your topic is : Race.

1. Think of a research question or topic you would be interested in exploring using one in-depth interview(race). Write a semi-structured interview guide with questions designed to provide insight on your research topic (about 10 substantive questions that should produce open-ended answers). The interview should last about 30-45 minutes.
2. Select a friend or family member to interview using your interview guide. This should be a person with knowledge or experience relating to the topic of your research interest. Explain to your respondent that you are conducting an assignment for a course, and ask permission to audio-record the interview. If permission is not granted or you don’t have access to a voice recorder (many phones have this feature), then take very good notes!
3. During the interview, ask questions that elicit your respondent’s perspectives and experiences. Ask for specific, concrete examples of the points they make, and follow any “leads” by asking appropriate follow-up questions (that may not be in the interview guide you developed). Observe the interviewee and pay attention to how they respond.
4. Immediately following the interview, make jottings of key observations, such as the respondent’s body language, the interview setting, interesting or surprising comments from the respondent, or other rich details. Normally, a researcher would transcribe their interviews, but you are not required to do so for this assignment.
5. In your essay (2 pages), describe your research question or topic and explain how you chose your interview respondent. Describe your interview respondent, and your relationship to this person. Briefly describe the questions you asked the respondent. Reflecting on the interview, answer the following: How did your interview respondent shed light on your research question or topic? Did the respondent reveal insights that would be difficult to shed light on through a standard survey? Are there any findings that stood out? Did anything surprise you based on what you had expected to hear? How might any differences between your own and the respondents’ social categories (e.g., age, socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, etc.) have shaped respondent’s answers to your questions?

Introduction:

As healthcare administrators, there are a number of legal and ethical issues that may need your consideration.

Review the following case study and address the questions that follow:

From 1930 to 1960, about 5,000 patients at Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, located in Chicago, Illinois, were treated with x-ray therapy for some benign conditions of the head and neck. Among them was Joel Blaz, now a citizen of Florida, who received this treatment for infected tonsils and adenoids while he was a child in Illinois from 1947 through 1948. He has suffered various tumors, which he now attributes to this treatment. Blaz was diagnosed with a neural tumor in 1987.

In 1974, Michael Reese set up the Thyroid Follow-Up Project to gather data and conduct research among the people who had been subjected to the x-ray therapy. In 1975, the program notified Blaz by e-mail that he was at increased risk of developing thyroid tumors because of the treatment. In 1976, someone associated with the program gave him similar information on a phone call and invited him to return to Michael Reese for evaluation and treatment at his own expense, which he declined to do.

Dr. Arthur Schneider was placed in charge of the program in 1977. In 1979, Schneider and Michael Reese submitted a research proposal to the National Institutes of Health stating that a study based on the program showed “strong evidence” of a connection between x-ray treatments of the sort administered to Blaz and various sorts of tumors: thyroid, neural, and others. In 1981, Blaz received but did not complete or return a questionnaire attached to a letter from Schneider in connection with the program. The letter stated that the purpose of the questionnaire was to “investigate the long-term health implications” of childhood radiation treatments and to “determine the possible associated risks.” It did not say anything about “strong evidence” of a connection between the treatments and any tumors.

In 1996, after developing neural tumors, Blaz sued Michael Reese’s successor, Galen Hospital in Illinois, and Dr. Schneider, alleging, among other things, that they failed to notify and warn him of their findings and that he might be at a greater risk of neural tumors in a way that might have permitted their earlier detection and removal or other treatment. There is a clear duty to warn the subject of previously administered radiation treatments when there is a strong connection between those treatments and certain kinds of tumors. The harm alleged, neural and other tumors would here be reasonably foreseeable as a likely consequence of the failure to warn and was in fact foreseen by Schneider.

A reasonable physician, indeed any reasonable person, could foresee that if someone was warned of “strong evidence” of a connection between treatments to which he or she had been subjected and tumors, he or she would probably seek diagnosis or treatment and perhaps avoid these tumors, and if he or she was not warned, then he or she probably would not seek diagnosis or treatment, increasing the likelihood that he or she would suffer from such tumors. Other things being equal, therefore, a reasonable physician would warn the subject of the treatments.

Tasks:

• Discuss the preventative measures that should be taken to prevent recurrence of such cases.

As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format.

Your initial posting should be addressed at 300–500 words. Submit your document to this Discussion Area by the due date assigned. Be sure to cite your sources using APA format.

Competency

Explain the purpose and process of observation and assessment to inform planning.

Instructions

This assignment focuses on the Cycle of Knowledge. Reflect on your knowledge and think critically about how it can be applied to your practice. In a 2-3 page paper, written in APA format, please answer the following questions:

1. What is the Cycle of Knowledge?
2. What are the advantages of using the Cycle of Knowledge? Include at least two (2) points which you believe are integral to a child’s developmental progress.
3. What are the challenges?
4. How can the Cycle of Knowledge guide your work as a teacher and/or leader in the field of early childhood education? This component should be at least one (1) paragraph in length and include how you will “test your hypothesis” or experiment with this practice in your work as an early childhood practitioner. Be sure to include detailed information about an age level you are currently working with or want to work with in the future, citing planning procedures you will implement.

Your paper should reflect proper spelling and grammar as well as include a References page containing at least two (2) credible references (either from the articles/readings in the Module or from your own research on the topic).

All information sources and in-text citations must be done in APA format. Rasmussen College Library and Learning Services has developed a guide to assist you.

Before 11:59p on Tue, review the following radio clips, and submit your work as directed below (Cut and paste the URLs into your search line):

• thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2008-08-28/philip-dine-state-unions-mcgraw-hill
• WAMU-NPR: The Diane Rehm Show: Phil Dine State of the Unions (9/1/2008)
• thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-02/collective-bargaining
• WAMU-NPR: The Diane Rehm Show: Collective Bargaining (3/2/2011)

Weekly assignments must be written in the following format (Weekly Written Assignment Format_715.docx) and students must address the following with NO REPEATS below:

• Identify one positive specific fact from each story above.
• Identify one negative specific fact from each story above.
• Identify one interesting specific fact from each story above.
• Link a theory/concept from Chapters 5 & 6 to specific facts in the stories above (2 Total—Cite page and chapter numbers–each chapter MUST be utilized…one per story!). I HAVE ATTACHED BOTH CHAPTERS
• Identify the theory/concept and define/explain it.
• Briefly describe its linkage to the specific fact(s) within each story.