Sovereignty and Intervention in the Middle East: From the Fall of the Ottoman Empire to the Arab Spring

This research provides an institutional explanation of the practices of external intervention in the Arab state system from the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 to the Arab Spring. My explanation consists of two institutional variables: sovereignty and inter-state borders. I examine the changes in regional and international norms of sovereignty and their impact on the practices of external intervention in the Arab state system. I also examine the impact of the level of institutionalization of inter-state borders in the Arab World on the practices of external intervention. I argue that changes in regional and international norms of sovereignty and changes in the level of institutionalization of inter-state borders have constituted the significant variation over time in both the frequency and type of external intervention in the Arab state system from 1922 to the present. My institutional explanation and findings seriously challenge the traditional accounts of sovereignty and intervention in the Arab World, including the cultural perspectives that emphasize the conflict between sovereignty, Arabism, and Islam, the constructivist accounts that emphasize the regional norm of pan-Arabism, the comparative politics explanations that focus on the domestic material power of the Arab state, the post-colonial perspectives that emphasize the artificiality of the Arab state, and the realist accounts that focus on great powers and the regional distribution of power in the Middle East. This research also contributes to International Relations Theory. I construct a new analytical framework to study the relations between sovereignty, borders, and intervention, combining theoretical elements from the fields of Role Theory, Social Constructivism, and Institutionalization. Methodologically, this research includes both quantitative and qualitative analysis. I conduct content analysis of official documents of Arab states and the Arab League, Arabic press documents, and Arab political thought. I also utilize quantitative data sets on international intervention.

I'm Not Who I Thought I Was: A Contextual Resolution to the Identity Loss of Combat PTSD.

Given the historical rates of combat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), one can expect 30% of soldiers returning from current military conflicts to suffer from PTSD. For these individuals, various cognitive behavioral therapies (CBT) are the most commonly employed treatments. Unfortunately, however, symptom relapse can be expected with the various CBT approaches, as traumatic memories remain. Soldiers are imbued with a militarized identity, and the identity loss experienced by those soldiers who suffer from PTSD is particularly painful for this population, as the militarized identity effectively disavows personal suffering. For this reason, many combat veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder experience undue, prolonged suffering as they struggle to make sense of the different person they fear they have become. This paper contrasts certain versions of Western philosophy, which view the self as a fixed and reified entity with certain versions of Eastern philosophy, which view the self as more contextual and fluid, in order to illuminate the value of employing third wave behavioral treatments, specifically Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), to treat the identity loss experienced by military veterans with PTSD. ACT echoes the Buddhist principle that attachment to verbally-constructed conceptual notions of self contribute to undue suffering, and that more vital living can be achieved by assuming a more contextual and experiential perspective on identity. Research and anecdotal accounts are cited to illustrate why treatment for identity loss associated with combat PTSD should be less focused on reconstructing a historically substance-oriented self and more focused on an epistemological reorientation to a deconstructed, contextual self.

The Relationship Between Social Support and Self-Advocacy in College Students With Disabilities

This study explored the connection between social support and self-advocacy in college students with disabilities. The College Students with Disabilities Campus Climate Survey (Lombardi, Gerdes, & Murray, 2011) was used to gather data from undergraduate students at a midsize western private university. Social support was found to be a significant predictor of self-advocacy in college students with disabilities. Peer support, family support, and faculty teaching practices made up the construct of social support. Peer support and faculty teaching practices were found to be significant predictors of student self-advocacy. Family support was not found to be significant. The data was examined for group differences between genders, disability types, and disability status (high incidence disabilities versus low incidence disabilities). No significant group differences were found. These findings suggest helping students build social support will increase their level of self-advocacy, which in turn may increase academic success.