Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This review of the literature examines the extent of male predominance in offending using data from self-report studies. We investigate what has happened in the 30 years since the first review of this type was conducted by Hindelang, Hirshi, & Weis (1979); and in particular to determine if the pattern of male predominance has changed as was predicted by Adler (1975), Simon (1975) and others. We use correlation analysis to examine changes in male predominance using the evidence available from self-report studies and we compare the findings from studies conducted in the United States with those conducted in other countries, as well as to trend data from Monitoring the Future. Our results indicate a convergence in the trends of some types of male and female offending, but the convergence can not be attributed to the causes predicted by liberation theorists.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper examines a phenomenon that is almost invisible in the political science literature on Congress but quite common in actual congressional behavior - roll calls in which a coalition of left and right ideological extremes votes against a coalition of the centrists or moderates. By a conservative measurement strategy, such votes occur about 20 percent of the time in the House and somewhat more often in the Senate. This paper develops an empirical measure of the incidence of votes of a Coalition of the Extremes, applies it to more than 26,000 roll call votes from 1947 to 1998, and investigates factors that make such voting more or less likely. The general conclusion is that the Coalition of Extremes voting pattern shows that ideology, as distinct from partisanship, is a more important force in Congress than is generally recognized.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Although the preferences of major political factions are likely to influence policy choice on security issues, the origins of these preferences remains unclear compared to those on foreign economic policy. This paper examines efforts to explain preferences on security issues using data on congressional roll call voting. A large body of quantitative research in this area concludes that ideology drives these preferences, and that constituency economic interests have little or no effect. Unfortunately, this literature conceives of economic interests in an unrealistically narrow way, and does not consider the possibility that these interests may shape the ideology of members of congress. Using data on Senate voting on foreign policy from 1947 through 2000, this paper presents evidence that Senators' home states' stake in the international economic order, as well as their stake in military spending, played an important role in shaping foreign and defense policy. Although liberal-conservative "ideology" also matters, its effects are more consistent with an interest-based vote trading arrangement than with a coherent set of ideas.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Abstract

The differences in the coverage of two religious groups were studied. The New York Times was chosen for the study and a content analysis was done. The analysis examined framing of two religious groups--Hindus and Muslims--in 130 stories about the partition and independence of India and Pakistan in 1947. The analysis looked for three frames--attention, prominence and treatment. The study found that while Hindus were placed in the frame of prominence, Muslims were placed in the attention frame. Finally, the study found that both groups figured in the treatment frame-Hindus dominated the number of partisan assertions, and the Muslim group’s problems and policies were highlighted.
This paper was presented at the Global Fusion Conference (2005) in Athens, Ohio

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Analyzing, from a relational perspective, how the India-Pakistan conflict has been sustained, this paper veers from traditional conceptions of ethics as part of the analytical framework and suggests that we relocate ethical concerns in international relations research to the realm of empirics. Specifically, I focus on partition literature to present a genealogy of bounding practices that highlights the role the imagination of difference in 1947 (when India and Pakistan came into existence as independent nations) plays in legitimizing conflictual relations between India and Pakistan today. A genealogical tracing of these legitimations highlights how past deployments become the moral-practical ingredients for present actions. Simply, how a social phenomenon like the India-Pakistan conflict is made meaning-full depends on the specific ways in which people make sense of how it has been imagined in the past; these narrations of previous exercises in meaning-making form the ethical guidelines that influence the character of social actions in which our realities are socially (re)constructed. Shifting our consideration of ethics in this manner provides us with three distinct advantages over existing scholarship. First, it allows us to understand how the conflict between these two nuclear rivals is embedded both morally and practically in everyday life. Second, by shifting ethical concerns from the realm of how things should be to understanding how ethics shape social reality, reification is avoided and agency is preserved. Finally, the Weberian distinction between scholarship and politics can be preserved by recasting ethics as part of the empirical component of ones? research instead of its overarching goal.