Promotion Of Scholarship Research Articles

Imposter Syndrome & The Law School Caste System

For decades, legal academia has been structured around a hierarchical caste system, with tenured and tenure-track doctrinal law professors—many of whom are men—occupying the highest caste, and professors of legal skills courses—who more often identify as women—relegated to the lower castes. The status of these “lower caste” professors is routinely reinforced through weaker job security, less respect, and lower pay than received by their doctrinal, “upper caste” colleagues. Given this inequality, imposter syndrome plays a pervasive role in the lives and careers of professors of legal skills courses. Relying on qualitative data obtained from teaching faculty and staff at ABA accredited and approved law schools nationwide, this Article analyzes how the law school hierarchy manifests as imposter syndrome in professors of legal skills courses, which impacts their relationships with colleagues; teaching; relationships with students; publication and promotion of scholarship; and personal health and wellbeing. Based on these findings, the Article argues that the impacts of imposter syndrome on skills professors—many of which have gendered implications—promote a recurring cycle of classism and discrimination within legal academia. The Article further identifies imposter syndrome as an institutionalized, rather than an individualized, problem within legal academia. The responsibility and capacity to address this problem therefore lies in the institution—in this case, law schools—rather than the skills professors themselves. Thus, this Article concludes that the only way to reduce the insidious presence of imposter syndrome in legal academia is to dismantle the law school caste system and level the hierarchy.

How Media Literacy Education through Multimedia Tools Can Empower Learners with Autism

The United Nations recognize and celebrate diversity and promote the rights and welfare of Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) people. Ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2008 reaffirmed the fundamental principle of universal human rights. UNCRPD provides an effective tool to promote an inclusive and caring local and global society and ensure that the autism community leads full and meaningful lives. Besides, the UN Sustainable Development Goal 4 Quality Education aims to enable upward socioeconomic mobility and poverty eradication through education for all. Since there is increasing interest in international opportunities and the promotion of scholarship as the world shrinks and creates new challenges and opportunities, this study aims to engage in the conversation related to the education of people with autism locally and globally. ASD is a neurological condition, but communication, social, and functional challenges are primarily due to an impoverished environment in all realms of life. This paper advances ways ASD learners can benefit from media literacy education (MLE). It shares how MLE can lead to new, alternative, and inclusive teaching practices that empower ASD learners.

Imposter Syndrome & The Non-Traditional Law Professor

As members of the lower ranks of the hierarchical law school caste system, professors of legal skills courses are often branded as “others” in legal academia. This status is reinforced through weaker job security, less respect, and lower pay than received by their doctrinal colleagues. Given this inequality, imposter syndrome plays a pervasive role in the lives and careers of these “non-traditional” law professors. Relying on qualitative and associative data obtained from a survey of teaching faculty and staff at ABA accredited and approved law schools nationwide, this article analyzes how the law school hierarchy manifests as imposter syndrome in professors of legal skills courses and detrimentally impacts their relationships with colleagues; teaching; relationships with students; publication and promotion of scholarship; and personal health and wellbeing. Based on these findings, the article argues that the impacts of imposter syndrome on skills professors—many of which have gendered and racial implications—promote a recurring cycle of classism and discrimination within legal academia. Imposter syndrome is an institutionalized, rather than an individualized, problem and therefore must be addressed as such. Thus, this article concludes that the only way to reduce the insidious presence of imposter syndrome in legal academia is to dismantle the law school caste system and work towards equality.

Academic freedom and an invitation to promote its advancement

AbstractAcademic freedom is under threat internationally. Several high profile incidents suggest that academic freedom is a principle neither well understood nor appreciated by key decision makers and stakeholders whom one might expect to champion it, be they in government or within the academy itself. Among those incidents are the arbitrary exercise of ministerial discretion to override the Australian Research Council expert peer review recommendations for allocation of funding, recent attacks on the credibility of academic publishing internationally, and the atrocious treatment of scholars by authoritarian regimes across the globe. In light of such developments, the membership of the Institute of Australian Geographers recently adopted a resolution that, inter alia, called on the Council of the Institute of Australian Geographers ‘not to be silent on the issue of attacks on critical scholarship, academic freedom and the integrity of academic procedures in higher education, research and publishing’. Given the complexity of the issues, this paper invites further discussion and debate on how Australian geography and geographers might better appreciate and advance academic freedom including via the promotion of scholarship that gives full effect to the principle.

