An Invitation to Participate: MPSA’s Inaugural Twitter Chat #PSBeWell

A healthy work-life balance is important regardless of where you are in your academic career.

  • Every PhD has the first-hand experience with Grad School struggles.
  • Every tenured professor can remember the feeling of going on the job market.
  • PhDs in non-academic careers know how difficult the decision was to choose a non-academic career path.

Outlets like the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed often share perspectives and advice on combatting challenges we all face throughout our academic careers. For example, challenges like imposter syndrome are no longer hidden but are now acknowledged and widely discussed.

One of the biggest challenges we still face is asking for that initial help from our seniors, mentors and even colleagues. More often than not, most of us choose to not seek help when we are going through these challenges for fear of being judged or having it held against us.

Recent losses in the discipline and subsequent conversations in person and on Twitter have encouraged us to open the door for further discussion about managing the unique brand of stress that accompanies academic life and fostering a work-life balance.

While a Twitter chat won’t provide a quick fix, we hope that this conversation will reveal resources and help strengthen support networks that will prove beneficial to our friends and colleagues.

On Tuesday, August 22 at 2:00 PM (Eastern), please join us for MPSA’s first Twitter chat on this subject. Co-hosts for the inaugural discussion are Todd Curry, Assistant Professor of Political Science at The University of Texas at El Paso, Jacqueline Sievert, Research Fellow with YWCA Niagara, and Adnan Rasool, Doctoral Candidate at Georgia State University.

If you haven’t participated in a live Twitter chat before, here are a few tips:

  • A moderator from MPSA will post a series of numbered questions over the course of the hour to help prompt response from participants. (Q1: What is your ideal “work-life balance” for the new academic year?)
  • To share your answer to a specific question, just begin your response with “A1” and include the hashtag(s) designated for the chat.
  • The live chat will last approximately an hour, and you are welcome to participate for some or all of it. We hope that the conversation continues using the hashtag so others can catch up on it later.
  • You may choose to use your regular Twitter account to follow along or you may opt to use online tools created specifically for Twitter chats. Here are three examples and instructions for each.

We will be using two hashtags for the inaugural Twitter Chat (#MPSAchat and #PSBeWell). #MPSAchat will be carried forward for each monthly chat and we hope that #PSBeWell will be used exclusively when work-life balance topics are in focus.

Future MPSA Twitter chats will be on the fourth Tuesday of each month with a focus on topics including professional development, public engagement, advocacy, research, publishing, teaching/learning, and work-life balance.

MPSA Roundtable: Teaching LGBTQ Politics (audio)

Susan Burgess, Ohio University-Main Campus, chairs this discussion among panelists and participants in the audience on Teaching LGBTQ Politics. Panelists include Christine Keating of Ohio State University-Main Campus, Megan Elizabeth Osterbur of Xavier University of Louisiana, Marla Brettschneider of University of New Hampshire-Main Campus, and Courtenay Daum of Colorado State University-Fort Collins. Session topics included selecting topics, readings, and pedagogical strategies pertaining to teaching LGBTQ politics classes.

The LGBTQ Politics Teaching Collective, a project in which scholars simultaneously teach courses in LGBTQ politics during Spring 2018, was also introduced during this discussion.

Additional topics from the discussion include:

  • New strategies on teaching LGBTQ politics and queer theory
  • Addressing enrollment and environmental issues
  • Finding interdisciplinary partners on your campus
  • Overall themes and supplementary texts used when shaping syllabi

Attendees also received a Table of Contents from the panel’s new collection of essays “LGBTQ Politics: A Critical Reader”, due out from NYU Press on September 5, 2017.

MPSA members can log in to access a variety of recordings from highlighted MPSA conference presentations.

For more information or to join the LGBTQ Politics Teaching Collective (even if you are not teaching a related course in the Spring – all are welcome), contact Marla Brettschneider at marlab@unh.edu.

 

 

Politics and Sunburn: Snapshot of the U.S. from Belize

By Harold Young, Ph.D.

Portrait of US President Donald Trump, Michael Gordon (Belize), acrylic on canvas with wooden window frame, 2017The sun blazed, cooled only by sporadic showers, during my recent visit to the Central American and Caribbean nation of Belize where I spent my formative years. The size of Massachusetts, Belize is racially and ethnically diverse population of 332,000 that depends heavily on U.S. for trade, investment, and tourism. A cross section of people receive remittances, vacation in and access tertiary and medical institutions in the U.S. My goal during this visit (in addition to enjoying family, friends, the cuisine and seasonal fruits, indulging in the local beers and rums, and avoiding a painful sunburn) was to capture a local snapshot of the Belizean view of the U.S. and the current Trump administration.

