What is the Impact of the Underserved Pathway program on Entering an Underserved Family Medicine Residency? A Comparison of Three Approaches for Estimating the Average Treatment Effect

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

The Failures of Consent: How the (En)gendering of Sexual Scripts and Desire within Consensual Sex Preserves Rape Culture within the University

The epidemic of sexual assault on American university campuses that was first acknowledged by Mary P. Koss in 1987 has resulted in the centering of consent as a key way of distinguishing between acceptable, normal sex and unacceptable, punishable sex. Unfortunately, various experiences of sex that fit within the acceptable, normal sex category according to university policy frameworks can often have just as detrimental side effects on women as rape does. The need to investigate how simplistic notions of consent might be failing women in challenging rape culture then becomes paramount. This paper uses a mix of intersectional feminist theory and script theory to provide an analytical review of contemporary writings and studies derived from various books, journals, and news articles on sexual assault and consent movements available through the University of Washington library system and various online resources. The findings include how various forms of apparently consensual sex such as coerced sex, compliant sex, and even enthusiastic, pleasurable sex can play into upholding rape culture, harm women disproportionately, and uphold men’s systemic power. By becoming involved in the continued modern discussions of consent, this paper seeks to redirect the current discourse on sexual consent now common on university campuses in hopes of broadening our perception of consensual sex and more adequately challenge rape culture.

Form, Intention, and Indexing: The Liminal and Integrated Conceptions of Work in Knowledge Organization

This paper proposes a dual conception of work in knowledge organization. The first part is a conception of work as liminal, set apart from everyday work. The second is integrated, without separation. This talk is the beginning of a larger project where we will characterize work in knowledge organization, both as it is set out in our literature (Šauperl, 2004; Hjørland 2003 Wilson, 1968), and in a philosophical argument for its fundamental importance in the activities of society (Shera, 1972; Zandonade, 2004).But in order to do this, we will co-opt the conception of liminality from the anthropology of religion (Turner, 1967), and Zen Buddhist conceptions of moral action, intention, and integration (Harvey, 2000 and cf., Harada, S., 2008).The goal for this talk is to identify the acts repeated (form) and the purpose of those acts (intention), in knowledge organization, with specific regard to thresholds (liminal points) of intention present in those acts.We can then ask the questions: Where is intention in knowledge organization liminal and where is it integrated? What are the limits of knowledge organization work when considered at a foundational level of the intention labor practices? Answering such questions, in this context, allows us to reconsider the assumptions we have about knowledge organization work and its increasingly important role in society. As a consequence, we can consider the limits of classification research if we see the foundations of knowledge organization work when we see forms and intentions. I must also say that incorporating Zen Buddhist philosophy into knowledge organization research seems like it fits well with ethics and ethical responses the practice of knowledge organization. This is because 20th Century Western interpretations of Zen are often rooted in ethical considerations. This translates easily to work.

Split Ends

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

How peripheral a phenomenon is it?: On the interaction of DP-internal ellipsis, degree inversion, and islands

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Sleep Patterns and Parents’ Experience in Caring for Young Children Newly Diagnosed with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-05

Toward a Taxonomy of Harmin Knowledge Organization Systems

A starting point for contributing to the greater good is to examine and interrogate existing knowledge organization practices that do harm, whether that harm is intentional or accidental, or an inherent and unavoidable evil. As part of the transition movement, the authors propose to inventory the manifestations and implications of the production of suffering by knowledge organization systems through constructing a taxonomy of harm. Theoretical underpinnings guide ontological commitment, as well as the recognition of the problem of harm in knowledge organization systems. The taxonomy of harm will be organized around three main questions: what hap- pens?, who participates?, and who is affected and how? The aim is to heighten awareness of the violence that classifications and naming practices carry, to unearth some of the social conditions and motivations that contribute to and are reinforced by knowledge organization systems, and to advocate for intentional and ethical knowledge organization practices to achieve a minimal level of harm.

Epistemic, Ontic, Axiologic, and Praxic Constructs in Knowledge Organization Research

The work of knowledge organization requires a particular set of tools. For instance we need standards of content description like Anglo-American Cataloging Rules Edition 2, Resource Description and Access (RDA), Cataloging Cultural Objects, and Describing Archives: A Content Standard. When we intellectualize the process of knowledge organization – that is when we do basic theoretical research in knowledge organization we need another set of tools. For this latter exercise we need constructs. Constructs are ideas with many conceptual elements, largely considered subjective. They allow us to be inventive as well as allow us to see a particular point of view in knowledge organization. For example, Patrick Wilson’s ideas of exploitative control and descriptive control, or S. R. Ranganathan’s fundamental categories are constructs. They allow us to identify functional requirements or operationalizations of functional requirements, or at least come close to them for our systems and schemes. They also allow us to carry out meaningful evaluation.What is even more interesting, from a research point of view, is that constructs once offered to the community can be contested and reinterpreted and this has an affect on how we view knowledge organization systems and processes. Fundamental categories are again a good example in that some members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) argued against Ranganathan’s point of view. The CRG posited more fundamental categories than Ranganathan’s five, Personality, Matter, Energy, Space, and Time (Ranganathan, 1967). The CRG needed significantly more fundamental categories for their work.1 And these are just two voices in this space we can also consider the fundamental categories of Johannes Kaiser (1911), Shera and Egan, Barbara Kyle (Vickery, 1960), and Eric de Grolier (1962). We can also reference contemporary work that continues comparison and analysis of fundamental categories (e.g., Dousa, 2011).In all these cases we are discussing a construct. The fundamental category is not discovered; it is constructed by a classificationist. This is done because it is useful in engaging in the act of classification. And while we are accustomed to using constructs or debating their merit in one knowledge organization activity or another, we have not analyzed their structure, nor have we created a typology. In an effort to probe the epistemological dimension of knowledge organization, we think it would be a fruitful exercise to do this. This is because we might benefit from clarity around not only our terminology, but the manner in which we talk about our terminology. We are all creative workers examining what is available to us, but doing so through particular lenses (constructs) identifying particular constructs. And by knowing these and being able to refer to these we would consider a core competency for knowledge organization researchers.