Gender History of Science

Debating Contemporary Approaches to the History of Science explores the main themes, problems and challenges currently at the top of the discipline\u27s methodological agenda. In its chapters, established and emerging scholars introduce and discuss new approaches to the history of science and revisit older perspectives which remain crucial. Each chapter is followed by a critical commentary from another scholar in the field and the author\u27s response

Foucault\u27s brain: discourse, matter, and the possibility of a plastic genealogy

This project describes a problem in Foucauldian genealogy centered on the relationship between discourse and matter, while coordinating a few related projects to indicate a possible resolution. It gathers a set of critiques of Foucault that coalesce around common articulations of the issue together with a set of developments that differently attempt to resolve it. The overarching goal is both to define the extant problem and to assert that it is necessary and possible for genealogy to overcome it. For the set of critics taken up here, including Karen Barad, Beatrice Han, David Harvey, and Catherine Malabou, the problematic ambiguity in Foucault\u27s work crystallizes in the figure of the individual and the question of how genealogy handles the non-discursive. To Han, and differently to Harvey, these mark a terminal failure of genealogy to overcome the Kantian transcendental themes Foucault explicitly rejects; genealogy remains either anthropological (Han) or stuck in an outmoded thinking of space and time inherited from Kant (Harvey). However to Barad, and differently to Malabou, carefully developing certain concepts in genealogy’s analytic framework can resolve these issues, which they in turn acknowledge. Separately, both Barad and Malabou aim to move genealogy towards a new engagement with the natural sciences as part of this response. For Barad, this entails revising the concept of the dispositif or apparatus to account more directly for the material arrangements of forces. For Malabou, this entails rethinking contingency in terms of plasticity. This project puts their elaborations in concert with a third positive program, the cognitive archaeology of Lambros Malafouris, that shares an interest in accounting for historical transformations in subjectivity with attention paid to their material dimension. The goal in weaving these developments together is to apply their analyses to the concept of the sub-individual, deployed by Foucault in Nietzsche, Genealogy, History and elsewhere, suggesting further development of the concept. Ultimately, this is to assert the possibility (and necessity) of a plastic genealogy that would be able to engage in a more material analysis that successfully navigates the transcendental and anthropological pitfalls identified by the critics

Northeastern Illinois University: Identifying Characteristics Associated with Low African American Student Retention and Persistence

Although a recent study found that college student retention and persistence rates are on the rise, there continues to be significant differences between African American and White students at predominately white institutions (PWIs). Institutional factors such as unwelcoming campus climates, racial stereotypes, and faculty relationships have been found to be viable factors as to why the disparities between African American and other students continue to exist. This Case Study explored some of the key issues/factors/questions related to the retention and persistence of African American students at a Midwest PWI. This study found that university resources and financial support, inclusion, comfortability with professors, culturally relevant curricula and campus climate were major factors that impacted African American students’ decision to remain in college. African American students not only want an inclusive and welcoming campus environment but also, they want competent staff and professors and more African American professors in the classroom

The Relevance of FDA Regulation in Medical Device Product Defect Cases

Medical device product cases typically involve a jury determination whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. If the product has been cleared for marketing by the Food and Drug Administration, it has been through an extensive regulatory process in which the safety of the product is potentially reviewed by experts. Nevertheless, a number of courts have concluded that juries should not hear about FDA regulation in making factual findings regarding liability and damages. What the FDA concludes about the safety of a product can be extremely relevant to juries in deciding whether to find there was a defective product and whether punitive damages are appropriate. On the other hand, because of the complexity of FDA regulation, it is important for courts to control how this evidence is presented in order to avoid overwhelming a jury, which already must deal with a number of complicated issues. The Federal Rules of Evidence should be applied in a way that allows the jury to hear about the 510(k) process in way that is understandable and useful. The reasoning of these courts – that the FDA’s regulatory process is irrelevant, or even if it has some probative value, the probative value is substantially outweighed by other factors – deprives the jury of important information and potentially distorts the fact-finding process