After a few days, you quickly glean that Belizeans are passionate about domestic politics and versed in international politics. In a parliamentary democracy patterned on the British system (Grant 1976), domestic politics is close-up, dirty and discussed openly. Assad Shoman, a local political observer, diplomat, writer and academic challenges Belize’s classification as a liberal democracy (Diamond 2002). The United Democratic Party and the opposing Peoples United Party have trade terms governing through many election cycles of bitter partisan fights that merely entrench the status quo (Shoman 1987). Shoman’s (1987) characterization of the democratic system in Belize questions whether elections in Belize make a difference to the lives of ordinary people. His assertions that there is little to differentiate the two major parties and public disillusionment with both arguably puts  the country in the category of an “electoral democracy” described by Diamond (2002) as based on degrees of “freedom, fairness, inclusivity and meaningfulness of elections” (170). I suggest Shoman’s observations are arguably still true today.

With an uncensored press and freedom of expression (Balboni, Palacio and Awe 2007), there have emerged numerous newspapers and many radio and TV stations with a plethora of channels carrying U.S. and international programming that bombard Belizeans twenty-four hours a day. Particularly popular are BBC International, MSNBC, CNN International, Al Jazeera, and the major U.S. outlets: ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. Domestic and international events are passionately discussed in homes, on beaches, in bars, on street corners, in barbershops, and online. Despite love of county, there is widespread disenchantment with local politics and politicians (Shoman 1995). Belizean views of U.S. and the current administration, however, are more complicated. As many have relatives in the U.S., emotional and economic ties are strong. The U.S. is admired, loved, feared, disliked, envied, and made fun of in a deep love-hate cauldron. Belizeans love American pop, hip-hop and R&B music, Disney characters, hamburgers and fries, reality TV, the NBA, MLB, and the general notion that America can be a land of opportunity. Any combination of those elements fuels the exodus of Belizeans to the U.S. (Vernon 1990). Conversely, Belizeans are suspicious of U.S. foreign interventions, dislike the “ugly American” tourists and the rehashed refrain from then-candidate Ronald Reagan during the 1980 presidential campaign to “Make America Great Again” (Margolin, September 9, 2016). My conclusion is that the locals view Donald Trump and his administration’s policies with a combination of bewilderment and amusement. Both reactions stem from the conclusion that the most powerful country on earth has elected a president who seems as visionless and as tainted as many of the local politicians and administration. One friend referred to Trump’s election as a “self-inflicted wound” which is a phrase often used in the U.S. media for President Trump’s actions and proposed policies (See Borger, January 29 2017; Lake, May 11, 2017) and mused about the specter of China or Russia filling the possible super power vacuum (Graham-Harrison, Luhn, Walker,Sdghi and Rice-Oxley, July 7, 2015) .

The most widely read bi-weekly local newspaper is the Amandala. In addition to standard editorial content, a health section, classifieds, and advertisements, each edition contains a smorgasbord of local crime, sports, local political intrigue, and international news. A snap shot view of this newspaper from June 15 through July 20 provides an interesting picture. Based on a cursory count of the ten issues over five weeks, there is an interesting distribution of subjects (See Figure).

Figure: Distribution of five categories of articles by percent from June 15, to July 20, 2017

There are 64 international articles (15% of all articles in sample) averaging 6.4 per issue. Of 64 articles, 10 articles (16%) discuss the U.S. and the current administration; none of which discuss the administration in a favorable light. An article reprinted in the Amandala entitled, Donald Trump at the Abyss, Ford (July 12, 2017) concludes, “Nevertheless, the real danger to the Republic are the intentional and malign acts of a soulless presidency that will haunt this country for years after the man with the Tiny hands is forgotten.” Belizeans still feel connected to the U.S. but with an increasingly negative view of the U.S. (or disappointment) for electing Donald Trump. Belize is not alone. A recent Pew Research poll of thirty-seven nations reflects a significant drop in the favorability rating of the U.S. under President Trump when compared to President Obama.

Map of BelizeConsidering the media coverage (Ford August 7, 2016) and my personal discussions (absent formal opinion polling), it is not a stretch to conclude that most Belizeans do not have a favorable view of Donald Trump and his administration. The artist and educator Yasser Musa captures this in his poem Tea with Trump. Musa eviscerates Mr. Trump’s character, hubris and domestic and international policies. A collage of images and footage of the artist Michael Gordon painting a portrait of Mr. Trump accompany the reading of the poem.

