IRB and ERC Resources
IRB (Expedited and Full research):
Policies & Procedures: http://www.marywood.edu/irb/
Mandatory Online Training Information: http://tinyurl.com/c2x34ox
Checklist of What to Submit: http://www.marywood.edu/irb/ir
Schedules and Deadlines: http://www.marywood.edu/irb/
IRBNet Video Tutorials (password is training): http://www.screencast.com/t/
PROFESSIONAL DISSERTATION EDITORS:
Here is a current list of names and contact information for professional editors that you may hire to edit your dissertation. The pay rate should be discussed and agreed upon prior to hire.
Phone: (717) 439-9381
NOTE: Local professional copyeditor and proofreader with a master’s degree and over 15 years’ experience in providing copyediting and proofreading services for education graduate student theses and dissertations and faculty journal articles for flow, grammar, punctuation, and adherence to APA Style requirements. Works with Track Changes mode in Word. Does not and will not rewrite or write sections, paragraphs, or sentences for graduate student papers. Provides positive feedback to clients by first informing them of their paper’s strengths and then explaining where clarification is needed or where something is inconsistent or contradictory and needs attention. The client then makes the corrections. See web page for Clear Cut Academic Editing Services www.sites.google.com/site/
Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org
NOTE: Dissertation proofread and formatted to the current APA style. Email the document and I will proofread for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and format according to APA style and Marywood conventions. I will use Track Changes and comments to show any changes made and why. Fee is $.02 per word. If the paper is given back to you for formatting revisions, I will them at no additional charge. Pay half up front; other half when completed. Confidentiality upheld. References upon request.
Dr. Lois Draina
Cell Phone: (570) 885-3105
Email Address: email@example.com
Dr. Mary Anne Fedrick
Cell Phone: (570) 954-0526
Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Sr. Margaret Gannon
Phone: (570) 963-8559
Email Address: email@example.com
Dr. Ray Heath
Cell Phone: (570) 840-4927 (until mid-August)
Home Phone: (215) 628-3428 (as of August 25)
Email Address: RayHeath@comcast.net
Dr. Laura Ann Camlet Houser
Director of Research & Sponsored Programs
Office: HFC Room 211A (M-F, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
Office Phone: (570) 340-6031
Cell Phone: (570) 460-4156
Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Sr. Mary Salvaterra
Home Phone: (570) 341-3513
Cell Phone: (570) 604-0545
Email Address: email@example.com
Sandra J. Snyder
Cell Phone: (570) 479-4244
Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION COPIES
Copies of doctoral student dissertations can be found in the library collection by visiting the library home page. To review all dissertation titles click on "Our Catalog" and then click on "Power Search." It is also possible to do a general title search to narrow the results. In the near future the Library will provide access to doctoral dissertations in electronic format.
Any bound copies of Dissertation must be printed on acid-free paper including the title page. For information on our Policy and Procedures for the publication and binding of Dissertation copies through the Library, please contact the Ph.D. Program office.
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION SUPPLEMENTALS
"Statistics Solutions for dissertations and theses. An innovative software package that generates APA formatted quantitative results."
Students may find specific information about Writing Center services at marywood.edu/academicsuccess/writing-center/how-it-works.html, however Marywood's Writing Center does not offer consultation on culminating writing projects such as a thesis, doctoral qualifying paper, professional contribution, etc.
It is possible that a student may hire a writing consultant who is available on a fee-based, freelance basis and not associated with the Writing Center. A list of suggested consultants with contact information are posted to the PhD Program Moodle web page.
The following textbook is recommended as a resource for writing the dissertation:
Demystifying Dissertation Writing: A Streamlined Process from Choice of Topic to Final Text by Peg Boyle Single, Ph.D., Stylus Publishing, LLC.,
Publication Date: September 2009 | ISBN-10: 1579223133 | ISBN-13: 978-1579223137
This peer-reviewed and refereed multidiscipline journal publishes contemporary research articles in the areas of business, humanities, social science, science, and technology and may be an appropriate journal for the publication of a research article upon the successful completion of dissertation.
Interdisciplinary Research Process Model
Interesting article discussing the ownership of dissertations using ProQuest
Choosing a Dissertation Chair:
You must consider the following factors in choosing a chair: (a) expertise, (b) accessibility, (c) feedback, (d) success, (e) personality style, and (f) attitudes toward methodology. The importance of each one will be discussed in turn.
