Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2017, English

Since 2009, approximately 8 million student veterans have used $84 Billion in GI Bill benefits to attend college or university in the United States (U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, “Annual Benefits Report” 2009-16). Student veterans represent 4% of students nationwide (Molina). Despite these numbers, 92% of composition faculty reported that they had experienced no professional development related to the military or veterans' learning needs (Hart and Thompson, “Ethical Obligation,” 8). Patricia Bizzell wrote, “We in this field want to know who our students are” (442). This project works to help scholars in composition and literacy studies know more about who student veterans are. This project addresses the research questions: • How do student veterans from the same branch of service understand and describe writing, reading, and literacy sponsored by that service? • How do student veterans discuss the connections and relationships between military literacy practices and academic literacy? • What can be learned about transfer of learning and prior knowledge by studying the experiences of student veterans? • When individuals move between the military and higher education how do they recognize and negotiate expectations regarding reading, writing, and literacy? To answer these questions, I conducted a qualitative study of Marines, veterans, and reservists. Through surveys and interviews with current and former Marines, I collected data about their beliefs and memories about their literacy practices, their military service, and their experiences in college classes. I use these data to support a series of claims about the literacy practices of student veterans and how understanding those practices can improve composition instruction. In Chapter 1, I argue that an asset frame may allow composition and literacy studies to better understand student veterans' literacy practices than hero/time-bomb dichotomies. In Chapter 2, I argue that the United States (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Jonathan Buehl (Committee Chair); Daniel Keller (Committee Member); Cynthia L. Selfe (Committee Member) Subjects: Composition; Literacy; Military Studies; Rhetoric

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2019, Music

For members of the United States Armed Forces, communicating with one's loved ones has taken many forms, employing every available medium from the telegraph to Twitter. My project examines one particular mode of exchange—“audio letters”—during one of the US military's most trying and traumatic periods, the Vietnam War. By making possible the transmission of the embodied voice, experiential soundscapes, and personalized popular culture to zones generally restricted to purely written or typed correspondence, these recordings enabled forms of romantic, platonic, and familial intimacy beyond that of the written word. More specifically, I will examine the impact of war and its sustained separations on the creative and improvisational use of prosthetic culture, technologies that allow human beings to extend and manipulate aspects of their person beyond their own bodies. Reel-to-reel was part of a constellation of amateur recording technologies, including Super 8mm film, Polaroid photography, and the Kodak slide carousel, which, for the first time, allowed average Americans the ability to capture, reify, and share their life experiences in multiple modalities, resulting in the construction of a set of media-inflected subjectivities (at home) and intimate intersubjectivities developed across spatiotemporal divides.

Committee: Ryan Skinner (Advisor); Danielle Fosler-Lussier (Committee Member); Barry Shank (Committee Member) Subjects: American Studies; Cultural Anthropology; Music

Doctor of Philosophy, University of Akron, 2018, History

The following dissertation examines the ways in which Union and Confederate ex-prisoners of war discussed their experiences of captivity between 1862 and 1930. By examining former prisoners' captivity narratives, this dissertation demonstrates that to the end of their lives, ex-prisoners worked to construct a public image—one of suffering—that differed from the typical gallant volunteer who fought and died on the battlefield. Ex-prisoners shared their stories of captivity as a way of affirming their identities as a distinct type of veteran and to affirm their place as American men, regardless of their time as a prisoner of war. Viewed singly, any of these narratives might be dismissed as a fascinating story of personal suffering and survival, but when they are considered as a body of literature, one can trace the development of a master narrative, both separate from and intertwined with the American public's postwar memory. This dissertation challenges conventional understandings of postwar reconciliation and adds to recent scholarship on veterans' reintegration into civilian life. Both Union and Confederate ex-prisoners of war often contradicted this preferred heroic narrative of the war. Some men, as they got older, accepted reconciliation and censored their bitterness and hatred. Others promised to never forget their sufferings and, as a result, remained obstacles to reconciliation. By examining ex-prisoners' narratives, this dissertation reveals how ex-prisoners did not accept or fit into the ideal trajectory of reconciliation.

Committee: Walter Hixson (Committee Chair); Lesley Gordon (Committee Co-Chair); Stephen Harp (Committee Member); Kevin Adams (Committee Member); Patrick Chura (Committee Member) Subjects: American History; American Literature; History; Military History

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Ohio University, 2021, English (Arts and Sciences)

“We live entirely, especially if we are writers,” Joan Didion states, “by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the `ideas' with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience.” If this “shifting phantasmagoria” also involves the often fragmented, blurry, and contradictory experience of war, what formal and stylistic modes do nonfiction writers implement to represent this experience? By tracing first-person nonfiction narratives from WWI, Vietnam, and the more recent “forever wars,” Martin examines how writers have captured the experience of war by adopting craft techniques rooted in Modernist collage and cinematic montage. Documenting the rise of the “blockbuster” film, along with the influence of visual media, Martin argues that—since the American War in Vietnam— some of the most stark and affecting personal narratives of war succeed through fragmentation, collage, and polyphony. Martin also includes his dissertation, a collection of essays centered around his military experiences and service in Iraq.

