Scholarship regarding U.S. governing institutions (Congress, the Presidency, and the federal bureaucracy) suffers from a notoriously restricted range of theoretical, methodological, and demographic perspectives—limiting political scientists’ collective understanding of those institutions as they evolve with respect to gender, race/ethnicity, capacity, and culture. American University’s New Perspectives in Studies of American Governance program (NP), in collaboration with American University's Washington College of Law and Purdue University's Center for Research on Diversity and Inclusion, seeks to address this weakness. The NP incentivizes emerging scholars to broaden the range of perspectives and experiences upon which they draw when pursuing insight into American governance at the federal level. 

Award Winners of 2024 NP Research Grants!

April 2024

The Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies (CCPS), in collaboration with AU’s Washington College of Law (WCL) and Purdue University’s Center for Research on Diversity and Inclusion (CRDI), is proud to announce the winners of our 2024 New Perspectives in Studies of American Governance research grants. With support from Hewlett Foundation’s U.S. Democracy program, we are supporting seven new projects that stand to transform political scientists’ collective understanding of American governance and representation. This marks the second time we are awarding these grants, reaffirming our commitment to fostering innovative research that sheds new light on the intricacies of American governance.

 

1. How Legislative Institutions Evolve: Member Identity, Experience, & Democratic Norms in U.S. Congressional Reforms

Prof. Emily Baer, University of New Hampshire

Abstract: This project examines how Congress evolves – or fails to evolve – to meet the needs and interests of new generations of lawmakers and leaders. Research suggests that members draw on a more limited set of influences in the contemporary era than in earlier historical periods, including partisanship and ideology. How does the increasing diversity of lawmaker identities and backgrounds shape institutional reform debates – and the power and role of leaders – in the U.S. Congress? This project leverages archival documents and interviews to identify influences on lawmakers’ beliefs about the structure of institutions, how such influences have changed over time in response to broader political, cultural, social, and economic shifts, and how lawmakers’ increasingly diverse backgrounds and experiences shape the structure of the legislative branch. It contributes to vital debates on the linkage between lawmaker identities and representation in Congress and will improve our understanding of how legislative institutions evolve in Congress.

2. Representation in the U.S. Senate in the Digital Age: An Analysis of Rhetorical Representation

Prof. Stephanie Davis, University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Abstract: Changes in the electorate, technology, communication styles and methods affect the way representatives build the electoral connection with their constituents. In particular, the introduction of Twitter/X has provided a low-cost way for representatives to bypass traditional media intermediaries to communicate directly with constituencies. This study expands on a comprehensive analysis of U.S. Senators' Twitter communication strategies, exploring the evolution of digital home styles and their impact on constituent relationships. Leveraging a novel dataset of 1,682,025 tweets from 165 senators (January 2008 to February 2023), the project’s initial findings reveal that senators strategically deploy digital messaging that focuses on localized reputation-building and national policy advocacy to enhance electoral prospects. To continue studying the relationship between senators and their home constituency, we will conduct a systematic analysis of the tweet text, examining how senators’ use localized language to build on their electoral connection with their constituents on a global digital platform. 

3. How Disparities in Candidate Wealth Matter for Diversity in Congress

Prof. Ryan Mundy, Prof. Savannah Plaskon, and Prof. Danielle Thomsen, University of California, Irvine

Abstract: Congressional candidates are increasingly defined by their ability to raise vast sums of money. Yet far less attention has been given to the financial resources of candidates themselves. We examine how wealth disparities influence who runs, who wins, and how candidates pave their paths to Congress. We focus on two components of candidate warchests that are expected to be intricately tied to wealth: self-funding patterns and access to high-dollar, “max-out” donors. One paper explores whether wealthy candidates receive more max-out contributions and how max-outs are related to electoral success. Another paper analyzes racial and gender disparities in self-finance and their connection to the personal assets of candidates. We draw on new data on candidate race, gender, and wealth as well as FEC data on the amount and timing of individual contributions and candidate loans. Our project sheds new light on self-finance and a small but critical segment of rich donors. The dramatic resource disparities across candidates have important implications for diversity and representation in Congress.

