Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 269-289). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 269-289). Also available on the Internet.

In a recent article Ulrich Brand has discussed how best to perform policy analysis. I reflect upon the paper as an interdisciplinary researcher experienced in public policy problems and their analysis with a particular interest in the relationship between social, economic and environmental problems. At the centre of the paper is the contrast between two existing methodologies prevalent in political science and related disciplines. One is the rationalist approach, which takes on the character of a natural science, that believes in a fully knowable objective reality which can be observed by an independent investigator. The other is a strong social constructivist position called interpretative policy analysis (IPA), where knowledge and meaning become so intertwined as to make independence of the observer from the observed impossible and all knowledge highly subjective. Brand then offers his model as a way forward, but one that he closely associates with the latter. My contention is that policy analysis, and any way forward, needs to provide more of a transformative combination of elements from both approaches. Indeed I believe this is actually what Brand is doing.

Over the past two decades an increasing number of theorists and practitioners have called for a thorough rethinking of the underlying assumptions of the concept of rrental illness and the traditional psychiatric nodes of responding to mental disorders. The work of this group of writers has come to be referred to as the "antipsychiatry" literature. The insights of this perspective center largely about a rejection of those theories and methods of treatment that are based upon the medical model. Many writers point to the use of traditional psychiatric practice as an oppressive instrument of social control. While much of this perspective is directed toward the analysis of specifically sociological factors there have been few attempts by sociologists to provide focus for the claims that have been made. This paper proposes a synthetic sociological framework with the intention of providing sociological focus for the otherwise disparate insights found within this literature. A general model is constructed by incorporating aspects of the labeling perspective, the sociology of knowledge, and Marxian analysis. The model provides the analytical tools for investigation of the manner in which "mental illness" as a concept, and the phenemenon which it allegedly describes, are rooted in the nature of everyday life. The framework that is developed places particular emphasis upon the political dimensions . of everyday life. This dimension is especially useful in explicating the role of labeling as a device to discredit the claims of .people as they attempt to identify the oppressive aspects of .their social environment. The nature .of socialization within Western culture is analyzed in terms of the various factors which are instrumental in the mystification of consciousness and its relationship to "mental illness." The observation is made that the majority of the claims that are proffered by the "antipsychiatrists" are devoid of a firm empirical foundation in that they rely primarily upon findings from case studies and a series of loose inferences. An attempt is made to overcome this problem by mapping out the empirical points of departure for the model by developing a set of testable propositions and corollaries. It is concluded that a radical sociology of knowledge framework does provide a useful method of conceptualizing the "antipsychiatry" literature from a sociological perspective. The validity of the claims themselves, however, must wait until much more of the empirical evidence is in. It is pointed out that extreme caution be taken to avoid contentions to the effect that all mental disorders can be fruitfully Suggestions are made as to the likelihood that some diagnostic categories, more than others, may be subject to analysis by this model. It is implied that further research into the role of biopsychological factors will undoubtedly show the interactive effects of such factors with defective socialization and oppressive social relationships.

This paper addresses itself to the problem of the analysis of the decision making processes in the area of Human Resources Planning.

The local food movement has become a prominent force in the U.S. food market, as represented by the explosive expansion of direct-to-consumer (DTC) marketplaces across the country. Concurrent with the expansion of these DTC marketplaces has been the development of the social ideal of localism: a political and ethical paradigm that valorizes artisanal production and smallness, vilifies globalization, and seeks to recapture a sense of place and community that has been lost under the alienating conditions of capitalism’s gigantism. Supporters of localism understand the movement to be a substantial political and economic threat to global capitalism, and ascribe distinct, counter-hegemonic attributes to localized consumption and production. However, critics argue that localism lacks the political imagination and economic power to meaningfully challenge global capitalism, and that it merely represents an elite form of petite bourgeois consumption. While scholars have debated this issue feverishly, there is a dearth of empirical cases measuring whether or not actual local consumers understand their local consumption within the political and ethical frame of localism, leaving much of the discussion in the realm of esoteric theorizing. This study seeks to uncover whether or not local consumers interpret their local consumption habits within localism’s moral framework by using an original survey instrument to gather primary data, and conducting an exploratory quantitative inquiry.

CAFOs raise tens of thousands of animals in confined cages and feedlots, feed them high calorie diets, and ship them to slaughter in record time. These factory farms (as they are sometimes called) devastate neighboring environments with the releases of toxic methane gas and animal waste. Progress in modernized agricultural production has enabled us to feed the growing population but unintended consequences for human health and neighboring communities are happening. This study examines environmental and human health impacts of CAFOs on Central Mississippi residents. Through analyses of existing studies and data and telephone surveys, the objectives will be met. Risk society theory is used to explain the increase of diseases and environmental risks associated with CAFOs in late modernity. The results do not indicate that neighboring residents of CAFOs in Central Mississippi are more likely to have ill health, a negative quality of life, or environmental degradation, overall.

The Smartphone is a technological innovation that has transformed for the better how billions of people live by enabling them to transcend time and space to remain socially connected to potentially millions of others despite being thousands of miles apart. Although smartphones help people connect from a distance, there has been much concern about how they affect face-to-face interactions. This study explored, drawing on Goffmanian concepts, how and why smartphones affect face-to-face encounters. The findings show there are three types of smartphone cross-talk: exclusive, semi-exclusive, and collaborative. With the addition of smartphone play and solo smartphone activity, interactants can engage in five different types of smartphone use during a social encounter. Smartphones can both disrupt and facilitate face-to-face encounters at any given time. A theory of cross-talk was created as an extension of Goffman’s work to help explain the phenomenon.

This Letort Paper proposes that actions, policies, and deeds—those of the U.S. Government and al-Qaeda—be leveraged as a means of delegitimizing al-Qaeda terrorist propaganda. Two chief fronts—changing deeds and challenging deeds—is proposed. Changing deeds requires that the United States carefully and systematically examine its own foreign and military policies and their specific consequences for the Arab and Muslim world. Challenging deeds comprises systematically countering with evidence and fact al-Qaeda’s two greatest propagandistic fabrications: that the United States is a crusader at war with Islam, and that al-Qaeda is the vanguard defender of a besieged and oppressed Muslim Umma. Provocative at times, and even controversial in its willingness to reconsider long-standing U.S. Government policies, this Letort Paper is adamant that it is not spin, empty platitudes, and “lipstick on pigs,” but actual deeds, that are our surest bet for defeating this ignoble adversary. / https://dc.etsu.edu/etsu_books/1128/thumbnail.jpg

Disrupting, dismantling, and ultimately defeating al-Qaeda based and inspired terrorism is a declared policy of the U.S. Government. Three key strategic objectives have been identified for accomplishing this: attacking al-Qaeda’s terror network, undermining radicalization and recruitment, and hardening homeland defense. The present monograph proposes a distinct "jihad-realist" approach for undermining radicalization and recruitment to al-Qaeda. First, a brief discussion of six means for ending terrorist organizations is provided. Second, the premises of a jihad-realist approach are described. Third, a jihad-realist shari’a case against al-Qaeda’s terrorism is presented. In conclusion, key assertions are summarized, and several specific policy recommendations offered for national security personnel charged with formulating and executing counterterrorist messaging strategy. / https://dc.etsu.edu/etsu_books/1129/thumbnail.jpg