Committee: Dinty Moore (Committee Chair) Subjects: American History; American Literature; American Studies; Armed Forces; History; Language Arts; Literature; Military History; Military Studies; Modern History

Master of Arts (MA), Wright State University, 2018, International and Comparative Politics

The Asia Pacific power structure is facing numerous challenges. Scholarship demonstrates Japan has encountered arduous obstacles as it balances Chinese and North Korean activity. As Japan attempts to expand its military capabilities, polling data shows that defense policy has conflicted with Japan's citizens and neighboring countries. The focal point of these contentions is Article 9 of the Japanese constitution which restrains the Japanese military to self-defense purposes. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has vowed to revise Article 9 by 2020. However, revising Article 9 is no simple task. Research demonstrates that for decades Japanese public opinion has been opposed to the revision of Article 9. This research examines trends in Japanese public opinion and its influence over Japanese defense policy. The research additionally suggests possible outcomes of the public referendum required before revising Article 9. Finally, this analysis provides implications for the Asia Pacific's security environment if Article 9 is revised.

Committee: Laura Luehrmann Ph.D. (Committee Chair); Kathryn Meyer Ph.D. (Committee Member); December Green Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Armed Forces; Asian Studies; History; International Relations; Military History; Military Studies; Pacific Rim Studies; Political Science; Regional Studies

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Bowling Green State University, 2015, English (Rhetoric and Writing) PhD

Learners—e.g., students and research participants—face unique and invisible barriers to making and sharing knowledge. In fact, some individuals prefer to express themselves in modes that do not comply with “school-sponsored” (Emig, 1971) composing practices. Given writing studies teacher-scholars' established reputation advocating for students of varied abilities, needs, and experiences, this project contends that Universal Design for Learning (UDL) could sustain writing studies teacher-scholars' continued efforts for student advocacy and diverse learning practices. Stemming from disability studies, UDL fosters practices that are inclusive and accessible from inception for learners, including but not limited to individuals with military experience. Using mixed methods procedures for conducting and representing findings, this project shares the “self-sponsored” (Emig, 1971) multimodal literate practices of 301 current and former, male and female U.S. Military service personnel—including but not limited to their use of digital technologies. Findings reveal that literate practices foster complex identity negotiations and a sense of personal agency. Indeed, co-interpreters testify to the ways in which composing practices affirm their differences (identities) and agency as survivors—not victims—of trauma through their use of multimodal practices like drawing and public speaking, which a UDL worldview best facilitates.

Committee: Kristine Blair (Committee Chair); Lee Nickoson (Committee Member); Sue Carter Wood (Committee Member); Alexis Hart (Committee Member); Laura Lengel (Committee Member) Subjects: Composition; Rhetoric

Master of Arts (MA), Wright State University, 2014, History

The purpose of this thesis is to re-examine the nineteenth century British cavalry as an organization, one which has generally been characterized as deeply conservative and resistant to change in organization, operations and tactics. While the charge of conservatism is true in terms of the command structure of the British cavalry, this research demonstrates that the British cavalry of the nineteenth century typically adapted itself to the conditions in which it found itself, adopting whatever methods, tactics and weapons best suited the campaigns in which it fought. Beginning with the Crimean War's cavalry actions as a baseline for what was generally expected of nineteenth century cavalry in the British Army, the thesis then moves on to demonstrate that in other circumstances the cavalry would neither follow such strict and stringent rules of engagement nor rely on the massed charge as the best or only method of engaging the enemy. Moving chronologically through several campaigns in which cavalry figured prominently, including the Indian Mutiny, Anglo-Zulu War, the war in the Sudan and the Anglo-Boer War, this thesis points out the many and varied ways in which the British cavalry adapted itself to different climates, opponents and tactics around the globe, and makes clear that the British cavalry was capable of a great deal of flexibility and resourcefulness. Thus, institutional intransigence was offset by operational flexibility in the actual theaters of battle, with official doctrine often being changed in the wake of a successful campaign or battle.

Committee: Paul Lockhart Ph.D. (Advisor); Carol Herringer Ph.D. (Committee Member); Jonathan Winkler Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: History; Military History; Military Studies