4. The Federal Government’s Role in High Rates of Felon Disenfranchisement Among Native Americans

Prof. Melissa Rogers, Claremont Graduate University, Prof. Joseph Dietrich, Towson University, and Prof. Jean Schroedel, Claremont Graduate University

Abstract: Influential research argues that felon disenfranchisement laws had the intent and effect of denying the vote to African-Americans. This research, however, cannot explain the adoption and expansion of these laws in Western states with small Black populations. We document the increasing stringency of felon disenfranchisement laws in these states following the extension of Native American suffrage. While most research focuses on state actions in felon disenfranchisement, we argue that federal policies also substantially impact Native Americans. When Native Americans are arrested for felonies on most reservations, they are under federal jurisdiction. Federal courts impose longer sentences than most states for equivalent crimes, and felons are not eligible for parole, a key point when voting rights are restored in many states. Jurisdictional challenges, legal ambiguities, and concerns with voting violations strongly discourage Native felons from voting after completing their (longer) sentences. We use mixed methods to highlight the role of federal policies. Using McGirt v. Oklahoma as a “natural experiment” in federal versus state jurisdiction, we show that federal felons are more often disenfranchised and for longer periods. We also conduct interviews in South Dakota and Nebraska to identify differences in voting outcomes between federal and state jurisdiction for Native Americans.

5. A Crisis of Communication: Reporting on the Realities of Covering a Digital Congress

Prof. Annelise Russell, University of Kentucky

Abstract: Social media tells the day-to-day story of Congress, but this research goes behind the digital curtain to understand the media relationships at the core of that communication. The rapid-response media environment tests the capacity of journalists to cover Congress, demanding real time updates in a digital-first environment. Journalists in Congress build relationships over social media or text message, a trend further reinforced by the global pandemic. Congressional reporters are asked to do more to meet the information exchange, not only producing content, but developing a digital brand for themselves. Journalists fuel and react to the narratives coming out of Congress, while adapting to a world where their power also comes from followers in addition to proximity. This project overs a multi-disciplinary approach, bridging communication, journalism, and political science, to consider the dynamics of the digital information exchange in Congress. This research offers an important and new perspective about how journalists influence the daily dialogue in Congress and what that means for how information is shared in a political, hybrid media system.

6. Electability Politics: How and Why Black Americans Vote in Primary Elections

Prof. Jasmine Smith, George Washington University

Abstract: How do Black Americans make political decisions in primary elections? How is this decision making unique compared to other groups? To answer this question, I test competing theories about descriptive representation, substantive representation, and strategic voting. I draw from literature in race, ethnicity, and politics that details Black Americans’ party affiliation and preference for same race candidates. I also draw from literature that analyzes the role of voters in primary elections that concludes that voters use candidate ideology in primary elections, and that voters support candidates that can win the general election. 

I argue that for Black Americans the most important factor in electoral decision-making is how likely the candidate is to win the general election. I argue that due to Black Americans’ unique historical political experience, Black Americans weigh electability as the most important criteria for vote choice in primary elections. Relying on their electability strategy, Black Americans forego their preferences for same race and same policy candidates and instead vote for candidates able to win the general election. I also argue that Black Americans exhibit unique behavior compared to other racial and ethnic groups in primary elections. I test these claims using a survey experiment.

