Publication Type: Symposium Paper
Abstract: This paper discusses initiatives undertaken by the University of Indianapolis that illustrate the power of Standard IV in directing and initiating growth in cultural competency for faculty and subsequently candidates. Initial discussions with faculty centered on understanding the unit's commitment to diversity and individual faculty member's definitions of and commitment to diversity. Led by a faculty member who teaches the diversity course sequence, an interactive session with faculty illustrated a need for them to identify their growth in cultural competency. Faculty began to see the types of questions and perceptions candidates might possess at each developmental level of the program and to also see themselves in this framework. One faculty member was funded to be trained in the use of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) and incorporated the IDI into the diversity course on a pre- and post-basis, identifying growth in the candidates. Faculty were then asked to take the inventory, which illustrated their growth along the developmental spectrum. Each faculty member anonymously received their individual scores and have continuously talked about the ramifications of those scores for their own professional development. Faculty have requested professional development, resources and activities that will assist them in furthering their own growth in cultural competency. This initiative, discussions of faculty self-reflections and the use of the IDI for faculty and candidate development will be the focus of the Standard IV discussion.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: *what do we want a theory of intelligence to do?*is there a place for both empirical and normative intelligence theory?*what would a useful theory of intelligence need to include?*how do theories of intelligence inform empirical research?*how do intelligence theories inform intelligence policy and practice?

Publication Type: Poster
Abstract: The validity of the CDISC-IV as a screener for mental health needs of juvenile offenders was assessed by comparison to diagnoses based on interviews conducted by experienced clinicians. Diagnostic agreement was low for both externalizing and internalizing disorders although rates of false negatives (i.e., failure of the CDISC to detect diagnoses made by clinicians) for anxiety and mood disorders were acceptably low. Results suggest the CDISC may be useful for screening for the latter disorders but raise concerns about its use as a screener for the full range of potential mental health problems of juvenile offenders.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: My study examines frame construction within `headscarf` issue and analyzes frame disputes between Secular Feminist and Orthodox Muslim women`s approaches toward headscarf ban in European society comparing with US society. Data was gathered through in-depth interviews with fifty secular feminist and fifty Orthodox Muslim women living in Massachusetts. This research will help us see the different symbols and images attached to headscarf in Turkish, French, German and US societies. This comparative study will demonstrate stereotypes, political and legal discussions over headscarf while filling the gap in the feminist literature. Unfortunately, there has been a gap in the gender-religion literature due to lack of communication and unity between two women groups. With this study, first time, Orthodox Muslim women and Secular feminist women together had a legal debate on headscarf ban including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, democracy, women's rights, educational and employmental rights of veiled Muslim women living in Europe and US.

Publication Type: Abstract
Abstract: This study explores the perspectives of community members opposed to a federal biolaboratory expansion at Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana. The biolaboratory expansion includes the construction of Biosafety Level IV laboratories, which are facilities equipped to study the most deadly infectious diseases known to man. The biolaboratory expansion is funded by federal bioterrorism research monies so that potential bioterrorist biological agents may be studied in this expanded facility.
High risk hazardous facilities are defined as those that rely on technology and evoke high levels of dread. Community reactions to high risk hazardous facilities, including hazardous waste, nuclear, and mining facilities, have been widely examined. However, community response to biolaboratories, potentially another type of a high risk hazardous facility, has yet to be examined. Thus, the purpose of this study is to explore the degree to which a biolaboratory may be perceived as another type of a high risk hazardous facility. This exploratory study examines if participants’ opposition to a biolaboratory reflects previous findings on community response to other types of high risk hazardous facilities.
In-depth interviews with 10 community members opposed to the biolaboratory expansion allowed me to explore their perspectives on this unexamined topic. The data collected from these in-depth interviews were analyzed by content analysis that included two stages: open coding and axial coding. The results of this process revealed that various themes were found to characterize participants’ opposition to the biolaboratory expansion. These multidimensional themes included a negative perception of the expansion approval process, distrust in institutional authority, a negative perception of potential risks, and distrust in the justification for bioterrorism research. Unidimensional themes included a negative perception of the equity of expansion and a perceived lack of economic benefits from expansion. However, the extent to which each theme influenced each participant’s opposition varied.
Participants’ opposition to the biolaboratory expansion was found to reflect other community responses to high risk hazardous facilities. Unlike previously determined community response to high risk hazardous facilities, participants’ opposition was characterized by a strong negative perception of the public process and questioning of bioterrorism research. Thus, the results of this exploratory suggest that to some extent community residents perceive biolaboratories as a unique type of a high risk hazardous facility.