Suchergebnisse

Communication in the time of COVID-19 : personal and administrative perspectives on the pandemic / Jim A. Kuypers -- Explaining turbulence, coping, and resilience in romantic relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic / Jennifer Theiss and Hannah Jones -- Family communication and the COVID-19 pandemic / Pamela J. Lannutti and Erin Sahlstein Parcell -- Nonverbal artifacts for protection : when aesthetics become armour / Marcus Hickson III and Don W. Stacks -- Health communication, relationships, and medicine : considerations for transformation and shifts in understanding from COVID-19 / Ashley P. Duggan and Elizabeth M. Glowacki -- "Some of you have never had the government ruin your plans and it shows" : understanding military-affiliated learner experiences during COVID-19 through uncertainty reduction theory / Victoria McDermott and Amy May -- Leading in a pandemic : the perspectives of communication administrators / Carl M. Cates, Deanna P. Dannels, Helen Tate, Timothy P. Mottet, Joseph P. Mazer, Sandra S. Harper, and Ann L. Darling -- The COVID-19 shuffle : a dance of adaptability and flexibility for instructional communication through perceived immediacy, teacher clarity, and teacher confirmation / Michelle Epstein Garland and Scott Christen.

"This edited collection focuses on how public communication practices and the communication discipline were impacted by the 2020-2022 COVID-19 Pandemic. By discussing a wide range of issues from nine disciplinary positions, ultimately, they are able to reveal key insights about the relationship between the pandemic and public human communication"--

Examining Moral Foundations and Framing in News Media Coverage of President Trump -- News Media Biases and the Framing of Issues and Events -- Moral Foundations and Journalistic Bias -- National Security -- The Economy -- The 2019 State of the American Union -- Immigration Reform -- Concluding Thoughts on Framing, Moral Foundations, the Press, and the American Republic.

Suitable for those wishing to learn about news framing, this guide moves empirical inquiry forward, edifies analysts of framing and producers of frames, fosters understanding among the various scholarly camps of framing scholars, and urges greater clarity from framing analysts in various aspects their empirical inquiry

In the spring of 2019, survey research was conducted at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), a large, public, Carnegie-classified R1 institution in southwest Virginia, to determine faculty perceptions of research assessment as well as how and why they use researcher profiles and research impact indicators. The Faculty Senate Research Assessment Committee (FSRAC) reported the quantitative and qualitative results to the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors to demonstrate the need for systemic, political, and cultural change regarding how faculty are evaluated and rewarded at the university for their research and creative projects. The survey research and subsequent report started a gradual process to move the university to a more responsible, holistic, and inclusive research assessment environment. Key results from the survey, completed by close to 500 faculty from across the university, include: a.) the most frequently used researcher profile systems and the primary ways they are used (e.g., profiles are used most frequently for showcasing work, with results indicating that faculty prefer to use a combination of systems for this purpose); b.) the primary reasons faculty use certain research impact indicators (e.g., number of publications is frequently used but much more likely to be used for institutional reasons than personal or professional reasons); c.) faculty feel that research assessment is most fair at the department level and least fair at the university level; and d.) faculty do not feel positively towards their research being assessed for the allocation of university funding.

In the spring of 2019, survey research was conducted at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), a large, public, Carnegie-classified R1 institution in southwest Virginia, to determine faculty perceptions of research assessment as well as how and why they use researcher profiles and research impact indicators. The Faculty Senate Research Assessment Committee (FSRAC) reported the quantitative and qualitative results to the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors to demonstrate the need for systemic, political, and cultural change regarding how faculty are evaluated and rewarded at the university for their research and creative projects. The survey research and subsequent report started a gradual process to move the university to a more responsible, holistic, and inclusive research assessment environment. Key results from the survey, completed by close to 500 faculty from across the university, include: a.) the most frequently used researcher profile systems and the primary ways they are used (e.g., profiles are used most frequently for showcasing work, with results indicating that faculty prefer to use a combination of systems for this purpose); b.) the primary reasons faculty use certain research impact indicators (e.g., number of publications is frequently used but much more likely to be used for institutional reasons than personal or professional reasons); c.) faculty feel that research assessment is most fair at the department level and least fair at the university level; and d.) faculty do not feel positively towards their research being assessed for the allocation of university funding.

In the spring of 2019, survey research was conducted at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), a large, public, Carnegie-classified R1 institution in southwest Virginia, to determine faculty perceptions of research assessment as well as how and why they use researcher profiles and research impact indicators. The Faculty Senate Research Assessment Committee (FSRAC) reported the quantitative and qualitative results to the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors to demonstrate the need for systemic, political, and cultural change regarding how faculty are evaluated and rewarded at the university for their research and creative projects. The survey research and subsequent report started a gradual process to move the university to a more responsible, holistic, and inclusive research assessment environment. Key results from the survey, completed by close to 500 faculty from across the university, include: a.) the most frequently used researcher profile systems and the primary ways they are used (e.g., profiles are used most frequently for showcasing work, with results indicating that faculty prefer to use a combination of systems for this purpose); b.) the primary reasons faculty use certain research impact indicators (e.g., number of publications is frequently used but much more likely to be used for institutional reasons than personal or professional reasons); c.) faculty feel that research assessment is most fair at the department level and least fair at the university level; and d.) faculty do not feel positively towards their research being assessed for the allocation of university funding. ; Published version

This book examines issues such as fake news, media bias, visual meme depictions of the candidates, and social media as news during the 2016 presidential campaign. The contributors offer insights into how the campaign coverage affected the health of the American republic.