Selecting a (Dissertation) Chair and Committee
The posting below looks at the factors that are important in choosing the dissertation committee and its chair. It is from Chapter 2, Selecting a Chair and Committee, in the book, Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, by Fred C. Lunenburg, Beverly J. Irby. Published by Corwin Press [www.corwinpress.com], A SAGE Company. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, California 91320. Copyright © 2008 by Corwin Press. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Selecting a (Dissertation) Chair and Committee\
Selecting your committee is a very important step in the process of preparing your dissertation or master's thesis. The chairperson of the committee usually has broad power and influence throughout the process of completing the dissertation or master's thesis. Therefore, the selection of a chairperson for your project is a very important decision. In collaboration with your chair and committee, you will delimit your topic, develop your proposal, conduct your research, and write your dissertation or master's thesis. Ultimately, your committee will judge the quality of your project. In this chapter, we present some suggestions that might help you in selecting your dissertation or thesis chair and other committee members.
Before choosing a faculty member as your chairperson, consider the chair's role. As mentioned previously, your chair will have broad power and influence over the dissertation or thesis process. While the specifics of this role vary from institution to institution, from department to department, and from chairperson to chairperson, some general functions of the chair are relatively universal. First, the chairperson will approve your dissertation or thesis topic. Second, the chairperson will approve, in consultation with you, the other committee members. Third, the chairperson will approve every line, section, and chapter of the dissertation. Fourth, the chairperson will determine how committee members will be involved in the dissertation or thesis process. Fifth, the chairperson will decide when you are ready to defend your dissertation or master's thesis. And, ultimately, the chairperson will determine whether you will be granted the degree.
Most departments have rules concerning who may and who may not serve as dissertation or thesis chairpersons. Some universities allow only those individuals who are on the graduate faculty to serve as dissertation chairs; that is, faculty who have adequate, recent publication records and who teach graduate classes. These rules are based on the rationale that faculty who do not have active programs of research will lack the necessary skills to guide a doctoral research project. Rules regarding who may chair master's theses may not be as stringent as those concerning doctoral dissertations. Because practice varies on who may and who may not serve as dissertation chairs, we recommend that you learn your institution's rules as soon as possible. Knowing your institution's local ground rules will help you avoid considering a potential chairperson who is not eligible to chair a dissertation or thesis.
Criteria to Consider in Selecting a Chair
You must consider the following factors in choosing a chair: (a) expertise, (b) accessibility, (c) feedback, (d) success, (e) personality style, and (f) attitudes toward methodology. The importance of each one will be discussed in turn.
Expertise Ideally, it is in your best interest to find a chair with expertise in your topic area. You may want to read some of your potential chair's publications. In our opinion, following this advice generally will produce a better product. Obviously, the closer your chair's area of expertise is to your topic, the more competent he or she will be to (a) identify difficulties you may encounter as you proceed with your study, (b) direct you toward literature sources pertinent to your topic, and (c) guide your choice of methods for collecting and anlayzing data. Furthermore, a chair who has an interest and competence in your topic area is likely to be more invested in your project; that is, think through the project more fully and keep a vigilant eye on your progress than one who is not knowledgeable about your topic area, and, therefore, may lack interest in it as well.
Accessibility Another important factor to consider in selecting a chair is accessibility. Several things can interfere with a chair being consistently accessible to you during the life of your project. When considering someone as a possible chair, you should think about these things. Nationally known scholars may be too busy with their own research activity to give you the time you need. Other faculty may have active clinical practices or be away from campus frequently due to consulting commitments. Faculty members who have nine-month contracts with the university may not be available during the summer. Faculty who are planning a sabbatical leave may potentially interrupt your progress. Another faculty member may be planning to take a position in another university and, therefore, may not be available during the progress of your project. One of the authors of this book had her chair go on sabbatical leave during the final semester of her dissertation work; therefore, a new chair had to be appointed. Popular chairs may have an excessive number of dissertations or theses to monitor, because they are in high demand.
Then there is the issue of tenure. Whereas nontenured faculty contracts may not be renewed, tenured faculty members are likely to be more stable. You will need to consider the relative accessibility and stability of potential chairs, along with your own time constraints and projections for completion.
Feedback Typically, the chair provides the first line of quality control for the dissertation or thesis. And usually the chair will approve the proposal and final version of the project before you will be permitted to forward chapters of the dissertation or thesis to other committee members. Therefore, look for a chair with a reputation for reading, critiquing, and returning written drafts promptly.
What is a good turnaround time? A good rule of thumb is to allow two weeks for a response. After that, a tactful inquiry may be appropriate. Obviously, students should recognize that it might take longer during very busy periods (e.g., end of grading periods, holidays, and before graduation deadlines when all students want to finish their projects).
