Despite their immense war-fighting capacity, the five most powerful states in the international system have failed to attain their primary political objective in almost 40% of their military operations against weak state and non-state targets since 1945. Why are states with tremendous military might so often unable to attain their objectives when they use force against weaker adversaries? More broadly, under what conditions can states use military force to attain their political objectives and what conditions limit the utility of military force as a policy instrument? Can we predict the outcome of a war before the fighting begins?
Scholars and military leaders have argued that poor military strategy choices, domestic political constraints on democratic governments, or failure to commit sufficient resources to the war effort can explain why strong states lose small wars. In contrast, Who Wins? by Patricia L. Sullivan argues that the key to understanding strategic success in war lies in the nature of the political objectives states pursue through the use of military force. Sullvian does not deny the importance of war-fighting capacity, military strategies, or resolve as determinants of war outcomes. But she provides both a coherent argument and substantial empirical evidence that the effects of these factors are dependent on the nature of the belligerents' political objectives.
The theory's predictions about the conditions under which states are able to attain their political objectives through the use of military force are tested against the most widely accepted alternative explanations of war outcomes with an abundance of historical data on violent conflicts. The results support Sullivan's argument and challenge both existing theories and conventional wisdom about the impact of factors like military strength, resolve, regime type, and war-fighting strategies on war outcomes.

This is an examination of writing technologies and critical research practices. It discusses topics such as: articulating methodology as praxis; postmodern mapping and methodological interfaces; and the politics and ethics of studying writing with computers.

Winner of the 2020 CCCC Research Impact Award Lean Technical Communication: Toward Sustainable Program Innovation offers a theoretically and empirically-grounded model for growing and stewarding professional and technical communication programs under diverse conditions. Through case studies of disruptive innovations, this book presents a forward-looking, sustainable vision of program administration that negotiates short-term resource deficits with long-term resilience. It illustrates how to meet many of the newest challenges facing technical communication programs, such as building and maintaining change with limited resources, economic shortfalls, technology deficits, and expanding/reimagining the role of our programs in the 21st century university. Its insights benefit those involved in the development of undergraduate and graduate programs, including majors, service courses, minors, specializations, and certificates.

Winner of the 2020 CCCC Research Impact Award Lean Technical Communication: Toward Sustainable Program Innovation offers a theoretically and empirically-grounded model for growing and stewarding professional and technical communication programs under diverse conditions. Through case studies of disruptive innovations, this book presents a forward-looking, sustainable vision of program administration that negotiates short-term resource deficits with long-term resilience. It illustrates how to meet many of the newest challenges facing technical communication programs, such as building and maintaining change with limited resources, economic shortfalls, technology deficits, and expanding/reimagining the role of our programs in the 21st century university. Its insights benefit those involved in the development of undergraduate and graduate programs, including majors, service courses, minors, specializations, and certificates.

Sullivan spent ten years unearthing the little-known early decades of the NAACP's activism, telling startling stories of personal bravery, legal brilliance, and political maneuvering by the likes of W.E.B. Du Bois, Mary White Ovington, James Weldon Johnson, Walter White, Charles Houston, Ella Baker, Thurgood Marshall, and Roy Wilkins--as well as a host of unknown but pivotal figures whom "Lift Every Voice" brings to light for the first time. With fascinating new information on the pre-World War I decades of the NAACP, the book culminates in 1963, altering the chronology of the civil rights movement so that readers appreciate the foundation that the NAACP built in those early, formative years.

Despite their immense war-fighting capacity, the five most powerful states in the international system have failed to attain their primary political objective in almost 40% of their military operations against weak state and non-state targets since 1945. Why are states with tremendous military might so often unable to attain their objectives when they use force against weaker adversaries? More broadly, under what conditions can states use military force to attain their political objectives and what conditions limit the utility of military force as a policy instrument? Can we predict the outcome of a war before the fighting begins?
Scholars and military leaders have argued that poor military strategy choices, domestic political constraints on democratic governments, or failure to commit sufficient resources to the war effort can explain why strong states lose small wars. In contrast, Who Wins? by Patricia L. Sullivan argues that the key to understanding strategic success in war lies in the nature of the political objectives states pursue through the use of military force. Sullvian does not deny the importance of war-fighting capacity, military strategies, or resolve as determinants of war outcomes. But she provides both a coherent argument and substantial empirical evidence that the effects of these factors are dependent on the nature of the belligerents' political objectives.
The theory's predictions about the conditions under which states are able to attain their political objectives through the use of military force are tested against the most widely accepted alternative explanations of war outcomes with an abundance of historical data on violent conflicts. The results support Sullivan's argument and challenge both existing theories and conventional wisdom about the impact of factors like military strength, resolve, regime type, and war-fighting strategies on war outcomes.

This is an examination of writing technologies and critical research practices. It discusses topics such as: articulating methodology as praxis; postmodern mapping and methodological interfaces; and the politics and ethics of studying writing with computers.

In the 1930s and 1940s, a loose alliance of blacks and whites, individuals and organizations, came together to offer a radical alternative to southern conservative politics. In "Days of Hope," Patricia Sullivan traces the rise and fall of this movement. Using oral interviews with participants in this movement as well as documentary sources, she demonstrates that the New Deal era inspired a coalition of liberals, black activists, labor organizers, and Communist Party workers who sought to secure the New Deal's social and economic reforms by broadening the base of political participation in the South. From its origins in a nationwide campaign to abolish the poll tax, the initiative to expand democracy in the South developed into a regional drive to register voters and elect liberals to Congress. The NAACP, the CIO Political Action Committee, and the Southern Conference for Human Welfare coordinated this effort, which combined local activism with national strategic planning. Although it dramatically increased black voter registration and led to some electoral successes, the movement ultimately faltered, according to Sullivan, because the anti-Communist fervor of the Cold War and a militant backlash from segregationists fractured the coalition and marginalized southern radicals. Nevertheless, the story of this campaign invites a fuller consideration of the possibilities and constraints that have shaped the struggle for racial democracy in America since the 1930s.