The Experts below are selected from a list of 7617 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Liu Xiny - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Discussion of multiDisciplinary comprehensive diagnosis and treatment mode of malignancy
China Medical Herald, 2013Co-Authors: Liu XinyAbstract:Objective To discussion the application of multiDisciplinary comprehensive diagnosis and treatment mode of malignancy.Methods Clinical data of 4637 patients with malignancy were analyzed,which were divided into two groups according to whether adopted a multiDisciplinary comprehensive diagnosis model of single diseases.Control group was diagnosed and treated with simple way,observation group was diagnosed and treated with multiDisciplinary comprehensive diagnosis model of single diseases.The average hospitalization days,operation rates,rates of radiother apy and quality of life were compared between the two groups.Results The average hospitalized days was(11.0±2.0) d,operation rate was 67%,and rate of radiotherapy was 76.6% in the observation group,which were better than control group [(20.5±2.5) d,30%,33.5% respectively],the differences were statistically significant(P 0.05).The quality of life of observation group were better than control group,the differences were statistical significance(t = 40.13,21.16,37.47,9.93,14.37,13.90,12.26,19.81,12.76 respectively,P 0.05).Conclusion Discussing cooperative mode of single diseases can maximize the academic and professional advantages of multi-Disciplinary Association by means of describ ing the current situation of multi-Disciplinary treatment model implemented in hospital,playing an irreplaceable role in standard and individualized treatment of malignant tumor patients.
Dorothy O. Helly - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Disciplining Feminism: From Social Activism to Academic Discourse
Women’s Studies Quarterly, 2002Co-Authors: Dorothy O. HellyAbstract:All stripes of feminists need to read this book, which is written lucidly, compellingly, and in a narrative style that accommodates intellectual analysis. Whether readers agree or disagree with her arguments, they will have to acknowledge that Messer-Davidow writes with feminist passion. As a participant-activist in the earliest years of the second wave of feminism and as a graduate student involved in community and campus activism, she took part in the new feminist caucus at the Modern Language Association (MLA) and spent two years as an administrative assistant to her university president as he tried to make institutional change happen. Having taken part in the feminist determination to change the elitist ways of the academy and transform its disciplines, she asks, "[HI ow did it happen that a bold venture launched thirty years ago to transform academic and social institutions was itself transformed by them?" (1). Messer-Davidow believes that proponents of "feminist studies" (the term she uses throughout) started out to bridge the academy-community divide but ultimately failed because their efforts to secure a place in the academy ultimately subjected them to the rules of exclusivity and inequality that govern universities. Seeing feminist studies as increasingly "formatted as an academic discipline" (13), she concludes that its initial political agenda for social change has been lost. Academic feminists read, teach, do research, and write about social activism, she laments, but they no longer do it. Part I provides a sharply etched picture of how the disciplines historically edged out women who were not seen to "fit in" to their Disciplinary order. It then explores the universities' defense of their traditional exclusionary practices of sex-discrimination. Part 2 shows that despite the growth of feminist studies, in terms of thousands of courses and hundreds of programs, the wage gap for women faculty persists. They remain clustered in lower prestige disciplines, lower prestige institutions, lower faculty ranks, and part-time positions. Feminist efforts have led to curriculum transformation projects, the establishment of campus-based feminist research centers, a national Association of feminist scholars, and women's caucuses in every Disciplinary Association. Yet increased numbers of women faculty and women students have had no radical effect. Feminist presses and conferences have only made it easier for mainstream Disciplinary arenas to resist and ignore feminist scholarship and to keep feminist studies marginal. Maintained on scant budgets and usually restricted to offering only introductory and senior courses, programs have had to rely on discipline-approved crosslisted courses over which they have minimal control. Instead of sponsoring outreach into the community, feminists in the academy at best only teach about such issues. Only feminist theory, which continues to expand, remains truly interDisciplinary. But, in Messer-Davidow's words, feminist theory only generates "streams of knowledge particularized according to their identity, Disciplinary, and/or political positions" (212). On top of this, the challenges of poststructuralism have further