You should balance timelines of response with the thoroughness with which the potential chairperson reads submitted material. Some chairs provide vague feedback (e.g., rewrite this section), while others may provide detailed comments (e.g., "You need to identify the three main factors and then evaluate them in light of the theories you have discussed."). Waiting longer for a chapter to be returned by a chair may have some positive consequences. First, if you satisfy a chair who provides a thorough critique of your work, you are less likely to encounter serious problems with other committee members. Second, you will be better prepared for your proposal defense and final oral defense of your dissertation or thesis. Third, once you have satisfied your chair's standards, he or she is more likely to support you if one of your other committee members becomes overly or unreasonably critical of your work.
Success Success at bringing students to graduation is an important factor to consider when selecting a chair. Because you are concerned with completing your degree, count how many successful students your potential chair has; that is, what percentage of the chair's students finish their degrees. Consider that criterion cautiously because some faculty members may not have had the opportunity to chair doctoral dissertations or master's theses.
Personality Styles Personality styles matter to some people. Writing a dissertation or thesis is a collaborative process between you and your chairperson. Obviously, you want a chair with whom you can work reasonably well. You will need to assess the match between what you expect from your chair and your chair's notion of the best way to perform his or her role.
Chairpersons vary greatly in how they work with students on dissertations and theses. Those at one end of the continuum closely monitor each phase of the students' work, in some cases stipulating exactly what is to be done at every step, and then require the student to submit each section of material for critique. Chairs at the other end of the continuum tell students to progress on their own and to finish a complete draft of the project before submitting it for evaluation. Most chairs will probably fall somewhere between these two extremes. Chairpersons also differ in the way they provide criticism. Some are blunt and even derisive. Others are direct and kindly in critiquing students' work. Still others are so cautious of students' feeling when pointing out weaknesses that they fail to guide their students in correcting deficiencies. In the latter case, someone else on the committee will have to step up and perform that duty; for the role of the chair and committee is to ensure that the candidate has met the university, college, and department standards.
Students also have personal preferences with whom they want to work, in general. For example, some students prefer to work with female faculty members, while others prefer to work with male faculty. Some students prefer to work with older people, while others prefer younger faculty.
Attitudes Toward Methodology Faculty members often differ concerning their preferences for a particular research method. A research method comprises the strategy followed in collecting and analysing data. The major distinction in classifying research by method is the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006). Quantitative and qualitative research can be broken down further into several distinct types, each designed to answer a different kind of research question. Quantitative research involves the collection and analysis of numerical data, which are usually rendered in the form of statistics. Advocates of quantitative studies tend to prefer such types as descriptive (or survey), correlational, causal-comparative, and experimental research. Proponents of such studies claim that their work is done from within a value-free framework (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
Qualitative research involves mostly nonnumerical data, such as extensive notes taken at a research site, interview data, videotape and audiotape recordings, and other nonnumerical artifacts. Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and the participant, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry. Qualitative researchers emphasize the value-laden nature of inquiry (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Proponents of qualitative studies tend to favor such research approaches as case study, ethnography, ethology, ethnomethodology, grounded theory, phenomenology, symbolic interaction, and historical research.
You need to examine the match between your preference and your potential chair's preference for a research method. Many faculty members accept both quantitative and qualitative research methods, including the authors of this text. We believe that the issue is not which method is better, but rather which method (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods) will best answer the particular research question or direction of inquiry.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrille/Prentice Hall.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
The Dissertation (Defense) Meeting
The posting below looks at how to deal with the inevitable pressure of the dissertation defense. It is from Chapter 14 – Entering into Public Discourse: The Dissertation Meeting, in the book, The Qualitative Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty, by Maria Piantanida and Noreen B. Garman. Published by Corwin, a SAGE Company, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, California 91320 http://www.corwinpress.
The Dissertation (Defense) Meeting
Challenging the Stereotype of “Defense as Inquisition”
The Inquisition Image
Embedded in dissertation folklore is an image of the defense as a grueling inquisition aimed at revealing all the flaws and weaknesses in both the study and the candidate. The trial-by-fire image frames the dissertation defense as one last, arbitrary exercise of faculty power. If the candidate survives this grilling and clears this final hurdle, then she or he is rewarded with the degree. It would be pointless to argue that there are no instances in which the defense has occasioned faculty misuse or abuse of power. But it is even more pointless to cast committee members in the role of enemy and assume that they operate with malevolent intent. Such dysfunctional distortions of the dissertation committee’s role and responsibility serve only to undermine the deliberative process.
