Gotowa bibliografia na temat „Georgetown project”

Social Currents in North Africa offers multidisciplinary analyses of social phenomena unfolding in the Maghreb today. The contributors analyze the genealogies of contemporary North African behavioral and ideological norms, and offer insights into post-Arab Spring governance and today's social and political trends. The book situates regional developments within broader international currents, without forgoing the distinct features of each socio-historical context. With its common historical, cultural, and socioeconomic foundations, the Maghreb is a cohesive area of study that allows for greater understanding of domestic developments from both single-country and comparative perspectives. This volume refines the geo-historical unity of the Maghreb by accounting for social connections, both within the nation-state and across political boundaries and historical eras. It illustrates that non-institutional phenomena are equally formative to the ongoing project of postcolonial sovereignty, to social construction and deployments of state power, and to local outlooks on social equity, economic prospects, and cultural identity. Scholars in the field of North African and Maghrebi studies were invited to working group meeting held by the Center for International and Regional Studies (CIRS), Georgetown University in Qatar, to reflect on their specialized disciplinary or methodological approaches to the region, and to comment on the overall validity of North Africa as a cohesive geo-historical unit for social scientific analysis.

Human Problem Solving (1972) by Allen Newell and Herbert Simon of Carnegie-Mellon University, a tome of over 900 pages, was the summa of some 17 years of research by Newell, Simon, and their numerous associates (most notably Cliff Shaw, a highly gifted programmer at Rand Corporation) into “how humans think.” “How humans think” of course belonged historically to the psychologists’ turf. But what Newell and Simon meant by their project of “understanding . . . how humans think” was very different from how psychologists envisioned the problem before these two men invaded their milieu in 1958 with a paper on human problem solving in the prestigious Psychological Review. Indeed, professional psychologists must have looked at them askance. Neither was formally trained in psychology. Newell was originally trained as a mathematician, Simon as a political scientist. They both disdained disciplinary boundaries. Their curricula vitae proclaimed loudly their intellectual heterodoxy. At the time Human Problem Solving was published, Newell’s research interests straddled artificial intelligence, computer architecture, and (as we will see) what came to be called cognitive science. Simon’s multidisciplinary creativity—his reputation as a “Renaissance man”—encompassing administrative theory, economics, sociology, cognitive psychology, computer science, and the philosophy of science—was of near-mythical status by the early 1970s. Yet, for one prominent historian of psychology it would seem that what Newell and Simon did had nothing to do with the discipline: the third edition of Georgetown University psychologist Daniel N. Robinson’s An Intellectual History of Psychology (1995) makes no mention of Newell or Simon. Perhaps this was because, as Newell and Simon explained, their study of thinking adopted a pointedly information processing perspective. Information processing: Thus entered the computer into this conversation. But, Newell and Simon hastened to clarify, they were not suggesting a metaphor of humans as computers. Rather, they would propose an information processing system (IPS) that would serve to describe and explain how humans “process task-oriented symbolic information.” In other words, human problem solving, in their view, is an instance of representing information as symbols and processing them.

This chapter chronicles the “transnationalization” of some of the law professoriate. It highlights the extent to which both faculty and students can study law in more than one country and legal system, transforming their knowledge of the world and their ability to be well-educated professionals by learning, teaching and developing transnational legal knowledge in different venues and with different teaching modalities. It also suggests that the globalization of legal education can occur domestically by study of international and transnational law in one’s own country, provided that classes, teaching materials, and modalities of education are diverse, both demographically and intellectually. Nevertheless, truly authentic transnational and comparative legal understanding should provide for some education to occur outside of one’s own home. The chapter reflects on the author’s own experiences of teaching in twenty-six countries, on five continents, and in several of the United States’ largest LLM programs. The chapter explains and illustrates how transnational legal education takes many forms, such as study abroad programs for students, domestic courses with diverse student bodies (including foreign graduate and undergraduate students, e.g. LLMs and JDs in the same class), faculty exchanges, international research projects and graduate law programs. Description of some programs are provided, such as Georgetown’s Center for Transnational Legal Studies (in London), INCAE (graduate program for legal studies in Central America), study abroad programs sponsored by more than one law school (e.g. in Argentina) and courses in transnational or globalized law in countries with many international (or “foreign” to the host country) students (e.g. NUS in Singapore and many others). The article concludes with a plea for contextually rich and professionally diverse transnational legal education. Transnational legal education is not only legal, it is cultural.