As descendants of pirate, colonial, slave and native cultures, Belizeans are a hardy people with welcoming dispositions. For this small country, therefore, drastic policy changes or instability in the U.S. is always deeply worrying. While I do not expect the current administration to precipitate a total disillusionment with the U.S., there is perceptible cynicism about U.S. commitment to the world community. Nevertheless, there remains a belief in the underlying strength of American institutions and an expectation that the U.S. will remain the stable beacon to the North. Let us hope that we all survive this tumultuous period without a painful sunburn!

About the Author: Harold Young is an Assistant Professor at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee. His research area is Public Law and examines an American and comparative perspective on judicial institutional changes and decision-making. Previously, he was a health communications manager, a social worker and an attorney-at-law. Contact him at youngh@apsu.edu.

MPSA Career Roundtable on What to Do/Not Do at a Job Talk (audio)

MPSA Roundtable: What to Do (and What Not to Do) at a Job Talk
Listen in as Elizabeth A. Bennion of Indiana University-South Bend chairs the MPSA Career Roundtable on “What to Do and What Not to Do at a Job Talk” with Mary Hallock Morris of University of Southern Indiana and David C. Wilson of University of Delaware. During the discussion, the members of the panel share their observations on how to know if the university is a good fit for you (personally and professionally) and what can make you stand out as a successful candidate.

Topics discussed also include:

  • Preparing to present and explain your research.
  • Identifying your potential audience and building rapport.
  • Tips for handling unanticipated questions and awkward scenarios.
  • Advice for successful phone interviews, teaching demonstrations, and meals.
  • A variety of questions from the audience at the April 2017 MPSA Conference.

MPSA members can log in to access a variety of recordings from highlighted MPSA conference presentations.

(The Lack of) Diversity in Trump’s America

By Adaobi Duru, University of Louisiana at Monroe

(The Lack of) Diversity in Trump's America

The lack of diversity in Trump’s cabinet appointment is significant and might be a reflection of the President’s position on issues regarding racial and gender equality in government. The President’s cabinet is made up of 18 men and four women. In total, 73% of the cabinet members are white men. The only black man on the team- Ben Carson was a contender for the presidency. In this cabinet, the big four positions- State, Defense, Justice and Treasury departments are manned by white men.

Journalists and scholars have written extensively on the apparent lack of diversity in elected and appointed positions in government, yet according to a Pew study, all minority groups are still underrepresented. The implications of diversity for the survival of the nation’s democracy are far reaching because of the changes happening in the country.

The United States is a considered a great nation because of its form of government – democracy is supposed to represent the common man. It is government of the people by the people and for the people, and not government of the rich and by the rich. The demographic trend of the present cabinet members is toward plutocracy. As the Washington post rightly said, Trump’s administration is the wealthiest in modern American history. One might wonder if there is a correlation between the lack of diversity in cabinet and the administration’s aversion to immigration.

Equal representation of all races and ethnicity in government has never been more important than it is now because of the demographic changes of the nation’s population. The United States is gradually becoming more diverse with rapid changes coming to many of the least diverse areas.  According to Pew, the country is projected to be more diverse than it is currently in coming years. This diverse demographic is a result of immigrants from different parts of the world arriving the united states and claiming it as home. The projection is that by 2055 there will be no single ethnic majority on the country. Therefore, the country must make intentional effort to address issues of diversity if they want to reap the abundant benefit inherent in such endeavor.

The Diversity Gap in American Politics
Source: LEE & LOW BOOKS, Where’s the Diversity? 5 Reasons Why the US Government isn’t More Diverse

For one, because the nation is diverse, an equal representation will increase the administration’s ability to cater to people from different backgrounds and be more tolerant of other traditions and cultures that makeup the population. A diverse cabinet will likely pay more attention to minority issues than a homogeneous cabinet.

Minta (2012), found that diversity had a great effect on the responsiveness of the nation’s political institutions to minority sentiments. They found support for the argument that shifts in the demographic composition of lawmakers made them collectively more considerate to racial and ethnic minority problems. This indicates that diversity is important in government institutions because it ensures that citizens interest will be represented.

Race and ethnicity aside, women are also underrepresented in Trump’s cabinet, with only four women appointed overall (21.1% of the confirmed positions), but no woman in the big four positions. The President was embattled over his objectification of women during the election – Megyn Kelly, who was with Fox News at the time called him out on this during one of the presidential debates. While the President has denied these allegations, his cabinet appointment does not reflect his touted respect for the female gender.

Although women are as capable as men at being good leaders, a Pew study indicates that women are still in short supply at top government positions in the united states. This gender disparity in government comes with a price. According to a 2016 Mckinsey Global Institute research, closing the the gender gap in workforce participation will lead to a $28 trillion increase to the annual world GDP.

