The Civil War and Reconstruction - 1315 Words

Reconstruction The main issue between the states that seceded from the Union and those that remained in the former unity was that of states rights, of which the right for citizens to own slaves was of primary concern. It is often argued that one or the other was the main reason for the conflict, but they both played a major part because the people of the Northern United States and the Southern states of the nation lived such different lives. It is true that people in the North had owned slaves until very recently in the nineteenth century, but that time had passed and Northern states had rescinded the rights of humans to own other humans (especially in the chattel sense because people still had servants who were essentially slaves though they were paid a miniscule wage), as if it ever was a right. The Civil War commenced, and it was found that cause and the better ability to kill (Northern soldiers died at a rate two times that of Southern soldiers), was superseded by industry and in genuity. Since the states in the South had been devastated by the War, it was deemed that the victorious but beneficent North would attempt to reconstruct the South into a more compliant neighbor. Thus, carpet-baggers were sent South to establish some order, and laws were enacted by the US Congress to ensure the rights of all people in the region. This paper discusses the reconstruction of the South while paying specific attention to the political, social and economic realities that came toShow MoreRelatedReconstruction Of The Civil War1108 Words   |  5 PagesAmerica’s Mindset Although the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Reconstruction brought great hope to America’s four million former slaves, the efforts of Congressional Reconstruction ultimately failed to establish equal rights for the freedmen because the racist mindset still dominated American society at the time and Democratic influence steadily overcame Republican control in Congress. Despite the Union’s victory, the end of the Civil War brought many significant national problemsRead MoreReconstruction Of The Civil War951 Words   |  4 PagesHistory 11 7 May 2015 Reconstruction In the beginning of 1865, the Civil War came to a close, abandoning over 620,000 dead and a destructive path of devastating all over the south. The North now was confronted with the task of reconstructing the destroyed and aggrieved Confederate states. On April 11, two days after Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s submission, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his last public address, during which he designated a merciful Reconstruction plans and encouraged sympathyRead MoreReconstruction Of The Civil War847 Words   |  4 Pages Microtheme One - Reconstruction The Reconstruction happened in period following the end of the American Civil and the main goal was to reintegrate the Southern Confederate States back into the Union after they had been defeated by the Union (Northern States). As would be expected, the process was met with many challenges as the interests of both groups had to be addressed. There was debate over the terms under which the Confederate States would be allowed back into the Union, and whether it wasRead MoreThe Civil War And Reconstruction977 Words   |  4 Pagescalled the Reconstruction period â€Å"America’s Second Revolution†, his characterization was correct. Reconstruction can be viewed as a revolution because the previous social order, slavery, was replaced suddenly by a more favorable one, freedom for African-Americans. There was a long period of politicization for incorporating free African-Americans into white society. Reconstruction also revolutionized the preconceived notion that the states ha d autonomous power. The Civil War and Reconstruction were revolutionaryRead MoreReconstruction Of The Civil War1560 Words   |  7 PagesPrior to the Civil War, the United States’ economy was essentially agricultural based; slavery in the South was the key player in its prosperous economy. Hence, it is no wonder the South stood in defense of slavery’s permanence when challenged with the demand for abolition. The Southern proslavery Confederate states fought against the Northern antislavery Union states during the Civil War. The Union prevailed in the war and once the Confederates seceded and left the United States with a new predicament:Read MoreThe Civil War : The Reconstruction1398 Words   |  6 PagesThe civil war ended in 1865 and what followed was a kerfuffle, otherwise known as â€Å"The Reconstruction.† This was a period of violence and turbulent controversy ranging from racial issues to economic problems. In the book Reconstruction, Eric Foner wrote that â€Å"When the Civil War ended, the white South genuinely accepted the reality of military defeat, stood ready to do justice to the emancipated slaves, and desired above all a quick reintegration into the fabric of national life. Before his deathRead MoreCivil War Reconstruction1031 Words   |  5 PagesThe period after the Civil War was a very difficult time in the United States history. This time was known as the Reconstruction period and it was a very controversial time. There were many issues that had to be addressed such as what to do with the free blacks in the south and how states would be readmitted to the Union. This era saw the rise of the Radical Republicans. The government was going through changes, southerners were going through changes, and blacks were going through changes. WhitesRead MoreReconstruction Of The Civil War1054 Words   |  5 Pages As the civil war was ending many people could see that the odds of th e north winning increased dramatically however many people can argue this idea based on the several events that took place during the second phase of the civil war. Carl Schurz concluded, â€Å"The Civil War was a revolution, but half accomplished.