The quality of the dissertation reflects on the candidate, the faculty who worked with the candidate, and the university that grants the doctoral degree. A dissertation that does not meet at least a minimum threshold of acceptable scholarship is a grave disservice to all three. In a sense, the committee’s review safeguards the novice scholar from prematurely subjecting his or her work to broader (and probably far more critical) scrutiny.
When candidates have established a deliberative relationship with their committee, the dissertation meeting can be an integral part of an ongoing and evolving process. The defense does not have to be an all-or-nothing test in which the student irrevocably passes or fails. Rather, it can serve as a collective look at the most recent iteration of the evolving inquiry. Granted, by this time, candidates are hoping that this iteration is good enough to bring closure to the dissertation process. But conscientious student-researchers would consider it no favor for their committee to rubber-stamp a dissertation before it is ready.
Students caught up in the high drama of the dissertation defense as inquisition seem to assume that they have no say in the decision to schedule the meeting, nor are they privy to what will happen during this mysterious rite of passage. Looking at the meeting within the context of ongoing relationships can help to dissipate potentially debilitating anxiety.
Continuity of Process and Relationships
Sometimes, candidates seem to imbue the dissertation defense with so much special significance that it is treated as a completely new and isolated event. Remembering that the meeting has evolved from an ongoing process and within a context of established relationships can help candidates to know what to expect. If the relationship with committee members is based on mutual trust and respect, is there any realistic reason to expect a sudden change in demeanor or behavior?
Perhaps some students believe that the ritual of the defense demands a harsh, adversarial stance from committee members. To determine whether this is a realistic concern, candidates can talk with their advisors about the purpose and tenor of the meeting. In addition, they can attend several dissertation meetings to observe firsthand what happens. Those who act on this latter suggestion are cautioned not to over generalize from the events of only one meeting. Each committee probably has its own unique personality, each candidate has a particular history with his or her committee, and each meeting probably unfolds in a different way. A single observation is likely to yield a narrow, and perhaps skewed, perspective. Again, discussing one’s observations with one’s advisor provides a good check and balance.
We can imagine some students groaning in despair as they read the preceding paragraphs. Reflecting on the relationship with their committee chair or particular committee members may evoke a deep sense of dread if there has been a history of less than satisfactory interactions. We are in no position to second-guess the roots of such relationships. Indeed, some faculty may be extremely difficult to work with. It is regrettable if students have inadvertently or of necessity chosen such faculty to be on their committee because that detracts from the dissertation experience. Yet in our experience, such unsatisfactory interactions arise far less often than the folklore might imply. Our point is to caution candidates against automatically assuming the worst.
Conversely, some students might think, “I’ve got it. My chair is a good friend and will get me through this.” Counting on friendship, especially in the case of questionable scholarship, can lead to a rude awakening when committee members seriously critique the dissertation. Such a turn of events could feel like a betrayal, especially if students have trivialized the significance of the dissertation and the meeting. For conscientious, responsible faculty, critiquing the dissertation is not about friendship; it is about scholarship.
One other issue is worth flagging at this point. Students should not automatically assume that faculty bring a wealth of experience and wisdom to the dissertation meeting. Junior faculty receive virtually no formal orientation to or preparation for their role as dissertation advisors. As a result, they are likely to draw upon their own limited experience with the dissertation process. Depending upon their satisfaction with the process, they may either try to re-create the experience for their advisees or reject a model that was distasteful. Inexperienced faculty may also be surprised to discover that each university has its own dissertation culture. Norms assimilated at the institution where they completed their doctoral work may not readily fit into the culture of the university where they embark on their faculty career. This may precipitate a period of readjustment for beginning faculty.
Senior faculty may face a slightly different dilemma. Those schooled in the quantitative or empirical mode of research often sense that guiding a qualitative study is somewhat different. Yet they are not quite sure of where the difference lies. Faculty in this position may be groping to understand how best to help their advisees, even as they are struggling to understand a new epistemological ballpark.
Developing one’s own style of guiding the dissertation process and conducting the meeting grows with time and experience. Certainly, our own understanding of the process has deepened as a result of working with a wide range of students with very different needs and abilities. Serving on committees with other faculty also broadened our appreciation for different styles of advising students and conducting meetings. Again, our best advice to all students is to enter into substantive conversations with committee members about their views of the dissertation. It is hoped that portions of this book can help students frame their concerns in ways that promote productive explorations for everyone involved.
