Suchergebnisse

1. Surveys and Representation -- 2. Who is Missing? -- 3. Why Do People Participate in Surveys? -- 4. Structure of Survey Compliance -- 5. How Survey Nonresponse Damages Scientific Research -- 6. Applications of Corrections for Nonresponse -- 7. What If Nonresponse Worsens? -- 8. Surveys and Misrepresentation -- App. A. Tables of Demographics -- App. B. Coding of Open-ended Reasons for Refusal -- App. C. Cookbook Corrections for Nonresponse -- App. D. Calculation of Standard Errors, Achen Continuous Model -- App. E. Calculation of Standard Errors, Achen Dichotomous Model -- App. F. Sample SHAZAM Run for Achen Dichotomous Model -- App. G. Efficiency and Sensitivity of Corrections -- App. H. Coding of Variables -- App. I. Complete Tables for Models

Declining revenue bases affects the private graduate and undergraduate school environments
in exceptionally similar ways. The University of Chicago draws its revenue for the most part
from a rolling calculation from its endowment (unlike, say, state revenue contributions).
While there is no question that well-endowed institutions have special advantages, the
climate of resource constraint and threat is nevertheless ubiquitous.

High levels of nonresponse plague all three waves of the National Election Studies' Senate Studies. Each of the studies failed to elicit interviews from close to one of every two selected sample persons, a rate far worse than the NES regular Pre- and Post-Election Studies. This paper addresses three interdependent problems: Given limited data about the nonrespondents, how can we model the causes of nonresponse? Using these models, how can we adjust our analysis of the Senate Study data to compensate for nonresponse? What difference does nonresponse make for our understanding of the dynamics of Senate elections?

One response to the increasing refusal rates in surveys is to offer incentives to respondents. Explored here is whether it is really the incentive that affects the response rate, or rather the stimulus letter accompanying the incentive. Data come from an analysis of an incentive experiment conducted by the National Election Studies with the 1991 Panel Study of the Dynamics of War, demonstrating how prior contact influences survey response. 6 Tables, 2 Appendixes, 16 References. Adapted from the source document.

About the Authors; Introduction; Chapter 1: Alternative Roles; Part I: Training; Chapter 2: Empirical Data on Training; Chapter 3: Adapting Preferences; Part II: Task Management; Chapter 4: Task Allocation in Public Bureaucracies; Chapter 5: Task Allocation in Policing; Part III: Trust Brokering; Chapter 6: Trust Brokering; Chapter 7: Rules, Trust, and the Allocation of Time; Chapter 8: Leadership: Middle Managers and Supervision; Notes; References; Index.

A comment on the articles in a special issue on "Neuroscientific Contributions to Political Psychology" emphasizes the need for caution when applying experimental findings to specific political situations. There is agreement with Elizabeth Phelps & Laura Thomas that social neuroscience should complement, not replace, more traditional psychological methods. Consideration is given to extending the ideas of Lieberman et al about how the brain grapples with political information to explore what activates a more social aspect of political choices. Morris et al are complimented for pointing out the associative & affectively charged nature of political representations in long-term memory. Piotr Winkielman's & Kent Berridge's identification of subrational liking of an actor as a possible stimulus for people to behave in ways counter to rational choice is linked to the work of rational choice scholars & attention is called to key issues in the article by Heberlein et al that relate to politics. The relationship between emotion & rationality is said to be one of the most important lessons to emerge from this new field of research. 9 References. J. Lindroth