†(Roark et al 434) Reconstruction started before the civil war ended until 1877, when people of the United States tried figuring out how to put the country back together. Many people hadRead MoreThe Civil War And Reconstruction1357 Words   |  6 PagesCivil War/ Reconstruction - Following the Civil War, the United States underwent a huge process of reconstruction to unifying and reconstructing the war-torn state. The nation still remained utterly divided between North and South in essentially all aspects of life including religion, race, and government. President Andrew Johnson,who succeeded President Abraham Lincoln enacted various policies in order to unite the country. These policies included friendly policies that pardon ed Southerners whileRead MoreReconstruction Of The Civil War879 Words   |  4 PagesThe Civil War can be described as one of the bloodiest and gruesome war ever fought on American soil. The Civil War was fought between the Union and the Confederates. The Civil War lasted for 5 years and during that 5 year period many people ended up dying, 620,000 people to be exact and millions injured, but while the numbers can be appalling; it isn t even the beginning. The war led a schism to happen in the U.S, the whole country was divided and devastated. Abraham Lincoln the president who

Gender and Power Relations in Browning’s Porphria’s Lover...

Gender and Power Relations in Browning’s Porphria’s Lover and My Last Duchess Robert Browning provides a critical view of gender and power relations in his dramatic monologues â€Å"Porphyria’s Lover† and â€Å"My Last Duchess.† The dramatic monologue, as S.S. Curry has written, reveals the struggle in the depths of the soul† (11). Browning delves into the minds of characters to show their conceptions of women and ideas of power. He explores the mental processes of the characters, and invites readers to question societal ideas of power and gender. The mental pathologies of the speakers is emphasized, which forces readers to examine the sanity of their own notions of gender dynamics. In the Victorian age, the idea of separate†¦show more content†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"In men, in general, sexual desire is inherent and spontaneous† whereas â€Å"in the other sex, the desire is dormant, if not non-existent, till excited† (457). Greg’s terminology is extremely power-laden. â€Å"Spontaneous† has the connotation of energy and activity, whereas â€Å"dormant† and â€Å"victim† imply inactivity. An important concept is the assumption that men, the â€Å"coarser sex,† act on women, the â€Å"weaker sex† (457). Like prostitutes, the women in â€Å"Porphyria’s Lover† and â€Å"My Last Duchess† also violate traditional gender roles. For that reason, the men take it upon themselves to bring the power relation back to that of convention, where men are bearers of power and have control in relationships. The means by which this power reversion is accomplished, however, are subject to examination. Foucault’s theories are helpful in understanding â€Å"Porphyria’s Lover.† In the poem, the male character, who is the narrator, perceives himself to elicit a confession from the woman. Inherent in the idea of confession are power dynamics. Confession is â€Å"...a ritual that unfolds within a power relationship, for one does not confess without the presence (or virtual presence) of a partner who is not simply the interlocutor but the authority who requires the confession...† (Foucault 61). Confession is a socially-constructed process in which it is necessary to have a mediator as well as a confessor. In

Free Radiology Research Study Critique Free Essays

Critique: Research Study Radiology 1. Citation Upton, D. Upton , P. We will write a custom essay sample on Free Radiology Research Study Critique or any similar topic only for you Order Now (2006). Knowledge and Use of Evidence-based practice by allied health and health science professionals in the United Kingdom. Journal of Allied Health, 35:3, 127-133 2. Study Purpose The following critically reviews a paper by Upton and Upton (2006), concerned with clinical effectiveness (CE) and evidence-based practice (EBP) and the differences between them amongst different professional groups. It compares 14 different groups in terms of how they understand and implement CE and EBP. Evidence-based practice is the application by health care professionals of the most appropriate research evidence to clinical situations, taking into account the whole context in which they operate, including the client’s needs (Hoffman et al 2009). Clinical effectiveness, according to the Department of Health (1996) is â€Å"the extent to which specific clinical interventions, when deployed in the field for a particular patient or population, do what they are intended to do† (DoH 1996; cited Hamer and Collinson 2005).Upton and Upton suggest that the differences between these concepts in different fields has, so far, been under researched. 