Inclusive Masculinity Theory: overview,reflection and refinement

In 2010, this journal published an early exposition of inclusive masculinity theory. Since then, the theory has been widely adopted within both the sport and masculinities literature. Furthermore, a large number of other scholars not using the theory have also documented and labelled new masculinity types. There has also been refinement of Inclusive Masculinity Theory, alongside theoretical critiques. In this article, we provide an overview of the genesis of the theory and its refinement, before considering and responding to published and unpublished critiques of the theory. We then suggest future directions for research.     

Revisiting Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress, 1947-2007

Philip Habel Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Mailcode 4501, Carbondale, IL 62901 This paper replicates and extends Groseclose, Levitt, and Snyder,"Comparing Interest Group Scores Across Time and Chambers: AdjustedADA Scores for the U.S. Congress," which appeared in the AmericanPolitical Science Review (1999/93:33–50). We replicatethe most recent unpublished extension by Dr. Groseclose andresearch assistants for years 1947–1999, and then we extendthe analysis to include years 2000 through 2007. We make availableinflation-adjusted ADA scores from 1947 through 2007, allowingscholars to incorporate the most recent interest group scoresinto their analyses. Author's Note: Authors are listed alphabetically. The authorswish to thank Tim Groseclose for making available both the nominalADA scores from 1947 to 1999 and the Matlab program files usedin this analysis. SA gratefully acknowledges the support ofthe Hoover Institution during her time there as the 2006–07W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellowand the Robert Eckles Swain National Fellow. PH wishes to thankboth the Dirksen Congressional Center and the National ScienceFoundation, doctoral dissertation improvement division grant493469, for their generous support. He also wishes to acknowledgethe valuable research assistance of James Lewis, Joshua Mitchell,and Matt Bergbower. Special thanks to J. Tobin Grant, ScottMcClurg, and Wendy Tam Cho for their helpful feedback and assistance.All errors are the responsibility of the authors. Replicationmaterials and programs are available on the Political AnalysisWeb site.     

Political pressure deflection

Much economic policy is deliberately shifted away from direct political processes to administrative processes—political pressure deflection. Pressure deflection poses a puzzle to standard political economy models which suggest that having policies to ‘sell’ is valuable to politicians. The puzzle is solved here by showing that incumbents will favor pressure deflection since it can deter viability of a challenger, essentially like entry deterrence. U.S. trade policy since 1934 provides a prime example, especially antidumping law and its evolution.     

Beyond the media's explanation: Examining the determinants of attitudes toward torture

The question of what constitutes torture has perhaps never held as prominent a place in US political discourse as it has since the attacks on 9/11. This has fueled a national conversation that causes us to consider to what extent do our actions as a nation reflect our values as a nation? In a post 9/11 world in which the country will confront terrorism at home and abroad and our values will be tested we should strive for a better understanding of citizens' attitudes towards the practices that are (and have been) used to counter terrorism. To the extent that democratic theory is correct in necessitating public policy and public opinions to be reasonably congruent, understanding the distribution and formation of citizen attitudes towards torture is an important endeavor.     

People,power, change: three pillars of a food sovereignty research praxis

ABSTRACT

This article is situated within nascent debates on the role of academics within food sovereignty movements. Drawing on insights from a collective autoethnography, we report on our experiences conducting three food sovereignty research projects in different contexts and at different scales. We suggest that that the principles and practices of food sovereignty translate into a food sovereignty research praxis. This consists of three pillars focusing on people (humanizing research relationships), power (equalizing power relations) and change (pursuing transformative orientations). This article discusses these pillars and analyzes the extent to which we were able to embody them within our projects.