Electronic Theses and Dissertations and the Promotion of Scholarship in African Universities: Prospects and Challenges

ABSTRACTAfrica has been ranked low among the other regions of the world on the production and communication of research findings. Many have attributed this to poor research culture in the continent, while others blame it on lack of research sponsorship through grants. However, a major issue that is yet to be examined is the visibility of existing research in the region to the international research community. Theses and dissertations are very important research productions that are critical for sustainable national development. Unfortunately, their visibility is not certain to the global scholarly community. The study was conducted to examine the potential of electronic theses and dissertations in promotion of scholarship in Africa and to propose strategies for the full development and adoption of electronic theses and dissertations in African universities.

The Church of England and the love of learning

This article draws attention to the Church of England's relative indifference to a strategy for the encouragement of research and scholarship within its ranks, especially among its clergy. Reasons are suggested for the continuing necessity of learning for the Church's flourishing, and suggestions are made for the promotion of scholarship outside avowedly academic institutions as well as within them.

Enhancing occupational therapists' confidence and professional development through a community of practice scholars

An important professional issue for occupational therapy is the need to develop and maintain high-quality occupational therapy services. Clearly, a strong educational foundation is necessary, but not sufficient, for meeting this goal. Occupational therapists need to engage in ongoing education, professional development and critique of their theory and practice to ensure they meet best practice standards. One way that practitioners can do this, is to form practitioner communities with a focus on scholarship: a 'community of practice scholars'. Using the framework of action research, three occupational therapy academics worked collaboratively with 25 occupational therapy practitioners over a period of 12 months. During monthly teleconference meetings, the research group discussed, critiqued and reflected upon their practice. Transcripts of the final month's teleconferences, which focussed on evaluation of the community of practice scholars, were qualitatively analysed. Two major themes are presented. The first theme, promotion of scholarship, describes that involvement in the community of practice scholars assisted participants to think more critically about their practice and to consider ways in which their practice might be improved. The second theme, promoting professional confidence, passion and cohesion, articulates that the support offered by the group helped the participants to feel an increased sense of confidence in their practice. It is proposed that communities of practice scholars have considerable potential for providing professional development opportunities for occupational therapists. In addition, such communities may lead to occupational therapists feeling more supported and experiencing increased satisfaction in their work.

Review article: Leading the future: guiding two predominant paradigm shifts in medical education through scholarship

The purpose of this article is to consolidate some of the key concepts about scholarship in education related to the specialty of anesthesiology. We frame the discussion on two paradigm shifts in medical education, i.e., competency-based education and lifelong learning, and the scholarly approaches to lead these paradigm shifts in anesthesiology. Conventional medical education is being challenged by a shift from time-based education to competency-based education. This potential shift will also create a continuous need to foster a culture of lifelong learning in contrast with the traditional compartmentalized model of undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education. The specialty of anesthesia has the capacity to lead these changes by enhancing scholarship in education locally and nationally. The promotion of scholarship in education necessitates the creation of infrastructure and accountability frameworks to show return on investment. High-quality scholarship in medical education requires a solid rationale and, ultimately, a demonstrable benefit to patient care. Accountability of lifelong learning to established competency frameworks seems inevitable. Anesthesiology is one of only a few specialties that can truly protect faculty from clinical responsibilities in favour of scholarship pursuits. With appropriate support for scholarship in education, anesthesiologists have an opportunity to lead these paradigm shifts.

The Sixty-Ninth William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition

The results of the Sixty-Ninth William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, held December 6, 2008, follow. They have been determined in accordance with the regulations governing the Competition. The contest is supported by the William Lowell Putnam Prize Fund for the Promotion of Scholarship, an endowment established by Mrs. Putnam in memory of her husband. The annual Competition is held under the auspices of the Mathematical Association of America. The first prize, $25,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University. The members of the winning team were Zachary R. Abel, Iurie Boreico, and Arnav Tripathy; each was awarded a prize of $1,000. The second prize, $20,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of Princeton University. The members of the winning team were Peter Z. Diao, John V. Pardon, and Adrian I. Zahariuc; each was awarded a prize of $800. The third prize, $15,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The members of the winning team were Qingchun Ren, Xuancheng Shao, and Yufei Zhao; each was awarded a prize of $600. The fourth prize, $10,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of Stanford University. The members of the winning team were Young Hun Jung, Nathan K. Pflueger, and Jeffrey Wang; each was awarded a prize of $400. The fifth prize, $5,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of the California Institute of Technology. The members of the winning team were Jason C. Bland, Zarathustra E. Brady, and Brian R. Lawrence; each was awarded a prize of $200. The five highest ranking individual contestants, the Putnam Fellows, in alphabetical order, were Brian R. Lawrence, California Institute of Technology; Seok Hyeong Lee, Stanford University; Arnav Tripathy, Harvard University; Bohua Zhan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Yufei Zhao, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each received an award of $2,500. The next eleven highest ranking individual contestants, in alphabetical order, were Iurie Boreico, Harvard University; Adam C. Hesterberg, Princeton University; William A. Johnson, University of Washington; Cedric Lin, University of British Columbia; Anton S. Malyshev, Princeton University; John V. Pardon, Princeton University; Qingchun Ren, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Oleg O. Rudenko, Florida Atlantic University; Colin P. Sandon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Jacob N. Steinhardt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Alex Zhai, Harvard University. Each received an award of $1,000. The next nine highest ranking individual contestants, in alphabetical order, were Zachary R. Abel, Harvard University; Thomas D. Belulovich, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Jason C. Bland, California Institute of Technology; Gabriel T. Bujokas, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Konstantin Matveev, University of Toronto; Nathan K. Pflueger, Stanford University; Aaron H. Potechin, Princeton University; Dong Uk Rhee, University of Waterloo; and Adrian I. Zahariuc, Princeton University. Each received an award of $250.