Bioethics, the study of moral and social issues rising from advances in medical technology, first entered the academy in the United States with the 1969 founding of the Hastings Center, followed the next year by the establishment of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics. At the Hastings Center, a private research establishment, projects in bioethics were conducted by tapping philosophers, lawyers, religious scholars, sociologists, and others from universities across the United States and abroad and disseminating the findings in the Hastings Center Report and similar venues; the Kennedy Institute, housed at Georgetown University, comprises philosophers working in bioethics, and publishes its own Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. Feminist theory, which identifies and criticises the power system of gender that systemically favours the interests of men over women and interacts with other power systems such as race and ableism, also entered the academy in the late 1960s. The two fields of study ran along side by side for over a decade until, in the early 1990s, feminist bioethics was born. This new field drew some of its impetus from the women’s health movement, which encouraged women to take more control over their own bodies, especially in the area of reproduction, and protested the medicalisation and commodification of women’s bodies. It also drew attention to the sexist biases in medical research and practice. Energised by this activism, feminist bioethics critiqued medical and bioethical theory and practice using sex, gender, and other oppressive mechanisms as categories of analysis aimed at dismantling abusive power systems. Feminist bioethicists pointed out that most of bioethics aimed to serve the interests of powerful white men – physicians, medical lawyers, hospital administrators, and the like – rather than looking at medical practice from the patient’s or family’s point of view. But in addition to such criticisms, feminist bioethicists developed theoretical frameworks for curbing practices of oppression in medicine and provided a venue for the neglected and marginalised others who are seldom represented in bioethics. The 1990s saw a steady stream of conferences, monographs, anthologies, and essays in learned journals that examine bioethical issues through a feminist lens. Susan Sherwin’s groundbreaking No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics & Health Care appeared in 1992, as did Helen Bequaert Holmes and Laura M. Purdy, eds., Feminist Perspectives in Medical Ethics, and Rebecca Dresser’s Hastings Center Report article, ‘Wanted: Single, White Male for Medical Research’. The International Network on Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, begun in 1993 by Anne Donchin and Helen Bequaert Holmes, two US feminists, had some 300 members worldwide and has sponsored biannual conferences in conjunction with the International Association of Bioethics. The year 1993 also saw the publication of Mary Mahowald’s Women and Children in Health Care: An Unequal Majority, and Susan Bordo’s Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. In 1995 the prestigious Kennedy Institute of Ethics devoted its Advanced Bioethics Course to feminist perspectives on bioethics, and the plenary lectures of that course were then published in a special issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, edited by Margaret Olivia Little. In 1996 the Journal of Clinical Ethics published special sections in each of its four issues on feminism and bioethics. Laura M. Purdy’s Reproducing Persons appeared that year as well, as did the much-cited anthology edited by Susan M. Wolf, Feminism and Bioethics: Beyond Reproduction, and Susan Wendell’s groundbreaking The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. These were followed in 1997 by the publication of Rosemarie Tong’s Feminist Approaches to Bioethics: Theoretical Reflections and Practical Applications, Dorothy Roberts’s influential Killing the Black Body, and Elizabeth Haiken’s Venus Envy, a feminist history of cosmetic surgery. In 1998 the Feminist Health Care Ethics Research Network published The Politics of Women’s Health: Exploring Agency and Autonomy, while the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy devoted an entire issue to the feminist ethic of care. Anne Donchin and Laura M. Purdy’s anthology, Embodying Bioethics: Feminist Advances, appeared in 1999, along with Eva Feder Kittay’s Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency. Textbooks and readers in bioethics now routinely include essays written from an explicitly feminist point of view. Much of that work consisted of feminist critique. It identified the ways in which hierarchical rankings that categorise people by race, sex, disability, age, ethnicity, or subject to genetic disease encourage oppressive discrimination in medical practice, research, and public health. It also critiqued nonfeminist bioethics for its bias in favour of socially powerful doctors, and for the abstract nature of its theory, which produced principles that allow that bioethics to ignore inequities among social groups, in particular, the oppressive burden borne by women in their reproductive and caring roles. A few, such as Mary Mahowald, also applied feminist epistemology to the doctor–patient relationship, showing how, even if physicians’ knowledge is epistemically privileged, patients can know more about how their bodies behave than doctors do. The work of feminist bioethicists gradually gained traction in bioethics textbooks and at conferences such as the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities and the International Association of Bioethics. But they were persistently underrepresented on government panels such as the President’s Commission on Bioethics and other bodies formulating public policy. They, and women in general, also continued to be underrepresented in medical research.

