25 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Arrested professional development : some workplace taboobs
No full texttextThis document includes the performance report and script for Arrested Professional Development: Some Workplace Taboobs, a semi-autobiographical play conceived, written, and directed by Kelly Howe in collaboration with many colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) and staged in the campus's Winship Drama Building on March 3 and 4, 2006. The performance's dramaturgical process - in many ways a textual analysis of the author's personal experiences relative to the policing of women's bodies at work - engaged feminist theory, Augusto Boal's Image Theatre dramaturgy, reception theory, Foucauldian analysis, sociological theory, critical performative pedagogy, and queer theory. The play and its report stage a variety of intertwining inquiries all connected to one core question: What might be at stake, and for whom, in constructing what constitutes appropriate dress for women professionals, both in academia specifically, and in more generalized public spheres?Theatre and Danc
Adapting Boal's legislative theatre : producing democracies, casting citizens as policy experts
No full texttextIn 1992, Augusto Boal, founder of the globally influential repertoire of performance techniques known as Theatre of the Oppressed, was elected as a vereador, essentially the equivalent of city councilor in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Boal and his office staff used theatre as their primary method for collecting citizen input about legislation. His term lasted from 1993 to 1997, and his office shepherded thirteen bills to their successful passage as law.
This dissertation examines three twenty-first century Legislative Theatre projects, all drawing on techniques from Boal’s initial Legislative Theatre project but staged in North America. The case studies include Practicing Democracy, a 2004 production by Headlines Theatre in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, a project that directly engaged the Vancouver City Council; a Legislative Theatre workshop facilitated by Augusto Boal and his son Julian Boal as part of the pre-conference of the annual Pedagogy and Theatre of the Oppressed Conference in Omaha, Nebraska, in May 2008, an event that culminated with a performance in the Omaha City Council Chambers; and The Eye & Tooth Project: Forum Theatre on the Death Penalty, a 2009 workshop and performance in Austin, TX, exploring how participants could practice lobbying skills through theatre.
With these three theatre processes as examples, I explain how using Forum Theatre as the primary method for Legislative Theatre constructs citizenship as a process of collective knowledge-building. These projects stage citizenship as a collaborative act through which citizens gather to teach each other about their experiences with policy. Each production differently constructs performance as a “think tank” epistemology—an embodied way of building and transferring knowledge about legislation. I describe how Legislative Theatre think tanks dismantle traditional discourses of “detached” expertise by constructing citizens themselves as experts. In the process of making these larger arguments, this dissertation also addresses a variety of practical questions useful for future practitioners of Legislative Theatre: How was each project designed? What were its goals? How did the creators apply performance toward those goals? How and why did they forge connections (or not) with lawmaking bodies? For what communities might the projects have been more or less accessible?Theatre and Danc
Arthur Danto's philosophy of art
No full textThe thesis is a critical examination of Danto's philosophy of art. It begins with his
article 'The Artworld' where he proposes a special is of artistic identification to
distinguish artworks. Danto's idea of the artworld is discussed, a historical and
contextual theory of art, which arose from his attempt to explain the difference
between Warhol's Brillo Boxes sculpture and an indiscernible stack of everyday
Brillo boxes. It is argued that Danto unsuccessfully attempts to shore up his artworld
concept with the special is.
The technique of comparing indiscernible counterparts, from Danto's
book The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, is examined. It is argued that the
technique is philosophically redundant, but it is a redundant premise which has been
added to a valid inference (Danto's historical and contextual view of art: his artworld
theory) therefore, this does not make the original inference invalid.
Danto's treatment of metaphor, expression, and style is shown to result
in four claims. First, artworks embody rhetorical ellipsis. Second, artworks share
features of metaphor: they are intensional (with an s) in structure and cannot be
paraphrased. Third, a work of art expresses what it is a metaphor for by the way it
depicts its subject. Fourth, artworks embody style.
The conclusion, has two parts. The first part gives a summary of the
criticism of Danto's theory of art: (1) there are logical inconsistencies in his concept
of the is of artistic identification and in his use of indiscernible counterparts, (2) his
theory suffers by being over-inclusive and (3) he uses circular arguments. The
second part is based on a response to the criticism: it provides a definition of art.
This has three elements. First, an argument is proposed for a spectrum of artistic
presence in which all human activity and artefacts can be placed. Second, there is an
acceptance of Danto's view of art (or artistic presence) being both intentional (with
a t) and intensional (with an s); however, by applying these concepts to a spectrum,
the problem of over-inclusiveness is avoided. Finally, it is argued there can he no
wholly non-circular account of art
Patient factors associated with SSRI dose for depression treatment in general practice:A primary care cross sectional study
No full textBackground: Antidepressant prescribing continues to rise. Increased long-term prescribing and higher doses are contributing to current growth; however, patient factors associated with the use of higher doses remain unknown. This study's aim was to investigate patient factors associated with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) prescribed daily dose for depression treatment in general practice. Methods: A stratified sample of low to high prescribing practices were selected. Routine individual patient-level data were extracted one practice at a time: September 2009 to January 2011. Patients included were ≥18 years, and prescribed an SSRI for depression. Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to assess individual predictor variables on SSRI daily dose by standard therapeutic dose versus higher dose, as SSRIs demonstrate flat dose response curves for depression treatment. Predictor variables included: age, gender, deprivation, co-morbidity, smoking status, being prescribed the same SSRI for ≥2 years, and patients ' general practice. For a subgroup of patients a second sub-group analysis included long-term benzodiazepine and/or z-hypnotic (B&Z) as a predictor variable. Results: Inter-practice SSRI prescribing varied significantly; practice point prevalence ranged from 2.5% (94/3697) to 11.9% (359/3007) of the practice population ≥18 years old; median 7.3% (250/3421) (χ2 = 2277.2, df = 10, p < 0.001). Overall point prevalence was 6.3% (3518/52575), with 5.8% (3066/52575) prescribed SSRIs for depression of whom 84.7% (2596/3066) had data for regression analysis. Higher SSRI doses were significantly associated with, in descending order of magnitude, individual practice attended, being prescribed the same SSRI for ≥2 years (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.17, p < 0.001) and living in a more deprived area (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.16, p = 0.009). Higher SSRI doses in the B&Z subgroup were significantly associated with individual practice attended, being prescribed a long-term B&Z (OR 2.05 95% CI 1.47 to 2.86, p < 0.001) and being prescribed the same SSRI for ≥2 years (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.47, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Higher SSRI doses for depression were associated with practice attended and being prescribed the same antidepressant for ≥2 years. As long-term antidepressant use increases, the use of higher doses may further contribute to prescribing growth.</p
Connecting the Points: An Investigation into Student Learning about Decimal Numbers
No full textThe purpose of this research project was to investigate the effects of a short-term teaching experiment on the learning of decimal numbers by primary students. The literature describes this area of mathematics as highly problematic for students.
