The purpose of this research study was to examine the current use of clinical practice by full-time occupational therapy faculty members. Clinical practice, including faculty clinical practice and moonlighting were addressed. The seven research questions addressed were: (a) the perceived benefits of clinical practice as identified by occupational therapy faculty members; (b) the perceived barriers to clinical practice as identified by occupational therapy faculty; (c) if perceived benefits and barriers of clinical practice as identified by occupational therapy faculty differ as a function of their academic institution's Carnegie Classification (The Carnegie Foundation, 2000); (d) if perceived benefits and barriers of clinical practice differ among respondents according to tenure at the institution, tenure status, doctoral degree, rank, administrative duties, and gender; (e) the incidence of clinical practice in occupational therapy faculty members; (f) the relationship between participation in clinical practice and the Carnegie classification of the occupational therapy member's academic institution; (g) the characteristics (tenure status, doctoral degree, rank, administrative duties, and gender) of faculty members that participate in clinical practice either within or outside the faculty role; and (h) the characteristics of clinical practice as described by faculty members and how these differed if the clinical practice is conducted as part of the faculty role or outside the faculty role. Data were collected using an on-line survey that contained 43 questions designed to elicit information that addressed the research questions. The surveys were electronically mailed to the population of full-time occupational therapy faculty members obtained from a search of each academic program's website. A total of 224 responses were obtained. Descriptive statistics, ANOVAs, and Chi Square Test of Associations were used to analyze the data for the independent variables. The results showed that 60 respondents indicated that they participated in some type of faculty clinical practice as part of their faculty role. Most of this work was in a facility that was associated with the academic institution. Most of these respondents were not tenured, did not have a doctoral degree, and did not participate in administrative tasks. Most of these respondents worked in Doctoral-Extensive universities and held the Assistant Professor rank. Most worked two to four hours per week and did not receive release time or financial benefits. There were 99 respondents that indicated that they participated in moonlighting in a wide variety of settings. Most worked in their area of clinical expertise. Most of these respondents were not tenured and did not participate in administrative tasks. Only 37% had a doctoral degree. Over half had the rank of Assistant Professor. Almost 42% worked in Masters I academic institutions. Most worked less than 2 hours per week outside the faculty role and they received full financial benefits. The top three benefits for participating in clinical practice were to maintain clinical skills, enhance teaching, and improve credibility with students. The top three barriers for participating in clinical practice were teaching responsibilities, not a component in tenure decisions, and the additional responsibilities of practice. There were no statistically significant differences between the benefits or barriers to clinical practice and the Carnegie Classification of the respondent's academic institution. One ANOVA was significant between the barriers to clinical practice and if the respondent had a doctoral degree. There were no statistically significant differences between the benefits or barriers and tenure at the institution, the respondent's tenure status, the respondent's degree status, faculty rank, administrative duties, and gender except the respondents that had a doctoral degree had significantly higher barrier scores than those that did not have a doctoral degree. In general, less than five percent of the variance was explained by any of the independent variables. None of the Chi Square analyses revealed any significant differences between the academic institution's Carnegie Classification and if clinical practice was required, if a faculty participated in faculty clinical practice, or if a faculty member participated in moonlighting. In conclusion, although many faculty members recognize the benefits to participation in clinical practice, the barriers to clinical practice may be too great to outweigh the benefits for some faculty members. Most reported that clinical practice carried little weight in promotion or tenure decisions. In order for the scholarship of practice to flourish, active support from all academic institution administration is critical.

Rather than being located in a field of art that addresses genocide through assumptions connected with identity issues or activism, this thesis of an artist’s exploration of artistic response to genocide in post World War II art practice, is informed by the emerging field of genocide scholarship. Seeing a parallelism between the concerns of genocide scholars and artists who respond to genocide, this thesis is an interdisciplinary study of art positioned alongside the field of genocide scholarship, as theorised by scholars such as Donald Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses. In addressing genocide through broader historical trends, periods and structures, it assumes that artists who respond to genocide share with genocide scholars a concern about genocide at a secondary level and share the potential to create illumination in the field. This thesis explores art practices that address genocide conceptually through structure and material. The central claim of this thesis is that recent and contemporary art practices, here discussed, show a concern to respond to genocide as an ethical response, and that they do so by engaging with the complexity of abstract issues such as complicity and agency. The initial analysis of Adorno’s discourse on ethics, as it relates to response in art, sets up a level of complexity for two further investigations that interrogate the discourses of victim representation and lens-based documents of genocide through ethics and agency. Together these provide an analytical framework for the project. Close readings informed by genocide scholarship, of art practices including those of Jimmie Durham and Francis Alÿs, take forward notions in the existing critical field. These readings yield not only the evidence that demonstrates a commitment to creating ethically based art through conceptually informed practice, in artists responding to genocide, but also the value of a cultural critique that is informed by genocide scholarship.