Turkish Security Policymaking on Nuclear Issues: Conceptualizing Advanced Cooperative Security Strategies

Turkey is a non-nuclear member of a nuclear alliance in a region where nuclear proliferation is of particular concern. As the only North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member that has a border with the Middle East, Turkish officials argue that Turkey cannot solely rely on NATO guarantees in addressing the regional security challenges. However, Turkey has not been able to formulate a security policy that reconciles its quest for independence, its NATO membership, the bilateral relationship with the United States, and regional engagement in the Middle East. This dissertation assesses the strategic implications of Turkey’s perceptions of the U.S./NATO nuclear and conventional deterrence on nuclear issues. It explores three case studies by the process tracing of Turkish policymakers’ nuclear-related decisions on U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, national air and missile defense, and Iran’s nuclear program. The study finds that the principles of Turkish security policymaking do not incorporate a fundamentally different reasoning on nuclear issues than conventional deterrence. Nuclear weapons and their delivery systems do not have a defining role in Turkish security and defense strategy. The decisions are mainly guided by non-nuclear considerations such as Alliance politics, modernization of the domestic defense industry, and regional influence. The dissertation argues that Turkey could formulate more effective and less risky security policies on nuclear issues by emphasizing the cooperative security approaches within the NATO Alliance over confrontational measures. The findings of this dissertation reveal that a major transformation of Turkish security policymaking is required to end the crisis of confidence with NATO, redefinition of the strategic partnership with the US, and a more cautious approach toward the Middle East. The dissertation argues that Turkey should promote proactive measures to reduce, contain, and counter risks before they develop into real threats, as well as contribute to developing consensual confidence-building measures to reduce uncertainty.

Studies on Understanding Individual Willingness to Disclose Genetic Information to Public and Private Stakeholders

While technologies for genetic sequencing have increased the promise of personalized medicine, they simultaneously pose threats to personal privacy. The public’s desire to protect itself from unauthorized access to information may limit the uses of this valuable resource. To date, there is limited understanding about the public’s attitudes toward the regulation and sharing of such information. We sought to understand the drivers of individuals’ decisions to disclose genetic information to a third party in a setting where disclosure potentially creates both private and social benefits, but also carries the risk of potential misuse of private information. We conducted two separate but related studies. First, we administered surveys to college students and parents, to determine individual attitudes toward and inter-generational influences on the disclosure decision. Second, we conducted a game-theory based experiment that assessed how participants’ decisions to disclose genetic information are influenced by societal and health factors. Key survey findings indicate that concerns about genetic information privacy negatively impact the likelihood of disclosure while the perceived benefits of disclosure and trust in the institution receiving the information have a positive influence. The experiment results also show that the risk of discrimination negatively affects the likelihood of disclosure, while the positive impact that disclosure has on the probability of finding a cure and the presence of a monetary incentive to disclose, increase the likelihood. We also study the determinants of individuals’ decision to be informed of findings about their health, and how information about health status is used for financial decisions.

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS THE BEST CHORAL REPERTOIRE FROM THE GREAT COMPOSERS: MASTERWORKS AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE, FREE ACCESS FROM THE CHORAL PUBLIC DOMAIN LIBRARY

Studying the choral works of the great composers of the past is always a worthy endeavor. For those aspiring to create an excellent high school choral program, it is critical to a student's musical foundation and heritage. Choral educators who teach high school are often bombarded with the most recently published new choral works, when they have a trove of excellent pieces right at their fingertips through websites like the Choral Public Domain Library (CPDL), all available at no cost. This project will explore the pedagogical reasons why this canon of public domain choral music should be taught at the high school level. A thorough guide to CPDL and an anthology of 200 works available on CPDL will provide the conductor with resources for programming this music. Though choral music in the public domain is free to all, publishers still publish this music and adhere copyright claims. This can create mistrust of legitimate editions on CPDL; why are they available at no cost when publishers are claiming copyright on similar editions? These issues will be thoroughly discussed in this project. For any given work on CPDL, there may be multiple editions available on the site. Choosing the right edition requires knowledge about basic editorial principles, especially for works written during the Renaissance period. A detailed discussion of these principles will provide the conductor with the tools needed to choose the best edition for his or her ensemble.

The tithe: Public research university STEM faculty perspectives on sponsored research indirect costs

This study sought to understand the phenomenon of faculty involvement in indirect cost under-recovery. The focus of the study was on public research university STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) faculty, and their perspectives on, and behavior towards, a higher education fiscal policy. The explanatory scheme was derived from anthropological theory, and incorporated organizational culture, faculty socialization, and political bargaining models in the conceptual framework. This study drew on two key assumptions. The first assumption was that faculty understanding of, and behavior toward, indirect cost recovery represents values, beliefs, and choices drawn from the distinct professional socialization and distinct culture of faculty. The second assumption was that when faculty and institutional administrators are in conflict over indirect cost recovery, the resultant formal administrative decision comes about through political bargaining over critical resources. The research design was a single site, qualitative case study with a focus on learning the meaning of the phenomenon as understood by the informants. In this study the informants were tenured and tenure track research university faculty in the STEM fields who were highly successful at obtaining Federal sponsored research funds, with individual sponsored research portfolios of at least one million dollars. The data consisted of 11 informant interviews, bolstered by documentary evidence. The findings indicated that faculty socialization and organizational culture were the most dominant themes, while political bargaining emerged as significantly less prominent. Public research university STEM faculty are most concerned about the survival of their research programs and the discovery facilitated by their research programs. They resort to conjecture when confronted by the issue of indirect cost recovery. The findings direct institutional administrators to consider less emphasis on compliance and hierarchy when working with expert professionals such as science faculty. Instead a more effective focus might be on communication and clarity in budget processes and organizational decision-making, and a concentration on critical administrative support that can relieve faculty administrative burdens. For higher education researchers, the findings suggest that we need to create more sophisticated models to help us understand organizations dependent on expert professionals.