economic gain that some view as success and the broader public good are in tension. Does the University have an obligation to promote public welfare, and if so how does one define public welfare? What is its mission historically and how does this guide today's crises in HE? Who defines these goals and purposes of HE, and what is their framework? Are students the dog that wags the tail of HE in the consumer model? What is the role of government in setting standards and curriculum? Dorn notes the book asks key questions such as: Why did colleges and universities extol promoting the public good as a central purpose? How did HE leaders articulate this objective? What forces influenced its adoption? How did policies and curricula evolve to help schools achieve it? How did students respond, if at all, to the assertions that they were obliged to use higher learning for the benefit of the public good? And, perhaps most importantly, what challenges have colleges and universities confronted in maintaining this commitment? (p. 3) The book gives a historical perspective over a span of 200 years of 11 HE institutions and how they manifested a particular ethos as a reflection, not only of their time periods, but as a result of changing economic-social-political developments. The book illustrates the ways in which four socially widespread preferences and attitudes--civic-mindedness, practicality, commercialism, and affluence--proved influential in shaping U.S. colleges and universities between the late eighteenth and early twenty-first centuries, especially their dedication to the common good. Dorn writes, "As each ethos gained predominance at different moments in the nation's history, it reshaped the terms of institutional debates and propelled change in HE more broadly, playing an especially influential role in Colleges and Universities commitment to the common good" (p. 234). Dorn does not offer a doomsday critique of HE, but he wants the reader to recognize that positive gains have led the last century in HE to expand access to include poor and working class students, women, and racial and ethnic minorities, making possible what he calls "democratized" HE that characterizes the modern day (p. 234). Dorn calls on HE institutions to be more inclusive to meet societal needs of the common good in service to society. Dorn admires Stanford President Ray Lyman Wilbur, who, when facing rapid industrialization, corporate greed, immigration, political corruption, labor unrest, and income inequality in 1916 proclaimed, "Knowledge education was necessary for Americans to work together for the common ends and for the common good" (p. 235). However, Dorn is in favor of privileging "ethical engagement," defined as concern and empathy for others, over only academic excellence and intellectual knowledge attainment (p. 235). Dorn argues that during the Early National period in America, the common good was the major ethos of Bowdoin, South Carolina, and Georgetown, to foster "the good order and harmony of the whole community" (p. 67). Dorn writes, "… they would have agreed...

Historians of higher education need to consider publishing in non-education history journals [NEHJ’s] to place scholarship, especially for visibility for their research, or remain an isolated research specialization. This examination focuses on the landscape of history journals that publish history of education topics, specifically [NEHJ’s], on an international basis. A case study approach yielded data and, discussion revolves on history of higher education publication uses in four representative case studies: colleges and universities, professors, science, and medicine, to illustrate NEHJ’s and their contribution to history of higher education. Publishing considerations of this scholarly landscape, based on data gathered from various databases will provide the baseline for exploratory discussion of disciplinary cultures as they inform or deform history of higher education published within NEHJ literature. Animated by historiographic, subject, and methodological concerns, this discussion meshes histories of higher education vis-a-vis globalization within the publishing landscape and the transnational turn in scholarship. Journals, geographical and linguistic dispersion, articles and book reviews, are examined, revealing a larger publishing topography for NEHJ journals.

