A student and staff partnership in the development of a student directed independent learning toolkit

This case study offers reflection and evaluation on a student and staff partnership that utilises the principles of action research in the development of a practical toolkit to support directed independent learning by students. Since 2016, in an ongoing project under the auspices of the Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law internship scheme, students have worked in partnership with members of staff to address the support for students’ development of independent learning skills to enable their full engagement with different university teaching styles. This project theme was chosen because it has the potential to have a significant impact on creating or supporting student confidence in students’ academic ability and associated mental wellbeing and sense of satisfaction and achievement. Students are best placed to provide solutions and inform the development of independent learning skills within a student-staff partnership project that facilitates active collaboration and the power to co-create.

The Hillary Hypotheses: Testing Candidate Views of Loss

The surprising election of Donald Trump to the presidency calls for a comprehensive assessment of what motivated voters to opt for a controversial political novice rather than a provocative but experienced political veteran. Our study provides a novel exploration of the Trump victory through the prism of the defeated candidate—Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC). Losing candidates’ perceptions are usually not subject to academic analyses. Nevertheless, these people often hold substantial sway in their parties and thus understanding their views on the loss is essential, especially as a party regroups after defeat. Using HRC’s memoir What Happened, we devise the Hillary Hypotheses, her rationale for her electoral defeat. Using the 2016 American National Election Study (ANES), we provide the first systematic test of a losing candidate’s rationale for their defeat. We show that more often than not, HRC’s assumptions are supported. However, we find little evidence to support HRC’s most crucial assertion, namely that the e-mail scandal and specifically James Comey’s intervention ten days before Election Day cost her the presidency. Our findings have implications for understanding why Donald Trump won, but more broadly the contribution explores an understudied aspect of elections—a defeated candidate’s impression of their loss.

Women’s Security as National Security

Chapter 6 evaluates the trajectory of Hillary Rodham Clinton from the roles of first lady, senator, and presidential candidate to secretary of state. Similar to Albright’s actions in the Balkans, Clinton endorsed NATO intervention in Libya in 2011. Military action in North Africa formed a crucial element of President Barack Obama’s first-term foreign policy record. It paralleled Clinton’s support as a senator for the US invasion of Iraq. Efforts by Clinton to make women’s rights a major pivot of her international doctrine echoed the feminist perspectives she held since early adulthood, which in turn were integral to the Democratic Party support base of the 1970s and following.