Women are not only important in business and the economy, their input in government is also noteworthy. A study conducted by Anzia and Berry (2010), revealed that districts that are served by women have certain advantages over districts represented by men. First, districts that elect women receive about $49 million more each year in discretionary spending than those that elect men. Also, women sponsor more bills than their male counterparts. Given the disadvantaged position of women in politics, Anzia and Berry found that “women will perform better, on average, than their male counterpart.”

This quote from this CNN article sums up my gender disparity argument “Simply having female leaders changes the norms about who can and what qualities are necessary in leadership. Having women in leadership roles is breaking down cultural and structural barriers–improving leadership around the world and showing everyone what women can achieve.”

By embracing a diverse cabinet, President Trump will not only communicate fairness, but also a deep understanding that policy development and other government work benefit from having different views and backgrounds at the table.

About the author: Adaobi Duru is an Assistant Professor at the University of Louisiana at Monroe Communication Program. Her research is in health and political communication. She examines effects of political communication regarding health policies. She is also an international media comparativist. She can be reached via email at duru@ulm.edu.

Bridging the Gaps: Phones, Gender, and Politics

By Matthew Bondy, College of William & Mary

Photo Courtesy of the Center for African Development
Photo Courtesy of the Center for African Development

The spread of mobile phones over the past thirty years to both developed and developing countries alike has changed the way people interact socially, commercially, and politically. However, access to this technology has not been universal. In particular, women in developing countries are less likely to own mobile phones than men and are less likely to participate in politics.

In my paper, “Mobile Phone Ownership, Gender, and Political Participation in Africa,” I examine whether owning a mobile phone is associated with increased likelihood of individuals engaging in the political process and whether there is any interaction between mobile phone ownership and gender when it comes to political participation.

These questions are worth examining because, first, the ability to use a friend or neighbor’s phone is different from actually owning one—a distinction that previous literature on the topic has not taken into account. And second, the paper brings together the literatures on the information and communication technologies (ICTs) revolution and the gender gap in political participation. To the extent that the Mobiles for Development (M4D) movement remains influential, these empirical questions are also relevant to decision-makers in the policy and development communities.

I theorize that mobile phone ownership leads to increased political participation. The ability to exchange information more easily could lead to an increased interest in politics or an awareness of the political process that allows for participation. Additionally, owning a mobile phone may be empowering—adding to a person’s sense of political efficacy, or sense in his or her ability to contribute to politics—which has been linked to participation.

In an observational study using the Afrobarometer dataset along with some additional country-level variables, I show that mobile phone ownership is associated with a statistically significant increase in political participation. In particular, I examine the likelihood that respondents contacted a member of parliament, attended a community meeting, attended a political rally, and the participants’ interest in politics overall.

In fact, my preliminary findings show that owning a mobile phone is associated with an approximately 3 percentage point increase in contacting a member of parliament. For attending a community meeting, that number is about 5 percentage points, and for attending a rally it is about 6 percentage points. Having a phone in the household (but not owning one individually) is associated with about only half as much of an increase in political participation.

The study also confirms that even controlling for other factors, being female is linked to decreased political participation. Although the interaction between mobile phone ownership and gender is not statistically significant for most of the models, there was a statistically significant relationship when the dependent variable was attending a community meeting. (5.3 percentage points, where the base outcome was that 57 percent of respondents attended a community meeting.)

These findings seem promising, but they don’t necessarily show a causal relationship between mobile phone ownership and political participation. In order to test the causal hypothesis, I plan to combine the observational study with experimental data as a part of my ongoing work with William & Mary’s Center for African Development (CAD).

Philip Roessler the director of CAD, along with Flora Myamba, Dan Nielson, and Peter Carroll, is conducting a field experiment on mobile phone ownership and women’s empowerment in Tanzania. The experiment entails the randomization of mobile technology training and handsets to non-phone owners. At this time, the field research for this project is still ongoing. But their most recent findings show that providing low-income women with mobile phones significantly boosts their access to and use of mobile money, especially for women who are literate or are relatively more educated. With this study we will also be able to assess whether mobile phone ownership has a causal effect on political participation by comparing the degree of political engagement of those who receive phones and those in the control group.

I was encouraged by the positive feedback and suggestions for improvement that I received on my poster at the MPSA conference in 2016 and I am excited to continue my research on this issue. Professor Roessler and I are exploring additional methods to tackle some of our remaining research questions and we hope that additional findings will be forthcoming.

About the Author: Matthew Bondy recently graduated from the College of William & Mary with a B.A. in International Relations and will be returning in the fall to pursue a M.S. in Business Analytics. Bondy received the award for Best Paper Presented as a Poster for his research presented at the 2016 MPSA conference.

