Explore the vast range of titles available.

When faculty climb the ranks into leadership positions, they come with years of knowledge and experience, yet they are often blindsided by the delicate interpersonal situations and political minefields they must now navigate as university administrators. What are the specific skills that faculty need to acquire when they move into administrative positions, and how can they build upon their existing abilities to excel in these roles? What skills can other mid-level leaders learn to help in their positions?Using an engaging case study approach, Leading for Tomorrow provides readers with real-world examples that will help them reflect on their own management and communication styles. It also shows newly minted administrators how they can follow best practices while still developing a style of leadership that is authentic and uniquely their own.The book's case studies offer practical solutions for how to deal with emerging trends and persistent problems in the field of higher education, from decreasing state funding to political controversies on campus. Leading for Tomorrow gives readers the tools they need to get the best out of their team, manage conflicts, support student success, and instill a campus culture of innovation that will meet tomorrow's challenges.

Recent scholarship in critical security studies argues that matter matters because it is not an inert backdrop to social life but lively, affectively laden, active in the constitution of subjects, and capable of enabling and constraining security practices and processes. This article seeks to further the debate about materiality and security. Its main claim is that materials-oriented approaches to security typically focus on the place of materials and objects within technologies and assemblages of governance. Less often do they ask how materials and objects become entangled in political controversies, and how objects mediate issues of public concern. To bring publics and contentious politics more fully into the debate about the matter of security, the article engages with Latour’s work on politics, publics and things – or dingpolitik. It then connects the theme of dingpolitik to a particular controversy: Human Rights Watch’s investigation of Gaza civilians allegedly killed by Israeli drone-launched missiles in 2008–2009. Drawing three lessons from this case, the article explores how further conversation between dingpolitik and security studies can be mutually beneficial for both literatures.

Following the 2020-22 Tigray war that shambled the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front's (TPLF) internal structure and legitimacy, the historical and dominant political force of contemporary Tigray evolves into factional politics, understood as a group- based power struggle within the party. This contribution first and foremost intends to enlighten and provide insights into the current TPLF political crisis. Despite common and dominant narratives focusing on personal or ideological agendas, the article intends to demonstrate to what extent this crisis is deeply rooted in the TPLF's genesis and historical development. It then details the five major crises of the party, with a specific emphasis on the unprecedented last one. Doing so, it identifies a security- driven pattern of the party's evolution and its successive reforms and reflects on its internal structure. It aims at grounding power struggles into sociological elements and provides insights into the social development and support of TPLF factions, be they actual or past. It provides detailed insights into factionalism practices and modalities, especially regarding controversies, and raises the hypothesis that factionalism is handled and regulated through controversies that offer internal platforms for TPLF power struggles, as well as the arena for public debates, thereby questioning their ideological dimensions.

This title was first published in 2000: This volume of essays explores a number of fundamental constitutional law questions in a variety of historical and jurisdictional contexts. The contributions focus on the role to be played by courts and legal principles in the resolution of major political controversies and on the progressive development of constitutional jurisprudence in countries sharing a broadly common law legal tradition. The guiding theme pervading the collection is an attempt to measure the legitimacy of judicial (in-)activism when courts are faced with difficult political choices on matters such as slavery, internment, racism and voting rights and radical economic policies and are also confronted with the requirement to attach concrete meanings to such abstract concepts as the separation of powers and the rule of law. Contents: General Principles: The rule of law and its virtue, Joseph Raz; Toward neutral principles of constitutional law, Herbert Weschler. On Slavery: The Dred Scott decision in the light of contemporary legal doctrines, Edward S. Corwin; Somerset: Lord Mansfield and the legitimacy of slavery in the Anglo-American world, William M. Wiecek. On Social and Economic Rights Prior to the Keynesian Orthodoxy: Liberty of contract, Roscoe Pound; Judicial review of social policy in England, Harold J. Laski. On the Liberty of the Person in Time of War, The Japanese American cases - a disaster, Eugene V. Rostow; Liversidge v Anderson in retrospect, R.V.F. Heuston. The South(ern) African Crisis of the 1890s and 1950s: Constitutionalism in the South African Republics, L.M. Thompson; The entrenched sections of the South Africa Act: 2 great legal battles, Denis V. Cowan. Changing Perceptions of the United Kingdom Parliament: The basis of legal sovereignty, W.H.R. Wade; Sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament after factortame, P.P. Craig. Canada - a Via Media between British and American Principle?: Law, convention and prerogative: reflections prompted by the Canadian constitutional case, T.R.S. Allan. Freedom of Expression and Political Accountability: The New York Times case: a note on 'the central meaning of the 1st Amendment', Harry Kalven Jr; Engineers is dead, long live the engineers, George Williams; Name index.

