Exercise 18.1: Evaluating Titles and Abstracts of Research Reports

Consider the following abstracts that describe some recent research reported in professional political science journals. Evaluate the titles and the abstracts in terms of how well they contribute to an understanding of the research report that follows them. Take into account clarity and completeness.

1. Abstract One:

"Direct Democracy and Institutional Change: A Comparative Investigation"

Is direct democracy on the rise around the world? Previous efforts to answer this question have investigated patterns of referendum usage and have found only small and isolated increases. In contrast, the current study focuses on patterns of institutional change and finds a broad movement to redesign institutions in ways that give citizens more opportunities to exercise direct control over political decision making.

Source: Susan E. Scarrow (2001) "Direct Democracy and Institutional Change: A Comparative Investigation," Comparative Political Studies 34 (August), 651.

2. Abstract Two:

"The Legitimacy-Conferring Authority of the U. S. Supreme Court: An Experimental Design"

Convention holds that the Supreme Court, because of its special constitutional role, can confer an element of legitimacy on a policy simply by endorsing it. In this study we conducted an experiment to test the legitimacy-conferring effect of Court Rulings on public opinion in two policy areas – affirmative action and regulation of phone rates. We found that in both cases, the Supreme Court had an impact on policy agreement and behavioral intentions that was moderated by other important variables. We conclude that the Supreme Court plays an important role in shaping public opinion and political behavior.

Source: Rosalee A. Clawson, Elizabeth Kegler and Eric N. Waltenberg (2001) "The Legitimacy-Conferring Authority of the U. S. Supreme Court: An Experimental Design," American Politics Research 29 (November), 566.

3. Abstract Three:

"Framing Foreign Policy Alternatives in the Inner Circle: President Carter, His Advisors, and the Struggle for the Arms Control Agenda"

This article examines strategic framing efforts within the president’s inner circle of foreign policy advisors. The comparative case study method is used to describe and explain the framing process involved in President Jimmy Carter’s arms control decisions with respect to the Soviet Union. Carter’s two central foreign policy advisors, National Security Advisor Zbigneiw Brzezinski and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, portrayed the Soviets in very different terms. The premise underlying this study is that advisors attempt to frame their policy preferences favorably in order to influence the group process and the president’s policy choice. Advisors do so by playing up the positive aspects of an option and downplaying any negative aspects. Three components of the framing process are explored: historical/cultural symbolism, personal beliefs and values, and political cost assessments.

Source: Jean A. Garrison (2001) "Framing Foreign Policy Alternatives in the Inner Circle: President Carter, His Advisors, and the Struggle for the Arms Control Agenda," Political Psychology 22 (December), 775.

4. Abstract Four:

"Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918-94"

We attempt to explain when and why democratic states will prevail in international crises. We review several prominent theories about democratic political structures and derive hypotheses from each framework about crisis outcomes. These hypotheses are tested against a population of 422 international crises between 1918 and 1994. Our findings provide further evidence that the democratic peace is not a spurious result of common interests. Moreover, we also begin the difficult task of differentiating among the many theories of democratic peace. In particular, we find strong evidence that democratic political structures are important because of their ability to generate domestic audience costs. Our findings also support the argument that democratic political structures encourage leaders to select international conflicts that they will win.

Source: Christopher F. Gelphi and Michael Griesdorf (2001) "Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918-94" American Political Science Review 95 (September), 633.

Abstract One: Abstract Two: Abstract Three: Abstract Four: