The sociological model of mental illness (Weitz, 2020, pp. 146-148) offers a much needed contrast to the disproportionate dominance of the medical model in research, public policy, and popular discourse (Weitz, 2020, pp. 145-146 & 158-160). Unfortunately, the sociological model receives little attention in comparison (Mulvaney, 2001), although there has been a slight revival in recent years. However, the bulk of research on mental illness within the sociological model is predominantly quantitative, relying heavily on statistics and reducing complex systemic processes to various separated variables (Chandler, 2019; Mullaney, 2016; Spates & Slatton, 2021). Both sociological and psychological research on mental illness tend to be dominated by a highly quantitative focus on ‘social factors’, and generally shy away from examining the role of macro-level social structures and institutions. Consequently, even the sociological model of mental illness tends to fall short of implicating the underlying socio-economic system as a potential contributor to psychological harm and distress. This paper offers critiques of the medical model of mental illness and highlights both the strengths and shortcomings of work in the sociological model. I will also attempt to address these issues by providing a sociological and philosophical analysis of how the capitalist socio-economic system, and systems of oppression in general, shapes social constructions of mental illness and inflicts chronic stress and stigma, leading to much of the psychological distress that many people currently experience.

An exploratory research study conducted to determine the comparing and contrasting views and understandings of masculinity between young adults. Specifically those who identify as Christian compared to those who do not identify as Christian. A survey study was distributed through ASU courses and through social media leading to the results discussing the varying opinions on how masculinity is defined by Religion, Mass Media, and Education. Relationships and comparisons between Christian participants displayed the importance of traditional masculine values, whereas non-Christian participants seemed to have a more open and inclusive understanding of masculinity. Due to this being an exploratory study, much future research is necessary in order to fully expand on the complexities of Christianity, masculinity, and society’s overall understanding of the two.

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between orofacial myofunctional disorder (OMD) and speech production errors of /s/ and /z/. A randomized sample of 32 college-aged participants was analyzed to determine OMD prevalence. Further recruitment took place for those that had current speech errors or had a history of speech therapy, totaling 39 participants (ages 18-36). Subjects participated in an evaluation (ranging from 0:18:27 to 0:30:08) where OMD classification was determined through the validated 2010 Expanded Orofacial Myofunctional Evaluation with Scores protocol (OMES-E), and speech production errors were assessed through spontaneous speech and a reading sample. Through a descriptive analysis of the first 32 participants, greater prevalence of OMD was seen in participants who exhibited moderate to severe speech errors than those with mild/subclinical and no speech errors. Results from the 39 participants indicated a significant correlation between OMD classification and speech errors. Further analysis showed speech errors were significantly correlated with the OMES-E subtests of physical features/posture and mobility. Results suggest that OMD may be a contributing factor to persistent speech errors in college-aged students. Further research may indicate that OMD characteristics need to be treated alongside speech sound disorders to aid in successful remediation of speech errors in individuals who exhibit both OMD and speech errors.