The Sixty-Fourth William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition

The results of the Sixty-Fourth William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, held December 6, 2003, follow. They have been determined in accordance with the regulations governing the Competition. The contest is supported by the William Lowell Putnam Prize Fund for the Promotion of Scholarship, an endowment established by Mrs. Putnam in memory of her husband. The annual Competition is held under the auspices of the Mathematical Association of America. The first prize, $25,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The members of the winning team were Reid W. Barton, Daniel M. Kane, and Yevgeny K. Zaytman; each was awarded a prize of $1,000. The second prize, $20,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University. The members of the winning team were Gabriel D. Carroll, George Lee, Jr., and Alexander B. Schwartz; each was awarded a prize of $800. The third prize, $15,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of Duke University. The members of the winning team were David G. Arthur, Nikifor C. Bliznashki, and Oaz Nir; each was awarded a prize of $600. The fourth prize, $10,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of the California Institute of Technology. The members of the winning team were Zhihao Liu, Po-Ru Loh, and Po-Shen Loh; each was awarded a prize of $400. The fifth prize, $5,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of Harvey Mudd College. The members of the winning team were David J. Gaebler, Jason Murcko, and Andrew G. Niedermaier; each was awarded a prize of $200. The five highest ranking individual contestants, the Putnam Fellows, in alphabetical order, were Reid W. Barton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ana Caraiani, Princeton University; Gabriel D. Carroll, Harvard University; Ralph C. Furmaniak, University of Waterloo; and Daniel M. Kane, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each receives an award of $2,500. The next eleven highest ranking contestants, in alphabetical order, were: David G. Arthur, Duke University; Robert M. Barrington Leigh, University of Toronto; Alex R. Fink, University of Calgary; Andrei Jorza, Harvard University; Suehyun Kwon, Princeton University; Ian Tuan-Yen Le, Harvard University; Ricky I. Liu, Harvard University; Po-Ru Loh, California Institute of Technology; Sevak Mkrtchyan, University of Pittsburgh; David A. G. Pritchard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Emanuel I. Stoica, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each receives an award of $1,000. The next ten highest ranking contestants, in alphabetical order, were: Vladimir Barzov, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Michael C. Catlin, Harvard University; Benjamin J. Conlee, Harvard University; Stefan L. Hornet, Princeton University; George Lee, Jr., Harvard University; Po-Shen Loh, California Institute of Technology; Vladimir S. Novakovski, Harvard University; Zhongtao Wu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Rumen I. Zarev, California Institute of Technology; and Yevgeny K. Zaytman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each receives an award of $250.

The Sixty-Third William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition

The following results of the fifty-third William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, held on December 5, 1992, have been determined in accordance with the governing regulations. This annual contest is supported by the William Lowell Putnam Prize Fund for the Promotion of Scholarship, left by Mrs. Putnam in memory of her husband, and is held under the auspices of the Mathematical Association of America.