3. Literature Upton and Upton’s literature review is fairly short, and forms part of the introduction. While it might be slightly clearer to separate this out from other areas covered in the introduction, this seems a fairly standard academic practice. The review does not explain what either CE or EBP are, nor of the history of the terms. While this might be superfluous to the paper, and while the author’s might assume the expected audience will be familiar with the terms already, the term, EBP, for example is, to some extent, ambiguous (Roberts and Yeager 2004), and a statement here, rather than later of the definition used would have been welcome. The bulk of the review looks at existing research which explores â€Å"the views and knowledge of health care professionals toward EBP† (Upton and Upton 2006), pointing out that they mainly concern medical practitioners, with fewer looking at others including McCaughan et al (2002) (nurses) and Iqbal and Glenny (2002) (dental practitioners). They discuss the studies which, like theirs, do compare different professions (Palfreyman et al 2004; Metcalfe et al 2001). These find common features and differences between the groups: nurses, for example, rate their EBP abilities lower than physiotherapists. Not only are existing studies, few, their scope is limited and omits key areas of interest. As such the literature review provides a good justification for Upton and Upton’s study, by showing the deficit of existing research. However, as an overview of the concepts of EBP and CE it is less successful. In addition it does not suggest a theoretical model to shape and give depth to the study, for example one which predicts differences between professional groups, like that of Gawlinski and Rutledge (2008), who suggest that different models of EBP meet different needs of differing clinical environments. 4. Approach and Methodology The authors do not explicitly discuss the paradigm under which their research was carried out, and their ‘methodology’ section is only one paragraph. A paradigm is the approach to the research taken by researchers. Johnson and Christensen (2010) suggest that there are three major paradigms, qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods, each of which embraces a set of assumptions about epistemology and the nature of reality. Upton and Upton’s approach is quantitative, empiricist and positivist. Positivism was established by Comte in the early 19th Century, and assumes that the world is objective of human experience, and knowable through our senses.Empiricism is concerned with factual data, and empirical research’s ideal method is the scientific method, whereby clear hypotheses are formulated prior to research and are designed to be tested against empirical evidence. Data is primarily numerical, and outcomes are objective and measurable. This approach contras ts with a qualitative, interpretivist approach, which deals with text, subjectivity and the richness of experience (Tappen 2010). Given that Upton and Upton want to investigate an under-researched area, it is understandable why they used a quantitative approach, as it allows them to investigate a larger data set and draw more generalisable conclusions, and also give scope for assessing statistical significance. However, a qualitative approach would have allowed them to look in more detail at how different types of practitioner experienced EBP and CE, which would have added richness to the study. 5. Sample Again, there is relatively little detail given by the authors here. They tell us that 1000 members of Allied Healthcare Professions (AHP) and Health Science Services (HSS) were selected, and that the sample represents the proportions of each practicing in the UK. While they assure us that ‘specific statistical methods were used to establish sample size’, there is little discussion of what these were or why they were selected over other possible methods. The authors are informative about the response rate (66.6%), and add that most were female, but there are other details about the sample which are not discussed, and which might have been useful to know. For example, how were participants contacted, and what was the wording used to ask them to take part There is potential for bias here, if the method of contact attracted practitioners who had had either predominantly bad or good experiences of EBP or CE. Postal questionnaires were used, and here the authors do discuss alt ernative methods, and give a reasonable justification for their choice. In addition, although the authors discuss gender, it might have been interesting to know more about participants. Was there bias towards older or younger respondents, or towards one or other social class They suggest there is a bias towards women, but as this represents the breakdown between men and women in the occupations overall, this does not seem to present a particular problem. 6. Data Collection Data was collected by questionnaire, distributed by post. The authors used a questionnaire that had already been developed and tested, by Upton and Lewis (1998). Therefore the reliability and validity (whether the questionnaire gives the same results repeatedly, over time, and whether it tests what it sets out to test: Babbie 2008) had already been established. They also distinguish between content and face validity, and confirm that both are good for the questionnaire. Face validity is weaker than content validity, and confirms simply that an instrument seems to measure what it is intended to measure. Content validity covers the â€Å"full domain of the concept† and whether it measures all this domain (Rubin 2011). Upton and Upton give a fairly good breakdown of the content of the questionnaire, dividing their discussion into the sections contained in it, including demographics, respondent knowledge of CE and EBP, the extent to