Activism and Radicalism in Prison: Measurement and Correlates in a Large Sample of Inmates in Texas

There is considerable speculation that prison plays a role in radicalization. Many individuals involved in acts of political extremism have spent time in prison, adding credibility to such claims. Despite these assertions, there is little empirical evidence regarding the prison-radicalization link because access to prisons is challenging and there are few valid scales of extremism. Studies that do examine a potential link have small sample sizes or select on extremist case studies. The current study draws on interviews conducted with 802 male prison inmates in Texas the week before their release to the community. Inmates were administered the Activism and Radicalism Intention Scale, one of the few validated scales in the extremism literature. A series of structural equation models revealed several important findings. First, we found that the psychometric properties of the modified two factor model of activism and radicalism intentions were largely acceptable among prison inmates, including subgroupings of Latino, white, black, and gang and non-gang-involved inmates. Second, our findings revealed that there was more activism than radicalism intentions among prison inmates, although levels of both were comparable to non-institutional populations. Activism and radicalism intentions were positively related, although this correlation was weaker than in prior studies. Activism should not be substituted for radicalism. Third, our exploratory analysis of concurrent validity identified few multivariate correlates. Group identification—namely, racial and religious groups—was related to both scales, but in opposite directions. Age was negatively, while street-to-prison gang importation was positively, related to radicalism intention. We outline the implications of these findings for research, policy, and practice on activism, radicalization, and prison.     

The Network of Law Reviews: Citation Cartels,Scientific Communities,and Journal Rankings

Research evaluation is increasingly influenced by quantitative data. We focus on the influential Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR) ranking of law journals and critically assess its methodology. In particular, we consider the existence and impact of a tacit citation cartel between US law reviews. A study of 45 US student‐edited (SE) and 45 peer‐reviewed (PR) journals included in the category of Law in the JCR revealed that PR and SE journals are more inclined to cite members of their own class and that this phenomenon is more pronounced in SE generalist journals, reflecting tacit cartelistic behavior generated by deeply entrenched institutional practices. Because US SE journals produce more citations than PR journals, the fact that their citations are directed almost exclusively to SE journals elevates their scores and distorts the journals' ranking and can consequently undermine the flow and creation of ideas. We discuss policy measures that can counter the adverse effects of this situation.     

The “Indo-Pacific”—New Regional Formulations and New Maritime Frameworks for US-India Strategic Convergence

This article argues three things. First, it argues that at the conceptual level there has been a strategic rediscovery of a maritime regional framework, the Indo-Pacific. Second, it argues that at the policy level there is a significant regional security convergence, a degree of strategic balancing, between India and the United States in this Indo-Pacific. Third, it argues that at the causal level there is a common maritime challenge from China faced by India in the Indian Ocean and by the United States in the Pacific Ocean, a common Indo-Pacific strategic challenge which is generating this significant US-India naval convergence. In order to deal with such matters, the article looks at the strategic discourse employed around the concept of the Indo-Pacific, and the related maritime assets deployed in the Indo-Pacific by the United States and India.     

The iteration deficit in responsive regulation: Are regulatory ambassadors an answer?

One reason that regulation is difficult is that repeated encounters between regulator and regulatee are rare. We suggest diplomacy as a model for reconfiguring regulatory institutions in response. Ambassadors for Regulatory Affairs who would be agents for all state regulatory agencies could be based in most large firms and small and medium enterprises that pose unusual regulatory risks. In rural towns, police would be trained as regulatory ambassadors. Just as a US Secretary of State can launch a “diplomatic surge” in Myanmar from 2009, so regulatory surges are possible in market sectors of high risk or high opportunity. We propose strategies of indirect reciprocity as a way in which reciprocity that is only episodic in these strategic ways can promote more general responsiveness. Indirect reciprocity is reciprocity that we do not personally experience, but learn from the experience of a culture. This means that so long as we sustain regulation as a relational as opposed to a purely technocratic process, indirect reciprocity might civilize regulatory compliance in an historical process informed by the theories of Elias and Putnam.