The Sixtieth William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition

The results of the Sixtieth William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, held December 4, 1999, follow. They have been determined in accordance with the regulations governing the competition, a contest supported by the William Lowell Putnam Prize Fund for the Promotion of Scholarship, a fund endowed by Mrs. Putnam in memory of her husband. The annual Competition is held under the auspices of the Mathematical Association of America. The first prize, $25,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics at the University of Waterloo. The members of the winning team were Sabin Cautis, Donny C. Cheung, and Derek I. E. Kisman; each was awarded a prize of $1000. The second prize, $20,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics at Harvard University. The members of the winning team were Michael L. Develin, Ciprian Manolescu, and Alexander H. Saltman; each was awarded a prize of $800. The third prize, $15,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics at Duke University. The members of the winning team were Kevin D. Lacker, Carl A. Miller, and Melanie E. Wood; each was awarded a prize of $600. The fourth prize, $10,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The members of the winning team were Chetan T. Balwe, Rishi Raj, and Dapeng Zhu; each was awarded a prize of $400. The fifth prize, $5,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics at the University of Chicago. The members of the winning team were Matthew T. Gealy, Christopher D. Malon, and Sergey Vasseliev; each was awarded a prize of $200. The six highest ranking individual contestants, in alphabetical order, were Sabin Cautis, University of Waterloo; Derek I. E. Kisman, University of Waterloo; Abhinav Kumar, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Davesh Maulik, Harvard University; Christopher C. Mihelich, Harvard University; and Colin A. Percival, Simon Fraser University. The next eight highest ranking contestants, in alphabetical order, were: John J. Clyde, Duke University; Michael J. Colsher, Duke University; Joel K. Erickson, University of British Columbia; Lukasz Fidkowski, Harvard University; Aram W. Harrow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Kevin D. Lacker, Duke University; Ivan G. Petrakiev, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Hoeteck Wee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The next ten highest ranking contestants, in alphabetical order, were: Jesse A. Goodman, University of British Columbia; Christopher M. Hirata, California Institute of Technology; Stefan L. Hornet, Princeton University; Joel Kamnitzer, University of Waterloo; Yoon-Ho Lee, Harvard University; Radu H. Mihaescu, Princeton University; Rishi Raj, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Kaiwen Xu, California Institute of Technology; Wai Ling Yee, University of Waterloo; and Dapeng Zhu, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The Fifty-Sixth William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition

The results of the Sixty-Sixth William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, held December 3, 2005, follow. They have been determined in accordance with the regulations governing the Competition. The contest is supported by the William Lowell Putnam Prize Fund for the Promotion of Scholarship, an endowment established by Mrs. Putnam in memory of her husband. The annual Competition is held under the auspices of the Mathematical Association of America. The first prize, $25,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University. The members of the winning team were Tiankai Liu, Alison B. Miller, and Tong Zhang; each was awarded a prize of $1,000. The second prize, $20,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of Princeton University. The members of the winning team were Ana Caraiani, Andrei Negut, and Aaron C. Pixton; each was awarded a prize of $800. The third prize, $15,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of Duke University. The members of the winning team were Nikifor C. Bliznashki, Jason Fer guson, and Lingren Zhang; each was awarded a prize of $600. The fourth prize, $10,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The members of the winning team were Tim othy G. Abbott, Vladimir Barzov, and Daniel M. Kane; each was awarded a prize of $400. The fifth prize, $5,000, was awarded to the Department of Mathematics of the Uni versity of Waterloo. The members of the winning team were Olena Bormashenko, Ralph Furmaniak, and Xiannan Li; each was awarded a prize of $200. The six highest ranking individual contestants, the Putnam Fellows, in alphabetical order, were Oleg I. Golberg, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mathew M. Ince, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Daniel M. Kane, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ricky I. Liu, Harvard University; Tiankai Liu, Harvard University; and Aaron C. Pixton, Princeton University. Each receives an award of $2,500. The next ten highest ranking contestants, in alphabetical order, were: Robert M. Barrington Leigh, University of Toronto; Thomas D. Belulovich, Massachusetts Insti tute of Technology; Richard V. Biggs, Carnegie Mellon University; Steven J. Byrnes, Harvard University; Alexander R. Fink, University of Calgary; Po-Ru Loh, California Institute of Technology; Alison B. Miller, Harvard University; Thanasin Nampaisarn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Eric C. Price, Massachusetts Institute of Tech nology; and Kuat T Yessenov, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each receives an award of $1,000. The next eight highest ranking contestants, in alphabetical order, were: Ralph Fur maniak, University of Waterloo; Hyun Soo Kim, Massachusetts Institute of Technol ogy; Zhiwei Calvin Lin, University of Chicago; Roger Mong, University of Toronto; Andrei Negut, Princeton University; Dimiter V. Ostrev, Yale University; Steven W. Sivek, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Lingren Zhang, Duke University. Each receives an award of $250.