The content first covered student understanding of decimal symbols, and how this impacted upon their ability to order decimal numbers and carry out additive operations. It was then extended to cover the density of number property, and the application of multiplicative operations to situations involving decimals. In doing so, three areas of cognitive conflict were encountered by students, the belief that longer decimal numbers are larger than shorter ones (irrespective of the actual digits), that multiplication always makes numbers bigger, and that division always makes numbers smaller.
The use of a microgenetic approach yielded data was able to be presented that provides details of the environment surrounding the moments where new learning was constructed. The characteristics of this environment include the use of physical artifacts and situational contexts involving measurement that precipitate student discussion and reflection.
The methodology allowed for the collection of evidence regarding the highly complex nature of the learning, with evidence of 'folding back' to earlier schema and the co-existence of competing schema. The discussion presents reasons as to why the pedagogical approach that was employed facilitated learning.
One of the main findings was that the use of challenging problems situated in measurement contexts that involved direct student participation promoted the extension and/or re-organization of student schema with regard to decimal numbers.
The study has important implications for teachers at the upper primary level wanting to support student learning about the decimal numbers system
Recruiting for diversity: Sex differences in undergraduates’ choices of potential employers
No full textThe aim of this research is to explore sex differences in undergraduates’ choices of
potential employers. It focuses on a major employer (‘the Firm’), wishing to increase
the number of job applications it receives from female undergraduates, and comprises
three linked projects. No previous research was found that addresses sex differences in
organisational choice.
In the first project, a contribution is made by identifying, using Repertory Grids, eightyfour
organisational attributes by which undergraduates differentiate between potential
employers. A survey in the second project found organisational attractiveness (the
product of the importance of organisational attributes and the perceived extent of their
presence in a particular organisation) positively correlated with likelihood to apply. Sex
differences were found in both components of organisational attractiveness: a new
contribution to the literature.
Regression analysis revealed the attributes that predict women’s likelihood to apply to
the Firm: ‘people with whom I have things in common’; ‘friendly, informal culture’;
‘cares about its employees as individuals’; and ‘dynamic, forward-looking approach to
its business’. The Firm’s image in these areas was found to require improvement and, in
the final project, group interviews with female new joiners (to the Firm) identified
tangible ‘cues’ that the Firm can use to signal the predictor attributes to undergraduates.
Having identified the importance of interaction with employees in forming
undergraduates’ images of organisations, a new approach was developed to measure the
employees’ image of the Firm, and this was supplemented by group interviews. The
results contribute to practice and literature by revealing that the employees’ image is not
universally strong and, in talking with undergraduates, they ‘tell it like it is’. This study
highlights that, ultimately, the Firm’s desired image must be supported by employees’
experiences of it, which management may need to examine further if the Firm is to
attract more female undergraduates
Experiencing and Learning from Entrepreneurial Failure
No full textEntrepreneurship literature has long focused on stories of entrepreneurial success. However, in recent years consensus has begun to build around the importance of also studying failure in order to develop a more holistic understanding of entrepreneurship. It has been argued that failure can have an impact on entrepreneurial decision-making in subsequent ventures and can be a difficult experience for an entrepreneur to go through. In spite of such speculations and acknowledgements, failure remains a relatively underresearched area, except perhaps from the primary perspective of the reasons behind failure. While this is an important area of investigation − as understanding reasons behind failure can improve the probability of success in subsequent entrepreneurial endeavours – it is equally important to understand the experience of failure. The primary aim of this thesis is to understand failure from the perspective of entrepreneurs who have experienced it. Its second aim is to build a theoretical framework of failure based on those experiences.
The overarching research question for this study is: “How do entrepreneurs experience venture failure and learn from this experience?” The three supporting subquestions are: “What do entrepreneurs experience when their venture fails?”, “How do entrepreneurs stay resilient when the venture fails?”, and “What do the entrepreneurs learn from experiencing venture failure?” Using the philosophical position of interpretive, phenomenological symbolic interactionism and narrative as a strategy of inquiry, stories of failure as told by 21 entrepreneurs during in-depth interviews are analysed. Using the metaphor of fabric tear and repair, theoretical constructs developed from the findings are integrated into a framework and discussed in the light of relevant literature. The framework highlights that failure leads to considerable challenges for the entrepreneurs and triggers grief. After grief, however, comes resilience. In this journey, resilience came from acceptance and hope, states that shifted the entrepreneurs’ perspective on venture failure from one which saw it as a negative, end-all event to one that framed it as a challenging, survivable event. This resilience fuelled their efforts to adapt to their changed reality. Grief faded as entrepreneurs dealt with the challenges. From this experience, the entrepreneurs learnt business lessons and transformed in such a way as to become more spiritually inclined.
The study extends the understanding of the phenomenon of failure in entrepreneurship by presenting an empirical evidence-based framework that incorporates failure-related challenges, entrepreneurs’ adaptation to these challenges, and the lessons learnt from this experience. Second, this study illustrates the importance of hope and acceptance in building entrepreneurial resilience, and how entrepreneurs’ social environment and sometimes spiritual beliefs play an important role in nurturing hope and an acceptance of adapting to the challenges. Policy makers, educators, and entrepreneurs can benefit from the findings of this study as it highlights factors leading to failure, the repercussions of it. The study also shows how failure, although an undesirable experience, can be utilised as a springboard to bounce into a satisfying career by tapping into one’s spiritual beliefs, support networks, and resources within the social environment.