Controversy is at the heart of politics. Theories of practice offer a productive way of understanding controversies and potentially negotiating in them. In this paper, drawing on the work of Theodore Schatzki, Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, I introduce a heuristic for understanding controversies. I argue that what is often at stake in controversies are different types of practices of how a political issue should be handled. I introduce five of these types of practices. I analyse a case from global politics to demonstrate the value of such a perspective - the controversies in the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission are analysed as clashes between different practices of handling peacebuilding.

Sixty years ago political divisions in the United States ran even deeper than today's name-calling showdowns between the left and right. Back then, to call someone a communist was to threaten that person's career, family, freedom, and, sometimes, life itself. Hysteria about the \"red menace\" mushroomed as the Soviet Union tightened its grip on Eastern Europe, Mao Zedong rose to power in China, and the atomic arms race accelerated. Spy scandals fanned the flames, and headlines warned of sleeper cells in the nation's midst--just as it does today with the \"War on Terror.\" In his new book,The Fear Within, Scott Martelle takes dramatic aim at one pivotal moment of that era. On the afternoon of July 20, 1948, FBI agents began rounding up twelve men in New York City, Chicago, and Detroit whom the U.S. government believed posed a grave threat to the nation--the leadership of the Communist Party-USA. After a series of delays, eleven of the twelve \"top Reds\" went on trial in Manhattan's Foley Square in January 1949. The proceedings captivated the nation, but the trial quickly dissolved into farce. The eleven defendants were charged under the 1940 Smith Act with conspiring to teach the necessity of overthrowing the U.S. government based on their roles as party leaders and their distribution of books and pamphlets. In essence, they were on trial for their libraries and political beliefs, not for overt acts threatening national security. Despite the clear conflict with the First Amendment, the men were convicted and their appeals denied by the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision that gave the green light to federal persecution of Communist Party leaders--a decision the court effectively reversed six years later. But by then, the damage was done. So rancorous was the trial the presiding judge sentenced the defense attorneys to prison terms, too, chilling future defendants' access to qualified counsel. Martelle's story is a compelling look at how American society, both general and political, reacts to stress and, incongruously, clamps down in times of crisis on the very beliefs it holds dear: the freedoms of speech and political belief. At different points in our history, the executive branch, Congress, and the courts have subtly or more drastically eroded a pillar of American society for the politics of the moment. It is not surprising, then, thatThe Fear Withintakes on added resonance in today's environment of suspicion and the decline of civil rights under the U.S. Patriot Act.

The American National Election Studies (ANES) is the premier social science survey program devoted to voting and elections. Conducted during the presidential election years and midterm Congressional elections, the survey is based on interviews with voters and delves into why they make certain choices. In this edited volume, John Aldrich and Kathleen McGraw bring together a group of leading social scientists that developed and tested new measures that might be added to the ANES, with the ultimate goal of extending scholarly understanding of the causes and consequences of electoral outcomes. The contributors--leading experts from several disciplines in the fields of polling, public opinion, survey methodology, and elections and voting behavior--illuminate some of the most important questions and results from the ANES 2006 pilot study. They look at such varied topics as self-monitoring in the expression of political attitudes, personal values and political orientations, alternate measures of political trust, perceptions of similarity and disagreement in partisan groups, measuring ambivalence about government, gender preferences in politics, and the political issues of abortion, crime, and taxes. Testing new ideas in the study of politics and the political psychology of voting choices and turnout, this collection is an invaluable resource for all students and scholars working to understand the American electorate.

Political science researchers have flexibility in how to analyze data, how to report data, and whether to report on data. A review of examples of reporting flexibility from the race and sex discrimination literature illustrates how research design choices can influence estimates and inferences. This reporting flexibility—coupled with the political imbalance among political scientists—creates the potential for political bias in reported political science estimates. These biases can be reduced or eliminated through preregistration and preacceptance, with researchers committing to a research design before completing data collection. Removing the potential for reporting flexibility can raise the credibility of political science research.

Zigerell (this issue) cites the findings of his recent reanalysis (Zigerell 2015) of the data in our 2013 study of the gender citation gap in the international relations literature to support his claim that our study showed a “preference for statistically-significant results.” We thank Zigerell for so closely engaging with our work. However, we note that he is focused on how his changes to our sample affect a single model in our original paper, highlight the fact that we reported statistically insignificant results when they arose in our original analyses, and review the findings of other recent re-analyses of our data. Ultimately, while we disagree with Zigerell’s conclusions about our work, we join Zigerell in calling for greater diversity in the discipline.

I thank the PS editors for the opportunity to respond to the reply by Daniel Maliniak, Ryan Powers, and Barbara Walter.