The Brief Career of Catholic Sociology

This article traces central elements in the three decade history of the American Catholic Sociological Society in order to determine the specific intentions of its creators and subsequent members as well as examining both those factors that underpinned the creation of the society and those that culminated in the redefinition of the organization's raison d'etre in the late 1 960s. Of particular interest is the issue of whether or not the purpose of the Society was to create a Catholic sociology. From the nineteenth century, Catholic intellectuals have had to develop responses to modernist thought, and for those in America, given their status as a minority religion in a Protestant empire, they have also had to articulate a self-identity (Moore, 1986:48-7 1; Halsey, 1980). American Catholic social thought was thus in fundamental respects a reaction to both modernism and an Americanization movement stemming from a proselytizing Protestantism. Up to World War 1, Catholic thought moved like a pendulum from outright rejection to efforts at reconciliation and reconstruction, predicated in varying degrees upon the shifting pronouncements of papal encyclicals, changes in the American environment, and changes within the Catholic community itself. Between the Wars, however, Catholic intellectuals - especially those identified as liberals - took a more consistently conciliatory stance, seeking not simply a reconciliation with the larger intellectual environment, but attempting simultaneously to preserve central elements of Catholic tradition. To accomplish this, they accepted and participated in the neo-Thomistic or neo-scholastic revival (underway for a half century in Europe) that served to provide an intellectual grid that permitted Catholic intellectuals to chart a theologically appropriate response to their various academic disciplines. It provided a distinctive frame of reference for Catholics in a variety of intellectual endeavors. Thus, neo-Thomism was the ideological undergirding for a multiplicity of organization-building endeavors. The proliferation of organizations concerned with the promotion of scholarship

The deanship and the promotion of scholarship in nursing.

The deanship and the promotion of scholarship in nursing.

The Library of the American Philosophical Society

The Library of the American Philosophical Society was born in colonial days. It grew and flourished in the early national period down through the forties. Following that, it was overshadowed and temporarily eclipsed by the extraordinary growth of public and university libraries till the early twentieth century, when it emerged from a more or less dormant state in response to the impact of the extraordinary interest in specialized libraries. As the library of the oldest scientific and learned society of the country, it has shared, better or worse, the fortunes and vicissitudes of that society over a period of nearly two hundred years. It is the product therefore, not of a great collector or Maecenas, but of the interest and devotion of the officers and members-scientists and scholars-of a great society, united, so says the charter, for promoting useful Not till the thirties of the present century did the Library attain some degree of the financial strength so marvelously utilized in the promotion of scholarship, by the great libraries like the Henry E. Huntingdon, the John Carter Brown, William L. Clements and others discussed in this series of articles. But if large private endowments were not the fashion in the Age of Enlightenment, an intense interest in science and learning was paramount, and the beginning of the Library of the American Philosophical Society, like the Society itself, is a living memorial to the spirit of inquiry and search knowledge so characteristic of the eighteenth century. In the spirit of the Renaissance and the tradition of Copernicus and Galileo, men eagerly espoused the Newtonian approach to the physical world. They turned to the study of nature and of man. Science and experimental philosophy became the vogue among the intellectuals of every country, even though they did lip service to Bacon's House of Soloman and all branches of knowledge. In their enthusiasm they

The Purpose, Origin, Plan of Procedure, and Values of the Nation-Wide Every Pupil Scholarship Tests

PURPOSE In the field of measurements and the objective testing movement, the Nation-WN de Every Pupil Scholarship Test is one of the major significant developments. Because of the far-reaching influence of these testing programs in this respect, it was felt that it would be worthwhile to recount the major details of their purposes, origin, methods of procedure, and values. The purpose of the Every Pupil Scholarship Tests is the promotion of scholarship. They are a valuable agency for stimulating scholast'c endeavor on the part of the students. They stimulate good teaching as well as application to better learning. They vitalize education and make schools more worth-while in the lives of the students.

The Purpose, Origin, Plan of Procedure, and Values of the Nation-Wide Every Pupil Scholarship Tests

PURPOSE In the field of measurements and the objective testing movement, the Nation-WN de Every Pupil Scholarship Test is one of the major significant developments. Because of the far-reaching influence of these testing programs in this respect, it was felt that it would be worthwhile to recount the major details of their purposes, origin, methods of procedure, and values. The purpose of the Every Pupil Scholarship Tests is the promotion of scholarship. They are a valuable agency for stimulating scholast'c endeavor on the part of the students. They stimulate good teaching as well as application to better learning. They vitalize education and make schools more worth-while in the lives of the students.

The Promotion of Scholarship

The Promotion of Scholarship

The Promotion of Scholarship in Teachers of the Secondary Schools of the United States

The Promotion of Scholarship in Teachers of the Secondary Schools of the United States