Mar. 19-21, 2015; NCAA D1 Swimming & Diving Championships (Women\u27s)
No full textMen\u27s and Women\u27s Swimming and Diving meet statistics; game bookHead Coach of Swimming and Diving: Joe Dykstra; Head Diving Coach: Richard MarschnerSwimming and DivingNCAA Division I Championship Meet HY-TEK\u27s MEET MANAGER 5.0 - 9:36 PM 03/21/15 Page 1 2015 NCAA D1 Women\u27s Swimming & Diving Champs - 03/19/15 to 03/21/15 Results Event 1 Women 200 Yard Freestyle Relay NCAA: 1:26.20 N 03/19/09 American: 1:26.20 A 03/19/09 U.S. Open: 1:26.20 O 03/19/09 Championship: 1:26.20 C 03/19/09 Pool Record: 1:26.41 P 03/19/15 Team A - Final 1 California-PC 1) Bing, Kaylin SR r:+4.00 10.69 53.86 (10.22) 2 Stanford-PC 1) Manuel, Simone FR r:+3.93 10.62 53.20 (10.18) 3 Georgia-GA 1) Locus, Madeline SR r:+3.19 10.73 53.74 (10.27) 4 Wisconsin-WI 1) Martin, Ivy SR r:+2.51 10.41 53.36 (10.20) 5 Texas A&M-GU 1) Gastaldello, Beryl FR r:+4.34 10.71 54.32 (10.48) 6 Auburn-SE 1) Purcell, Allyx SO r:+0.71 10.84 54.62 (10.36) 7 NC State-NC 1) Poli, Lauren SR r:+1.95 10.96 54.88 (10.25) 8 Louisville-KY 1) Kneppers, Andrea SO r:+0.79 11.10 54.65 (10.69) Arizona L Jackson, L Kelly, J Schluntz, T Baughman Arizona L Jackson, L Kelly, J Schluntz, T Baughman Arizona L Jackson, L Kelly, J Schluntz, T Baughman Arizona L Jackson, L Kelly, J Schluntz, T Baughman California California-PC K Bing, M Franklin, R Bootsma, F Osman Relay Prelim Time Finals Time A 1:27.60 2) r:0.28 Franklin, Missy SO 3) r:0.31 Bootsma, Rachel JR 22.36 (22.36) 32.52 (10.16) 43.64 (21.28) 1:05.24 (21.60) 1:15.37 (10.13) 1:26.41 (21.17) A 1:27.24 2) r:0.23 Neal, Lia SO 3) r:0.25 Hu, Janet FR 21.68 (21.68) 31.78 (10.10) 43.02 (21.34) 1:04.61 (21.59) 1:14.91 (10.30) 1:26.52 (21.91) A 1:26.94 2) r:0.23 Van Landeghem, Chantal JR 3) r:0.31 Smoliga, Olivia SO 22.05 (22.05) 32.21 (10.16) 43.47 (21.42) 1:05.08 (21.61) 1:15.59 (10.51) 1:26.93 (21.85) A 1:26.86 2) r:0.16 Kinney, Chase SO 3) r:0.06 Van Hout, Aja SR 21.61 (21.61) 31.60 (9.99) 43.16 (21.55) 1:04.91 (21.75) 1:15.36 (10.45) 1:26.98 (22.07) A 1:27.85 2) r:0.31 Ibanez, Lili SR 3) r:0.30 Galat, Bethany FR 21.76 (21.76) 32.37 (10.61) 43.84 (22.08) 1:06.00 (22.16) 1:16.41 (10.41) 1:27.85 (21.85) A 1:27.72 2) r:0.20 Fonteno, Megan SR 3) r:0.20 Ellzey, Ashton FR 22.33 (22.33) 32.66 (10.33) 44.26 (21.93) 1:06.42 (22.16) 1:16.48 (10.06) 1:27.88 (21.46) A 1:27.98 2) r:0.19 Koletic, Ashlyn JR 3) r:0.27 Duffield, Krista FR 22.68 (22.68) 32.87 (10.19) 44.63 (21.95) 1:06.56 (21.93) 1:16.65 (10.09) 1:28.13 (21.57) A 1:28.05 2) r:0.29 Worrell, Kelsi JR 3) r:0.15 Patterson, Maggie 22.71 (22.71) 32.66 (9.95) 43.96 (21.25) 1:06.60 (22.64) 1:16.99 (10.39) 1:28.90 (22.30) Points 1:26.41 P 40 4) r:0.28 Osman, Farida SO 1:26.52 34 4) r:0.30 Howe, Ally FR 1:26.93 32 4) r:0.37 Harrington, Lauren SR 1:26.98 30 4) r:0.11 Tamblyn, Anne JR 1:27.85 28 4) r:0.16 Bosma, Sammie SR 1:27.88 26 4) r:0.11 Hull, Valerie FR 1:28.13 24 4) r:0.25 Bonnema, Riki JR 1:28.90 22 4) r:0.26 Kylliainen, Tanja SR B - Final 9 Tennessee-SE 1) Johnson, Faith JR r:+3.22 10.61 54.65 (10.44) 10 Southern California-CA 1) Wilk, Kasia JR r:+3.39 11.01 55.05 (10.47) A 1:28.52 2) r:0.29 Thompson, Cherelle SR 3) r:0.27 Lubawy, Amy FR 22.03 (22.03) 32.64 (10.61) 44.21 (22.18) 1:06.33 (22.12) 1:16.63 (10.30) 1:28.01 (21.68) A 1:28.55 2) r:0.35 Swenson, Evan SO 3) r:0.36 Chenault, Chelsea SO 22.52 (22.52) 33.06 (10.54) 44.58 (22.06) 1:06.67 (22.09) 1:16.83 (10.16) 1:28.15 (21.48) 1:28.01 18 4) r:0.26 Bruens, Harper JR 1:28.15 14 4) r:0.18 Stewart, Kendyl JR NCAA Division I Championship Meet HY-TEK\u27s MEET MANAGER 5.0 - 9:36 PM 03/21/15 Page 2 2015 NCAA D1 Women\u27s Swimming & Diving Champs - 03/19/15 to 03/21/15 Results B - Final ... (Event 1 Women 200 Yard Freestyle Relay) Team 11 Arizona-AZ 1) Schick, Taylor JR r:+0.63 10.62 54.57 (10.49) 12 Penn State-MA 1) Ackman, Alyson JR r:+0.65 10.90 54.36 (10.43) 13 Texas-ST 1) Jaques, Gretchen SR r:+0.72 10.85 54.95 (10.46) 14 Virginia-VA 1) Rauth, Shannon SO r:+0.69 11.14 54.77 (10.46) 15 UNC-NC 1) Baldwin, Caroline FR r:+0.74 10.99 55.20 (10.40) 16 San Diego State-SI 1) Apostalon, Anika SO r:+0.68 10.78 55.15 (10.43) Relay A 2) r:0.17 Brandon, Bonnie JR 22.17 (22.17) 32.54 (10.37) 1:06.19 (22.11) 1:16.67 (10.48) A 2) r:0.15 Fittin, Carolyn SR 22.43 (22.43) 32.57 (10.14) 1:06.20 (22.27) 1:16.74 (10.54) A 2) r:0.14 Schneider, Mimi FR 22.29 (22.29) 32.71 (10.42) 1:06.78 (22.29) 1:17.13 (10.35) A 2) r:0.10 Thomas, Ellen SO 22.71 (22.71) 32.92 (10.21) 1:06.33 (22.02) 1:17.09 (10.76) A 2) r:0.16 Lincoln, Hannah JR 22.60 (22.60) 32.99 (10.39) 1:06.89 (22.09) 1:17.61 (10.72) A 2) r:0.46 Bailey, Chelsea SR 22.22 (22.22) 32.86 (10.64) 1:06.99 (22.27) 1:17.54 (10.55) Prelim Time