which respondents practice different aspects of CE and EBT, and barriers to implementation of EBP. For each, they explain the ways in which each aspect were assessed using an appropriate instrument.What is missing here is any discussion of why these instruments were selected over alternatives, and whether alternatives exist. Although Upton and Lewis’s (1998) instrument seems well regarded, there are also the ‘Evidence-Based Practice Beliefs Scale’ and ‘Evidence-Based Practice Implementation Scale’s (Melnyk et al 2008), and the ‘Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (Aarons, 2004), for example (Rice et al 2010). The authors give more detail about how participants were contacted here, via a ‘publicity notice’. This might give rise to bias, however, as those who were motivated to take part might well have stronger opinions about EBP and CE and want to express these. Other selection methods might have been considered. There is also no information about the length of time taken to distribute and collect the questionnaires, nor how long the respondents were given to complete them. A longer time might have led to more detailed results, but also to the possibility of other influences effecting responses. Because the questionnaires were distributed by post, there also seems to be little provision for dealing with problems which might be encountered by respondents while completing their forms. 7. Results and Discussion The authors present their results in some detail, using both tables and written presentation, which makes the data easier to understand.Although they mention that the response rate was high, at 66.6%, some more detail about drop out rates would have been welcome here. For example, did the 66.6% represent the proportion of people who completed the full survey, or just a part of the survey? The authors divide the discussion by question type, looking in turn at ‘knowledge of concepts and principles of CE and EBP’, ‘Reported use of EBP’, ‘Acting on evidence from a variety of sources’, and ‘barriers to the application of EBP’. This allows clarity in the discussion. They also explain the details of the results well, with a logical pattern of explanation. For example, they say that overall, knowledge of CE and EBP was low, and then give more detail showing there are clear distinctions between different professions, with more psychologists and physiotherapists rating their knowledge in the ‘high’ category than other professions including podiatrists and speech therapists. The authors also back up the intuitive reading of the results with statistical analyses, and note the drawback that small cell numbers in some cases prevent such a confirmation. For reported use of EBP, there are again differences between the professional groups, with a particular link between frequency with which gaps in knowledge are identified and profession. Other key findings in this, and subsequent sections, are clearly reported. There is a separate table for each sub-section of the questionnaire, and each is clear and easy to read. Because the tables (perhaps because of space constraints) summarise information across both the range of professions and for each aspect rated, it is not immediately obvious which professions are ranked higher for each aspect. Also, the tables summarise the aspects rather than using the verbatim wording, for example â€Å"monitoring own practice† and â€Å"critical analysis†. It might have been interesting to see the actual wording used in the questionnaire. In addition, while statistical information is presented more fully in the text, key information is missing from the tables, for example standard deviation in table 4. Similarly also, the discussion of ‘knowle dge of the concepts and principles of CE and EBP’ includes a description of statistical tests including a one-way analysis of variance, but these results are not presented in the tables. Even though the author’s sample size is relatively high, some cells were so small that certain categories had to be removed from the analysis, for example, orthoptists for ‘reported use of EBP’. This is unfortunate, as it means the full range of professions cannot be assessed for this category. The authors also present a detailed and intelligent discussion of what the results mean.Their conclusions seem to be backed up by the results, for example, their initial claim that there are â€Å"some differences between professional groups in terms of knowledge base and self-reported use of CE and EBP†: this was discussed in the earlier results section. This summary is initially concerned to draw out key themes from the results section. They first suggest that while both HSS and AHP groups have low levels of knowledge, the lowest levels were from professionals from HSS groups. As well as reporting this, they suggest that this is due to the relatively recent introduction of the concept to these professionals, as well as differences in the extent to which each group are involved in day-to-day care of patients.This is interesting, but might the discussion might have had more depth had the differences between HSS and AHP been brought out in more detail during the literature revi ew. They also do not give references for their claims about the differences between HSS and AHP groups, so there is no context for their discussion. However, this is a valuable discussion, as it suggests that part of the problem is the lack of an evidence base for certain professions including radiographers and podiatrists. This insight could be used to generate new practice in these