In 2020, the nation was hit with a pandemic both physically and socially. Due to COVID-19, media interaction, social media engagement, and online consumerism became necessary. In relation to widespread disease, social outbreaks concerning the black lives matter movement, police brutality, the presidential election and diversity & inclusion, set a call to action for Americans. Top fashion and shoe-manufacturing companies that engage with the public socially, financially, personally and for entertainment were evaluated on their contributions to Diversity and Inclusion initiatives. Through external marketing and communication strategies, shoe-wear companies display their approaches to social justice, equity and/or social responsibility. Inclusion & Diversity has different facets including, socioeconomics, gender roles, and race that contribute to how<br/>consumers interact with companies. This paper consists of a literary review, three company audits and analysis, and recommendations. The literary review in the introduction of my paper, explores the approaches to Diversity and Inclusion of shoe-wear companies as a response to social inequity. I conducted three audits to assess the history of Diversity and Inclusion at Nike, Adidas and PUMA to their approaches and commitment to Inclusion and Diversity through their marketing and communication strategies. I then conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis based on the marketing and communications of the<br/>respective companies to gain depth in my findings of sentiment, message strategy, corporate hierarchy, and suggestions for future communications. My analysis provided a conclusion that Diversity and Inclusion in marketing and communication strategies is an essential factor in the growth and success of the company. I identified that each company has areas of opportunity to create more visibility for the LGBTQIA+ ( Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual and nonbiary people) community, should continue to produce reports that analyze exactly how they plan to support Diversity and Inclusion and continue displaying their<br/>commitment on social media.
The purpose of this study is to examine the social and communicative barriers LGBTQIA+ students face when seeking healthcare at campus health and counseling services at Arizona State University. Social barriers relate to experiences and internalizations of societal stigma experienced by sexual and gender minority individuals as well as the anticipation of such events. Communication between patient and provider was assessed as a potential barrier with respect to perceived provider LGBTQIA+ competency. This study applies the minority stress model, considering experiences of everyday stigma and minority stress as a predictor of healthcare utilization among sexual and gender minority students. The findings suggest a small but substantial correlation between minority stress and healthcare use with 23.7% of respondents delaying or not receiving one or more types of care due to fear of stigma or discrimination. Additionally, communication findings indicate a lack of standardization of LGBTQIA+ competent care with experiences varying greatly between respondents.
The clothing and textile industry is often referred to as one of the largest polluters in the world. Over the last two decades, global annual consumption has increased, and the volume of discarded clothing in America has doubled from 7 to 14 million tons a year (Shirvanimoghaddam, 2020). Over 60% of textile waste overall is exported to the Global South. In the Global South, landfills that receive this waste often lack proper funding and legislation to implement effective waste management systems (Schiros). Textile waste bears a carbon and water footprint that disrupts environmental and health standards on egregious levels, disproportionately harming the health of the populations situated near to those disposal sites, and preventing so-called “developing populations” from economic independence and from sustaining critical environmental health standards. The exploitation of the Global South as a dumping ground also erodes the possibility of economic development by local production and economic self-reliance. Structural adjustments and trade regulated by the ‘developed’ country subjugate the Global South to neo-colonialist, exploitative economic partnerships with the Global North. Rwanda is one example of a country attempting to rise to the World Bank’s classification as a middle-income country, but has been accused of trading human rights for development in the process.
My investigation first seeks to answer, What are the specific health threats of post-consumer textiles? I consider the human health impacts of textiles from cultivation to disposal. This study examines the role of waste as a potential function in the production process, where waste is not considered a negative economic value. My second question is How is the Global South's participation in international collaboration empowered by acts of resistance against the assumptions, research, and policies that suggest Western aid and medicine is superior and the basis for innovative technology? Acts of resistance are pursued within the public sphere (especially in terms of community building and art making), low technology, and locally situated science (that consider the culture, approach, and resources of the Global South before scaling up to the North). Corporations and state policy are considered to expand research, but the focus is largely on acts of resistance by the public, and acts of resistance at a community-level of cooperation. Through the framework of the zine, audiences can better understand the relationship between the US and countries in the East African Community, in South Africa, in shared regions. This creative project informs and challenges the reader to think critically about their role in a postcolonial context. I seek to understand how colonialism pervades the economic relationship and import-export business today between the Global North and the Global South. My purpose is to provide the reader with a vision that suggests the most critical changes that should be made to secure humane and environmentally sustainable solutions. It also serves as a catalyst for additional research on the Global South.