Finals Time 1:28.76 1:28.27 3) r:0.26 Kurki, Laura FR 44.08 (21.91) 1:28.27 (22.08) 1:28.59 3) r:0.20 Saloky, Kaitlin SO 43.93 (21.50) 1:28.30 (22.10) 1:28.58 3) r:0.20 Wong, Brynne SO 44.49 (22.20) 1:28.64 (21.86) 1:28.74 3) r:0.01 Cooper, Caitlin FR 44.31 (21.60) 1:28.89 (22.56) 1:28.62 3) r:0.23 Hitchens, Sarah SO 44.80 (22.20) 1:29.23 (22.34) 1:28.79 3) r:0.10 Johnson, Taylor JR 44.72 (22.50) 1:29.54 (22.55) Points 12 4) r:0.16 Kremer, Paige FR 1:28.30 10 4) r:0.14 Miller, Katelyn SR 1:28.64 8 4) r:0.12 Millard, Rebecca FR 1:28.89 6 4) r:0.32 Williamson, Ellen SR 1:29.23 4 4) r:0.37 Hardesty, Allyn JR 1:29.54 2 4) r:0.21 Weisz, Whitney JR Event 1 Women 200 Yard Freestyle Relay NCAA: 1:26.20 N 03/19/09 American: 1:26.20 A 03/19/09 U.S. Open: 1:26.20 O 03/19/09 Championship: 1:26.20 C 03/19/09 Pool Record: 1:26.41 P 03/19/15 Team Preliminaries 1 Wisconsin-WI 1) Martin, Ivy SR r:+0.67 10.46 53.51 (10.29) 2 Georgia-GA 1) Locus, Madeline SR 10.71 53.48 (10.32) 3 Stanford-PC 1) Manuel, Simone FR r:+4.25 10.70 53.99 (10.55) 4 California-PC 1) Bing, Kaylin SR r:+3.81 10.68 54.44 (10.41) Arizona L Jackson, L Kelly, J Schluntz, T Baughman Arizona L Jackson, L Kelly, J Schluntz, T Baughman Arizona L Jackson, L Kelly, J Schluntz, T Baughman Arizona L Jackson, L Kelly, J Schluntz, T Baughman California California-PC K Bing, M Franklin, R Bootsma, F Osman Relay Seed Time Prelim Time A 1:27.70 2) r:0.28 Kinney, Chase SO 3) r:0.17 Van Hout, Aja SR 21.62 (21.62) 31.77 (10.15) 43.22 (21.60) 1:04.96 (21.74) 1:15.33 (10.37) 1:26.86 (21.90) A 1:27.55 2) r:0.28 Van Landeghem, Chantal JR 3) r:0.30 Smoliga, Olivia SO 21.93 (21.93) 32.00 (10.07) 43.16 (21.23) 1:04.88 (21.72) 1:15.49 (10.61) 1:26.94 (22.06) A 1:27.25 2) r:0.34 Neal, Lia SO 3) r:0.24 Hu, Janet FR 21.87 (21.87) 32.20 (10.33) 43.44 (21.57) 1:05.44 (22.00) 1:15.69 (10.25) 1:27.24 (21.80) A 1:27.18 2) r:0.31 Vredeveld, Kristen SO 3) r:0.34 Bootsma, Rachel JR 22.08 (22.08) 32.49 (10.41) 44.03 (21.95) 1:05.92 (21.89) 1:16.35 (10.43) 1:27.60 (21.68) 1:26.86 q 4) r:0.30 Tamblyn, Anne JR 1:26.94 q 4) r:0.35 Harrington, Lauren SR 1:27.24 q 4) r:0.20 Howe, Ally FR 1:27.60 q 4) r:0.43 Franklin, Missy SO NCAA Division I Championship Meet HY-TEK\u27s MEET MANAGER 5.0 - 9:36 PM 03/21/15 Page 3 2015 NCAA D1 Women\u27s Swimming & Diving Champs - 03/19/15 to 03/21/15 Results Preliminaries ... (Event 1 Women 200 Yard Freestyle Relay) Team 5 Auburn-SE 1) Purcell, Allyx SO r:+0.68 10.72 54.29 (10.20) 6 Texas A&M-GU 1) Gastaldello, Beryl FR 10.84 54.47 (10.46) 7 NC State-NC 1) Poli, Lauren SR 11.03 54.68 (10.18) 8 Louisville-KY 1) Kneppers, Andrea SO r:+0.77 11.08 54.11 (10.52) 9 Tennessee-SE 1) Bruens, Harper JR r:+0.76 10.84 54.55 (10.47) 10 Southern California-CA 1) Wilk, Kasia JR 11.10 54.88 (10.25) 11 Texas-ST 1) Jaques, Gretchen SR r:+0.70 10.88 54.88 (10.63) 12 Penn State-MA 1) Ackman, Alyson JR r:+0.69 10.90 54.39 (10.51) 13 UNC-NC 1) Baldwin, Caroline FR r:+0.72 10.97 54.73 (10.44) 14 Virginia-VA 1) Cooper, Caitlin FR r:+3.46 11.17 54.93 (10.64) 15 Arizona-AZ 1) Schick, Taylor JR r:+0.65 10.72 54.94 (10.76) 16 San Diego State-SI 1) Apostalon, Anika SO r:+0.68 10.62 54.65 (10.58) 17 Missouri-MV 1) Barbiea, Dani SR r:+0.68 10.82 55.22 (10.52) Relay A 2) r:0.20 Fonteno, Megan SR 22.07 (22.07) 32.46 (10.39) 1:06.22 (22.13) 1:16.31 (10.09) A 2) r:0.33 Ibanez, Lili SR 21.96 (21.96) 32.54 (10.58) 1:06.14 (22.13) 1:16.50 (10.36) A 2) r:+0.0 Koletic, Ashlyn JR 22.56 (22.56) 32.80 (10.24) 1:06.41 (21.91) 1:16.63 (10.22) A 2) r:0.13 Worrell, Kelsi JR 22.55 (22.55) 32.31 (9.76) 1:05.96 (22.37) 1:16.12 (10.16) A 2) r:0.17 Johnson, Faith JR 22.56 (22.56) 32.68 (10.12) 1:06.18 (22.10) 1:16.73 (10.55) A 2) r:0.27 Swenson, Evan SO 22.65 (22.65) 33.07 (10.42) 1:06.45 (21.82) 1:16.94 (10.49) A 2) r:0.01 Schneider, Mimi FR 22.35 (22.35) 32.44 (10.09) 1:06.72 (22.47) 1:17.24 (10.52) A 2) r:0.26 Fittin, Carolyn SR 22.38 (22.38) 32.57 (10.19) 1:06.42 (22.54) 1:16.91 (10.49) A 2) r:-0.06 Lincoln, Hannah JR 22.40 (22.40) 32.75 (10.35) 1:06.22 (21.93) 1:16.90 (10.68) A 2) r:0.30 Thomas, Ellen SO 22.74 (22.74) 32.95 (10.21) 1:06.45 (22.16) 1:17.10 (10.65) A 2) r:+0.0 Brandon, Bonnie JR 22.24 (22.24) 32.68 (10.44) 1:06.61 (22.43) 1:17.15 (10.54) A 2) r:0.26 Bailey, Chelsea SR 22.04 (22.04) 32.42 (10.38) 1:06.42 (22.35) 1:16.95 (10.53) A 2) r:0.34 Hayden, Rachel FR 22.47 (22.47) 33.05 (10.58) 1:06.95 (22.25) 1:17.57 (10.62) Seed Time 1:28.05 3) r:0.19 Ellzey, Ashton FR 44.09 (22.02) 1:27.72 (21.50) 1:29.01 3) r:0.17 Galat, Bethany FR 44.01 (22.05) 1:27.85 (21.71) 1:28.18 3) r:+0.0 Duffield, Krista FR 44.50 (21.94) 1:27.98 (21.57) 1:29.98 3) r:0.15 Patterson, Maggie 43.59 (21.04) 1:28.05 (22.09) 1:28.92 Prelim Time 1:27.72 q 4) r:0.15 