The importance of engaging students on public assistance: New insights and recommendations for practice

Student engagement in institutions of higher education has become a central priority for educators and administrators. What student engagement means for a diverse student body is an important question for public institutions with justice-related missions. As social welfare policy shifts to allow more recipients of public assistance access to higher education, research regarding their engagement experiences remains scarce. To support a socioeconomically diverse student body, consistent with the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) standards, this project explores the nature of engagement among student recipients of public assistance by asking the following research questions: what forms of engagement with students on public assistance take place? Why is engaging students on public assistance important? How can we foster greater engagement with students on public assistance? To answer these questions, student and faculty focus groups are conducted. From this analysis, we highlight normative implications of engaging a socioeconomically diverse student population and present recommendations for fostering greater engagement

Intelligence Studies, Universities and Security

This article offers a critical assessment of academic intelligence studies in higher education. It argues that universities (and academics) should value this subject far more highly than they currently do. Doing so will enhance better public understanding of an increasingly important and unique device in modern governance. It will also improve the quality of intelligence activity by raising awareness of both good and bad practice, encourage lawfulness by means of public understanding and so defending a vital public service from ill-informed attacks in today’s conflicted world. This, rather than training potential officers, should be the primary purpose of intelligence studies

Understanding older women's decision making and coping in the context of breast cancer treatment

Background: Primary endocrine therapy (PET) is a recognised alternative to surgery followed by endocrine therapy for a subset of older, frailer women with breast cancer. Choice of treatment is preference-sensitive and may require decision support. Older patients are often conceptualised as passive decision-makers. The present study used the Coping in Deliberation (CODE) framework to gain insight into decision making and coping processes in a group of older women who have faced breast cancer treatment decisions, and to inform the development of a decision support intervention (DSI). Methods: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with older women who had been offered a choice of PET or surgery from five UK hospital clinics. Women's information and support needs, their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions were explored. A secondary analysis of these interviews was conducted using the CODE framework to examine women's appraisals of health threat and coping throughout the deliberation process. Results: Interviews with 35 women aged 75-98 years were analysed. Appraisals of breast cancer and treatment options were sometimes only partial, with most women forming a preference for treatment relatively quickly. However, a number of considerations which women made throughout the deliberation process were identified, including: past experiences of cancer and its treatment; scope for choice; risks, benefits and consequences of treatment; instincts about treatment choice; and healthcare professionals' recommendations. Women also described various strategies to cope with breast cancer and their treatment decisions. These included seeking information, obtaining practical and emotional support from healthcare professionals, friends and relatives, and relying on personal faith. Based on these findings, key questions were identified that women may ask during deliberation. Conclusions: Many older women with breast cancer may be considered involved rather than passive decision-makers, and may benefit from DSIs designed to support decision making and coping within and beyond the clinic setting