7. We Know You: The Political Implications of Black Stereotypes of White Politicians                      

Prof. Julian Wamble, George Washington University

Abstract: Though there has been extensive research done on how Whites’ stereotypic beliefs about Black people inform their perceptions and assessments of Black politicians. This focus, while informative, speaks to a less common occurrence in American politics, particularly at the state and national levels. However, the inverse, wherein the Black electorate votes for White politicians is extremely prevalent, if not ubiquitous, yet little to no research has been done on this topic. To that end, this project asks the following questions- What are Black individuals’ stereotypes about White people? How do they use those stereotypes to inform their assessments and evaluations of White politicians? This research’s chief contention is that, like White individuals, Black people use their stereotypes of White people to inform their assessments and evaluations of White politicians, but the usage of these stereotypes is less to subjugate the outgroup and more for the purposes of optimizing their political position. Using an original survey and experimental test, I will show the strategic nature of Black voters’ usage of their stereotypes of White people when evaluating and selecting White politicians. This work has far-reaching implications for understanding how marginalized groups’ navigation of dominant ones informs their political decision-making.

The Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies (CCPS), in collaboration with AU’s Washington College of Law (WCL) and Purdue University’s Center for Research on Diversity and Inclusion (CRDI), is proud to announce the winners of our 2022 New Perspectives in Studies of American Governance research grants. With support from Hewlett Foundation’s U.S. Democracy program, we are supporting seven new projects that stand to transform political scientists’ collective understanding of American governance and representation.

1. Diversity and Representation in Information Provision to Congress

Pamela Ban, University of California San Diego (@pamelamban)
Ju Yeon Park, Ohio State University (@JuYeonPark4)
Hye Young You, Princeton University (@hyeyoungyou)

Abstract: Information is one of Congress’ most important needs during policymaking. Interest groups, bureaucrats, and other individuals seek to influence legislators through the provision of information, including testifying as witnesses in congressional hearings. The extent to which diverse voices are represented in the information transfer from external groups to Congress is a critical question in debates on representation. What is the diversity of witnesses invited to Congress, and what affects the presence and engagement with minority witnesses? Using a new dataset with demographic information of all congressional witnesses from 1960-2020, we investigate how representational factors in Congress drive members of committees to both invite and deliberate with a witness pool that is more diverse in terms of race, gender, and geography. Further, we use a natural experiment stemming from Congress’ shift to virtual hearings during the covid-19 pandemic to evaluate the effects of political networks and transportation costs on the geographic and economic diversity of witnesses. Findings will shine a spotlight not only on what affects the presence of diverse witnesses in information provision to Congress, but also on what drives Congress’ engagement with these diverse witnesses during policymaking.

2. Charting Bureaucratic Convergence Across Borders

Angie M. Bautista-Chavez, Arizona State University (@ABautistaChavez)
Isabella Bellezz-Smull, Brown University
Richie Romero, Arizona State University (@RichieARomero)

Abstract: How are border bureaucracies (re)orienting in an era of globalization and heightened policing of cross-border flows? States are increasingly re-asserting control over international borderlines by building walls, deploying surveillance technologies, and bolstering infrastructure at ports of entry. However, in an era of heightened border politics, it is imperative to understand how state agencies charged with regulating the cross-border movement of travel, migrants, goods, and money define their roles in the 21st century. In this article, we use a dictionary-based text-analysis of agency-level strategic plans to map the shifting priorities of five border agencies (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States) from 2000 to present. By reconstructing the work that bureaucracies intend to do, we find that border agencies located in countries across the globe increasingly aspire to use the same information inputs, processes of gathering information, and modes of analysis to ultimately guide decisions about whether or not to enable a person or good’s movement or entry. First, an analysis of economy-related terms and security-related terms demonstrates that each border agency discusses its work in relation to the economy and security, but to varying degrees. Second, our analysis reveals that international partnerships are central to how border agencies are adapting in a globalized world. While states continue to unilaterally protect their borders, border agencies also place significant emphasis on forging international partnerships. Finally, through an analysis of strategy terms, we find patterns of convergence in how states decide who and what to target for increased inspection. This study establishes a baseline for comparing the strategic priorities of border agencies globally and investigating bureaucratic convergence.