Hull, Valerie FR 1:27.85 q 4) r:0.34 Bosma, Sammie SR 1:27.98 q 4) r:+0.0 Bonnema, Riki JR 1:28.05 q 4) r:0.09 Kylliainen, Tanja SR 1:28.52 q 3) r:0.19 Thompson, Cherelle SR 4) r:0.21 Lubawy, Amy FR 44.08 (21.52) 1:28.52 (22.34) 1:29.68 3) r:0.16 Stewart, Kendyl JR 44.63 (21.98) 1:28.55 (22.10) 1:29.05 3) r:0.38 Wong, Brynne SO 44.25 (21.90) 1:28.58 (21.86) 1:28.50 3) r:0.23 Saloky, Kaitlin SO 43.88 (21.50) 1:28.59 (22.17) 1:29.40 3) r:0.29 Hitchens, Sarah SO 44.29 (21.89) 1:28.62 (22.40) 1:28.54 1:28.55 q 4) r:0.24 Chenault, Chelsea SO 1:28.58 q 4) r:0.18 Millard, Rebecca FR 1:28.59 q 4) r:0.13 Miller, Katelyn SR 1:28.62 q 4) r:0.37 Hardesty, Allyn JR 1:28.74 q 3) r:0.39 Bartholomew, Courtney JR 4) r:0.28 Williamson, Ellen SR 44.29 (21.55) 1:28.74 (22.29) 1:29.99 3) r:+0.0 Kremer, Paige FR 44.18 (21.94) 1:28.76 (22.15) 1:28.72 3) r:0.24 Johnson, Taylor JR 44.07 (22.03) 1:28.79 (22.37) 1:29.36 3) r:0.15 Stevens, Hannah FR 44.70 (22.23) 1:28.94 (21.99) 1:28.76 q 4) r:+0.0 Kurki, Laura FR 1:28.79 q 4) r:0.22 Weisz, Whitney JR 1:28.94 4) r:0.33 Patterson, Anna JR NCAA Division I Championship Meet HY-TEK\u27s MEET MANAGER 5.0 - 9:36 PM 03/21/15 Page 4 2015 NCAA D1 Women\u27s Swimming & Diving Champs - 03/19/15 to 03/21/15 Results Preliminaries ... (Event 1 Women 200 Yard Freestyle Relay) Team 18 UCLA-CA 1) Mack, Linnea SO 10.77 55.26 (10.62) 19 Ohio State-OH 1) Li, Zhesi FR 10.82 54.92 (10.68) 20 Florida-FL 1) Hinds, Natalie JR r:+4.32 10.58 54.74 (10.49) 21 Alabama-SE 1) Scott, Bailey SO r:+0.68 10.92 55.67 (10.88) 22 Minnesota-MN 1) Weiland, Becca SR r:+0.68 10.72 55.08 (10.64) 23 Michigan-MI 1) Frost, Madeline SO r:+3.98 10.94 55.31 (10.76) 24 Florida State-FL 1) Dressel, Kaitlyn SR r:+0.71 10.84 55.55 (10.59) 25 Arizona St-AZ 1) Barreto, Juanita SR 11.14 55.91 (10.87) *26 Lsu-LA 1) Carter, Amber SR r:+0.73 10.96 55.94 (10.77) *26 Florida Gulf Coast-FL 1) Svensson, Emma SR r:+0.77 10.80 55.56 (10.47) 28 Arkansas-AR 1) White, Susanna SR r:+0.64 10.87 55.51 (10.40) --- So. Methodist-NT 1) Lindborg, Nathalie SR r:+1.67 10.88 55.09 (10.98) Relay A 2) r:0.36 Grover, Katie FR 22.20 (22.20) 32.87 (10.67) 1:06.90 (22.26) 1:17.50 (10.60) A 2) r:0.15 Jongekrijg, Annelise JR 22.23 (22.23) 32.59 (10.36) 1:06.73 (22.49) 1:17.32 (10.59) A 2) r:0.21 Linn, Ashlee JR 21.99 (21.99) 32.53 (10.54) 1:06.53 (22.28) 1:17.35 (10.82) A 2) r:0.24 Tomley, Temarie FR 22.54 (22.54) 33.02 (10.48) 1:07.51 (22.72) 1:17.90 (10.39) A 2) r:0.20 Votava, Lauren JR 22.16 (22.16) 32.77 (10.61) 1:07.07 (22.63) 1:17.66 (10.59) A 2) r:0.18 Deloof, Ali JR 22.66 (22.66) 32.96 (10.30) 1:07.33 (22.78) 1:18.03 (10.70) A 2) r:0.32 Britt, Chelsea SO 22.44 (22.44) 33.26 (10.82) 1:07.50 (22.54) 1:18.02 (10.52) A 2) r:0.13 Jonsdottir, Ingibjorg SO 22.93 (22.93) 33.33 (10.40) 1:07.56 (22.52) 1:18.16 (10.60) A 2) r:0.32 Troskot, Leah SO 22.55 (22.55) 33.24 (10.69) 1:07.89 (22.72) 1:18.43 (10.54) A 2) r:0.35 Julien, Kristin FR 22.20 (22.20) 33.12 (10.92) 1:07.87 (22.78) 1:18.23 (10.36) A 2) r:0.33 Drolc, Nina JR 22.63 (22.63) 33.34 (10.71) 1:07.52 (22.41) 1:18.19 (10.67) A 2) r:0.16 Arcila, Isabella SR 22.47 (22.47) 32.71 (10.24) 1:07.19 (23.08) 1:17.78 (10.59) Seed Time 1:30.03 3) r:0.22 White, Madison SO 44.64 (22.44) 1:29.05 (22.15) 1:29.41 3) r:0.28 McNichols, Macie FR 44.24 (22.01) 1:29.13 (22.40) 1:28.94 3) r:0.11 McKnight, Lindsey JR 44.25 (22.26) 1:29.29 (22.76) 1:29.03 3) r:0.36 Saunders, Emma JR 44.79 (22.25) 1:29.58 (22.07) 1:29.32 3) r:0.25 Nack, Danielle FR 44.44 (22.28) 1:29.63 (22.56) 1:29.51 3) r:0.32 Mattingly, Zoe JR 44.55 (21.89) 1:29.78 (22.45) 1:29.96 3) r:0.09 Spinazzola, Bianca JR 44.96 (22.52) 1:29.82 (22.32) 1:30.16 3) r:0.35 Spadoni, Marina JR 45.04 (22.11) 1:29.93 (22.37) 1:30.17 3) r:0.10 Stirrat, Danielle JR 45.17 (22.62) 1:30.09 (22.20) 1:29.78 Prelim Time 1:29.05 4) r:0.19 Dornick, Monica SR 1:29.13 4) r:0.11 Dzierzak, Rachael JR 1:29.29 4) r:0.11 Michalak, Theresa SO 1:29.58 4) r:0.18 Panian, Justine JR 1:29.63 4) r:0.15 Zeiger, Blake SR 1:29.78 4) r:0.25 Smiddy, Clara FR 1:29.82 4) r:0.20 Smith, Alexi FR 1:29.93 4) r:0.21 Busch, Melanie SR 1:30.09 4) r:0.24 Oquist, Caley JR 1:30.09 3) r:-0.13 Derogatis, Rebecca JR 4) r:0.02 Toussaint, Kira SO 45.09 (22.89) 1:30.09 (22.22) 1:29.62 3) r:0.05 Monroe, Maddie JR 45.11 (22.48) 1:30.19 (22.67) 1:29.78 3) r:0.21 Erasmus, Marne SO 44.11 (21.64) DQ (22.35) 1:30.19 4) r:0.15 Mayfield, Anna JR DQ 4) r:-0.01 Nicholas, Tara-Lynn SO NCAA Division I Championship Meet HY-TEK\u27s MEET MANAGER 5.0 - 9:36 PM 03/21/15 Page 5 2015 NCAA D1 Women\u27s Swimming & Diving Champs - 03/19/15 to 03/21/15 Results Event 2 Women 500 Yard Freestyle NCAA: American: U.S. Open: Championship: Pool Record: Name A - Final 4:30.37 4:26.58 