Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection

In the United States, clinical testing is monitored by the federal and state governments, held to standards to ensure the safety and efficacy of these tests, as well as maintaining privacy for patients receiving a test. In order for the ABCTL to lawfully operate in the state of Arizona, it had to meet various legal criteria. These major legal considerations, in no particular order, are: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments compliance; FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA); Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance; state licensure; patient, state, and federal result reporting; and liability. <br/>In this paper, the EUA pathway will be examined and contextualized in relation to the ABCTL. This will include an examination of the FDA regulations and policies that affect the laboratory during its operations, as well as a look at the different authorization pathways for diagnostic tests present during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study attempts to answer the following questions: Is civic engagement a social activity among 18-25-year-old college students? How are opinions regarding civic and political engagement impacted by social settings? How are civic and political engagement atmospheres impacted by social distancing and isolation protocol? In this study, the researcher hypothesized that civic and political engagement are social activities, so they are therefore susceptible to changing social context. Since the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted typical social interaction through social distancing and isolation protocol, the researcher hypothesized that it also altered mechanisms of civic and political engagement. Political engagement would be more prevalent among students who participate with others even in pandemic conditions that may otherwise decrease close contact and social interactions. These findings seem to disagree with the literature that suggests young people are supplanting voting with other forms of engagement (Zukin et al., 2006). Rather, the “complexity” denoted in interviews and in reports of engagements on the pre- and post-election surveys suggests that young people are voting as well as dedicating their time to other activities. Voting does seem to be a social activity according to the interviews, poll observations, and the surveys. This is consistent with the literature regarding social norms and group predictors. However, this social aspect of engagement seems to manifest in a wider variety of formats that originally thought. Finally, students continued to engage in the context of the pandemic that surrounded the election in question. It seems that the formats through which students engaged have expanded to maintain the connections that are crucial to civic participation.

This paper conducts an exploration of the election policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States. While living through and voting during the real-time events which took place during the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, it soon became evident that there was not enough experience from earlier election emergencies to properly ensure against voter disenfranchisement. Given the scope of the global pandemic and the speed with which policymakers had to act, there was very little time to properly prepare. There was also great contention regarding the legitimacy of election methods proposed to alleviate in-person election concerns, such as mail-in voting. The political battle between those who believed COVID-19 to be a grave concern against those who did not consider COVID-19 to be a legitimate threat towards their livelihoods also affected policymaking decisions. Policymakers were forced into a corner, as they experienced criticism for not enough government action, as well as disapproval on the actual regulation that came to pass. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors led to the decisions which shaped the election policy which occurred as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic during the election year of 2020. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: prior election emergency policy; the development of reactive election policy in March, proactive policy established for the August and November elections; and a review of voter disenfranchisement which occurred due to COVID-19.

From 2019, a severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2, began to be a global pandemic. Many high income countries developed different strategies in response. This analysis intends to highlight how the COVID-19 became a global pandemic and the strategies that account for successes and failures. In identifying key policy differences, the high income countries of the United States, New Zealand and France were examined. The analysis found that New Zealand had proactive elimination strategies that proved highly effective, whereas the United States and France both struggled with mitigation factors that resulted in disproportionately higher confirmed cases and mortality rates. The analysis highlights how the airborne virus became a pandemic and then followed public policies’ effectiveness in terms of existing political institutions,and then their ability to be successful in preventing the spread of the virus.

The nonprofit sector exists as one of three working groups which contribute to the flow of the economy and society. Unlike the government and for-profit sectors, the nonprofit world has faced a growing responsibility alongside a lack of emphasis on the sector’s importance. Nonprofits have often faced a lack of resources needed to combat these gaps. However, since Covid-19, resources have been diminishing even further. These resources can be identified as a variety of elements, from volunteers and paid staff to funds and access to overseas goods and services. A case study of the world-renowned Make-A-Wish Foundation and its Arizona Chapter perfectly illustrates the journey back to full mission-accomplishment in present times through their actions taken to combat common sector struggles. This case study proves importance of the nonprofit sector, accompanied by a call for education and re-emphasis of the nonprofit sector.