Methods: We conducted 11 focus groups with a total of 28 students, averaging 3 per group. Using an inductive approach, we hand-coded focus group transcripts, developed a coding structure, and discussed themes as they emerged from the data.
Results: Although more than half of the students had never heard of the HPV vaccine, students generally held positive views about vaccines. Barriers to receiving the HPV vaccine included lack of awareness and knowledge about the HPV vaccine, as well as lack of perceived need for the vaccine. When asked about the most important information that they needed in order to make an informed decision about whether or not to get the vaccine, participants mentioned the following: 1) prevalence of HPV, 2) HPV-related diseases, 3) what the HPV vaccine protects against, 4) HPV vaccine safety, 5) HPV vaccine efficacy, and 6) how they can access the vaccine. Participants differed in their preferences for types of health education, from an in-person informative lecture, to YouTube videos, to posters placed in dorms or in bathrooms. They preferred the conveyor of this information to be a trustworthy source; they identified healthcare providers, professors/researchers, and other students who have received the vaccine as credible sources. In terms of message appeal, many students described wanting the facts, statistics about HPV prevalence and the vaccine as well as narratives from students who have been diagnosed with HPV and those who have experience receiving the vaccine.
Conclusions: Although this cancer prevention resource has been commercially available since 2006, college students still a lack of awareness and perceived need for the HPV vaccine. Future health education efforts should utilize participants’ recommendations to increase students’ understanding of HPV and the HPV vaccine and, therefore, impact their perceived susceptibility to HPV, the benefits of the vaccine to their health, and therefore increase utilization of this resource. Strategies to increase vaccination should include health education and vaccine implementation strategies, as well as strategies to reduce the cost of the vaccine for college students, thereby increasing the accessibility of the vaccine for this population.
Methods: We conducted 11 focus groups with a total of 28 students, averaging 3 per group. Using an inductive approach, we hand-coded focus group transcripts, developed a coding structure, and discussed themes as they emerged from the data.
Results: Although more than half of the students had never heard of the HPV vaccine, students generally held positive views about vaccines. Barriers to receiving the HPV vaccine included lack of awareness and knowledge about the HPV vaccine, as well as lack of perceived need for the vaccine. When asked about the most important information that they needed in order to make an informed decision about whether or not to get the vaccine, participants mentioned the following: 1) prevalence of HPV, 2) HPV-related diseases, 3) what the HPV vaccine protects against, 4) HPV vaccine safety, 5) HPV vaccine efficacy, and 6) how they can access the vaccine. Participants differed in their preferences for types of health education, from an in-person informative lecture, to YouTube videos, to posters placed in dorms or in bathrooms. They preferred the conveyor of this information to be a trustworthy source; they identified healthcare providers, professors/researchers, and other students who have received the vaccine as credible sources. In terms of message appeal, many students described wanting the facts, statistics about HPV prevalence and the vaccine as well as narratives from students who have been diagnosed with HPV and those who have experience receiving the vaccine.
Conclusions: Although this cancer prevention resource has been commercially available since 2006, college students still a lack of awareness and perceived need for the HPV vaccine. Future health education efforts should utilize participants’ recommendations to increase students’ understanding of HPV and the HPV vaccine and, therefore, impact their perceived susceptibility to HPV, the benefits of the vaccine to their health, and therefore increase utilization of this resource. Strategies to increase vaccination should include health education and vaccine implementation strategies, as well as strategies to reduce the cost of the vaccine for college students, thereby increasing the accessibility of the vaccine for this population.
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.