The causal attributions of nursing students towards adolescent survivors of brain injury

Background: The hidden nature of brain injury means that it is often difficult for people to understand the sometimes challenging behaviors that individuals exhibit. The misattribution of these behaviors may lead to a lack of consideration and public censure if the individual is seen as simply misbehaving.

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the impact of visual cues indicating the presence or absence of brain injury on prejudice, desire for social interaction, and causal attributions of nursing and computing science students.

Method: An independent-groups design was employed in this research, which recruited 190 first-year nursing students and 194 first-year computing science students from a major university in Belfast, UK. A short passage describing an adolescent’s behavior after a brain injury, together with one of three images portraying a young adolescent with a scar, a head dressing, or neither of these, was given to participants. They were then asked to answer questions relating to prejudice, social interaction, locus of control, and causal attributions. The attributional statements suggested that the character’s behavior could be the result of brain injury or adolescence.

Results: Analysis of variance demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the student groups, where nursing students (M = 45.17, SD = 4.69) desired more social interaction with the fictional adolescent than their computer science peers (M = 38.64, SD = 7.69). Further, analysis of variance showed a main effect of image on the attributional statement that described adolescence as a suitable explanation for the character’s lack of self-confidence.

Discussion: Attributions of brain injury were influenced by the presence of a visible but potentially specious indicator of injury. This suggests that survivors of brain injury who do not display any outward indicator may receive less care and face expectations to behave in a manner consistent with the norms of society. If their injury does not allow them to meet with these expectations, they may face public censure and discrimination.

Finding revelation in anthropology: Alexander Winchell, William Robertson Smith and the heretical imperative

Anthropological inquiry has often been considered an agent of intellectual secularization. Not least is this so in the sphere of religion, where anthropological accounts have often been taken to represent the triumph of naturalism. This metanarrative however fails to recognise that naturalistic explanations could sometimes be espoused for religious purposes and in defence of confessional creeds. This essay examines two late nineteenth-century figures – Alexander Winchell in the United States, and William Robertson Smith in Britain – who found in anthropological analysis resources to bolster rather than undermine faith. In both cases these individuals found themselves on the receiving end of ecclesiastical censure and were dismissed from their positions at church-governed institutions. But their motivation was to vindicate divine revelation, in Winchell’s case from the physical anthropology of human origins and in Smith’s from the cultural anthropology of Semitic ritual.

Es teatro vuestra oración: Santa Teresa’s performed confession in Juan Mayorga’s La lengua en pedazos

Juan Mayorga’s La Lengua en Pedazos (2010) strikes at the heart of the compositional circumstances of St Teresa's Libro de la Vida– staging, and arguably heightening the origins of her rhetorical strategies, the sense of awareness of readership and potential censure we encounter within the Libro de la Vida. His inquisitor refuses to be complicit in the tacit agreement that the word spoken in the theatrical space can conjure new realities –insistent on underscoring the textual origin of the visions painfully and partially offered up for his and our scrutiny. I will suggest that the persistent undertow towards a meta-commentary on the unmaking and remaking of the autobiographical text creates an unresolved tension between Teresa’s eloquent ability to take the spectator to a place beyond language, and our awareness that we are in the presence of a consummate performer, the textual source for the script itself produced with a supreme awareness of audience scrutiny. The play reflects ongoing lines of inquiry in our evolving understanding of the cultural production of Teresa and other holy women of the Early Modern period.

Commentary on Henrician Proclamation 1538:A Proclamation Prohibiting Unlicensed Printing of Scripture (1538)

Royal Proclamation prohibiting the printing and publishing of ecclesiastical and other books without prior licence, as well as the importation, sale and publication of English language texts printed on the continent. This Proclamation established the precedent for the pre-publication licensing of literary works in England.
The commentary describes the background to the Proclamation, in particular the significance of the English Reformation, and Henry VIII's increasing interest in regulating and censuring the press. The commentary suggests that while this early instance of press intervention influenced governmental attitudes to censorship throughout the next 150 years, one of the crucial differences between this and later models of ideological control was that the 1538 Proclamation sought to censure print materials in a manner that was decoupled from the economic ownership and exploitation of such works.

Commentary on the Stationers' Royal Charter 1557

Royal Charter providing the Company of Stationers with corporate legal status within the City of London, and conferring on them exclusive control over printing within England. The grant of the Charter ensured that the Company's licensing procedures became the standard by which members of the book trade secured the right to print and publish literary works, giving rise to what is generally referred to as ‘stationers' copyright'.
The grant of the Charter by Mary is often understood as the point at which the monarchy established an effective regulatory institution to control and censure the press, in the guise of the Stationers' Company, in exchange for an absolute monopoly over the production of printed works. In fact, the commentary suggests that censorship of the press throughout the Tudor period remained an essentially ad hoc and reactive phenomenon, and that both Mary and Elizabeth relied, not primarily upon the Company of Stationers, but on the use of statutory instruments and royal proclamations to censure heretical and treasonous texts.