CURRENT PROJECTS
My research interests include methodology, public opinion, judicial politics, and the sociology of the discipline. Below you will find summaries of my current projects.
Current Research Projects:
“Understanding Variation in Start-Up Funds” with Emily M. Farris and Jane L. Sumner
Recent research in political science has uncovered and theorized about inequalities within the field. In this paper, we explore a lesser publicly discussed difference that likely impacts the research process: research funding. We surveyed assistant professors in U.S. political science departments about their start-up packages, and we find that characteristics of the institution, prestige of the researcher’s Ph.D. alma mater, and having competing offers predict receiving a start-up fund at all and receiving more money in that start-up fund. The evidence also suggests that women’s offers are more sensitive to alma mater prestige, with women from the least prestigious alma maters receiving less funding than men from similarly ranked schools. Notably, publishing more does not seem to help women or men, suggesting that women from low-prestige departments in particular cannot work their way out of this disadvantage.
“How to Demonstrate Long-run Relationships: the Case of PM Approval and Vote Intentions in the UK” with Matthew Lebo
Economic Evaluations, Prime Ministerial Approval and Governing Party Support: Rival Models Reconsidered” (BJPS 1995) by Harold Clarke and Marianne Stewart is a classic. The authors simultaneously make major methodological and substantive contributions – their typical calling card. Substantively, the article contributes to literatures on economic voting and the presidentialization of British politics. Methodologically, the paper is a model of how to conduct cointegration and error correction analyses between closely related political time series. In all, the authors established a long-run equilibrium between prime ministerial approval and vote intentions for the governing party. The variables may diverge for short periods but vote intentions will always revert back to a level in line with the popularity of the PM. We extend Clarke and Stewart’s data to the present day and examine how the PM-vote link has endured while the effects of the economy have varied. We also investigate the possibility of thinking of cointegration and error correction as time-varying phenomenon. We also show that, while time series analysis in political science has undergone several revolutions, Clarke and Stewart’s methodological blueprint stands up 30 years later as a model for how to study political data over time.
“Democracy Labs: How To Teach Polarizing Issues in Introduction to American Politics” with Emily M. Farris and Joseph Anthony
Democratic decision-making requires informed deliberation, where solutions to public problems are developed through an exchange of ideas characterized by reason-giving, consideration of others’ perspectives, and inclusive participation. A common learning outcome for many universities’ Introduction to American Politics courses is the development of students’ civic or citizenship skills in order to prepare students for this kind of participation in public life. In this project, we describe how we have created a semester-long project for introductory American Politics courses that we entitle “Democracy Labs,” which allows students to gain an in-depth understanding of a polarizing issue (gun control) and practice civil discourse. We describe in detail the semester project and how three professors have adapted this assignment across different classrooms. Drawing on data from an end of the semester survey and a pre/post survey of students, we discuss the ability of Democracy Labs to assist students achieve these civic skills.
“The Politics of Scandals:The Case of Supreme Court Nominations, 1877-2022” with Albert H. Rivero, Jeffrey Segal, and Charles Cameron
We examine the role of scandals in the politics of Supreme Court nominations, 1877-2022. We argue that when a nominee’s opponents control the process, they often delay it in the hope of uncovering a scandal. If they succeed in finding a scandal, they further delay the process in order to exploit the scandal and damage the nominee’s prospects of confirmation. Evidence from a Markov model of the confirmation process, estimated on weekly data on the emergence of scandals, supports this view. We then examine the impact of scandals on roll call voting. Scandals reduce support for a nominee among the President’s co-partisans, though modestly. But they galvanize opposition among the President’s partisan opponents, especially in tandem with divided party government. We then estimate the expected aggregate support for nominees, in the presence and absence of scandals, given the size of the president’s majority in the Senate. Scandal-wracked nominations face a substantial chance of failure, but only in periods of divided government. These findings suggest some lessons about the strategic, partisan manipulation of scandals during periods of ideological tension in American government.
Current Research Projects:
“Understanding Variation in Start-Up Funds” with Emily M. Farris and Jane L. Sumner
Recent research in political science has uncovered and theorized about inequalities within the field. In this paper, we explore a lesser publicly discussed difference that likely impacts the research process: research funding. We surveyed assistant professors in U.S. political science departments about their start-up packages, and we find that characteristics of the institution, prestige of the researcher’s Ph.D. alma mater, and having competing offers predict receiving a start-up fund at all and receiving more money in that start-up fund. The evidence also suggests that women’s offers are more sensitive to alma mater prestige, with women from the least prestigious alma maters receiving less funding than men from similarly ranked schools. Notably, publishing more does not seem to help women or men, suggesting that women from low-prestige departments in particular cannot work their way out of this disadvantage.
“How to Demonstrate Long-run Relationships: the Case of PM Approval and Vote Intentions in the UK” with Matthew Lebo
Economic Evaluations, Prime Ministerial Approval and Governing Party Support: Rival Models Reconsidered” (BJPS 1995) by Harold Clarke and Marianne Stewart is a classic. The authors simultaneously make major methodological and substantive contributions – their typical calling card. Substantively, the article contributes to literatures on economic voting and the presidentialization of British politics. Methodologically, the paper is a model of how to conduct cointegration and error correction analyses between closely related political time series. In all, the authors established a long-run equilibrium between prime ministerial approval and vote intentions for the governing party. The variables may diverge for short periods but vote intentions will always revert back to a level in line with the popularity of the PM. We extend Clarke and Stewart’s data to the present day and examine how the PM-vote link has endured while the effects of the economy have varied. We also investigate the possibility of thinking of cointegration and error correction as time-varying phenomenon. We also show that, while time series analysis in political science has undergone several revolutions, Clarke and Stewart’s methodological blueprint stands up 30 years later as a model for how to study political data over time.
“Democracy Labs: How To Teach Polarizing Issues in Introduction to American Politics” with Emily M. Farris and Joseph Anthony
Democratic decision-making requires informed deliberation, where solutions to public problems are developed through an exchange of ideas characterized by reason-giving, consideration of others’ perspectives, and inclusive participation. A common learning outcome for many universities’ Introduction to American Politics courses is the development of students’ civic or citizenship skills in order to prepare students for this kind of participation in public life. In this project, we describe how we have created a semester-long project for introductory American Politics courses that we entitle “Democracy Labs,” which allows students to gain an in-depth understanding of a polarizing issue (gun control) and practice civil discourse. We describe in detail the semester project and how three professors have adapted this assignment across different classrooms. Drawing on data from an end of the semester survey and a pre/post survey of students, we discuss the ability of Democracy Labs to assist students achieve these civic skills.
“The Politics of Scandals:The Case of Supreme Court Nominations, 1877-2022” with Albert H. Rivero, Jeffrey Segal, and Charles Cameron
We examine the role of scandals in the politics of Supreme Court nominations, 1877-2022. We argue that when a nominee’s opponents control the process, they often delay it in the hope of uncovering a scandal. If they succeed in finding a scandal, they further delay the process in order to exploit the scandal and damage the nominee’s prospects of confirmation. Evidence from a Markov model of the confirmation process, estimated on weekly data on the emergence of scandals, supports this view. We then examine the impact of scandals on roll call voting. Scandals reduce support for a nominee among the President’s co-partisans, though modestly. But they galvanize opposition among the President’s partisan opponents, especially in tandem with divided party government. We then estimate the expected aggregate support for nominees, in the presence and absence of scandals, given the size of the president’s majority in the Senate. Scandal-wracked nominations face a substantial chance of failure, but only in periods of divided government. These findings suggest some lessons about the strategic, partisan manipulation of scandals during periods of ideological tension in American government.