Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper will present finds from a survey of aspiring leaders designed to asses knowledge of special education law and regulations. Program improvements based on those findings will be discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In recent democratization studies especially in the context of post-conflict societies, civil society has been accorded a central role. Ranging from multilateral financial institutions involved in aid assistance, to work by international and local NGOs, the focus has been on establishing civil society organizations for providing development and inculcating democratic behavior among local citizens. While civil society has taken center stage in discussions about building peace and promoting democracy, there has been little analysis about the assumptions of policy experts and institution actors in implementing policies in the name of civil society. This paper illuminates and highlights the assumptions about the meaning of civil society and its role in international interventions in post-conflict Sierra Leone. Specifically the paper contrasts programs in rehabilitation and reconstruction with those focused on political participation to elaborate the assumptions of policy makers in these approaches and identify which interventions tend to be more effective.

Publication Type: Poster
Abstract: An aging population has made elder care giving a public policy concern. Although previous literature has focused on caregiver burdens, motivation for care giving, and elder abuse by caregivers, the legal definition of caregiver may be unclear to potential caregivers. Based on a recent case and related state statute that defines a caregiver as anyone who “assumes responsibility” for an elder adult, the current study explores the common understanding of care giving for adults. Employing self-referencing vignettes and controlling for participant’s filial responsibility attitudes, the current study explores potential caregiver’s knowledge and definitions of care giving relationships

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Many political scientists and policymakers argue that unmediated events – the successes and failures on the battlefield – determine whether the mass public will support military excursions. The public supports war, the story goes, if the benefits of action outweigh the costs of conflict. Other scholars contend instead that the balance of elite discourse influences levels of public support for war. I draw upon 65 years of survey evidence from World War II and the current war in Iraq to come to a common conclusion on how it is that members of the mass public decide to offer or withhold their support for international interventions. I find that large segments of the mass public possess no knowledge of the most basic facts of even the most salient wars. Thus, there is little evidence that citizens make complex cost/benefit calculations when deciding whether to support or oppose military action. Instead, I find that patterns of elite conflict shape opinion concerning war. When political elites disagree as to the wisdom of intervention, the public divides as well. But when elites come to a common interpretation of a political reality, the public gives them great latitude to wage war.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Many political scientists and policymakers argue that unmediated events ? the successes and failures on the battlefield ? determine whether the mass public will offer its support for military excursions. Other authors contend instead that the balance of elite discourse influence levels of public support for war. Scholars therefore disagree whether public opinion concerning war is directly shaped by foreign policy events or by debates among political elites. In this paper, I draw upon seemingly disparate survey evidence from World War II and the current war in Iraq to argue that military events do shape public opinion, but not in the straightforward manner posited by most scholars of public opinion and war. I find that large segments of the mass public possess no knowledge of the most basic facts concerning a given conflict. Thus, there is little evidence that citizens make complex cost/benefit calculations when deciding whether to support or oppose military action. Instead, I find that patterns of elite discourse determine the nature of opinion toward war. When political elites disagree as to the wisdom of intervention, the public divides as well. But when ? for whatever reason ? elites come to a common interpretation of a political reality, the public gives them great latitude to wage war. Thus it is not the direct influence of events themselves that matter. Instead it is the conflict among political elites concerning the salience and meaning of those events that determines if the public will rally to war