southern universities
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

27
(FIVE YEARS 4)

H-INDEX

5
(FIVE YEARS 1)

Author(s):  
Kim Curry

Dorothy Mary Smith (1913–1997) was a visionary leader and innovator in nursing education. She was the founding dean of the University of Florida College of Nursing and played a key role in the design of an early academic medical center model. This article will discuss her education and early years, and the formation of Smith’s perspective on nursing education, exemplified by the implementation of her unification model of nursing, which was later adopted by numerous other academic nursing programs. During her deanship, significant events included the intrusion of the Johns Committee, an offshoot of the McCarthy investigations. The changing tides and times, such as the civil rights movement, also brought controversy and struggle to southern universities. In the end, financial downturns in state funding brought an end to the vision of Smith and her colleagues, leading her to ponder the outcome “if I had stayed.” Smith was an innovative leader whose legacy inspired graduates and faculty long after her academic career ended.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shari Fox ◽  
Esa Qillaq ◽  
Ilkoo Angutikjuak ◽  
Dennis Joseph Tigullaraq ◽  
Robert Kautuk ◽  
...  

Inuit hunters and meteorologists alike pay close attention to weather and weather changes, with deep understandings. This paper describes a long-time research project based in Kangiqtugaapik (Clyde River), Nunavut, where a research team of Inuit and visiting scientists have combined information and knowledge from a community-based weather station network, on-going interviews and discussions, and extensive travel (both Arctic fieldwork and visits to southern universities) to co-produce knowledge related to human–weather relationships and weather information needs and uses in one Nunavut community. The project uses the concept of “HREVs”, human-relevant environmental variables — complex, synthesis variables that, used in conjunction with a host of social variables, assist in informing safe land travel and activities. This work, including linking Inuit knowledge and environmental modeling, can be expanded to not only understand human–weather relationships more broadly and in other locations but also provide insights into the process of building diverse research teams and knowledge co-production. Inuit angunasuktiit amma silalirijiit tamarmik ujjiqsuttiasuunguvut silamit amma silaup asijjiqpallianingani, tukisiumaniqarjuaqłutik. Una paippaangujuq unikkaarivuq akuniujumi qaujitasaqtaunirmut piliriangujumi Kangiqtugaapik (Clyde River), Nunavummi, qaujisaqtiujuni katinngajuni Inungni amma pularaqtunut qaujisaqtiujunut katirisimajuni uqausiksani amma qaujimaniujumi nunalingni−tunngavilingmi silalirivvingmi tusaumatittiniujumi, apiqsuqtaunginnaqtuni amma uqallangniujuni, amma aullaaqsimarjuaqłutik (tamakkit Ukiuqtaqtumi iniujumi piliriniujumi amma pulararniujunut qallunaat nunanganni silattuqsarvigjuangujunut) saqqitittiqatigiingnirmut qaujimaniujumi pijjutiqaqtumut inungnut−silamut piliriqatigiingniujuni amma silamut uqausiksani pijariaqarniujunut amma aturniujunut atausirmi Nunavummi nunaliujumi. Piliriangujuq atusuunguvuq isumagijauniujumi “HREVs”, inungnut-atuutilingnut avatimut ajjigiinnginniujunut – nalunaqtuni, katinniujuni isumagijauniujuni aaqqiksinirnut piliri−jusiujumi ajjigiinnginniujuni, atuqatiqaqłuni ilagijaujumi inuuqatigiingujunut ajjigiinnginniujunit, ikajuqsuisuunguvuq aaqqiksuinirmi attananngittumi nunami aullaarniujumi amma qanuiliurniujunut. Una piliriniujuq ilaqaqtumi kasuqatiqarnirmi inuit qaujimajanginni amma avatimut uukturautiqarnirmi, angigligiaqtaujunnaqpuq tukisiumanituangunngittumi inungt-silamut piliriqatigiingniujumi tauvunngaujjiniujumi ammalu asinginni iniujunut, kisiani tunisijunnaqpuq tukisirjuarniujuni piliriniujuni sananirmut ajjigiinngiruluujaqtuni qaujisaqtiujunut katinngajuni amma qaujimanirmut saqqitittiqatigiingniujumi.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 246-254
Author(s):  
Naomi Clements ◽  
Matthew Short

Evaluation of widening participation (WP) activity is becoming a core expectation within higher education. It now forms a central focus to access and participation plans: a key document to qualify as a higher education provider within England. The new regulator for English higher education providers, the Office for Students (OfS), has placed their evaluation strategy within discourses of value for money, risk and accountability, reflecting the marketised higher education system (OfS, 2018).<br/> This innovative practice article extends a concept presented at the Open University's Access, Participation and Success event 'Evaluating WP initiatives: Overcoming the Challenges' in February 2019. In this article we provide an example of how the Southern Universities Network (SUN) is developing the concept of the rhizome into evaluative practice that challenges established evaluation methods currently celebrated by the regulator. As part of the strategically funded Uni Connect programme (OfS, 2020), our evaluation practice is expected to provide evidence of 'what works' in wid ening participation activity. As evaluators, our practice should ensure our activities are fit for purpose and provide positive outcomes for our participants. Within this article we outline why our current evaluative practice does not allow for transformative widening participation (Jones and Thomas, 2005) and why we must think wider than linear timelines and fixed measurements to truly understand what works.


2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chad Stephen Seifried ◽  
Patrick Tutka

The specific information provided in this paper offers a descriptive history regarding the attempts of Southern Methodist University (SMU) to be “modern” through tracing the institution’s movement from one playing field to another. Like other southern universities, SMU started football and built an on-campus stadium of concrete and steel believing their legitimacy as an institution could be enhanced through providing football as a product for consumption. However, SMU is unique among many of its contemporaries because soon after building an on-campus facility, it decided to move off campus in the pursuit of greater name recognition and revenue. Collectively, such efforts were recognized as helping to make SMU the “educational surprise of the decade, if not the century,” following its opening in 1915. The modernization of SMU football stadia involves construction and renovation of facilities from Armstrong Field (1915) to Gerald J. Ford Stadium (current).


2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 814-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leire Markuerkiaga ◽  
Rosa Caiazza ◽  
Juan Ignacio Igartua ◽  
Nekane Errasti

Purpose – The university is an institution with a long history and, over the course of the centuries, it has gone through several stages in its development. While initially conceived as an institution with a teaching “mission,” the university later adopted a knowledge generation function (research). In recent years, the idea has emerged that the university is assuming a “third mission”: contributing to society and economic development more directly; turning the university into an Entrepreneurial University. What, however, constitutes this Entrepreneurial University? Are all Entrepreneurial Universities composed of the same factors? The purpose of this paper is to answer these significant questions, through an empirical analysis performed on a sample of 59 Northern and Southern European universities. Design/methodology/approach – Empirical analysis performed on a sample of 59 Northern and Southern European universities. Findings – The findings show that students’ spin-off firm formation is the only different result for an Entrepreneurial University between Northern and Southern European universities and that the core internal entrepreneurship support factors are different for both geographical locations. Originality/value – Besides, regarding external entrepreneurship support factors, results show that a supportive institutional context is a core element for promoting internal entrepreneurship support factors and in turn for increasing students’ spin-off firm formation in both Northern and Southern universities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document