The Strategic Calculus of Bureaucratic Delay

By Rachel Augustine Potter, University of VirginiaThe Strategic Calculus of Bureaucratic Delay

Regulations created by bureaucratic agencies touch on nearly all areas of our lives, from vehicle fuel standards to whether the “Plan B” morning-after pill is available over-the-counter at the local pharmacy. Regulations—also known as rules—carry the same force-and-effect as laws passed by Congress, but we don’t pay nearly enough attention to them.

One element of the regulatory process that typically flies under the radar is timing. Rules can take government agencies many years or even decades to create. The reasons proffered for delay are numerous, often centering on procedural hurdles or bureaucrats’ ineptitude. In my award-winning paper “Slow-Rolling, Fast-Tracking, and the Pace of Bureaucratic Decisions in Rulemaking,” forthcoming in the July 2017 issue of the Journal of Politics, I offer a different perspective on delay in the federal rulemaking process—that timing is strategic.

I begin by pointing out that not all regulatory actions move at a plodding pace. Indeed, agencies often create new regulations at a relatively rapid clip, but such actions rarely receive notice since bureaucracies do not generally receive attention for being expeditious or efficient. Why then do some rules move fast while others are so slow? I argue that underlying this variation in pacing is an element of strategic bureaucratic behavior.

Creating a new regulation requires considerable bureaucratic effort and resources. Yet, the president, Congress, and the courts have the ability to upend an agency’s rulemaking project. Each branch can overturn an agency’s rule or to punish the agency in some way for writing a rule that does not align with their preferences. Pacing can be a tool to help agencies protect their rules from these consequences. In other words, agencies can speed up (fast-track) or slow down (slow-roll) the rulemaking process in order to undermine political oversight from the constitutional branches. When the political climate is favorable agencies rush to lock in a rule, but when it is less favorable they wait on the chance that it will improve.

To empirically demonstrate this argument, I rely on an event history analysis of more than 11,000 agency rules from 150 federal bureaus. I show that the pace of these rules slows significantly when the president, the Congress, or the courts are more inclined to disagree with—and potentially punish—the agency issuing the rule in question. Importantly, I am able to show that this delay is not simply tied to how complex the underlying rule is; that is, the observed delay is not consistent with an explanation based on agencies “working harder” to make good policy.

These findings make it very clear that bureaucrats are not neutral parties in the policymaking process. Rather, they have their own set of interests that they actively work to protect. Strategic pacing in the regulatory process also offers an answer to a long-standing puzzle in the rulemaking process. Specifically, many scholars have noted that agencies rarely make changes to regulatory policies as they move through the rulemaking process. But if agencies are subject to constant political scrutiny, how are rules able to withstand calls for change? Strategic timing is one mechanism by which bureaucrats are able to resist these political pressures.

Of course, bureaucrats are responsible for carrying out the entire rulemaking process, and timing is just one element of this process. In a larger book project, I look at other procedural tools that bureaucrats have in their arsenal and how strategic bureaucratic behavior affects the regulations that are ultimately produced via this process.

About the Author: Rachel Augustine Potter is an Assistant Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia. Her paper, “Slow-Rolling, Fast-Tracking, and the Pace of Bureaucratic Decisions in Rulemaking” received the Kenneth J. Meier Award for the best paper in bureaucratic politics, public administration, or public policy presented at the 2016 MPSA Conference. The paper will be published in the July 2017 issue of the Journal of Politics.

 

Q&A with Emily Farris re: The TCU Justice Journey

MPSA member Emily Farris is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Texas Christian University (TCU) in Fort Worth, TX where she and a colleague run an interdisciplinary civil rights course and an annual Spring Break bus tour called the Justice Journey. Here we ask her a few questions about her experience and perspective:

Q: What prompted the Justice Journey series overall and how did the new Latino/a Civil Rights Struggle Justice Journey come about?

Your TCU Justice Journey professors, Dr. Emily and Dr. Max, are excited to be in Crystal City: spinach capitol of the world and home to the 1969 walk out in the Chicano Movement.
Your TCU Justice Journey professors, Dr. Emily and Dr. Max, are excited to be in Crystal City: spinach capitol of the world and home to the 1969 walk out in the Chicano Movement. (TCU Justice Journey on Facebook – Used with permission)

A: Beginning in 2011, Professor Max Krochmal in partnership with the Office of Community Engagement and partners in Inclusiveness & Intercultural Services developed a social justice-oriented educational tour. The TCU Justice Journey annually brings 20 students to places throughout the South important to the civil rights movements. When I joined TCU, I became involved with the Tour, and we paired the tour with for a credit course, cross-listed between History and Political Science. And in Spring 2017, the Justice Journey was expanded to alternate focus in different years between the African American civil rights movement and the Chicano/a civil rights movement and immigrant rights.