Reframing the Defense
We hope that the preceding discussion helps to dispel the image of the dissertation meeting as an inquisition of hapless doctoral candidates. Before leaving this image, however, one other point is worth mentioning. Underlying the trial-by-fire mentality is an assumption that it is the pressure of the dissertation meeting itself that “makes or breaks” the candidate. This suggests that the ultimate criterion for earning the doctoral degree is how well one responds under fire. Perhaps, for some students and faculty, this represents a test of the candidate’s capacity for tough discourse and rigorous deliberation. From our perspective, this parodies the real rigors of the dissertation – completing an intellectually sophisticated, conceptually sound inquiry. As mentioned throughout the book, we believe deeply in the transformative power of the dissertation, the journey from student to scholar. In our experience, the transformation occurs incrementally throughout the journey, rather than instantaneously as a result of grilling at the meeting. The ultimate test lies in the scholarship evidenced in the dissertation.
If, as we suggest, the dissertation meeting is not a ritualistic inquisition or trial by fire, how might the nature of deliberation among candidate and committee members be better understood? There is, of course, no simple answer to this question, because the deliberations are shaped by a complex constellation of issues. At the heart of this constellation is the dissertation document itself, providing an account of the inquiry. A core issue, then, is the quality of the dissertation from the committee’s and candidate’s perspective. Intertwining with this issue is a second issue – what the dissertation process itself represents to candidate and faculty. Both of these are connected with the issue of public discourse, most immediately within the meeting and then over time. The interplay among these issues underpins the deliberations occurring during the dissertation meeting.
For information on faculty research when seeking to put together a dissertation committee or confer on a topic, Ph.D. students can refer to the 2012-2014 Graduate Catalog on PP. 296-306 "Department Faculty and Their Research."
FACULTY RESEARCH TOPICS/INTERESTS:
This is an incomplete list of current Marywood faculty and their research and interests:
Alan Levine: Sports nutrition, human performance, wellness/health promotion
Miguel Calvo-Salve: Building with natural light and new materials
James Eckler: Urbanism and place-making, development of cities, cultivating community
Marcia MacDonald: Sustainable design
Alice McDonnell: Gerontology, long-term care, role of hospice and other community resources in treatment of older cancer patiences, Alzheimer's disease, quality assurance, geriatric health services administration, geriatric education, public health
Alexander Dawoody: Public policy, complexity theory, organization dynamics, Middle Eastern studies, foreign policy & national security issues, political philosophy. Published: Iraqi Administrative Changes. Published: Global Interconnectedness and the Financial Crisis: The Imperative of Collapse. Published: A Complexity Response to Funding Public Education
Patricia Weldon: Psychological trauma, crisis intervention, post-traumatic growth, individual and community resilience, cultural issues
BUSINESS & GLOBAL INNOVATION:
Arthur Comstock: Investment and portfolio management, corporate financial planning, international economics
U. Rex Dumdum: Leadership in computer-mediated environments, transformational leadership, eLearning
Monica Law: Leadership, emotional intelligence, medical errors, human resources
George Marcinek: Ethical issues in accounting
Kerimcan Ozcan: Marketing, strategy, analytics, co-creation
Murray Pyle: Operations management, new product development
Chris Speicher: International business, organizational behavior, entrepreneurship & marketing
Catherine Bolton: Changing the profession of public relations; impact of digital media on the profession
Douglas Lawrence: Mass communication, message delivery through the communication process
Michael Mirabito: New communication technologies, communication systems, digital imaging, Holocaust studies
Paul Sevensky: Crisis communications
Lindsey Wotanis: Community and collegiate journalism, gender, social media
COMMUNICATION SCIENCES & DISORDERS:
Lauren Burrows: Bilingual phonology and development & assessment of language ability in English language learners
Mona Griffer: Child language development/disorders, early intervention, multicultural issues, supervisory process, family-centered early intervention service delivery, emergent literacy, autism spectrum disorders, higher education trends (curriculum development, academic service-learning), specific language impairment
Vijayachandra Ramachandra: Neuroscience, articulation and phonology, child language/development disorders, cognitive-linguistic deficits. Published: Affective Theory of Mind May Be Unimpaired in People with Aphasia
Bruce Wisenburn: Acquired neurogenic communication disorders, augmentative/alternative communications. Published: Perspectives on Communication Disorders & Sciences in Culturally & Linguitically Diverse Populations
Brian Monahan: Social problems, media and society, deviant behavior, crime in the media, social movements
Patrick Seffrin: Criminology, adolescence, povery, quantitative methods, criminal justice, sociology