Abstract Since the catastrophic accident at the Cabin Creek penstock in Georgetown, CO on October 2, 2007 where five coating applicator’s lives were lost (Ref 1), the hydroelectric and water transmission industry has been looking for safer practices to line the interior of penstocks and other large diameter water pipes. In nearly all applications, owners and specifiers have required the use of 100% solids coatings as opposed to the previously used solvent borne coatings. Safety protocols have been established that limit the amount of solvent and other flammable liquids in the pipe. However, in most cases, the surface preparation and coating work is still performed with personnel in the pipes. One hydroelectric utility essentially eliminated the need for personnel to enter the pipe during the surface preparation and lining installation processes. BC Hydro in Vancouver, British Columbia developed coating work prerequisites that required contractors to develop surface preparation and lining installation methods that were automated, controlled, and monitored from outside the pipe. Entry into the pipe by workers was only needed for equipment set-up, adjustments, spent abrasive removal, and some quality control. This paper addresses the conceptual design process, describes the robotic equipment that was developed for the first project at BC Hydro Bridge River 2 Penstock 1, and the overall performance of the equipment. Lessons learned from the project implemented with automated equipment are also described.

Abstract Translational Corrosion Science, the subject of the SSPC 2015 presentation by the Department of Defense Corrosion (DoD) Prevention and Control Program, is a science-based process to accelerate the development and application of high-quality solutions to difficult material degradation problems, and to do so more economically. DoD has launched the translational corrosion science program, assisted by the National Defense University and Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, to fully develop the process concept and to implement the approach. In parallel with the development of this ground-breaking initiative, the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center; in collaboration with Georgetown University and the Army, Navy and Air Force Research Laboratories; will conduct research into the causes and impact of microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) of textiles in the triple canopy, moist and humid, tropical environment. The MIC research will be performed using translational corrosion science, and will serve as a “proof of concept” for that process. Thus, process development and implementation will be inextricably linked with proof of concept. This paper will briefly review the translational corrosion science objectives, the process to achieve these objectives, and the temporal and economic benefits to the material sustainment industry. It will document the development of the translational corrosion science approach and current progress. It will also describe the MIC research and development process and report results to date. Finally, it will detail the interaction between the translational corrosion science development process and the MIC proof of concept project, and explain the importance of these efforts to SSPC.

Breakthrough RESEARCH was USAID’s flagship social and behavior change (SBC) research and evaluation project to drive the generation, packaging, and use of innovative SBC research to inform programming. A six-year project (2017–2023), Breakthrough RESEARCH was led by the Population Council in collaboration with our consortium partners: Tulane University, Avenir Health, Population Reference Bureau, Institute for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University, and ideas42. This legacy resource highlights evidence, insights, and learnings over the past six years from Breakthrough RESEARCH’s work to advance provider behavior change (PBC) programming and fill critical PBC evidence gaps.