We believe the new addition of the tour and class focused on the Chicano/a Movement and immigrant rights is one of the first of its kind – while many groups and schools across the U.S. take trips through the south to explore the African American civil rights movement, few (if any) do a similar Latino civil rights tour in south Texas. This past Spring, the tour focused on South Texas, with stops in Austin, San Antonio, Crystal City and McAllen. Students had the opportunity to interact with and learn from the local organizers who built the civil rights movement on the ground as well as activists and politicians in present-day campaigns for justice.

Q: With involvement from multiple partners, how was the content and the (literal) course of the trip determined?
A: The course is a collaborative effort every year. We meet regularly throughout the year to plan the trip and the course, with each year being different from the next. For instance, in 2015, we planned the trip around the historic 50th anniversary march in Selma, with additional stops in Jackson, Birmingham, and Nashville. Last year was the first trip focused on the Chicano/a Movement, which developed out of our shared research interests of Latino/a history and politics. This upcoming year will likely center around Memphis, given the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s death.

Q: What makes the content of these trips different than regular historical tours?
A: Although the trip includes visits to historic sites and museums, it goes far beyond ordinary heritage tourism. The trip features panel discussions with grassroots movement activists, critical conversations and reflection sessions on race and racism (and other forms of oppression), introductory lessons on community organizing and the origins of social movements, and –most importantly– training in and examples of group-centered or collective leadership models. A pilgrimage to hallowed locales in American history and a classroom on wheels, the Civil Rights Bus Tour allows students to learn from the past in order to change the future.

TCU Justice Journey after a great day with La Union del Pueblo Entero! (TCU Justice Journey on Facebook - Used with permission)
TCU Justice Journey after a great day with La Union del Pueblo Entero! (TCU Justice Journey on Facebook – Used with permission)

Q: What kind of grants/funding supports the project and/or the students?
A: The trip is run at no cost to the students – it is fully funded through Student Affairs and AddRan college through the Political Science and History departments. It is also part of the newest major and minor on campus in Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies.

Q: How are students selected for the program?
A: Students apply in mid-Fall and are selected based on their interest in the material.

Q: What materials do you assign for study prior to the trip? How do you involve the local community and/or the affected community in your course?
A: Back in the classroom, the associated courses survey the history of the modern African American and Chicano/a civil and immigration rights movement and explore modern day politics and policy as ways to understand the nature of social movements and the role of grassroots activism in the struggle for social justice, past and present in the United States. Prior to the trip, we focus mostly on the history of the movements, and after the trip we try to engage that history with modern day efforts in the struggle for social justice. In addition to traditional assignments, students complete work and research that engages them in the community. In Spring 2017, students organized a panel discussion with local community members about their Justice Journey trip, registered voters and participated in get out the vote activities in historically underrepresented areas throughout the community, and researched community engaged projects on modern day social justice issues.

Q: How did you personally get involved in this project?
A: I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama, and yet, if it wasn’t for my 8th grade English teacher who dared to go off the curriculum and teach us about the Civil Rights Movement, I may have never learned the history of my own city. Since then, I’ve always been fascinated by local communities’ histories and politics and have been driven by the desire to make politics a more inclusive place. When I came to TCU and became friends with Max, I was invited to join the project, given our overlapping teaching and research interests.

Q: Who has had the greatest influence on your research and/or career?
A: My mother was a local journalist and involved in local politics when I was growing up. She served as an example on how a regular citizen could work to make our community a better, more just place – if it wasn’t for her, I might have ended up a lawyer.

This post is part of a series of interviews with our members. Read more MPSA Member profiles.

TCU Justice Journey Flier

What Makes Citizens Support Gender Quotas?

By Tiffany D. Barnes and Abby Córdova, University of Kentucky

The following is part of a series of posts written by MPSA award recipients highlighting outstanding research presented at previous MPSA annual conferences and in the American Journal of Political Science. Tiffany D. Barnes and Abby Córdova, University of Kentucky

Gender quotas have been adopted in over a hundred countries in an effort to address gender disparities in national legislatures. Latin America has been a pioneer region in the implementation of gender quota laws, in which the state requires political parties to place female candidates on their party ballot. As of 2017, all but two countries in the Latin American region had implemented a state-mandated legislative gender quota. In our award-winning article, Making Space for Women: Explaining Citizen Support for Legislative Gender Quotas in Latin America”, published in the Journal of Politics (JOP), we carry out the first systematic examination of citizens’ views about gender quotas, and what makes them more or less inclined to support this gender equality policy.

