Suchergebnisse

With recent advances in computing power and the widespread availability of preference, perception and choice data, such as public opinion surveys and legislative voting, the empirical estimation of spatial models using scaling and ideal point estimation methods has never been more accessible.The second edition of Analyzing Spatial Models of Choice and Judgment demonstrates how to estimate and interpret spatial models with a variety of methods using the open-source programming language R. Requiring only basic knowledge of R, the book enables social science researchers to apply the methods to their own data. Also suitable for experienced methodologists, it presents the latest methods for modeling the distances between points. The authors explain the basic theory behind empirical spatial models, then illustrate the estimation technique behind implementing each method, exploring the advantages and limitations while providing visualizations to understand the results. This second edition updates and expands the methods and software discussed in the first edition, including new coverage of methods for ordinal data and anchoring vignettes in surveys, as well as an entire chapter dedicated to Bayesian methods. The second edition is made easier to use by the inclusion of an R package, which provides all data and functions used in the book. David A. Armstrong II is Canada Research Chair in Political Methodology and Associate Professor of Political Science at Western University. His research interests include measurement, Democracy and state repressive action. Ryan Bakker is Reader in Comparative Politics at the University of Essex. His research interests include applied Bayesian modeling, measurement, Western European politics, and EU politics. Royce Carroll is Professor in Comparative Politics at the University of Essex. His research focuses on measurement of ideology and the comparative politics of legislatures and political parties. Christopher Hare is Assistant Professor in Political Science at the University of California, Davis. His research focuses on ideology and voting behavior in US politics, political polarization, and measurement. Keith T. Poole is Philip H. Alston Jr. Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia. His research interests include methodology, US political-economic history, economic growth and entrepreneurship. Howard Rosenthal is Professor of Politics at NYU and Roger Williams Straus Professor of Social Sciences, Emeritus, at Princeton. Rosenthal's research focuses on political economy, American politics and methodology.

Introduction: Educational Trends and the Jupiter Metaphor. 1. Performance enhancing trends: Brain Gym® Direct Instruction and synthetic phonics. 2. Technical trends: Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports, Neuromyths and Response to Intervention. 3. The crumbling orthodoxy: Behaviour Management and Teacher Quality. 4. Cures, therapy and hope: Growth Mindset, Mindfulness, School-based Mental Health and Inclusion. 5. Trends of the near future: Evidence Based Practice, HITS and Neurodiversity. Summary. Conclusion: Moving Beyond Trends. Final Recommendations. Glossary. References

In this important study David Armstrong examines the impact of revolutionary states on the international system. These states have always posed major problems for the achievement of world order: revolution is often accompanied by international as well as civil conflict, while revolutionary doctrines have proven to be highly disruptive of the existing structure of international politics.Dr Armstrong asks whether revolutionary states are `socialized' into adopting acceptable patterns of international behaviour or whether it is international society that is forced to change when these new states appear.He looks in detail at the French, American, and Russian revolutions and at several post-1945 revolutionary states; he also examines the relationship between revolutionary states and the principal ordering devices of international society: international law, diplomacy, and the balance of power. His book is a major contribution to international relations and an important development and application of the `international society' concept.

AbstractThe article examines the argument that international law is already beginning to reflect cosmopolitanism. It does so by briefly reviewing the history of the ways in which concepts of justice have been represented in international law and then considering the case that cosmopolitanism is present in various forms in contemporary international law. While dismissing some of the stronger cosmopolitan claims it argues that the fuller picture has complexities that International Relations Realists and legal Positivists tend to ignore.

Scholars have long attempted to make distinctions among states based on regime type. Two of the most commonly used measures by both scholars and policymakers are the Freedom House Freedom in the World political rights and civil liberties measures. Despite their popularity, little is known about the measurement properties of these variables. In 2006, Freedom House began releasing the subcategory indicators used to generate the seven-point political rights and civil liberties scales as well as the freedom status indicator. I investigate the measurement properties of these scales using Bayesian measurement models (factor analysis and latent class analysis) that explicitly incorporate the goals of the Freedom House organization (which I argue are rigor, appropriate precision, and temporal stability). I find that (a) there is considerable variation hiding in the seven-point political rights and civil liberties classifications (e.g. many countries that are coded one by Freedom House are interestingly different from each other), (b) some countries coded in different categories by Freedom House are not interestingly different from each other (e.g. some twos are not different from some threes), and (c) the subindicators are all reliable indicators of political rights and civil liberties. I show that these differences can be substantively and statistically consequential when using the Freedom House data if the researcher's goals include comparison across space, comparison over time or predictive statistical modeling.