4:26.58 4:30.37 4:29.54 1 Smith, Leah r:+0.81 24.99 2:13.41 (27.26) 4:04.15 (27.82) 2 Runge, Cierra r:+0.79 25.36 2:15.55 (27.95) 4:06.73 (27.89) 3 Henry, Sarah r:+0.76 25.66 2:15.99 (27.59) 4:07.29 (27.55) 4 McDermott, Amber r:+0.90 25.14 2:14.93 (27.67) 4:07.16 (28.16) 5 Thielmann, Jessica r:+0.76 25.96 2:17.55 (28.00) 4:09.77 (28.17) 6 Flickinger, Hali r:+0.80 25.96 2:16.75 (27.88) 4:09.96 (28.49) 7 MacLean, Brittany r:+0.79 25.81 2:17.97 (28.34) 4:10.87 (28.27) 8 Zilinskas, Rachel r:+0.78 26.38 2:18.51 (28.12) 4:11.38 (28.18) N A O C P 03/19/15 02/06/15 02/06/15 03/19/15 12/04/14 Leah Smith Katie Ledecky Katie Ledecky Leah Smith Katie Ledecky Yr School SO Virginia-VA 51.71 (26.72) 2:40.95 (27.54) 4:31.54 (27.39) 1:18.89 (27.18) 3:08.51 (27.56) FR California-PC 52.41 (27.05) 2:43.07 (27.52) 4:33.82 (27.09) 1:19.98 (27.57) 3:10.94 (27.87) SR Texas A&M-GU 53.27 (27.61) 2:43.68 (27.69) 4:34.34 (27.05) 1:20.86 (27.59) 3:11.68 (28.00) SR Georgia-GA 52.34 (27.20) 2:42.82 (27.89) 4:35.31 (28.15) 1:19.61 (27.27) 3:10.82 (28.00) JR Florida-FL 53.66 (27.70) 2:45.47 (27.92) 4:37.22 (27.45) 1:21.58 (27.92) 3:13.30 (27.83) JR Georgia-GA 53.36 (27.40) 2:44.72 (27.97) 4:37.40 (27.44) 1:21.10 (27.74) 3:13.03 (28.31) JR Georgia-GA 53.62 (27.81) 2:46.16 (28.19) 4:38.05 (27.18) 1:21.60 (27.98) 3:14.32 (28.16) SO Georgia-GA 54.17 (27.79) 2:46.72 (28.21) 4:39.22 (27.84) 1:22.25 (28.08) 3:14.85 (28.13) Virginia-VA PV - Unattached PV - Unattached Virginia-VA NCAP-PV Prelim Time Finals Time 4:30.37 Points 4:31.54 20 4:33.82 17 4:34.34 16 4:35.31 15 4:37.22 14 4:37.40 13 4:38.05 12 4:39.22 11 4:36.49 9 4:37.55 7 4:38.53 6 1:46.15 (27.26) 3:36.33 (27.82) 4:35.28 1:47.60 (27.62) 3:38.84 (27.90) 4:36.13 1:48.40 (27.54) 3:39.74 (28.06) 4:35.17 1:47.26 (27.65) 3:39.00 (28.18) 4:37.17 1:49.55 (27.97) 3:41.60 (28.30) 4:37.13 1:48.87 (27.77) 3:41.47 (28.44) 4:37.01 1:49.63 (28.03) 3:42.60 (28.28) 4:38.32 1:50.39 (28.14) 3:43.20 (28.35) B - Final 9 Mattern, Jordan r:+0.70 25.46 2:16.65 (28.19) 4:09.14 (28.01) 10 Chenault, Chelsea r:+0.80 25.16 2:16.60 (28.27) 4:09.43 (27.84) 11 Siverling, Danielle r:+0.78 25.44 2:18.17 (28.34) 4:10.69 (28.25) SR Georgia-GA 52.87 (27.41) 2:44.66 (28.01) 4:36.49 (27.35) 1:20.58 (27.71) 3:12.85 (28.19) SO Southern California-CA 52.53 (27.37) 2:44.80 (28.20) 4:37.55 (28.12) 1:20.34 (27.81) 3:13.22 (28.42) SR UNC-NC 53.29 (27.85) 2:45.98 (27.81) 4:38.53 (27.84) 1:21.32 (28.03) 3:14.08 (28.10) 4:39.02 1:48.46 (27.88) 3:41.13 (28.28) 4:40.24 1:48.33 (27.99) 3:41.59 (28.37) 4:39.33 1:49.83 (28.51) 3:42.44 (28.36) NCAA Division I Championship Meet HY-TEK\u27s MEET MANAGER 5.0 - 9:36 PM 03/21/15 Page 6 2015 NCAA D1 Women\u27s Swimming & Diving Champs - 03/19/15 to 03/21/15 Results B - Final ... (Event 2 Women 500 Yard Freestyle) Name Yr School SO Wisconsin-WI 12 Valley, Danielle r:+0.80 26.08 2:18.64 (28.40) 4:11.57 (28.13) 53.86 (27.78) 2:46.90 (28.26) 4:39.22 (27.65) 1:21.93 (28.07) 3:15.20 (28.30) SR Iowa-IA 13 Stoughton, Becky r:+0.71 25.76 2:19.46 (28.63) 4:13.16 (28.08) 53.84 (28.08) 2:47.86 (28.40) 4:39.76 (26.60) 1:22.33 (28.49) 3:16.58 (28.72) FR Indiana-IN 14 Goss, Kennedy r:+0.65 25.94 2:18.69 (28.23) 4:12.32 (28.25) 53.80 (27.86) 2:46.86 (28.17) 4:40.02 (27.70) 1:22.19 (28.39) 3:15.49 (28.63) JR Arizona-AZ 15 Brandon, Bonnie r:+0.79 25.14 2:17.59 (28.45) 4:12.94 (29.02) 52.68 (27.54) 2:46.40 (28.81) 4:41.36 (28.42) 1:20.70 (28.02) 3:15.24 (28.84) SR California-PC 16 Klaren, Melanie r:+0.71 25.56 2:18.70 (28.40) 4:13.90 (28.92) 53.53 (27.97) 2:47.32 (28.62) 4:42.09 (28.19) 1:21.82 (28.29) 3:16.06 (28.74) Prelim Time Finals Time 4:40.37 4:39.22 Points 5 4:39.76 4 4:40.02 3 4:41.36 2 4:42.09 1 1:50.24 (28.31) 3:43.44 (28.24) 4:40.38 1:50.83 (28.50) 3:45.08 (28.50) 4:39.49 1:50.46 (28.27) 3:44.07 (28.58) 4:38.93 1:49.14 (28.44) 3:43.92 (28.68) 4:40.17 1:50.30 (28.48) 3:44.98 (28.92) Event 2 Women 500 Yard Freestyle NCAA: American: U.S. Open: Championship: Pool Record: Name Preliminaries 4:30.37 4:26.58 4:26.58 4:30.37 4:29.54 1 Smith, Leah r:+0.80 24.86 2:13.24 (27.51) 4:03.69 (27.61) 2 McDermott, Amber r:+0.91 25.17 2:16.03 (27.89) 4:07.50 (28.00) 3 Runge, Cierra r:+0.80 25.11 2:16.35 (28.07) 4:08.03 (27.97) 4 Henry, Sarah r:+0.76 25.55 2:16.35 (28.01) 4:08.54 (27.88) 5 MacLean, Brittany r:+0.77 25.97 2:17.60 (28.05) 4:09.84 (28.08) 6 Flickinger, Hali r:+0.79 25.62 2:16.92 (28.04) 4:09.69 (28.09) N A O C P 03/19/15 02/06/15 02/06/15 03/19/15 12/04/14 Leah Smith Katie Ledecky Katie Ledecky Leah Smith Katie Ledecky Yr School SO Virginia-VA 51.35 (26.49) 2:40.76 (27.52) 4:30.37 (26.68) 1:18.49 (27.14) 3:08.45 (27.69) SR Georgia-GA 52.45 (27.28) 2:43.82 (27.79) 4:35.17 (27.67) 1:20.37 (27.92) 3:11.53 (27.71) FR California-PC 52.69 (27.58) 