In 2014, a US college created a policy requiring faculty to provide trigger warnings for students. This spurred a heated debate among faculty, students, and administrators across North America regarding the need for and efficacy of trigger warnings in the classroom. The present study sought to clearly define arguments put forth in this debate and to determine the distribution of these arguments across stakeholder groups. A content analysis of the comments sections associated with 16 online articles on the topic of trigger warnings (over 1,600) from two higher education journals (Inside Higher Ed; Chronicle of Higher Education) during the timeframe of September 2014 to October 2015 was performed using qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. These comments were categorized in a way that provided some insight to the tone of the debate and opinions from students, student survivors, professors, professor survivors, as well as many others who did not identify their role were gleaned. Further, policy implications and recommendations for best practices regarding the use of trigger warnings in higher education were drawn.
Findings concerning opinions against trigger warnings included concerns about academic freedom, infantilization of students, and unfair responsibility for professors; whereas findings in favour of their use included promotion of positive pedagogical values, recognition of human courtesy, and supporting student mental health. These findings will help to inform pedagogical practices that support survivors of trauma and empower students to determine their own exposure to potentially traumatic materials, particularly for social work learning, and lay the foundations for future research on specific best practices in higher education classrooms.
China, the world’s second-largest economy growing at 7% annually, is transitioning from factory floor to innovation powerhouse. Leading Chinese companies seek to become some of the world’s most reputable and preeminent brands. Among many trends shaping growth and creating new opportunities in China, government policy has been, and continues to be the critical shaping force. “Mass entrepreneurship and innovation”, as well as the advancement of corporate social responsibility (CSR), are key planks of the government’s plan to drive growth and harmonious integration of Chinese companies into the broader global market.
Dr. Xue Han and Dr. Liyun Qi, experts respectively in innovation policy and corporate social responsibility in China, will offer special guest talks on these topics at Lakehead University Orillia.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
7 - 9 p.m.
For the full event poster, please click here.
Panel II: Understanding Food (In)Security
Time: 11:30 a.m. - 1p.m.
Room: OA 1025
- Dr. Ritika Shrimali, “Food Sovereignty Praxis: Struggles for Food Security in Asia”
- Yvonne Kelly, Social Planning Council of York Region, and Tracy Woloshyn, York Region, “Growing Income Inequality, Food Insecurity and the Evolution of a Two-Tiered Food System”
Panel I: Poverty and Civic Engagement
Time: 10 - 11:30 a.m.
Room: OA 2019
- Dr. Jennifer Jarman, Department of Sociology, Lakehead University, “Why should we care about Social Inequality?”
- Jane Shrestha, Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit, “No Money or food is Cent$less”
- Dr. Barb Parker, Department of Sociology, Lakehead University, “Assessing food insecurity among Lakehead food bank users”
Social Justice: Student Poster Display
Time: 8:30 - 10 a.m.
Room: OA 2008
Tuesday, March 20
7 - 9 p.m.
Time: 1 - 2:30 p.m.
Room: Main floor Simcoe Hall