reduced social change to the "workings of signification" (213). In Part 3, Messer-Davidow compares feminist social change efforts with those of the new conservative movement that has grown steadily in America. Well-funded, professionally managed, and using all the services of modern information technology, conservative organizations by the 1990s had formed tightly networked lines of communication at the national level, offering summer leadership institutes to train the next generation of young conservatives for future roles in government and media work. The nearest feminist equivalent Messer-Davidow found was a statewide curriculum integration effort, the New Jersey Project, but it focused on the higher education sector within one state. The better-funded conservative organizations have sought to inculcate a fairly homogeneous set of male and female students from all over the country with an appreciation of the "superiority of the American system" (240). …
Paul Linden - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Application in a University Arts Management Setting
Journal of the Music and Entertainment Industry Educators Association, 2015Co-Authors: Paul LindenAbstract:IntroductionInitially developed at the dawn of the eighteenth century, the concept of entrepreneurship has been the focus of increasing interest in the area of economics since the nineteenth century and that of higher education since the middle of the twentieth century. Research shows that over the last fifty years in particular, entrepreneurship as an academic discipline has transcended the confines of business textbooks to become a synonym for progressive thought in various disciplines and contexts.1 Additional studies point to the overlap between the arts, creativity, and what is referred to as the entrepreneurial spirit.2 Nonetheless, an irony pervades the current renewal of interest in entrepreneurship within the academy because, despite the proliferation of articles, definitions, personality profiles, and case studies, we are far from any complete understanding of entrepreneurship as such.3 While many approaches to the topic are more codified as a result of either their Disciplinary Association or their place in the wider history of ideas, current scholarship is also witness to the effort to define entrepreneurship from the perspective of the creative and cultural industries. Given these dynamics, an overview of the subject's theoretical situation is useful to guide and focus the groundswell of interest from within higher learning while offering an informed perspective to a working curricular and pedagogical approach to the specific case of arts entrepreneurship instruction.Theoretical Overview: Primary Historical SourcesAs indicated above, the recent growth of interest in entrepreneurship has resulted in an interDisciplinary approach to the topic. This invites an initial partitioning of theoretical approaches along the lines of the relevant disciplines. However, it is also useful to recognize a common historical development that underpins and informs the more recent, multi-Disciplinary perspective. Two groupings would allow for us to connect the "early history" of entrepreneurship thought (18th and 19th centuries) to the more recent history (20th century to present) as it pertains to academic research theories from disciplines including business, sociology, and psychology.4Richard Cantillon (1680-1734) was the first to develop the idea of entrepreneurship beyond its scattered use since the high Middle Ages (12th century, from the French "entreprendre" designating "to embark on a project"). While contemporary use of the term "entrepreneur"refers to someone undertaking projects (our "enterprise" also comes from the French root), Cantillon was the first to associate this title with specific behaviors. He did this by separating entrepreneurs from landowners and hired hands before describing these two parties as parts of the larger enterprise of connecting products with consumers. Coordinating the moving parts of the project as such is the domain of the entrepreneur according Cantillon's initial formulation.French political economist Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832) refined Cantillon's model by expanding its applicability beyond its initial, agricultural setting. Say represented the entrepreneur as an agent bringing together multiple specialists to collaboratively build a productive item. Say also recommended shifting resources from areas of lower productivity to those of higher productivity. This signifies his implicit recognition that external conditions were part of the larger equation for managing entrepreneurial risk, (a consideration later developed by Frank Knight, see below). Say's concept of entrepreneurship is indebted to the English political economist Adam Smith (1723-1790) who conceived of the entrepreneur as an agent for transforming demand into supply.In 1848, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) published Principles of Political Economy-a text that followed in line with the liberal economic ideology shared by David Ricardo (1772-1823) and Adam Smith. However, in his treatise, Mill took a more pragmatic approach in contrast to Ricardo's theoretical stance identifying entrepreneurship as the fourth factor of production. …