2:44.29 (27.94) 4:35.28 (27.25) 1:20.44 (27.75) 3:12.14 (27.85) SR Texas A&M-GU 52.79 (27.24) 2:44.46 (28.11) 4:36.13 (27.59) 1:20.47 (27.68) 3:12.46 (28.00) JR Georgia-GA 53.63 (27.66) 2:45.67 (28.07) 4:37.01 (27.17) 1:21.57 (27.94) 3:13.72 (28.05) JR Georgia-GA 52.93 (27.31) 2:45.17 (28.25) 4:37.13 (27.44) 1:20.83 (27.90) 3:13.23 (28.06) Virginia-VA PV - Unattached PV - Unattached Virginia-VA NCAP-PV Seed Time Prelim Time 4:32.61 4:30.37 N q 1:45.73 (27.24) 3:36.08 (27.63) 4:35.19 4:35.17 q 4:35.28 q 4:36.13 q 4:37.01 q 4:37.13 q 1:48.14 (27.77) 3:39.50 (27.97) 4:31.90 1:48.28 (27.84) 3:40.06 (27.92) 4:38.10 1:48.34 (27.87) 3:40.66 (28.20) 4:36.42 1:49.55 (27.98) 3:41.76 (28.04) 4:39.01 1:48.88 (28.05) 3:41.60 (28.37) NCAA Division I Championship Meet HY-TEK\u27s MEET MANAGER 5.0 - 9:36 PM 03/21/15 Page 7 2015 NCAA D1 Women\u27s Swimming & Diving Champs - 03/19/15 to 03/21/15 Results Preliminaries ... (Event 2 Women 500 Yard Freestyle) Name Yr School 7 Thielmann, Jessica r:+0.77 25.79 2:16.02 (27.81) 4:08.92 (28.51) 8 Zilinskas, Rachel r:+0.80 26.68 2:19.30 (28.09) 4:10.67 (27.80) 9 Brandon, Bonnie r:+0.78 25.36 2:16.87 (27.93) 4:11.08 (28.84) 10 Mattern, Jordan r:+0.70 26.00 2:17.82 (28.18) 4:10.86 (28.24) 11 Siverling, Danielle r:+0.75 25.03 2:16.16 (28.11) 4:10.63 (29.11) 12 Goss, Kennedy r:+0.68 25.38 2:16.25 (27.82) 4:10.59 (29.21) 13 Klaren, Melanie r:+0.75 25.09 2:17.25 (28.34) 4:11.86 (28.64) 14 Chenault, Chelsea r:+0.84 25.55 2:17.69 (28.28) 4:11.71 (28.67) 15 Valley, Danielle r:+0.78 26.14 2:18.96 (28.49) 4:12.54 (28.22) 16 Stoughton, Becky r:+0.75 25.93 2:19.24 (28.47) 4:13.00 (28.10) 17 Gibson, Sarah r:+0.74 25.73 2:19.89 (28.70) 4:14.64 (28.15) 18 Harding, Sam r:+0.72 26.18 2:18.66 (28.41) 4:13.15 (28.66) 19 Lips, Haley r:+0.72 26.10 2:19.74 (28.78) 4:14.24 (28.50) JR Florida-FL 53.02 (27.23) 2:44.04 (28.02) 4:37.17 (28.25) 1:20.57 (27.55) 3:11.95 (27.91) SO Georgia-GA 54.78 (28.10) 2:47.14 (27.84) 4:38.32 (27.65) 1:23.00 (28.22) 3:15.12 (27.98) JR Arizona-AZ 52.99 (27.63) 2:45.29 (28.42) 4:38.93 (27.85) 1:20.86 (27.87) 3:13.65 (28.36) SR Georgia-GA 53.79 (27.79) 2:46.07 (28.25) 4:39.02 (28.16) 1:21.67 (27.88) 3:14.17 (28.10) SR UNC-NC 52.11 (27.08) 2:43.96 (27.80) 4:39.33 (28.70) 1:19.96 (27.85) 3:12.47 (28.51) FR Indiana-IN 52.83 (27.45) 2:44.36 (28.11) 4:39.49 (28.90) 1:20.51 (27.68) 3:12.74 (28.38) SR California-PC 52.58 (27.49) 2:45.74 (28.49) 4:40.17 (28.31) 1:20.68 (28.10) 3:14.47 (28.73) SO Southern California-CA 53.26 (27.71) 2:45.83 (28.14) 4:40.24 (28.53) 1:21.50 (28.24) 3:14.32 (28.49) SO Wisconsin-WI 53.98 (27.84) 2:47.42 (28.46) 4:40.37 (27.83) 1:22.11 (28.13) 3:15.96 (28.54) SR Iowa-IA 54.12 (28.19) 2:47.65 (28.41) 4:40.38 (27.38) 1:22.27 (28.15) 3:16.12 (28.47) SO Texas A&M-GU 54.18 (28.45) 2:48.95 (29.06) 4:41.64 (27.00) 1:22.56 (28.38) 3:17.83 (28.88) JR Minnesota-MN 54.01 (27.83) 2:47.11 (28.45) 4:41.80 (28.65) 1:22.25 (28.24) 3:15.66 (28.55) JR Indiana-IN 53.82 (27.72) 2:48.42 (28.68) 4:42.09 (27.85) 1:22.19 (28.37) 3:17.27 (28.85) Seed Time Prelim Tim
Public bodies, private moments : method acting and American cinema in the 1950s
No full textThe thesis deals with two central issues:
a) the construction of a framework for the study of film acting which places
performance in a cultural context
b) the cultural significance of Method acting during the 1950s with specific
reference to American cinema of the period
The first chapter considers the ways in which the voice and body in film acting are made
meaningful in the context of beliefs about acting and personal identity. The chapter also
proposes ways for situating the practical activity of film acting in a context of cultural
production.
The remaining chapters study the cultural significance of Method acting through
separate analyses of the Method technique, style, representation of gender, and image of
star performance. Readings of the Method technique and style are placed in the context of
a `culture of personality', in which the significance of the Method was produced in the
ways that acting signified beliefs about personal identity. The discussion of the Method
style is then developed in the analysis of the ways in which the style was used in film
melodramas to represent the gendered anxieties of the rebel hero. Finally, Marlon
Brando's image and performances are studied for how the actor personified the meaning
of the Method. Together, technique, style, gender representation, and stardom, are
studied as various aspects of what is called the Method discourse
Exercise and pregnancy in recreational and elite athletes: 2016 evidence summary from the IOC expert group meeting, Lausanne. Part 1—exercise in women planning pregnancy and those who are pregnant
