A dynamic test of the marginality hypothesis

The marginality hypothesis is an attempt to relate the voting margins of members of Congress to their subsequent legislative behavior. A major corollary of the hypothesis is that members of Congress with small victory margins will be more responsive to constituents than those with large victory margins. This has been assumed to mean that electorally secure representatives can afford to be more loyal to their congressional parties, since they have less cause to worry about their chances for reelection. Previous empirical studies have produced mixed results. We ask the question in a different way: Do changes in marginality affect party voting within Congress? If so, major shifts in the electorate potentially can have a fundamental impact on the behavior of Congress itself. We find that this is not true. Electoral margin is simply not related to party loyalty.     

The cooperative extension service: A model for technology transfer

Since its inception in 1914, the Cooperative Extension Service has been delivering technology effectively to the agricultural community. The history of CES is discussed briefly, and the program's success, in terms of visibility, usage, and economic impact, is documented. Although the extension model has not been applied widely in industries outside of agriculture, some states have experimented with technology-transfer programs fashioned after CES. It is argued that these programs have not acquired the critical mass of resources needed to make them truly effective, and, unless they gain additional support, they should expand their services to increase their value and assess fees for assistance rendered. Gregory D. McFall was, during preparation of this paper, an undergraduate research fellow, majoring in physics, mathematics, and philosophy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He currently is doing graduate work at VPI & SU.     

Differences in assessments of relative prestige and utility of criminal justice and criminology journals

Several articles have been written about the relative prestige of journals in criminology and criminal justice. Almost uniformly, however, those rankings have focused on sociology and criminology journals and have generally reflected a sociological orientation. If criminal justice is indeed a separate discipline, such approaches are tantamount to asking psychologists to rate sociological journals within a list of psychology journals. Our approach is first to separate respondents by their degree of identification with criminal justice and their educational orientation. Second, we compile a list of responses to questions about prestige and utility to practitioners across the range of criminal justice and criminology journals. Analyses of these data indicate that there are differences in the way scholars rate journals, based on their identity with criminal justice and their educational orientation. These differences, however, are found in specific journals and in types of journals (i.e., police, corrections, criminal justice) rather than in aggregate perceptions of all criminal justice and criminology journals.