John Saltmarsh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
An Integrated Model Recontextualized
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 2016Co-Authors: Kerryann O'meara, John SaltmarshAbstract:As we revisited this article, we were pleased to see that much of the model we set forth with our colleague Lorilee Sandmann remains relevant today. For example, clearly the four topics we identified as second-order issues for support of faculty community engagement (i.e., doctoral socialization, faculty cultures and mentoring, academic reward systems, and Disciplinary Association recognition) remain critical. We still see the four quadrants of graduate education, departments, Disciplinary Associations, and institutions as major sites where faculty are socialized, recognized, supported, and advanced. This observation is reinforced by comparing efforts to support faculty community engagement with federal efforts to support the pipeline of women and underrepresented minority faculty in STEM. Key initiatives and directorates from NSF have similarly focused support on graduate education (e.g., Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate [AGEP], Integrative Graduate Education and Research [IGERT], NSF Research Traineeship program [NRT]), department and institutional transformation (e.g., ADVANCE) and through working with Disciplinary Associations and groups (Association for Women in Science [AWIS], American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], and the National Academies). Such comparison reinforces the primacy of these four quadrants as foci of change efforts. At the same time, the context for thinking about communityengaged scholarship and institutional change has been influenced by greater awareness of demographic shifts and their implications, as an increasing number of graduate students and early career faculty are more racially and ethnically diverse and have developed scholarly identities as engaged scholars pursuing emerging forms of scholarship, in particular interDisciplinary and transDisciplinary scholarship, digital scholarship, and community-engaged scholarship (Post, Ward, Longo, & Saltmarsh, 2016; Sturm, Eatman, Saltmarsh, & Bush, 2011). The context has also been shaped by greater awareness of the implications of the rise of the neoliberal, market-driven, highly privatized university at a time when there is great demand for universities to more effectively address critical social issues, many
Kerryann O'meara - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
An Integrated Model Recontextualized
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 2016Co-Authors: Kerryann O'meara, John SaltmarshAbstract:As we revisited this article, we were pleased to see that much of the model we set forth with our colleague Lorilee Sandmann remains relevant today. For example, clearly the four topics we identified as second-order issues for support of faculty community engagement (i.e., doctoral socialization, faculty cultures and mentoring, academic reward systems, and Disciplinary Association recognition) remain critical. We still see the four quadrants of graduate education, departments, Disciplinary Associations, and institutions as major sites where faculty are socialized, recognized, supported, and advanced. This observation is reinforced by comparing efforts to support faculty community engagement with federal efforts to support the pipeline of women and underrepresented minority faculty in STEM. Key initiatives and directorates from NSF have similarly focused support on graduate education (e.g., Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate [AGEP], Integrative Graduate Education and Research [IGERT], NSF Research Traineeship program [NRT]), department and institutional transformation (e.g., ADVANCE) and through working with Disciplinary Associations and groups (Association for Women in Science [AWIS], American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], and the National Academies). Such comparison reinforces the primacy of these four quadrants as foci of change efforts. At the same time, the context for thinking about communityengaged scholarship and institutional change has been influenced by greater awareness of demographic shifts and their implications, as an increasing number of graduate students and early career faculty are more racially and ethnically diverse and have developed scholarly identities as engaged scholars pursuing emerging forms of scholarship, in particular interDisciplinary and transDisciplinary scholarship, digital scholarship, and community-engaged scholarship (Post, Ward, Longo, & Saltmarsh, 2016; Sturm, Eatman, Saltmarsh, & Bush, 2011). The context has also been shaped by greater awareness of the implications of the rise of the neoliberal, market-driven, highly privatized university at a time when there is great demand for universities to more effectively address critical social issues, many