Suffolk University is a private research university in Boston, Massachusetts. With 7,560 students (includes all campuses, 7,379 at the Boston location alone), it is the eighth-largest university in metropolitan Boston. It was founded as a law school in 1906 and named after its location in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. The university's notable alumni include mayors, dozens of U.S. federal and state judges and members of the U.S. Congress. The university is also host to its namesake public opinion poll, the Suffolk University Political Research Center.The university, located at the downtown edge of the historic Beacon Hill neighborhood, is coeducational and comprises the Suffolk University Law School, the College of Arts & Sciences, and the Sawyer Business School. It has an international campus in Madrid in addition to the main campus in downtown Boston.The university's sports teams, the Suffolk Rams, compete in 19 varsity sports in NCAA Division III as members of the Commonwealth Coast Conference.S.S.S.
As generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) reshapes educational priorities, governance and pedagogical norms, global citizenship education (GCE) in higher education (HE) faces intensifying tensions between ethical imperatives and algorithmic rationalities. This article offers a human-centred, critical-decolonial reframing of GCE in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). It argues that the dominant approaches to GCE risk reinforcing neoliberal, technocratic and universalist assumptions. Drawing on the work of Vanessa Andreotti, Sharon Stein, Emiliano Bosio and Paulo Freire, the article advocates for an alternative grounded in relational ethics, epistemic plurality and institutional reflexivity. Employing critical interpretive synthesis and guided by the performative tool of social cartography, the authors developed a ten-dimension framework for institutional self-reflection. Rather than framing GCE as a fixed set of global competencies, this framework reimagines it as a dynamic pedagogical project grounded in care, shared responsibility and ethical dialogue. It responds to the structural inequities amplified by AI integration, foregrounds the risks of AI-mediated depersonalisation and invites HE institutions to implement GCE as a dynamic space for justice-oriented learning and collective flourishing.
Background: While many individuals who experience trauma report continuous access to traumatic memories, others describe recollections of previously inaccessible traumatic (PIT) memories. The validity, prevalence, and mechanisms of PIT memories remain highly contested. This exploratory qualitative study examined how the lack of consensus influences how mental health providers conceptualise and treat clients who report PIT memories. Methods: Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse responses to open-ended survey questions. Frequency scores were reported for responses to closed-ended items. Findings: Providers emphasised the importance of validating clients' emotional experiences without necessarily affirming the accuracy of their memories, highlighted the need for caution around creating or reinforcing false memories, and stressed the importance of specialised training. However, responses also reflected variation in perspectives. Providers described a range of reservations about providing treatment to this population, with some reporting no reservations, others viewing treatment as particularly complex and challenging, and several citing concerns about the reliability of clients reporting PIT memories. Some providers expressed stigmatising views, describing clients as "fragile" or seeking "secondary gain." Views were also mixed regarding the importance of verifying PIT memories and satisfaction with training. Finally, 41% of providers indicated they would be unwilling to work with this population due to their reservations about providing treatment. Conclusion: Providers hold varied and sometimes conflicting perspectives about treating clients reporting PIT memories. With nearly half unwilling to engage in treatment, there is an urgent need for clearer guidance and targeted education to ensure ethical and consistent care for this population.
This study examines international knowledge flows in self-driving, electric vehicle, and semiconductor technologies using global patent data from 2010 to 2024. Chinese patenting grew rapidly, making China the largest contributor in these sectors. Despite this growth in patenting volume, a large share of influential patents continues to originate from firms headquartered in the United States, Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Across all three technologies, Chinese inventors receive relatively fewer citations from foreign inventors, indicating limited global diffusion of Chinese-origin knowledge. In contrast, patents from the United States and Japan are widely cited across countries, consistent with their role as central sources of globally diffused knowledge. After 2018, following trade tensions between the U.S. and China, bilateral knowledge exchange increased, particularly through the intangible knowledge embedded in patents. Overall, the evidence indicates that the two countries increasingly rely on each other's codified knowledge, as reflected in patents, rather than on direct transfers of physical technologies.
Recent reviews and research into the efficacy of rape and serious sex offence investigations have found myriad institutional issues in policing that require urgent improvement. To explore this area further, 50 semi-structured interviews were conducted with police officers across four forces in England and Wales. The interview data were qualitatively analysed using thematic analysis. Three main themes were identified related to institutional challenges: (1) staffing, including lack of resources and high workloads, inexperienced staff, and supervision issues; (2) training, including a lack of specialist training, and inadequate systems training; and (3) technology, including lack of access to equipment/systems, and systems not being user-friendly. Of note in the findings is the complex interconnected nature of these challenges, and the consequences of this in terms of the need for broader, systemic change, rather than tackling each factor in isolation. The article discusses how institutional change will only be facilitated through a frank acceptance of the current issues seen within rape and serious sex offence (RASSO) policing and a concerted effort to enact change that values planning and reflection, as well as the allowance for collaborative and meaningful evaluation of such change. Drawing on insights from organisational attention theory, it also considered how competing organisational demands and resource constraints may shape which reform priorities receive sustained institutional focus.
In the UK, the recent 'turn to vulnerability' in safeguarding and the criminal justice system has meant an increasing recognition that many children and vulnerable adults committing crimes, such as drug dealing, are in fact victims of criminal exploitation involving manipulation and coercion. This recognition is fairly recent, and the visibility of exploited children and adults is impacting how they are dealt with and safeguarded. In other parts of Europe, there is also burgeoning recognition of drug market-related criminal exploitation (DMCE) manifesting in various forms. In most European states, DMCE is, however, as of yet, not as 'visible' or as accommodated by the criminal justice and safeguarding systems that process exploited children and adults, and still often see these as criminals first and exploited second. Drawing on an international research network, we provide the first assessment of DMCE as an internationally relevant concept and how DMCE victims are situated across various spaces. Data derives from a comparative research project conducted in Denmark, the Republic of Ireland, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the UK supported by expert reflection on research evidence and analysis of criminal justice processing, policy documents and media reporting in each context. Findings show that DMCE is present in all contexts, that its degree of socio-legal visibility varies and that 'offender' versus 'victim' narratives continue to dominate the extent to which DMCE victims are accommodated as such.