Patricia Arter: Inclusionary practices, Universal Design for Learning, transition for young adults with autism, curriculum adaptation for the special needs learning, special education, meeting diverse learning needs, development education, universal design for learning, integration of technology into instruction, behavior management.. Presented: Bridging the Gap, Transition: It Takes a Village. Presented: Bridging the Gap: An Interdisciplinary, Experiential Model Between School Psychology and Special Education. Published: Banishing Bullying Behavior: Transforming the Culture of Peer Abuse. Published: Teachers as Mentors: Models for Promoting Achievement With Disadvantaged & Underrepresented Students by Creating Community
Tammy Brown: Struggling beginner readers, new literacies, socio-cultural factors affecting literacy. Presented: Literacies for New Technologies: The Teachers' View. Published: Addressing the Problems of Homeless Children. Presented: Research on the Use of Digital Reading Logos
Bernice Lukus: Special education leadership and supervision
Joseph Polizzi: Experiential and transformational learning, school leadership, small schools, progressive & alternative schools, preparation and professional development of new teachers. Expertise in qualitative research and case study method. Presented: Documentary Photography & Documentary Films as Intercultural & Interdisciplinary Learning. Published: Films for a New DEEL: Documentary Films in the Educational Leadership Classroom
Frances Russell: Literacy/reading, teacher education, mentoring, supervision of student teachers
Kathleen Ruthkowsky: Early childhood education, instructional design, teacher education
Helen Bittel: Victorian literature and children's literature; Recently presented "The Apartheid of Children's Literature: Windows, Mirrors, Publishers, and Resources"; "No Project Time Today Due to Testing: Classroom Learning and Children's Agency in Three Early Reader Series"
Deborah Brassard: Modern British literature, Modern American literature, Shakespeare; Recently published "You Ever-Gentle Gods: A Discussion of Willia Cather's My Mortal Enemy"
Agnes Cardoni: Composition, 20th Century American literature;Canadian literature; feminist theory, English education. Presented: ReCreations: Teaching, Self Care, and the Inner Life of a Teacher.
Bill Conlogue: 19th & 20th Century American literature. Published: Here & There: Reading Pennsylvania's Working Landscapes
Christine Mihelich: 18th Century fiction and Catholic writers
Erin Sadlack: Medieval & Early Modern British literature; women's studies; rhetoric and composition. Presented: Showing, Kneeling, Weeping: The Rhetoric of Presence in Elizabethan Petition Letters
Ann Cerminaro-Costanzi: Poetry of the Spanish generation of 1927, Spanish language, culture and civilization; Latin American culture & civilization
Jose E. Reyes: Spanish Middle Ages, Medieval Spanish literature
HEALTH & PHYSICAL EDUCATION:
William Gear: Injury prevention, therapeutic interventions
Justus Hallam: Exercise physiology, exercise immunology
Angela Hillman: Exercise physiology, hydration, biochemistry, stress response to exercise in extreme environments, post-exercise recovery and adaptation
Ellen Payne: Leadership, athletic training education and law, emergency medical skill, qualitative research, higher education
Dhanapati Adhikari: Published: Small Global Solutions to the Damped Two-Dimensional Boussinesq Equations
Craig Johnson: Topology, connections of mathematics to music theory, use of technology in teaching. Authored textbook "Exploring Mathematics: Investigations with Functions"
Thomas Kent: Computability. Published: Empty Intervals in the Enumeration Degrees
Zaixin Lu: Energy Efficient Wireless Sensor network, Wireless Data Communication, Social Network Analysis, and Computational Biology, computer science, software, machine learning, artificial intelligence
Chaogui Zhang: Computational number theory, cryptology
Anita Gadberry: Music therapy with persons in the autism spectrum, alternative communication systems. Published: The Effectiveness of a Music Therapy Protocol for a Person with Nonfluent Aphasia
Joan McCusker: Music cognition, emerging musical literacy, professional development
Barbara Higgins: Menopausal health, urinary health across women's lifespan, innovative nursing curriculum design, service learning in nursing education
Kathleen Healy-Karabell: Quality improvement in nursing, school-related study incivility and violence, violence in the workplace, depression in the elderly, abuse related to PTSD
Helen Battisti: Childhood and geriatric obesity, equine therapy
Lee Harrison: Personality type (MBTI) and its effects on career choice, compentence and ability to predict success, nutrition support/critical care, food habits, health promotion, gerontological nutrition, children's health, physical activity patterns ands atisfaction with fitness facilities among military members and their families; health and nutrition of children in military families, nutrition education
Dr. John DePoe: Epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion. He is currently developing research on the implications of distinguishing conceptual awareness from non-conceptual awareness, especially as it pertains to the epistemology of sense perception. Additionally, he is developing a book proposal for philosophical essays related to probabilistic reasoning and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Authored The Heavens Declare the Glory of God: Contemporary Teleological Arguments. Presented Does Skeptical Theism Make the Resurrection Improbable? Presented: Indirect Realism With a Human Face
Dr. Philip Jenkins: Philosophy of art (especially music and expression), philosophy of mind (especially questions surrounding the social nature of the self and emotions), and ethics.