To evaluate the extent of citizen support for quotas, we utilize a survey question included in the 2012 round of the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) survey which covered 24 countries. On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), respondents were asked their extent of agreement with the following statement: “The state should require political parties to reserve some space on their lists of candidates for women, even if they have to exclude some men.” Based on data for this survey item, we find that the average level of support for gender quotas in the region is 5 points on the 1-7 scale. There is, however, wide variation in support levels across countries, ranging from 3.72 in Trinidad and Tobago to 5.95 in El Salvador (see Figure 1). As depicted by the frequency distributions of the gender quota item across countries in Figure 1, there is also substantial within country variation in quota support. Our article seeks to shed light on this puzzle, what explains differences within and across countries in citizen support for gender quotas in the Latin American region?

Figure 1. Frequency Distribution: Support for Gender Quotas by Country
Figure 1. Frequency Distribution: Support for Gender Quotas by Country

To address this question, we have developed a theory that emphasizes citizen preferences for government intervention and the extent of governance quality to explain citizen support for gender quotas. We focus, moreover, on how these two factors differentially influence men’s and women’s quota support. In this summary, we highlight two findings from our research. The first finding is that citizens’ normative beliefs about the role of government in society are important determinants of support for quota policies, which helps explain within country variation in support for quotas. Consistent with our expectations, high support for government involvement results in stronger quota support among women than men—most likely because women are more prone than men to attribute gender disparities to unfair treatment rather than to women’s decisions, which makes them more supportive of government intervention to improve gender equality. We illustrate this result in Figure 2, which plots the predicted probability of expressing strong support for quotas on the y-axis as support for government involvement increases across the x-axis.

Figure 2. Effect of Preferences for Government Involvement
Figure 2. Effect of Preferences for Government Involvement

We also find that citizens rely on heuristic information they draw on from their national context to determine their level of quota support. Differences across countries in the level of quota support are largely explained by governance quality. A government’s track record of governance quality serves as a cue to citizens trying to decide their level of quota support, and men are more inclined to resort to this contextual information than women. Given that men are less likely to see gender quota policies as serving their interests, men rely more heavily on cues from national context than on policy content to form their opinions on gender equality policies. In countries with a better track record of governance quality, men in particular become more confident that state-mandated gender quotas might be a good idea. Figure 3 plots this relationship. Specifically, we show the predicted probability of expressing strong support for quotas on the y-axis across different levels of government capabilities across the x-axis. The results plotted in Figure 3 indicate that in countries with better governance quality, the gender gap in support for gender quotas disappears.

Figure 3. Effect of Governance Quality
Figure 3. Effect of Governance Quality

The stronger effect of governance quality on quota support among men than women suggests that good governance may also narrow the gender gap in citizen support for other gender equality policies such as fair pay and equal access to employment. Beyond gender issues, governance quality can play a role in shaping support for other affirmative action policies currently topping the agendas of political elites and international organizations such as state-mandated quotas (or reserved seats) for ethnic and religious minorities in political decision-making bodies. Consequently, although political values such as support for government involvement may help explain attitude formation for policies intended to improve the lives of marginalized citizens, support for affirmative action policies in general is likely to be highest in countries with good governance. We are examining some of these issues in a new book project that leverages experimental data to test the theoretical mechanisms proposed in our JOP article.

MPSA_Awards_RecognizingOutstandingResearch

 

About the Authors: Tiffany D. Barnes and Abby Córdova are Assistant Professors in the Department of Political Science at the University of Kentucky. Their research “Making Space for Women: Explaining Citizen Support for Legislative Gender Quotas in Latin America was recently honored with the Sophonisba Breckinridge Award as the best paper on the topic of women and politics presented at the 2016 MPSA conference.

Modern Police Tactics, Police-Citizen Interactions and the Prospects for Reform

By Jonathan Mummolo, Stanford University

New York City, New York – May 19, 2011: The crest on the jacket of a New York City Police Officer while on patrol.

The following is part of a series of posts written by MPSA award recipients highlighting outstanding research presented at previous MPSA annual conferences and in the American Journal of Political Science.

The question of whether and to what degree police officers respond to orders from their commanders is fundamental to understanding the prospects of effective police reform. But for decades, the policing literature has offered no consensus. Indeed, social scientists since the publication of James Q. Wilson’s landmark study, Varieties of Police Behavior (1968), have tended to paint patrol officers as autonomous bureaucrats who are relatively impervious to rules and supervision because of the large amount of discretion they are granted and because the nature of their work allows them to operate largely out of view from their superiors.

There are several reasons this question deserves renewed empirical testing. For one, in light of a spate of recent high-profile incidents of police misconduct, there are widespread calls for police reform today with little agreement on which policy changes will produce the best results. Much research on police misconduct also tends to focus on individual-level officer traits such as implicit bias and personality which, while important determinants of police behavior, suggest few policy-based remedies because prior work shows these traits may be immutable. In addition, many sources of high-resolution data on police behavior have only recently come online.

