Universities are under increasing pressure both internally and externally to demonstrate student learning outcomes generally and in the liberal arts and social sciences specifically. Internally, students and others often complain about the lack of direct connection between what they learn in the classroom and what happens, or what they perceive happens, in the real world. In addition, universities are often required to demonstrate to state and federal authorities the value of liberal arts and social science education. In this study, we use indepth interviews to demonstrating the value of an Applied Research Center (ARC) to help communicate value to stakeholders, close learning gaps, and foster university-community partnerships. Our findings suggest that an ARC can play an integral role in reinforcing student learning outcomes, increasing student career success, and establish disciplinary value to a variety of constituents.

This sociological study aimed to ascertain the percentage of adults living in the United States who have experienced religious trauma (RT) and what percentage presently suffer from RT symptoms now. After compiling data from 1,581 adults living in the United States, this study concludes it is likely that around one-third (27‒33%) of U.S. adults (conservatively) have experienced religious trauma at some point in their life. That number increases to 37% if those suffering from any three of the six major RT symptoms are included. It is also likely that around 10‒15% of U.S. adults currently suffer from religious trauma if only the most conservative numbers are highlighted. Nonetheless, since 37% of the respondents personally know people who potentially suffer from RT, and 90% of those respondents know between one and ten people who likely suffer from RT, then it could be argued that as many as one-in-five (20%) U.S. adults presently suffer from major religious trauma symptoms.

In order to successfully achieve intended outcomes, mentorship models must be able to provide their target population with opportunities to gain entrée into their prospective field, the tools necessary for navigating new spaces, and a community that supports one’s transition into these new roles. On their own, neither dyadic nor peer mentorship models are likely to achieve all of these goals. Although the current trend in mentorship is to provide participants with a single avenue of support, our findings emphasize a need for achievement programs to provide access to multiple sources of support and create a framework that anchor these sources together. This paper demonstrates the importance of utilizing multiple forms of mentorship as it positively impacts underserved populations transition into dominant roles by giving them the resources to build the capital necessary to thrive in more dominant spaces. Discipline experts provide the field-specific details, peers create a supportive environment, and dedicated staff cultivates the program’s flow to ensure students can develop professionalization.

This paper explores the influence of social context, class, and ideology on attitudes toward immigrants in the US. Using the conceptual frames of heterophobia and resource competition, we hypothesize that between 1996 and 2014 attitudes toward immigrants would become increasingly negative because of changes in the social context, in particular the growth in the number and diversity of immigrants. We also hypothesize that people in more precarious labor market positions, without a college education, and with a conservative religious ideology will have more negative attitudes toward immigrants. Using the General Social Survey at three points in time (1996, 2004, and 2014), we find mixed support for our hypotheses. Attitudes toward immigrants became more positive in the overall sample, but more negative for religious fundamentalists. Religious ideology and education were better predictors of attitudes toward immigrants than employment status and self-identified class. In general, the data show more support for the heterophobia explanation for negative attitudes than the resource competition explanation.

No abstract