Dr. Sarah Kenehan: Rawlsian political philosophy, environmental ethics/justice, and climate justice. Dr. Kenehan is also very interested in animal ethics and philosophy of science
Dr. Aaron Simmons: Ethical theory, environmental philosophy, animal ethics, and bioethics. He is particularly interested in questions about the ethics of taking life, both human and animal life. He is currently writing a book on our moral obligations to animals, as well as developing a series of papers on the moral importance of empathy. He has published papers in Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, Environmental Ethics, and Ethics and the Environment. He also has a growing interest in ancient Greek and Roman theories on happiness.
PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT STUDIES:
Marie Bonavoglia: Anaphylaxis education and prevention in school-aged children, patient safety, infection control, trends in Physician Assistant education
David Isgan: Interprofessional education, patient safety, infection control, trends in Physician Assistant education
Lori Swanchak: Trends in Physician Assistant education, cardiology, geratric medicine. Published: The Effect of Early Geriatric Exposure Upon Career Development and Subspecialty Selection Among Physician Assistant Students
Shamshad Ahmed: Multicultural counseling, cross cultural perspectives on anxiety & depression, mental health issues, stress management, couples issiues, issues with race, gender, diversity & ethnicity, mental health of Muslims living in America; Identity development of Muslim Women; overcoming test anxiety. Published: The Rise of Islamic Schools in the United States. Presented: Addictions Counseling: Ecomaps with REality, REBT, and Narrative Therapy
Jennifer Barna: School counseling programs & accountability, leadership, advocacy, impact of personal/social development on academic achievement, student academic achievement, systemic change. Clinical Interests: School-based intervention development, collaboration and teaming, creative counseling techniques for children and adolescents. Presented: Growing Up Gifted: Helping Students in Gifted Programs Maximize Potential and Combat Social Concerns
Gail Cabral: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; gender differences, social-cognitive development, particularly in the area of friendship relations; relationship of psychology and religion. Presented: How Smoking Affects Individual and Community Level Social Networks. Presented: Spirituality Across the Life Span: From Identity to Gerotranscendence
C. Estelle Campenni: Cultivating mindfulness in daily life, implicit cognitive performance and mindfulness, well-being and mindfulness, State dependent learning, gestalt organization of auditory events; gender differences in children's play; psychology and marketing.
Brooke Cannon: Neuropsychology, dementia, brain trauma, facial affect percetion, psychology of film. Published: Delusions Across the Twentieth Century in an American Psychiatric Hospital
Edward Crawley: Auditory perception, spoken word recognition, music cognition, human memory and cognition. Research topics include: Face recognition, memory for melodies, how information is represented in STM, associative memory, inhibition of return. Presented: Examining the Relationship Between Rumination, Dysphoria and Working Memory
Francis DeMatteo: Delivery multidisciplinary evaluation results ot parents; family-school relations, transition, learning outcomes assessment, school-to-work transition, effectively delivering feedback results to parents. Presented: Literacies for New Technologies: The Teachers' View. Presented: Transition: It Takes a Village. Presented: Families of Students With Autism: A Resource-Based Transition Program. Published: Social Skills Training for Young Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Overview & Implications for Practice
Bradley Janey: Psychological text construction, cross-cultural variations in masculinity, counseling males, aggression and masculinity in boys; media violence. Presented: Authoritarian Men: Working With the Hard Cases
Janet Muse-Burke: Spirituality and religiosity, supervision & training, psychotherapy process and outcome, test construction, interpersonal psychotherapy; group counseling; career development; assessment. Presented: Spirituality, Religiosity, and Satisfaction With Life as Predictors of Relapse Among Alcoholics
Edward O'Brien: Cognitive & behavioral therapies, cognitive approaches to self-esteem change, stress & coping, outcomes assessment, effects of technological innovations in higher education. Presented: Assessment of Weight-Concerned Behavior in Females
David Palmiter Jr.: Child and adolescent disruptive behavioral disorders, psychological testing, positive psychology, public education.
