Current Research Projects:

“You Research Like a Girl: Gendered Research Agendas and Their Implications” with Jane Lawrence Sumner

This project is designed to explore the extent to which men?s and women's research agendas differ systematically. If certain topics or methods are ascribed a higher value by the field, and these topics or methods are the ones studied by men, women are placed at an inherent disadvantage. For example, if men are more likely to use text analysis than women, conferences focused on text analysis will have less diversity on the program and more homogenous attendees. Likewise, if journals are more interested in publishing articles about areas more popular with male scholars, men will be overrepresented in those journals, both in terms of authorship and citations. With fewer conference and publishing opportunities available due to preferences for particular topics or methodologies, women may find themselves with fewer opportunities to share their research, fewer outlets for publication, and lower citation counts. All of these factors can affect the likelihood of tenure and promotion.

“Invisible Constitutions: Concurring Opinions and Plurality Judgements” with Jeffrey Segal and Albert Rivero

Lower courts have an obligation to carry out the wishes of the Supreme Court. In cases where there is a plurality judgement, the judge is left trying to determine which opinion should be considered controlling. The Supreme Court's decision in Marks v. United States provides guidelines to lower courts on how to interpret plurality judgements but eh Surpeme Court. However, the Marks doctrine creates the possibility that the position of the Court may not be one favored by the median justice. In this paper, we explore how frequently the Marks doctrine actually results in non-median outcomes. We conclude with thoughts about the importance of these cases and speculate about the future of the Marks doctrine.

"Motivated Reasoning, Public Opinion, and Presidential Approval'' with Kathleen Donovan, Paul Kellstedt, and Matthew Lebo

For better or worse, presidents are largely judged on their handling of the economy. A large body of research shows that when the economy improves -- or at least people perceive it to be improving -- so do the political fortunes of the president. Much of this work assumed that economic and thus political evaluations reflect objective changes in the economy, a safe assumption, given that public opinion generally responds rationally to changing events. But citizens have multiple motivations when they form opinions, of which being accurate is but one. In this chapter, we outline the literature on presidential approval, focusing specifically on the role of economic attitudes and the debates within this literature. We then explain how citizens are also motivated by partisan goals, goals that have become as and perhaps more important than accuracy in a polarized era. Citizens increasingly view the economy and government through a partisan filter, making the long-held relationship between economic and presidential approval conditional on the political climate. We then support this claim empirically: by disaggregating approval ratings from Reagan to Obama into in- and out-partisans, we show that approval ratings are increasingly insensitive to the ebbs and flows of the economy. This poses a problem for democratic accountability, which requires voters to accurately assess economic performance and assign reward or blame accordingly.

“Family Ties: Academic Genealogy in Political Science” with Jane Lawrence Sumner

Conventional wisdom suggests women and men are interested in different topics. We contend that these differences are driven in part by differences in mentorship at the graduate level. Mentorship is important for graduate students--particularly for members of underrepresented groups. As advisors pass on research interests, or traits, to their advisees, the transmission may be biased, with certain interests passed to women graduate students and others to men. We develop an agent-based model of academic geneology and test its predictions using a network analysis of dissertation committees and research topics.

“The Effects of Gender on Argument Evaluation” with Kevin Mullinix.

We look to see if undergraduates evaluate argument quality differently based on the author’s perceived gender for academic and opinion pieces. We also compare the language used by men and women in article reviews.

“Unpopular Decisions and 'So-Called' Judges: Attacking the Courts and Perceptions of Legitimacy” with Kevin Mullinix.

Using a nationally representative sample, we explore the effect of attacks on the judiciary on perceptions of judicial legitimacy. Specifically, we vary the basis of cirticism to determine whether attacks on judges or the decision itself are more damaging to institutional legitimacy.

“Separation of Powers, Pivotal Players, and Judicial Review: An Examination of When and How the Supreme Court Invalidates Federal Laws” with Naser Javaid and Andrew O’Geen.

In this paper, we seek to synthesize and advance several recent studies relevant to the Court's use of judicial review in constitutional cases. In particular, we are interested in when and how the Court chooses to invalidate federal laws. This piece adds a layer to the standard SOP framework that better represents the nuanced nature of the Court's choices when reviewing federal laws.