398 Spring 1990 Volume 13, No. 3 questions, and supplied much of the original correspon­ dence with publishers, editors, and scholars, c. 1958-62, when he was writing his book. Rudolph’s Am erican College and University: A H istory: An Appraisal a Generation After Publication David S. Webster A lm o st thirty years ago, Frederick Rudolph published The American College and University: A History. It is an important and widely celebrated book which remained in print, either in hard cover, paperback, or both, from 1962 until 1985. It sold about fiftyfive thousand copies; very few scholarly works sell nearly so well. The book has been widely and almost always favorably reviewed. Among the many publications which praised it were major his­ torical journals like the American Historical Review (Barker 1963) and the Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Jackson 1963); educa­ tional journals like the Teachers College Record (Harrison and Shoben 1962),and the young HistoryofEducation Quarterly (Madsen 1963); what were then often called "highbrow" magazines for the cultivated general reader such as Harper's (Pickrel 1962) and the SaturdayReview (Walton 1962); and dozens of newspapers, includ­ ing the New York Times (Horn 1962), the Hartford Courant (Weaver 1962) and the Providence Sunday Journal (McLoughlin 1962). Among the numerous reviewers who praised it were such wellknown scholars as Bernard Bailyn (1962), now a University pro­ fessor at Harvard; David Tyack (1967), now professor of education and history at Stanford; and Theodore Sizer (1963), now professor and chairman of the Department of Education at Brown. Not only was American College and University praised shortly after it was published, but it has had an exceptionally long scholarly life. Between 1980 and August 1988—which is eighteen to twenty-six years after it was published—it was cited seventy-nine times in the SocialSciences Citation Index. That was almost twice as many as the forty-three citations given during the same period to the only other general history of American higher education published during the last thirty-five years (Brubacher and Rudy 1958), even though by 1980 that book had been published in revised and expanded editions in both 1968 and 1976. Webster and Thetin/ Rudolph Rediscovered 399 S cholarly V irtues As one would expect of a book so long in print, so widely praised in a variety of publications, and so frequently cited, American College and University has many virtues. For one, it collects an enormous number of disparate sources—many of them long forgotten, difficult to obtain, of mainly local interest, and of indifferent quality—and weaves them into a history of American colleges and universities that is useful, even today, to both the scholar and the general reader. It is based on hundreds of sources, including more than 150 histories of individual insti­ tutions. For another, although Rudolph wrote in his preface that he had "not attempted a definitive history" of American higher educa­ tion and was conscious "of the need for compression, even of omission" (p. vii), he produced, all things considered, an excep­ tionally comprehensive book. In almost five hundred pages of text it traces some three hundred years of the history of American colleges and universities from the 1636 founding of Harvard well into the twentieth century. Although Rudolph pays particularly close attention to the role of students in shaping the history of American colleges and universities, he also discusses the development of university governance and the role of the faculty. While he focuses more on campus life than on institutions' relations with the wider society, he considers the effect that major events like the Revolutionary War and the Civil War had on colleges and universities. Nor does he ignore the role that such organizations as the College Entrance Examination Board and leading philanthropic organizations played in the history of higher education. Perhaps the book's most important break with previous histo­ ries of American higher education is the great importance it attributes to students and student life in the history of American colleges and universities. As one observer has commented: "Rudolph's most significant methodological departure is his attempt to capture the 'total environment' of the college as expe­ rienced by the student, giving the...

As higher education (HE) has come to be valued for its contribution to the global economy, priorities have been placed on study for a degree to directly meet the needs of industry (Hayes, 2015: p. 125). Furthermore, in UK policy, students have been defined as ‘customers’ by the government since the introduction of tuition fees (Dearing, 1997; Browne, 2010). Together, these developments have emphasized the role of a degree as a consumer ‘product’, purchased to secure future employment (Peters, Jandric and Hayes, 2018a), rather than an experiential learning ‘process’, that continues well beyond student life (Hayes, 2015 : p. 130). We examine how the student-as-consumer approach in HE policy has recently developed into a strong rhetoric emphasizing ‘the student experience’ as a package, including leisure, well-being, future employment and other ‘extras’. This could be perceived as positive, where all elements of student life are acknowledged. Alternatively, policy discourse concerning ‘the student experience’ could also be critiqued as a concept that now transcends the notion of a degree as a utilitarian product. A disturbing impression is then generated, where universities are now delivering a packaged experience of ‘consumption itself’, to students (Argenton, 2015: p. 921). What students would individually experience, such as a ‘sense of belonging and pride in the university’, is delivered to students, not developed by them. To examine such concerns more closely, we analyse a sample of 20 UK university ‘student experience’ strategies, via a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Drawing on themes from these texts, we question who ‘the student experience’ rhetoric really benefits? If a rationalized experience is constructed on behalf of students, then universities as ‘cathedrals of consumption’ (Ritzer, 2010) align themselves with any other provider of consumer experiences, where the ‘production’ of academic life has all been taken care of. In such a discourse, students are not necessarily conceptualized as empowered consumers either (Brooks, 2017) but trapped instead within an ‘iron cage’, even before they set foot in the workplace. Yet, despite a distorted picture that neoliberal HE policy discourse may portray, a postdigital understanding of ‘the student experience’ could yet offer helpful insights into possible routes of resistance.