In my study, I leverage a sudden change in the New York Police Department’s procedure for implementing “Stop, Question and Frisk” (SQF) in order to gauge the responsiveness of officers to orders from their commanders. SQF is a controversial police practice that has historically targeted disadvantaged communities of color, and has been widely criticized for being over-zealously applied in major cities across the U.S. Combining quantitative data covering millions of police stops in New York City with qualitative evidence from original interviews and court transcripts, I use an interrupted time series analysis to estimate the causal effect of a procedural reform within the NYPD on the nature of police-citizen interactions. Specifically, I measure the impact of an order mandating that officers provide their commanders with narrative descriptions of the reasons they stopped criminal suspects on the “hit rate,” the proportion of stops conducted by officers which produced evidence of the suspected crime that motivated those stops. This metric has often been used to approximate the rate at which officers are stopping people actually engaged in criminal activity, rather than needlessly detaining innocent citizens.

The results of this analysis are stark. The day the reform was put into place, the hit rate— which had been relatively stable for years leading up to this date— effectively doubled by some estimates. Further analysis shows that this increase in the hit rate was driven by a sudden and sustained decrease in the number of stops being conducted, which occurred even as the number of stops producing evidence of a crime remained relatively constant. Further, contrary to claims by critics of SQF reforms that crime surged in New York City following this change, an analysis of homicide and robbery data shows no detectable change following the intervention. Faced with the prospect of increased scrutiny from their superiors, officers suddenly and dramatically refrained from detaining thousands of innocent New York residents with no discernible impact on public safety.

There are of course some necessary caveats. Though analyzing the immediate discontinuity in the hit rate at the moment of the intervention provides valuable causal leverage, it also confines inferences about this intervention’s effectiveness to the short term. The high hit rate observed post-intervention persists, and appears to grow, through the end of 2015. But we cannot attribute this persistence to the new directive with much confidence, as intervening events could be responsible. This study also examines data from a single city, and the efficacy of similar reforms should be tested and validated in other settings. Future work that selectively implements similar interventions experimentally across multiple departments could test the robustness and persistence of these effects.

The intervention was also followed by a sharp reduction in the number of stops producing a weapon. While we cannot necessarily attribute this change to the reform—since, again, there was no immediate change in this outcome the day of the reform, and intervening events could have easily been responsible for future changes—we also cannot rule out the possibility that this reduction was due to a lagged treatment effect. If the treatment did cause this decline, that would represent an important public welfare tradeoff. However, it is also worth noting that the primary purpose of removing weapons from the street according to proponents of SQF is to reduce violent crime. As the results show, the intervention did not lead to any detectable increase in homicides or robberies, a result that is consistent with earlier work finding no robust evidence that increases in SQF activity reduced crime rates in New York.

Despite the impact of this reform, the difficulty of improving the quality of police-citizen interactions should also not be understated. Officers still enjoy immense power and discretion as well as substantial barriers to prosecution in the event of wrongdoing. The effect observed here is limited to a single aspect of police work, and it is possible that the performance of other tasks which do not generate reports—or ones performed in environments where the press and populous are less able to scrutinize police behavior—would be much more difficult to improve. And even if similar interventions lead to widespread improvements in policing nationwide (a best case scenario), it may still take years, if not decades, to rebuild the atrophied levels of trust between residents of over-policed communities and law enforcement personnel.

But as solutions to the problems facing law enforcement continue to be sought, these findings should underscore for reformers the strong influence of institutional factors on police behavior. The trope of the “rogue cop” in discussions surrounding police misconduct has led to an individuation of social justice problems that, to a large extent, have institutional support. To be clear, this paper does not dispute that individual-level factors such as racial bias and personality affect police-citizen interactions, but rather that such results, at present, suggest few policy-based remedies. Even if some prejudice reduction strategies are effective, police organizations have often failed to demonstrate this by scientifically evaluating them during implementation. Indeed, the failure to adequately assess the merit of these initiatives may indicate a willful ignorance, and illustrate the resistance of institutions to more sweeping structural remedies. Announcing prejudice reduction initiatives while failing to properly evaluate them may allow political leaders to appear concerned about injustice while distracting attention from the fact that the institutions they control play a substantial role in shaping police behavior.

About the Authors: Jonathan Mummolo is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. Mummolos research Can New Procedures Improve the Quality of Policing? The Case of ‘Stop, Question and Frisk’ in New York City was recently named as the Best Paper Presented by a Graduate Student presented at the 2016 MPSA conference.