Over the years, the relationship between universities and corporations have become more and more intertwined through research and building funding, student opportunities, and company influence on administrators and faculty. My research explores the connections between the University of Washington (UW) and Boeing, a large transnational weapons manufacturer, and the impacts these connections have on research, education, and students' future career prospects. In this project, I ask: how are student’s educational experiences and career opportunities impacted by the university’s close connection to the Boeing company? I am focusing on a potential student to Boeing pipeline–a process for where students are primed to work at Boeing through their educational experiences at UW. I address this question through a variety of methods and sources, including a comprehensive analysis of all publicly available information on UW websites, including individual websites run by UW research labs, interviews with engineering students, Public Records requests, and a review of relevant Critical University Studies literature. My findings indicate that there is significant evidence towards the existence of a student-to-Boeing pipeline at UW. Boeing has given an extensive amount of money to the university, placed employees/affiliates in professorships, and is vastly overrepresented in internship and capstone opportunities available to students through the University of Washington. Furthermore, my research found a correlation between departments with a high amount of funding from Boeing with higher rates of student employment at Boeing after graduation. I argue that the student-to-Boeing pipeline has fundamentally changed the education of UW Engineering students to better fit Boeing’s needs, and it upholds the military-industrial complex. This project contributes to broader debates in critical university studies about the mission of public universities in providing students an unbiased education and universities' role in combating the climate crisis.

Social media algorithms shape how people consume information, but their potential influence on political attitudes remains uncertain. This research examines whether TikTok's "For You" page algorithm influences American users' political attitudes toward China by prioritizing positive narratives of China, including support for the People's Republic of China (PRC) policies and strategic objectives. While U.S. policymakers have expressed concerns that TikTok, owned by ByteDance, a Chinese technology company, may subtly influence public opinion, it remains debated whether its algorithm actively shapes user perceptions. To investigate this, we randomly assigned 60 American TikTok users to three groups: a control group with randomized content exposure, a treatment group exposed to pro-China content, and another to anti-China content. Participants completed surveys before and after their TikTok usage to measure changes in trust, favorability, and perceptions of China's role in international orders. If the algorithm operates purely for engagement optimization, we expect a polarization effect, where participants shift in opposite directions based on their respective content exposure. However, if the algorithm is actively shaping narratives, a uniform shift toward pro-China sentiment across all groups may indicate external influence. Using ANOVA and Difference-in-Differences regression, this study evaluates whether TikTok's algorithm passively reflects user engagement patterns or actively shapes political attitudes. The findings contribute to discussions on social media influence, information manipulation, and digital platforms' role in shaping public opinion.

The project examines how geopolitical competition affects the security of global subsea cable infrastructure, which carries 99% of intercontinental internet traffic. We investigate two key questions: how have patterns of cable disruptions changed since 2005, and how do different regions face distinct security challenges? Through analysis of cable incident reports, government documents, and industry data from 2005-2025, combined with detailed case studies of three maritime regions, we examine evolving threat patterns and protection strategies. For instance, our analysis of cable incidents demonstrates a significant shift in both frequency and attribution patterns, there are distinct regional vulnerability patterns, and the private sector companies responsible for this infrastructure are going through a major transformation. Technological competition between major powers has also shaped this infrastructure—with Western nations increasingly restricting Chinese companies' participation in cable projects. Our findings contribute to understanding critical infrastructure protection by demonstrating how geopolitical competition shapes global communications security. We suggest the need for enhanced international cooperation mechanisms, standardized incident response protocols, and balanced approaches.

Asylum policy is constantly evolving in the US and EU in response to shifting public opinion, national interests, and international conflicts. Starting from countries of origin to countries of destination, our task force covers challenges plaguing not only US and EU systems but the world. A side-by-side comparison surveys past and present progress and setbacks influencing asylum processes. We argue that the US and EU share areas for improvement, but can also learn from eachother to enhance their capabilities in tackling unprecedented migration crises. Our research highlights the importance of collaboration multilaterally, bilaterally, and with non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations to implement policies that address the needs of all actors, globally to locally. Using contemporary case studies to demonstrate the real-world impacts of asylum policies, our findings stress the importance of adaptability in asylum policy. The protection of asylum seekers and refugees is not mutually exclusive with promoting domestic interests. Pathways exist that allow the US and EU to ensure their security while adhering to international agreements and standards. Thus, a comprehensive, cooperative, approach proves essential for creating asylum frameworks that both respond to evolving global challenges while supporting national and regional priorities.

Since 1947, the Japanese government has been constrained by Article 9 of its Constitution, renouncing war as a means to settle international disputes and preventing the existence of an offensive military force. With the Security Treaty between the United States and Japan signed in 1951, the United States is obligated to defend Japan in exchange for the continued existence of American military bases on Japanese soil. In this research, we explore whether it is in America's interest to encourage Japan to amend or repeal Article 9, considering the security risks stemming from a stronger China and combative North Korea. In our policy recommendation, we used scholarly sources to discover three distinct challenges to regional and global security if a change to the status of Article 9 was to be pushed forward: Japanese public opinion and governmental concerns, the potential antagonization of regional adversaries, and the polarization of American allies with long-standing colonial histories with Japan. To address these concerns, we utilized a qualitative approach, exploring various narratives and opinions on the issue at stake. We found a diverse set of viewpoints, which we used to compile a recommendation for Japan to amend Article 9 to allow for the collective self-defense of its neighbors and allies when attacked. This research has significant implications for Japan's role in the future of East Asia, designating the state as a key military and economic power under America's Free and Open Indo-Pacific. With the culmination of our project, we found a clear path to upkeep and enhance America's time-honored relationship with Japan while maintaining its strategic leadership in the region. As previous efforts to remilitarize Japan have broken down due to several factors, our findings provide insight into the most suitable direction for the United States as a key player in the broader Asian region.

