Pragmatism and International Relations

The discipline of International Relations [IR] is experiencing a pragmatist turn. Here I will argue that this is a critical moment to take stock and reflect on where it is heading. First, in order to understand what pragmatism might bring to IR as a social science today, it is important to examine the history of IR and explain why pragmatism appears not to have registered in its past. Why have the contributions of Wiliam James and, especially, John Dewey apparently disappeared from the early history of the field? Secondly, having examined what the problem was before, I go on to argue that the opportunity that exists today for pragmatism to influence the field is constructed upon its critique of empiricist epistemology, its scope for bridging plural methods, and the broadening of our understanding of what international relations is, opening the range of possible ontological claims which the discipline finds necessary at this time

Jane Addams und ihre internationale Ethik eines sozialen Radikalismus: globale Gerechtigkeit als realistische Utopie

As a philosophy with human problems at its centre and in a time of rapidly changing social conditions, classical Pragmatism engaged an ethics of social radicalism, an ethics that extended as far as human problems do: to the global. To understand how ideas like global justice are generated within pragmatism, it is important to examine not only the thought, but also the activism of pragmatists and how the experimental method of pragmatism was applied to global problems of its day. The life and work of Jane Addams is particularly rich for this kind of investigation. Addams met human problems at both local and global levels with the working hypothesis of applying and observing what a democratic attitude of radical social justice brings to felt indeterminacies. This article begins by comparing and contrasting a pragmatist approach to global justice as opposed to one better known, that of John Rawls, and moves on to examining the difference that Addams’s experience as a woman and an activist makes to how she practiced the pragmatist method in relation to global problems of the Progressive Era

NEPC Review: 2018 State Teacher Policy Best Practices Guide (National Council on Teacher Quality, March 2018)

A report from NCTQ begins with nine goals purportedly based on the &ldquo;best available research evidence&rdquo; about teacher quality. Yet neither this report nor its companion, which describes the original development of the goals, cites any research evidence. The report also uses the terms &ldquo;teacher quality&rdquo; and &ldquo;teacher effectiveness&rdquo; (on raising test scores) interchangeably. The report assumes reader buy-in to its goals, to its focus on test scores, and to its assumption that &ldquo;great teachers&rdquo; have an &ldquo;outsize impact&rdquo; on students&rsquo; learning and lives. Grounded in these assumptions, the report highlights examples of &ldquo;leading state work&rdquo; in 37 policy areas related to teacher quality, aiming to hold up these state policies as exemplars for other state policymakers to replicate. Despite its intentions, the report has multiple flaws that undermine its validity and usefulness. It offers no explanation about how the 37 best practices were selected in the first place and no justification for its selection of &ldquo;leading&rdquo; policy work, some of which has occurred in states that have consistently been low performers on national assessments. In addition, the report offers no evidence to support its approach and makes no references to the nuanced and complex research literature in this area. The report focuses primarily on human capital policies that explicitly target the qualifications and evaluation of the teacher workforce. This ignores the growing consensus that many other factors matter in the production of students&rsquo; learning, including supports that help teachers succeed, school contexts and cultures, state and regional labor markets, teachers&rsquo; relationship-building capacities, and the social organization of teachers&rsquo; work. In the end, the report is of limited use</p

NEPC Review: 2018 Teacher Prep Review (National Council on Teacher Quality, April 2018)

NCTQ released its 2018 review of U.S. teacher preparation programs. Employing open-records requests and online searches, the report ranks 567 graduate teacher preparation programs, 129 alternative route programs, and 18 residencies on practice, knowledge and admissions. The report seeks to determine if the teacher preparation programs are aligned with NCTQ&rsquo;s standards. Such alignment, the report insists, will produce teachers &ldquo;not only ready to achieve individual successes, but also to start a broader movement toward increased student learning and proficiency.&rdquo; However, the report determines that most programs are not aligned with its standards. Accordingly, it finds &ldquo;severe structural problems with both graduate and alternative route programs that should make anyone considering them cautious.&rdquo; However, the report has multiple logical, conceptual, and methodological flaws. Its rationale includes widely critiqued assumptions about the nature of teaching, learning, and teacher credentials. Its methodology, which employs a highly questionable documents-only evaluation system, is a maze of inconsistencies, ambiguities, and contradictions. Further, the report ignores accumulating evidence that there is little relationship between graduates&rsquo; classroom performance and NCTQ&rsquo;s ratings. Finally, the report fails to substantively account for broad shifts in the field of teacher education that are nuanced, hybridized, and dynamic. Regrettably, the report exacerbates the dysfunctional dichotomy between university programs and alternative routes and offers little guidance for policymakers, practitioners, or the general public.</p

A study of elective genome sequencing and pharmacogenetic testing in an unselected population

BACKGROUND: Genome sequencing (GS) of individuals without a medical indication, known as elective GS, is now available at a number of centers around the United States. Here we report the results of elective GS and pharmacogenetic panel testing in 52 individuals at a private genomics clinic in Alabama. METHODS: Individuals seeking elective genomic testing and pharmacogenetic testing were recruited through a private genomics clinic in Huntsville, AL. Individuals underwent clinical genome sequencing with a separate pharmacogenetic testing panel. RESULTS: Six participants (11.5%) had pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants that may explain one or more aspects of their medical history. Ten participants (19%) had variants that altered the risk of disease in the future, including two individuals with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential. Forty-four participants (85%) were carriers of a recessive or X-linked disorder. All individuals with pharmacogenetic testing had variants that affected current and/or future medications. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the importance of collecting detailed phenotype information to interpret results in elective GS

The Ursinus Weekly, April 27, 1972

Ursinus suffers blackout; Transformer explodes • Dr. Helen T. Garrett dies • UC students experience teaching • Dr. Robert M. Veatch to speak at Ursinus College forum • Dr. Allan Lake Rice speaks at conference • Students inducted into Omicron Delta Epsilon • Ursinus seeks $200,000 gift • Lantern elects officers for \u2772-\u2773; Spring issue expected in late May • Editorial: Stop the war • Focus: Jane Siegel • Strike • Faculty portrait: Dr. Gayle Byerly • Guest column: Dr. Allan Rice on war and peace • Letters to the editor: The need of a psychologist; Open letter to security • W.C. rains on our parade • Sing sets record • Bartholomew wins two • Ursinus starts baseball season • Travelin\u27 5\u27s history told • Modern Dance Club: fun for allhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/weekly/1123/thumbnail.jp

NEPC Review: A New Agenda: Research to Build a Better Teacher Preparation Program

Bellwether Education Partners&rsquo; report, A New Agenda, calls for a &ldquo;rational&rdquo; and &ldquo;rigorous&rdquo; research agenda for teacher education. Although the report&rsquo;s rationale is not fully explicated, it asserts that programs are &ldquo;blindly swinging from one popular reform to the next&rdquo; and that decades of input- and outcome-based research has failed to improve teacher education. Instead, the report calls for &ldquo;rapid cycle evaluations.&rdquo; Regrettably, this depiction of past research includes mischaracterizations and also omits a wide swath of relevant literature about teacher education. Further, the report does not adequately explain what &ldquo;rapid cycle evaluations&rdquo; would entail or how they would work to improve teacher preparation program design, nor does the report offer a research foundation for this approach. The report also fails to recognize the socio-political context of teacher education, wherein programs are often left scrambling to meet competing accountability expectations. A New Agenda leaves practical questions unanswered, muddies the waters about promising research avenues, and ignores important bodies of literature in teacher education. Ultimately it represents a missed opportunity to offer guidance to either policymakers or institutions.</p