3. Understanding the Causes and Consequences of Congressional Staff Diversity

Alexander Bolton, Emory University
Sharece Thrower, Vanderbilt University (@ShareceThrower)

Abstract: Representation is the bedrock of American democracy. Congress, perhaps more than any other institution, serves as a venue where the diverse interests of the country have their fullest articulation. Descriptive representation is particularly vital for ensuring that the voices of marginalized groups are reflected in public policies. Though numerous studies examine the descriptive characteristics of legislators, much less is known about the diversity of their staffs, who are unelected individuals with vast opportunities for influencing the policymaking process. Recent research on staff representation mostly focuses on personal staff. Studies on committee staffers, who are arguably far more consequential for policymaking, is limited and incomplete, relying heavily on survey data or other sources from limited timeframes. Moreover, previous studies of staffing have, with few exceptions, ignored the substantial increase in the racial and gender diversity of congressional staff over the last several decades and its implications for representation in the institution. Accordingly, we plan to collect the most comprehensive dataset on the gender and racial composition of committee staffers between 1960 and 2020, to systematically track descriptive representation. Furthermore, we will examine whether such diversity advances substantive representation, by linking it to appropriations reports and oversight hearings. Here, we seek to understand whether descriptive representation among staff lends a voice to the interests of women and racial minorities in policymaking. Our dataset will be used for exploring other important questions, such as those related to intersectionality, and can provide a valuable resource to citizens, interest groups, and practitioners for promoting diversity and accountability throughout Congress. Overall, this project will shed light on the efficacy of representative democracy in the United States, particularly with respect to incorporating the interests of traditionally underrepresented groups.

4. Race, Gender and The Politics of Difference in Federal Judicial Appointment Politics, 1965-2017

Taneisha Nicole Means, Vassar College (@ProfMeans)

Abstract: The constitutional mandate for selecting federal judges is straightforward but says little about the factors presidents and senators should consider as they work to appoint jurists. What factors influence who presidents nominate to the federal bench, how do nominees experience and understand the process, and what factors influence how senators act on those nominations? These are certainly much-studied questions in American politics and existing literature on the topics point to various factors, including race and gender. Despite the growing body of scholarship, existing empirical evidence is contradictory with some scholars saying race or gender do not matter, and partisanship is the primary concern, but others find that nominees’ social identities are important in understanding the appointment process. 

One possible reason for these mixed results is that scholars have often taken a single-axis approach theoretically and methodologically by focusing on race or gender alone. Using an intersectional approach and analyzing diverse materials, including archival and interview data, this study further explores how judicial nominees’ identities influence the appointment process. This study’s findings will have broad implications for understanding presidents’ decisions regarding their selection and promotion of nominees, senators’ decision-making, nominees’ experiences and understandings, and diversity on the federal bench.

5. It Takes a Village: Re-Examining the Infrastructure for Collective Black-Interest Advocacy in the U.S. Congress

Periloux C. Peay, University of Maryland (@pcpeay)

Abstract: This project analyzes the Congressional Black Caucus as a diversity infrastructure – a formal system (or a network of interacting systems) forged by ethnic, racial, or gender identity that engages in extra-party collective behavior to advance group-interest policies in political institutions. In doing so, this project places a more explicit emphasis on the Caucus’ formation, formalization, development, and reliance on key organizational features in order to advance their collective goals. At its core, this project is a historical analysis of the strategic decisions made at three critical junctures of the organization’s development: (1) decisions in the Caucus’ infancy to create internal and external arms of the organization designed to expand their policymaking capacities, (2) how the Caucus was forced to rethink and restructure the organization following Gingrich-era institutional reforms, and (3) how the restructuring of the Caucus organization positioned it for success in the future. Preliminary archival research at three separate sites provides a great deal of support to the notion that the development of the caucus infrastructure was crucial to the advancement of the Caucus’ collective goals.