My research is focused on the question of "Why do first-generation Indian Sikh immigrants return back to their origin country?" I am researching about why some migrants return and others do not, specifically the factors that influence the decision-making. My initial research showcased economic motivations being parallel to initial migration as well as return to one's origin country, along with the the influences of the labor market. I hypothesize that return migration in India is driven by the same realities that drive emigration, namely opportunities to develop economically. I conducted qualitative interviews with Indian Sikh immigrants, both those who had returned back to India along with those currently living in a destination country. The subjects were identified through established social personal networks and participants were screened through questions about their migration journey and if they identified as Sikhs. My project is still in progress, however I have completed more than half of my intended goal for qualitative interviews. My preliminary findings suggest that the primary reasons for migration out of an origin country and returning back relates to economic motivations. However social factors, such as conflicts within the origin country and discrimination in the destination country also impact the decision-making processes and intentions of return. The findings of this research are impactful within migration studies, especially as return migration is a relatively new field that is constantly developing. The case study of Sikh Indian Immigrants has not been researched extensively in the past, showcasing why identifying the various factors influencing motivations and intentions is crucial when understanding the patterns of migration. 

This project aims to challenge the traditional way we teach about difficult and violent history throughout K-12 education by using 9/11 and the War on Terror as a case study. I ultimately argue that by presenting multiple competing narratives, children’s literature provides a potential solution for introducing nuanced conversation into children’s history education. The research question guiding this project is how does children’s literature complicate mainstream narratives about 9/11 in K-12 education? As part of this project, I conducted a qualitative survey of UW undergraduate students to explore their experiences of learning about 9/11 and the War on Terror as children. I compared the results of this survey to existing research describing what K-12 educators are claim to be teaching in their classrooms today. As part of this project I also analyzed different historical narratives about the 9/11 era, both outside of and within children’s literature. I find that across mediums and experiences, the dominant narrative of 9/11 indoctrinates young Americans into a War on Terror attitude which casts America as a blameless victim in the lead-up and aftermath of 9/11 and quiets dissent against state action in response to national security threats. 

Founded in 1989 as a joint effort between Boeing, the University of Washington's School of International Studies, and the Jackson Foundation, the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR) sought to bridge the gap between academic subject experts and policymakers to develop U.S. policy toward the Asia-Pacific. But to understand the NBR, one needs to explore the context in which it was conceived. Through analyzing policy publications, communications, and digital sources in the context of sociological analyses of the think tank, this thesis argues that the NBR was influenced by the "end of history" thesis, which declared that liberal democratic capitalism had triumphed over communism, and advanced this concept by encouraging the growth of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), an intergovernmental forum also founded in 1989 concerned with expanding free trade in the Asia-Pacific. In effect, through APEC, the NBR helped disseminate the "end of history" thesis as well as the language of globalization that defined U.S. foreign policymaking toward Japan. This research details the ways in which NBR interacted with academia, government, and business and the role of the think tank in U.S. foreign policymaking during a period of rapid change in the international order. 

Grand strategy in the U.S. has historically meant setting its eyes overseas. Defying tradition, this task report examines how major shifts in domestic policy can continue to influence international spheres while simultaneously improving the situation at home. There is growing consensus that there is instability-economic, environmental, political, security-brewing in every theater of the world; the time to exercise strength at home and collective global strength abroad is now. Through reform in economic strategy, addressing the U.S.'s role in the climate crisis, strengthening U.S. institutions to enhance political discourse and human rights, and reassessing the infrastructure of the U.S. military, the United States can reinforce its position as a global leader and acknowledge the necessity for shared power in the 21st century. Americans are finding themselves in an increasingly multipolar world state, where competitors become more capable and influential by the day. This report aims to examine the reflection of U.S. domestic policies on an international scale, while accounting for past and current actions that undermine the core values of what it promotes. When addressing the way in which a world power such as the U.S. can maintain its status as an international leader, it must first begin by addressing pivotal concerns at home and abroad, and enhancement in military infrastructure to meet the dynamic demands of the 21st century and thrive abroad. 

Spurred by hegemonic competition, the Department of Defense (DoD) has poured investments into military AI and courted the commercial tech sector. This raises critical questions on the tech industry’s approach to ethics and its role in military AI development. Silicon Valley’s past collaboration with the DoD has led to significant ethical controversies, prompting the industry to invest in AI ethics initiatives such as regulatory boards, ethics officers, and ethical guidelines. Existing scholarship conveys that while ethics is often in tension with innovation in the tech industry, key stakeholders drive its prioritization. Still, the tech-military complex and military AI development have dramatically accelerated despite ethics frameworks that should slow their progress; this forms the study’s basis of investigation. Scholarship observes military cultural attitudes influencing the organizational behavior of DoD partners, but not its connection to the Silicon Valley-DoD nexus, military AI, and ethics. This study addresses these gaps, hypothesizing that the tech-military complex enables a transference of military cultural attitudes towards ethics in the tech industry, resulting in a weaponization of ethics to justify accelerated AI development. I utilize a dataset of outward-facing documents from Big Tech companies that have received DoD contracts and semi-structured interviews with developers. I employ qualitative discourse analysis to assess the prevalence of these cultural dimensions, and I expect to find a notable presence based on preliminary analysis. Discerning if and how sociocultural influences shape corporate objectives provides insight into the underlying determinants of imminent AI governance frameworks, which becomes essential to understand as technological development outpaces regulation.