professions.There are similarly useful discussions of other areas of the findings, for example the differences between groups’ ratings of EBP skills. The authors suggest that psychologists, for example, rate their skills higher due to a different emphasis put upon a degree during training. This again throws a useful light upon possible revisions to the way professions are managed. However, Upton and Upton’s discussion here is again marred by lack of reference to any other academic sources. This fruitful area must, surely, have already attracted academic discussion One positive here is tha t Upton and Upton do not simply stick to one possible explanation, but consider others, for example that respondents rating of their skills does not match their actual skill level. Their discussions of other areas, for example application of EBP and barriers to its uptake, also display positive and negative features; bringing out key aspects of the results well, and providing interesting interpretations of these results, but with less referencing and relating the results to other academic research than might be useful. Overall, there could have been a little more discussion of overall themes that arose across sections, for example the need for better management of different professions with more uniform integration of EBP, and improved training in its use. One final, positive point about the results and subsequent discussion is that the authors talk about methodological drawbacks, including those related to postal surveys (respondents may be less honest than with other research methods).They do not, however, consider other possible limitations, for example the lack of any qualitative data, which might have given a richer perspective on what respondents felt emotionally about using EBP and CE. They also do not discuss relationship of the data to any overarching theoretical framework, which might also have added depth to the study. 9. Conclusion and Clinical Implications The author’s conclusion is perhaps rather short. They simply summarise their key finding, that there are ‘very apparent differences in the knowledge and use of CE and EBP by members of the AHP and HSS’, and that there were other, discipline-related, differences. This brevity is somewhat disappointing. They do not consider any practical implications for the research, nor whether it would be appropriate for AHP and HSS members to show equal levels of awareness and use of CE and EBP. Also, they do not make any suggestions for further research, although as they earlier remarked that there is a lack of study in this area, there is a clear need for such research, perhaps investigating differences between professions further, or looking at ways knowlegge and use of CE and EBP can be increased overall. To summarise this paper, a critical analysis of a study by Upton and Upton (2006) has been presented, looking at all aspects of their work from introduction to discussion and conclusion. This is a paper with many interesting and well presented areas, but there are some negative points and areas which could be improved. References Aarons, G A (2004) ‘Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence based practice: The evidence-based practice attitude scale (EBPAS)’, Mental Health Services Research, 6, 61-74 Babbie, E R (2008) The basics of social research (4th edn.) Cengage Learning, USA. Department of Health (1996) Promoting clinical effectiveness a framework for action in and through the NHS, Department of Health, UK Gawlinski, A and Rutledge, D (2008) ‘Selecting a model for evidence-based practice changes: a practical approach’, AACN Adv Crit Care, 19:3, 291-300. Hamer, S and Collinson, G (2005) Achieving evidence-based practice: a handbook for practitioners (2nd edn.) Elsevier Health Sciences, Philadelphia PA. Hoffman, T, Bennett, S and Del Mar, C (2009) Evidence-Based Practice Across the Health Professions, Elsevier Australia, Australia. Iqbal, A and Glenny A, M (2002) ‘General dental practitioners knowledge of and attitudes towards evidence based practice’, Br Dent J, 193, 587–591 McCaughan, D, Thompson, C, and Cullum, N (2002) ‘Acute care nurses’ perceptions of barriers to using research information in clinical decision- making’, J Adv Nurs 39:46–60. Melnyk, B M, Fineout-Overholt, E, Mays, M Z (2008) ‘The evidence-based practice beliefs and implementation scales: Psychometric properties of two new instruments’, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 4, 208-216. Metcalfe, CR, Lewin S, and Wisher S (2001) ‘Barriers to implementing the evidence base in four NHS therapies: dieticians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists’, Physiotherapy87:433–441. Palfreyman, S, Tod, A and Doyle, J (2004) ‘Comparing evidence-based practice of nurses and physiotherapists’, Br J Nurs, 1:246–253. Rice, K, Hwang, J, Abrefa-Gyan, T and Powel, K (2010) ‘Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a Social Work Sample’, Advances in Social Work, 11:2, 158-173 Roberts, A R and Yeager, K (2004) Evidence-based practice manual: research and outcome measures in health and human services, Oxford University Press, Oxon. Rubin, A (2011) Practitioner’s Guide to Using Research for Evidence-Based Practice, John Wiley and Sons, USA Tappen, R (2010) Advanced Nursing Research: From Theory to Practice, Jones Bartlett Learning, Sudbury MA Upton, D and Lewis BK (1998) ‘Evidence based practice: a questionnaire to assess knowledge, attitudes and practice’, Br J Ther Rehabil, 5, 647–650 How to cite Free Radiology Research Study Critique, Free Research Paper Samples