On assessing the mood of the public toward the police: Some conceptual issues

The use of attitudinal surveys has become a widely accepted method for the incorporation of public opinion in public policy decisions. Because of the assumption that the interpretation of such surveys is straightforward and clear, little critical attention has been devoted to the methodological and theoretical problems encountered when translating these findings into public policy. A case in point involves the proliferation of surveys aimed at assessing the mood of the public toward the police. A review of the literature reveals that the research findings about the public mood are contradictory and thus lack convergent validity. The findings of this study indicate that this lack of convergent validity in the images of the public toward the police can be explained on both methodological and theoretical grounds. More specifically, the findings indicate that the mood of the public is very different depending on the level of specificity of the items used to tap that mood. Items eliciting evaluations of a general nature show the public as supportive of the police, while items of a specific nature show much less public support. This apparent paradox is explained through the use of a theoretical framework developed by Easton (1965), which emphasizes diffuse and specific support as external influences on institutions.     

GASB's Survival Potential: An Agency Theory Perspective

The primary objective of this article is to develop a framework for examining the survival or demise of an accounting standards setting body, with specific emphasis on analyzing the survival potential of the proposed GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board). In meeting this objective, we will first contrast the survival of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with the demise of the Cost Accounting Standards Board (CASE), based on a framework derived from recent developments in agency theory.
The position taken in this article is neither that of an advocate nor an adversary of the various accounting regulatory bodies discussed. Instead, the authors' intent is to shed light on the complex issues surrounding the potential for survival of such bodies. An improved understanding of these issues should, in turn, permit a more enlightened analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of such bodies.