There is limited research examining how Sub-Saharan parenting practices influence students’ selection of college majors. As a result, educators and administrators may lack evidence-based strategies to effectively engage these families or design programs that support students’ career development. This gap restricts opportunities for students from diverse cultural backgrounds. 

This study explores the relationship between college students of Sub-Saharan descent and their career choices. Specifically, it investigates whether parental involvement among first– and second-generation members of the African Diaspora shapes students’ choice of majors at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, particularly whether it encourages enrollment in natural sciences (such as Stem) and professional fields (such as business) rather than in the humanities or social sciences. 

Using a mixed-methods research design that includes surveys and follow-up interviews, the study examines how parental values are transmitted across generations within a transatlantic context and whether these values are consistent across countries. Additionally, it analyzes the parenting styles that promote particular academic and career pathways. Depending on the findings, the results may inform the development of more culturally responsive advising practices, including the implementation of additional African advisors or counselors to better support students during their transition to university. 

A possible starting point could be the creation of a structured program for students of the African Diaspora to openly discuss challenges they face in college and cultural differences. It is equally important that the administrators leading this program are genuine advocates who clearly articulate and address transitional challenges students may struggle to express independently.

There is a growing severity and frequency of school shootings, alongside an alarming rise in the number of youth experiencing feelings of sadness and hopelessness. In nearly every case of school violence, there were visible warning signs beforehand. However, an underlying culture of silence persists, where loyalty to peers and fear of social consequences discourage students from reporting concerning behavior. This same silence extends to mental health struggles, as students often hesitate to seek help or alert adults when a peer appears to be in distress, perpetuating isolation and risk. 

In response, schools are increasingly turning to Anonymous Reporting Systems (ARS), a school-based mechanism that allows students, staff, and sometimes community members to submit concerns about student safety, bullying, or mental health issues anonymously. While ARS adoption has grown nationally, research on implementation and effectiveness in Massachusetts remains limited. This mixed-methods study addresses that gap through the lens of school administration, examining how Massachusetts public school principals perceive ARS across the state.

Quantitative data will be gathered through a survey distributed to all public school principals in Massachusetts via a contact list provided by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), followed by semi-structured interviews with principals who indicated their consent within the survey. Together, these methods will capture principals' perspectives on ARS effectiveness, as well as the benefits, challenges, and unintended consequences they associate with implementation. These findings seek to offer evidence-based recommendations to inform district and state policy on ARS and school safety infrastructure across Massachusetts.

Growing evidence indicates that corporate sustainability claims are often falsified. A 2021 investigation by the European Commission found that of the environmental claims examined, 42% were unsubstantiated, highlighting both the prevalence of greenwashing and the limitations of regulatory oversight. Because the majority of sustainability disclosures are self-reported, there is limited accountability in how firms present their environmental efforts. One way that companies can signal climate commitment is participation in voluntary sustainability frameworks such as the Science-Based targets initiative (SBTi). SBTi encourages firms to align emission reductions with the Paris Climate Agreement (2016). While sustainability subscriptions may attract environmentally conscious investors and consumers, it is unclear whether commitments correspond to changes in corporate signaling or if they’re a symbolic tool to encourage investment.

This study evaluates whether SBTi adoption corresponds with shifts in corporate sustainability disclosures. Using longitudinal linguistic analysis, the study applies Jensen-Shannon divergence, a measure of similarity between probability distributions, to measure changes in language across Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) themes in corporate reports. By comparing language patterns across SBTi’s adoption phases, pre-commitment, post-commitment, and post-validation, the analysis assesses whether SBTi adoption is associated with shifts in thematic and linguistic diversity in sustainability disclosures. Because firms self-select into SBTi, the analysis focuses on descriptive patterns in disclosure language rather than causal inference regarding the effects of framework adoption. Through this approach, the paper evaluates whether participation in SBTi is associated with substantive changes in corporate sustainability signaling over time.

The competitive edge and perceived economic benefits of AI development have pushed the U.S. federal government to play a vital role in how pervasive generative AI has become. The economic factors that influence the lack of federal regulation of AI create an area of AI use where individuals are interacting with chatbots in ways that question values of ethics, morals, and privacy. This is further exacerbated by the loneliness epidemic which characterizes recent shifts in individuals' perceived levels of isolation and meaningful connections. In tandem with the loneliness epidemic, there are increasing trends of individuals using generative AI as a confidant, companion, and therapist. There are perceived benefits as this technology has been reported to decrease barriers to therapeutic care and provide emotional support for vulnerable populations. However, this raises concerns about users' wellbeing as there are reports of suicide and adverse impacts from engaging with AI in this manner. On the macro level, there is a lack of regard for how individuals are engaging with generative AI sites such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini AI for personal matters. Through positioning user wellbeing at the center of this analysis, this study aims to develop a guideline for regulation that supports ethical and moral AI policy. 

Many states in the U.S. have adopted clean energy targets requiring rapid renewable energy generator deployment. New York’s Clean Energy Standard sets one of the nation's most ambitious targets: sourcing 70% of the state's electricity from renewable energy by 2030. All renewable energy projects require a permit prior to construction, meaning a lengthy permitting process will lead to delayed renewable energy deployment. Prior to 2020, projects were processed under Article 10 of the Public Service Law. In 2020, New York created the Office of Renewable Energy Siting and Electric Transmission (ORES) to streamline permitting and accelerate project approvals.

This study provides the first empirical evaluation of New York’s 2020 permitting reform by comparing project timelines under the Article 10 and ORES regulatory regimes. I constructed a dataset using 2012-2025 data on large-scale renewable energy projects from the New York State Department of Public Service Document and Matter Management (DMM) system. Permitting duration is defined as the number of days between application submission and final approval. Linear regression models are used to find the association between permitting timelines and regulatory regime, project size, technology type, public comments, and county-level demographics.

By quantitatively assessing whether ORES reduces permitting durations relative to Article 10, this study evaluates the effectiveness of state-level renewable energy permitting reform and informs future policy reform.