No full textBACKGROUND Guidelines on physical activity or exercise and pregnancy encourage pregnant women to continue or adopt an active lifestyle during and following pregnancy.1-3 Two systematic reviews of pregnancy-related guidelines on physical activity found similarities between recommendations from different countries, but noted that the guidelines differed in focus.4 5 The guidelines provided variable guidance on prenatal exercise, or on how pregnant women might approach continuing or adopting sport activities.6 However, most guidelines did not include important topics such as prevalence and known risk factors for common pregnancy-related diseases and complaints, and the role of exercise in preventing and treating them. Importantly, the focus of most previous guidelines has been on healthy pregnant women in the general population, in whom there is almost always a decline in physical activity during pregnancy.7 8 Indeed, a high proportion of pregnant women follow neither physical activity nor exercise guidelines, 9 putting them at increased risk of obesity, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), and other pregnancy-related diseases and complaints.1 On the other hand, there are enthusiastic exercisers and elite athletes who often meet and exceed general exercise recommendations for pregnant women, but there are no exercise guidelines specifically for these women. Important questions for such women are unanswered in current guidelines: Which activities, exercises and sports can they perform, for how long and at what intensity, without risking their own health and the health of the fetus? How soon can they return to highintensity training and competition after childbirth? The IOC and most National Sports Federations encourage women to participate in all Olympic sport disciplines. The IOC promotes high-level performance, and it is also strongly committed to promoting lifelong health among athletes10-not just during their competitive sporting careers. With an increasing number of elite female athletes competing well into their thirties, many may wish to become pregnant, and some also want to continue to compete after childbirth. With this background, the IOC assembled an international expert committee to review the literature on physical activity and exercise (1) during pregnancy and (2) after childbirth, using rigorous systematic review and search criteria.11 For efficiency, where sex is not specified, the reader should assume that this manuscript about pregnancy and childbirth refers to females (ie, 'the elite athlete who wishes to train at altitude' is used in preference to 'the elite female athlete...'). AIMS The September 2015 IOC meeting of 16 experts in Lausanne had three aims. They were to: 1. Summarise common conditions, illnesses and complaints that may interfere with strenuous exercise and competition, during pregnancy and after childbirth; 2. Provide recommendations for exercise training during pregnancy and after childbirth, for highlevel regular exercisers and elite athletes; and 3. Identify major gaps in the literature that limit the confidence with which recommendations can be made. METHODS For each section of the document, a search strategy was performed using search terms such as 'pregnancy' OR 'pregnant' OR 'postpartum' AND 'exercise' OR 'physical activity' OR'leisure activity' OR'leisure' OR 'recreation' OR 'recreational activity' or 'physical fitness' OR 'occupational activity' AND terms related to the condition under study (eg, 'gestational diabetes'). Available databases were searched, with an emphasis on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, PEDro, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus. In addition, existing guidelines with reference lists were scanned. The review of each topic followed the general order: prevalence of the condition in the general pregnant or postpartum population, prevalence in high-level exercisers or elite athletes, risk factors in the general population and in relation to exercise and sport, and effect of preventive and treatment interventions. Level of evidence and grade of recommendations are according to the Cochrane handbook (table 1) for prevention and treatment interventions only. Each member of the working group was assigned to be the lead author of one or more topics and 1-3 others were assigned to review each topic. A first full consensus draft was reviewed before and during the 3-day IOC meeting (27-29 September 2015), and a new version of each topic was submitted to the meeting chairs (KB and KMK) shortly after the meeting. Each topic leader made amendments before sending a new version for comments to the working group