What are the distinctive characteristics of the discipline of history? How do we teach those characteristics effectively, and what benefits do they offer students? How can history instructors engage an increasingly diverse student body? Teaching History in Higher Education offers instructors an innovative and coherent approach to their discipline, addressing the specific advantages that studying history can bring. Edward Ross Dickinson examines the evolution of methods and concepts in the discipline over the past two hundred years, showing how instructors can harness its complexity to aid the intellectual engagement of their students. This book explores the potential of history to teach us how to ask questions in unique and powerful ways, and how to pursue answers that are open and generative. Building on a coherent ethical foundation for the discipline, Teaching History in Higher Education presents a range of concrete techniques for making history instruction fruitful for students and teachers alike.

<i>Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge</i>

The three preceding articles identify the existence of a body of archival recordsof higher education institutions that can support historical investigation into the varied aspects of student life for women. Following a summary of those presentations, the author poses a series of historical questions relating to women's collegiate institutions and student life that scholars and students of women's higher education history might ask to gain a broader view of women's higher learning and “build meaningful contexts in which the evolution of women's higher learning can truly be appreciated.” An examination of the archival records of private, parochial, and public institutions of higher education for women may assist with answering specific and nagging questions and help arrive at a “fuller, more inclusive history of women's higher education.”

Universities are now are required to be responsive to student expectations To become a university of choice, university administrators need to understand student experiences in their university and how to improve the student's experiences so that a positive image will be portrayed to the prospective students. Therefore measuring student's university experience is vital. The main objective of this paper is to examine student' perceptions about their university experience. A survey research design was used in this study to investigate student's university experience. The instrument developed and used for this study was adapted from the Monash Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and Melbourne Experience Survey. Modifications are made to make it suitable for UiTM culture. There are 66 items in the questionnaire which are grouped into 8 dimensions, comprising of (1) Skills Development, (2) Program Quality, (3) Student Support, ( 4) Teaching Quality, (5) Learning Environment and Resources, (6) Learning Community, (7) Academic Guidance and (8) Campus Experience. Stratified random sampling technique was used to select the sample for the study based on the sampling frame received from each campus. About 3,200 questionnaires were distributed to 14 campuses and 1167 usable questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 36 percent. Data collected were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential analysis including factor analysis. The study found that majority of the students had a positive university experience in UiTM. The dimension which has the highest mean score was campus experience and the lowest mean score was learning environment and resources. The dimensions are rank based on their mean score value. The researchers had employed the Cronbach Alpha technique to obtain the reliability index of the instrument used. The reliability index was computed for the various mentions using the survey results. Reliability index for each dimension used is more than 0.80. The overall reliability index of the instrument is 0.94 and is deemed reliable. Limitations of the study and future research are also discussed in this paper. The study suggested some recommendations to improve the quality of university life for students.

This introduction provides an overview of the Then &amp; Now: Arts at Warwick special issue. It outlines the origins of the Then &amp; Now project and how the issue was developed in collaboration between staff and students. To highlight the distinctive contributions of this issue to existing research on the history of Higher Education and the student experience, it also provides a brief summary of the historiography in this field.

Attending to Difference in Indigenous People's Experiences of Cyberbullying: Toward a Research Agenda

This article examines the narrative of the descent of Prophet Adam and Eve from heaven to earth, by comparing the perspectives contained in the Qur'an and the Bible. This article is a qualitative research that uses a linguistic approach with a focus on intertextuality analysis. The aim is to explore and compare the narrative of Adam's descent in the Qur'an and the Bible through the lens of Julia Kristeva's theory, which emphasizes the social, cultural, and historical context in understanding the text. Data were collected from literature studies, including primary sources such as the texts of the Qur'an, the Bible, and Kristeva's works. The analysis was conducted descriptively-analystically to examine the intertextual elements and dynamics of meaning from both texts. This study also applies theoretical triangulation to ensure the validity of the data by comparing the results of the analysis with other theoretical perspectives. With this approach, the article aims to reveal the deeper meaning of the story of Adam's descent and its contribution to the understanding of human identity and morality in a religious context. This article highlights differences in narrative details, such as the location of the descent and the consequences of Adam and Eve's actions, and how this story reflects gender and identity dynamics. By referring to the social and cultural context, this article shows that the story of Adam is not only a religious story, but also a reflection on the complex human condition.