Our thesis project is a 5-person group thesis that was created over the span of two years. In the summer of 2020, at the height of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, our group first met and discussed our shared interests in mask-wearing and individual factors that we each thought had significant impacts on mask-wearing among Barrett students. We each decided on factors that we wanted to investigate and subsequently split into three main groups based on our interests: culture and geography, medical humanities, and medical and psychological conditions. Despite these different interests, we continued to treat our thesis as a five-person project rather than three different projects. We then constructed a survey, followed by several focus group sessions and interview questions to ask Honors students. In January 2021, we received approval from the IRB for our project, and we quickly finalized our survey, focus group and interview questions. In February 2021, we sent out our survey via the Barrett Digest, which we kept open for approximately one month. We also sent out advertisements for our survey via social media platforms such as Twitter and Discord. Following completion of the survey, we contacted all of the respondents who stated that they were interested in participating in focus groups and interviews. Focus groups and interviews were conducted in March and April 2021, and results were analyzed and correlated to our individual subtopics. Each of the focus group and interview participants received $50 each, and three randomly-selected students who completed the survey received $25 each. From April 2021 until April 2022, we analyzed our results, came to conclusions based on our initial topics of interest, and constructed our paper.

Our thesis project is a 5-person group thesis that was created over the span of two years. In the summer of 2020, at the height of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, our group first met and discussed our shared interests in mask-wearing and individual factors that we each thought had significant impacts on mask-wearing among Barrett students. We each decided on factors that we wanted to investigate and subsequently split into three main groups based on our interests: culture and geography, medical humanities, and medical and psychological conditions. Despite these different interests, we continued to treat our thesis as a five-person project rather than three different projects. We then constructed a survey, followed by several focus group sessions and interview questions to ask Honors students. In January 2021, we received approval from the IRB for our project, and we quickly finalized our survey, focus group and interview questions. In February 2021, we sent out our survey via the Barrett Digest, which we kept open for approximately one month. We also sent out advertisements for our survey via social media platforms such as Twitter and Discord. Following completion of the survey, we contacted all of the respondents who stated that they were interested in participating in focus groups and interviews. Focus groups and interviews were conducted in March and April 2021, and results were analyzed and correlated to our individual subtopics. Each of the focus group and interview participants received $50 each, and three randomly-selected students who completed the survey received $25 each. From April 2021 until April 2022, we analyzed our results, came to conclusions based on our initial topics of interest, and constructed our paper.

While Covid-19 had severe impacts on education across the board, the goal of our research is to examine how virtual learning affected Business Data Analytics and Computer Information Students at Arizona State University. A survey was created to measure three key academic areas (student learning, communication, and student engagement) that may have experienced a notable change in quality. Forty Nine W.P. Carey students were surveyed and their responses were recorded in a Google Sheet. From there the results were transferred to excel and converted into a Numeric Likert scale. By establishing base scores for each of the survey statements we can isolate areas of virtual learning that underwhelmed or satisfied our target demographic. The objective of the subsequent analysis was to identify any areas within the three focal points that participants felt strongly impacted their performance with virtual schooling during the August 2020 to May 2021 school year.

Our thesis project is a 5-person group thesis that was created over the span of two years. In the summer of 2020, at the height of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, our group first met and discussed our shared interests in mask-wearing and individual factors that we each thought had significant impacts on mask-wearing among Barrett students. We each decided on factors that we wanted to investigate and subsequently split into three main groups based on our interests: culture and geography, medical humanities, and medical and psychological conditions. Despite these different interests, we continued to treat our thesis as a five-person project rather than three different projects. We then constructed a survey, followed by several focus group sessions and interview questions to ask Honors students. In January 2021, we received approval from the IRB for our project, and we quickly finalized our survey, focus group and interview questions. In February 2021, we sent out our survey via the Barrett Digest, which we kept open for approximately one month. We also sent out advertisements for our survey via social media platforms such as Twitter and Discord. Following completion of the survey, we contacted all of the respondents who stated that they were interested in participating in focus groups and interviews. Focus groups and interviews were conducted in March and April 2021, and results were analyzed and correlated to our individual subtopics. Each of the focus group and interview participants received $50 each, and three randomly-selected students who completed the survey received $25 each. From April 2021 until April 2022, we analyzed our results, came to conclusions based on our initial topics of interest, and constructed our paper.