6. Black Legislators and the Rise of Squad Democrats in the U.S. Congress

Katherine Tate, Brown University
Karra McCray Gibson, Brown University (@karramccray)

Abstract: With Democrats having narrow control of both branches in the 117th Congress, progressive legislators have sparred with moderate Democrats over the size and scope of government spending bills. This project examines the politics of one group of progressive legislators called “The Squad” who have twice voted against the party’s effort to pass major legislation. Squad legislators stand in contrast to Black House Democrats, who, since the 1970s, have become more accommodating of the Democratic Party’s interests because of minority political incorporation. It is theorized that Squad Democrats emerged in the new urban politics promulgated by the Black Lives Matter Movement. Social movements, it is argued, act as offsetting, radicalizing forces in government. In addition to an analysis of their campaigns and elections to see if community activists were involved, the tweets of Squad Democrats and Black Democrats will be analyzed for the frequency in which they stress the Black Lives Matter Movement, protest, and voice opposition to the Democratic National Committee, President Trump, and President Biden. A research paper will emerge from this study. The theoretical aims are to shed additional light on how social movements affect Congress.

7. Activists in the House: Intersecting Identities, Organizing Experience, and Progressive Politics in Congress           

Catherine N. Wineinger, Western Washington University (@cnwineinger)

Abstract: In the midst of social movements focused on racial, gender, economic, and environmental justice, the 2018 and 2020 elections brought record-breaking diversity to Capitol Hill. Within this political landscape, some progressive members of Congress and congressional staffers have embraced their own identities as activists and community organizers. This book project focuses on progressive activism in Congress. More specifically, I will investigate how social identities and organizing backgrounds shape the experiences, goals, and strategies of self-identified progressives in the House of Representatives. Through semi-structured interviews, case studies of legislation, and political ethnographies, I will explore two main questions: (1) How, if at all, do progressives in Congress who identify as activists differ from those who do not? and (2) In what ways do intersections of gender, race, class, religion, and other identities shape the experiences and tactics of progressive activists in Congress? This project expands research on institutional activism and highlights the various ways social identities matter in contemporary congressional politics. In doing so, it can shine new light on scholarly understandings of legislative effectiveness; the dynamics of intraparty politics; and the relationship between social movements, identity, and policymaking. 

New Perspectives and New Questions in Legislative Studies Conference

April 8, 2021 | 8:30am- 5:00pm
Via Zoom

American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies hosted “New Perspectives and New Questions in Legislative Studies,” a virtual conference on April 8, 2021. 

Co-hosted by Valeria Sinclair-Chapman (Professor of Political Science, Purdue University), David Barker (Professor of Government and Director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, American University) and Bettina Poirier (Professor of Law and Director of American University’s Program on Legislative Negotiation), with support from the Hewlett Foundation’s US Democracy Program, this conference aimed to foster innovation and collaboration on new lines of legislative scholarship that reflect the broadening perspectives of American lawmakers (and the constituents they serve).

American University’s New Perspectives in Studies of American Governance program awarded $200,000 grant

September 2021

With support from the Hewlett Foundation’s U.S. Democracy Program, the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University was recently awarded a $200,000 grant to promote New Perspectives in Studies of American Governance (NP). The NP program, in partnership with Purdue University, incentivizes emerging scholars to broaden the range of perspectives with respect to gender, race/ethnicity, capacity, and culture when pursuing insight into American governance at the federal level. 

Specifically, the NP includes a small grants program for scholars of Congress and the Executive branch, whose research examines new questions and/or does so from a broader point of view than has traditionally been the case in these fields. A call for proposals will be disseminated in coming months.

The Principal Investigators of this program include David Barker, Professor of Government and Director of CCPS, Bettina Poirier, Director of the Program on Legislative Negotiation and Senior Affiliate for WCL, and Valeria Sinclair- Chapman, Professor of Political Science, African American Studies, and Gender & Sexuality Studies at Purdue University. She is also Director of Purdue’s Center for Research on Diversity and Inclusion as well as its Legislative Internship Program.