An exploration of the paradigms of communication and development with an emphasis upon the use of one-way versus two-way models of communication.

Dept. of Communication Studies. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis1988 .C666. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 40-07, page: . Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 1988

Mrub_3015 is orthologous to the b2757 gene found in \u3cem\u3eEscherichia coli\u3c/em\u3e coding for casD

This project is part of the Meiothermus ruber genome analysis project, which uses a collection of online bioinformatics tools to predict gene function. We investigated the biological function of the gene Mrub_3015, which we hypothesize is a component of the CRISPR-Cas prokaryotic defense system. We predict that Mrub_3015 (DNA coordinates 3055550...3056245) encodes the the CRISPR-associated protein cas5, which is integral in maintaining the crRNA-DNA structure, keeping the complex from base pairing with the target phage DNA. Our hypothesis is supported by identical hits for Mrub_3015 and b2527 to the KEGG, Pfam, TIGRfam, CDD and PDB databases as well as a low E-value for a pairwise NCBI BLAST comparison. Both protein products are predicted to be localized in the cytoplasm. Finally, both proteins share numerous highly conserved amino acids, when compared to the consensus sequence of Pfam domains PF09704, PF18019, and PF00270

What Two Legal Scholars Learned From Studying 70 Years of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

This article in The Conversation on March 21, 2016 and moves beyond the conventional wisdom espoused by Biden, Kagan and others, and presents a strong case for an alternative view of the hearings. Examining every statement made at confirmation hearings from 1939 to 2010, we conclude the hearings are important to the health of American democracy. Based on this, we’d like to see partisan politics pushed aside and Judge Merrick Garland to get a hearing

Neil Gorsuch and the Ginsburg Rules

Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Using empirical data on every question asked and answered at every hearing from 1939–2017, we explore this “rule,” and its attribution to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We demonstrate three things. First, the Ginsburg Rule is poorly named, given that the practice of claiming a privilege to not respond to certain types of questions predates the Ginsburg nomination by decades. Second, the Ginsburg Rule really is two rules: one governing when nominees should not provide direct responses to certain types of questions, and a second governing when they should. Third, we show that Neil Gorsuch, despite his insistence to the contrary, did not really follow the example set by Justice Ginsburg. Instead, unlike Justice Ginsburg and most other recent nominees, Gorsuch regularly refused to articulate firm positions on even our most widely accepted constitutional issues and cases. In doing, we argue, Gorsuch’s practice risks diminishing one important way in which we as a society use Supreme Court confirmation hearings to debate and endorse constitutional change

Why not limit Neil Gorsuch — and all Supreme Court justices — to 18-year terms?

Legal scholars and political scientists increasingly question whether life tenure remains a good idea for Supreme Court justices. While scholars disagree about the exact numbers, our Supreme Court justices are serving longer and longer terms; presidents have incentives to choose younger and younger nominees; and the justices themselves appear to delay retirement in the hope of having an ideologically compatible president select their replacements. Moreover, the confirmation process has become increasingly contentious, culminating last year in Senate Republicans refusing to even grant a hearing to President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. As a result, many scholars propose a shift to staggered 18-year terms. What are the pros and cons of such a change? This article breaks down the positives and negatives of term limits for Supreme Court justices

The Institutionalization of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate Judiciary Committee’s role in Supreme Court confirmations has changed over time, with particular attention paid to the 1939–2010 era. During this period, several notable developments took place, including a rise in the number of hearing comments, increased attention to nominees’ views of judicial decisions, an expansion of the scope of issues addressed, and the equalization of questioning between majority and minority party senators. We demonstrate that these changes were shaped by both endogenous and exogenous factors to promote the legitimization of the Judiciary Committee’s role in the confirmation process and to foster the instrumental goals of senators. This research contributes to our understanding of the development of political institutions, interbranch interactions, and how institutional change affects the behavior of legal and political actors

Interruptions at Supreme Court confirmation hearings have been rising since the 1980s

As scholars of the confirmation process, we aim to measure what is measurable, in the hope that data can inform our more subjective perceptions of politics. And one measurable feature of Kavanaugh’s testimony is the striking number of times he interrupted the senators to challenge their comments or force his own point. Here, the historical record can shed some light. This article reviews the history of interruptions during Supreme Court confirmation hearings from 1939 to 2010

The ‘Ginsburg Rule’ Is Not an Excuse to Avoid Answering the Senate’s Questions

An op-ed by Lori Ringhand and Paul M. Collins Jr. on Supreme Court nominees\u27 unwillingness to provide answers on cases under the wrongly named Ginsburg Rule. Nominees since the 1930s have balanced the competing needs of the Senate and the Judiciary by claiming a privilege to not opine on currently contested cases while freely offering their opinion about cases that used to be controversial but are no longer

Asynchronous video and the development of instructor social presence and student engagement

Enrollment in online learning continues to grow in the higher education sector, along with persistent goals dedicated to achieving better student outcomes and lowering attrition rates. Improved student engagement has been shown to possibly reduce attrition rates through a greater sense of connectedness and decreased feelings of isolation among online learners. Instructor social presence may be the most important factor in building the relationships that foster learning and retention. Through communication, the instructor conveys the necessary immediacy behaviors required to cultivate these interpersonal relationships. With improved technology that allows for enhanced communication in online classrooms, the use of asynchronous video may be an effective way to improve instructor social presence and student engagement. This quasi-experimental design aimed to determine whether asynchronous video or text-based communication increased students\u27 perceptions of instructor social presence and student engagement in an online graduate classroom. Significance was found for student engagement based on the number of discussion posts and length of discussion posts. Students in the group who received text-based communication demonstrated increased student engagement in voluntary discussion boards as opposed to students in the group who received asynchronous video. There was no significant difference found for instructor social presence between the two groups