Mosier, Samantha L. and Susan M. Opp. 2019. Pracademics in Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration Accredited Programs: Insights from a Survey of Program Faculty Members. Teaching Public Administration.

Abstract: This article examines current and previous practitioner experiences of faculty in Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration accredited programs. Using original survey data, this study demonstrates that a majority of Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration program faculty members have prior or current practitioner experiences. However, prior practitioner experiences among younger faculty is significantly lower when compared to older faculty. Faculty report far less current engagement and, of those who do have active engagement roles, most are participating in short-term activities and in non-profit roles. Evaluation credit may be one dynamic to understanding a lack of engaged service activity. A majority of respondents engaging in outside service are from research-focused, doctoral-granting institutions, where it is more likely positive credit is received. Collectively, the results demonstrate that, for the most part, faculty members do have practical experience that can influence their teaching and research functions; however, current incentive and promotion structures may not actively support service engagement activities for modern faculty.

SEE: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0144739419894039?journalCode=tpaa

Dr. Jonathan Morris, with Dr. David Morris , presented “Partisan Media Exposure, Polarization, and Candidate Evaluations in the 2016 General Election” at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association in San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 11, 2020.

From the abstract: This paper examines the influence of Republican and Democratic partisan television news on attitudes toward the candidates for president immediately following the 2016 general election. Using two waves of the 2016 American National Election Study, we examine feelings toward Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton before and after the election. Our findings indicate that exposure to Republican partisan media did have a significant negative effect on feelings toward Hillary Clinton, even when controlling for party identification, ideology, and feelings toward Clinton before the election. Consumption of Democratic partisan television, however, had no influence on feelings toward Donald Trump. We discuss the implications.

South Carolina Poll: Biden Leads Presidential Primary Among Likely Democratic Voters, But Many Open to Changing Their Mind Before Election Day. Trump and Graham Lead Comfortably in General Election Matchups.

Former Vice President Joe Biden leads all candidates in the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary, with support from 37% of likely voters, followed by Tom Steyer (19%), Bernie Sanders (14%), Elizabeth Warren (8%), Pete Buttigieg (4%), Andrew Yang (3%), Amy Klobuchar (2%), Tulsi Gabbard (2%), and Michael Bloomberg (1%).

Read more…

Dr. Hannah Kassab spoke with WITN about how the impeachment of Pre. Trump might affect Democrats’ chances of winning the White House in 2020.

See: https://www.witn.com/content/news/ECU-Professor-expects-impeachment-acquittal-bad-for-Democrats-567640481.html

Dr. Hanna Kassab recently spoke with WNCT about Iran and the president’s Middle East peace plan.

ECU professor reacts to Trump’s Middle East peace plan WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump unveiled his long-awaited Middle East peace plan Tuesday, calling for the creation of a State of Palestine with its capital in portions of east Jerusalem. H… www.wnct.com

EYE ON THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION: Who will the Democratic Party nominate as their giant slayer in 2020? Who will they pick to challenge President Trump? Will it be the familiar – and unpredictable – Joe Biden? The fiery but controversial Elizabeth Warren? Uber-progressive (and old white male) Bernie Sanders? What about “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, the seemingly sensible centrist? Or will one of the other candidates make a surprise showing in Iowa or New Hampshire and vault to the front of the pack?

Mosier, Samantha L., and Arbindra Rimal. 2019. Where’s the Meat? An Evaluation of Diet and Partisanship Identification. British Food Journal, DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-03-2019-0193.

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to comprehensively evaluate the connection between dietary choice and partisanship affiliation among the US population. Food has the potential to be a powerful factor connected to identity and political behaviour. This study analyses survey data (including frequency distributions, cross-tabulations and Tobit regression models) from the Natural Marketing Institute’s 2016 LOHAS database with a total sample population of 4,134. The results provide a platform for further exploring the interaction and effect of diet and partisan affiliation as it applies to political outcomes and market activities. This study confirms that individuals identify as either a Democrat or unaffiliated are more likely to report a vegan or vegetarian-based diet compared to Republicans. However, unaffiliated respondents are also just as likely as Republicans to report a red meat-intensive diet. Gender, race and education level are consistent explanatory factors across the entire population for influencing self-reported dietary behaviour, but location lifestyle factors, such as marital and employment status, influence partisan groups differently.

The Center for Survey Research issued a new report the week before Christmas from its Life, Liberty, and Happiness Project on national public opinion of marijuana legalization. The CSR’s marijuana report, which was co-authored by graduate students in the Department of Psychology, an undergraduate student majoring in political science, and faculty (Mark Bowler and Peter Francia), received coverage from National Public Radio in Raleigh (WUNC) and Charlotte (WFAE). The report also received local television and radio coverage in Greenville.

See:

https://www.wunc.org/post/ecu-study-finds-most-americans-support-marijuana-legalization and https://www.wfae.org/post/ecu-study-finds-most-americans-support-marijuana-legalization#stream/0.

https://www.wnct.com/top-stories/ecu-center-for-survey-research-releases-recent-research-on-legalization-of-marijuana/ and https://www.publicradioeast.org/post/ecu-study-finds-most-americans-support-marijuana-legalization.

Samantha Mosier recently published an article titled “Policies as Species: Viewing and Classifying Public Policy from an Evolutionary Perspective” (Politics and the Life Sciences, 38(3):117-131).

From the Abstract: This article proposes equating policies as species to develop a better understanding of how policies emerge, change, and diffuse across policymaking environments. Scholars have long shown an interest in understanding policy change and reinvention, whether incremental or nonincremental. The two subfields of public policy that can answer how and whypolicies change are not unified, leading to difficulty in comprehensively assessing policy emergence and change. The policy species concept bridges knowledge of the policy process and knowledge in the policy process by creating an operationalized definition of public policy and suggesting a process for classifying policies to observe subsequent behavior. Drawing from the field of biology, the policy species framework outlines how policies possess genotypes and phenotypes, which dictate what a policy is and how it can change. In tracing genotypic and phenetic change over time, policy evolution and change is more easily discernible. In turn, a more precise picture of how policies function is painted.

See: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/policies-as-species/7BF1B832C6BB839BC3C6FD5C65581288#fndtn-information