This study explored the professional contributions of Ruth I. Anderson, retired professor of Business Administration, The University of North Texas, Denton, Texas. The data for this study were gained through questionnaire responses, a telephone interview, and personal interviews with faculty, staff, students, and business people who have worked closely with Anderson and an interview with Anderson herself. During a literature review, many of the journal articles written by Anderson were read in order to obtain insight into the thoughts and ideas Anderson had toward business education. The dissertation, divided into six chapters, begins with an introduction to the study. Chapter 1 includes the statement of the problem, purposes of the study, research questions, significance of the study, rationale for the study, and design of the study. Chapter 2 contains a biographical sketch of Ruth Anderson and offers a chronology of her career in business education. Anderson's educational philosophy is the focus of Chapter 3. Chapter 4 addresses her major accomplishments and contributions to business education. Anderson's impact on business education is the topic of Chapter 5. A summary is provided in Chapter 6. This study recognized Ruth Anderson as a significant person in the field of business education. Anderson, who …

The debates among historians regarding the "crisis in history" have been directed to various problems. The fragmentation of historical scholarship and writing embodied in the "new history," the alleged overspecialization of historical scholarship, and recent challenges to the objectivity of historical fact and interpretation receive attention. Successive chapters attend to a general background study and description of postmodernism, the association between postmodernistic trends and historical scholarship as seen in poststructuralism and deconstruction, and the implications of postmodernistic criticism for post-secondary history instruction. Deconstruction, or the hermeneutical challenge of poetics, is a criticism of historical epistemological presuppositions and practices. Deconstruction yields insights that are useful to judge historical knowing. However, deconstruction does not present a compelling alternative to accepted standards of historical scholarship and practice