Tracie Pasold: Parenting, eating disorders in children and adolescence, pediatric/medical psychology; with specific interest in the variables of emotional intelligence, quality of life, self-esteem, interpersonal functioning, body acceptance and personality/temperamental characteristics as these relate to eating disorders and chronic pain, conversion symptoms, general health-related decision making propensity and symptomatology. Presented: NEPA Region Pediatricians Knowledge and Attitude Towards Eating Disorders
Robert Shaw: Psychological testing, interaction of psychology and spirituality
Lisa Antoniacci: Immunology & vaccine development, microbiology and biotechnology, molecular genetics
Christopher Brey: Functional genetics, biotechnology
Jay Clymer III: Aquatic biology, saltmarch ecology, ecology of stream and marsh ecosystems
Robin Ertl: Long-term effects of classic pollutants on whole organisms
Deanne Garver: Toxicology
Deborah Hokien: Analytic chemicstry, biochemistry
Michael Kiel: Human genone analysis with respect to disease and evolution, cell biology, biotechnology
Monica Pierro-Galvao: Medical physics, radiation treatment for cancer
Laurie Cassidy: Moral response to social suffering; ethics of representation, ethics and photojournalism, Catholic social teaching, political theology, race, cass & gender analysis and ethical responses to oppression art.
Samantha Christiensen: Asian and world history, urban history, social movements, gender studies. Presented: Imagining Freedom: The Global Sixties, Decolonization, and Utopian Visions of a Postcolonial World
Nicholas Ferencz: Authored: American Orthodoxy & Parish Congregationalism
Thomas Jackson: Political science, constitutional law, pre-law
Jeremy Rich: African and world history, colonialism and Central African history (Gabon, Democratic Republic of Congo). Published: Heresy is the Only True Religion: Richard Lynch Garner (1848-1920)
Adam Shprintzen: Urban history, labor history, environmental history
Alexander Vari: European history, Latin American history, urban studies. Presented: The Seduction of Suggestion: Hypnotism as a Matter of Entertainment & Public Concern in Budapest. Presented: A Metropolis in the Making: World City Dreams & Representational Polarization at Turn-of-the-Century Budapest. Published: Yugoslavia's Sunny Side: A History of Tourism in Socialism
Mary Ann Zimmer: Scripture, social justice, spirituality, religious education. Published: Distance & Blended Learning in Asia by Colin Latchem & Insung Jung. Published: Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice, edited by Sheryl E. Burgstahler & Rebecca C. Cory
Phyllis Black: Ethical issues in social work practice & education, genetics, grade inflation, curriculum development, grade inflation & teaching research.
Stephen Burke: Faith-based organizations and implications for social work education; economic safety-net issues
Dennis Chapman: Mental health practice/administration; gerontology, group work
Joseph Donohue: Historical and philosophic roots of social work, social work knowledge, values, ethics, social welfare administration
Lea Dougherty: Women's issues, domestic violence, sexual assault, poverty, homelessness, oppression, resiliency
Christina Gigler: Child welfare issues, crisis intervention, field education, ethics
B. Lynn Hutchings: The built environment; person-environment fit, physical and developmental disabilities, aging
Diane Keller: Individuals with disabilities or chronic illness and their families, children and their families, women and leadership, program evaluation studies, higher education administration issues. Has coordinated research projects related to AFrican Sisters Leadership Project.
Christine Kessen: Contemplative practices, social work education
Angela Kim: Children & adolescents, multicultural education, cultural competency in social work education and practice, bicultural ethnic identity development among immigrant children and their families members; international social work practice. Presented: Interdisciplinary Empowerment Service Model for Migrants/Immigrants/Refugees in Suburban Settings
Karen Rich: Formal and informal responses to crime victims, coping skills of victims with disabilities, sexual assult victim interviewing by police officers, stigmatization and coping skills of crime victims with disabilities
Sunny Sinha: HIV presentation programs among at-risk populations, human trafficking, women's access to health care
Kimiko Tanaka: Clubhouse model for psychiatric recovery, resilience and support
Joseph Jaworek: Art therapy in psychiatric treatment
Christine Medley: Distance learning
John Meza: Research in sustainable design
Barbara Parker-Bell: Professional caregiver coping, integration of cognitive behavioral therapy, technology with art therapy