Lab Publications
Here you will find worked published members of the Stoutenpatrick Research Lab.
To Veto or Not To Veto: A Simulation of Presidential Decision Making (2022)
Authors: James W. Stoutenborough, Kellee J. Kirkpatrick, Jonathan W.L. Blakeman, James F. Pascali
Book: In Games Without Frontiers: Games and Simulations in the Political Science Classroom, eds. Mark Harvey, James Fielder, and Ryan Gibb. New York: Routledge.
Abstract:
Presidents are the single most recognized political figures in the United States, and yet the public understands very little about presidential power. Perhaps the most important, but least understood, power that presidents wield is the veto. Deciding when and how to use a veto is one of the most difficult decisions that any president must make. While this power is used to shape legislative outcomes, one wrong move could destroy a presidential legacy and demolish future bargaining power with congressional leaders. This simulation is designed to help students understand, through hands-on experience, the myriad factors that a president must consider when choosing to utilize the Constitutional power of veto. Students assume the role of the President of the United States and are challenged to react to the pressures of interest groups, public opinion, and even focusing events. Through congressional and public addresses, students learn how each decision must be portrayed in order to maintain the support of Congress and the public. This simulation offers four scenarios to challenge students and aid in their understanding of the limitations of presidential power.
Content Matters: Stakeholder Assessment of River Stories or River Science (2017)
Authors: Mark K. McBeth, Donna L. Lybecker, James W. Stoutenborough, Sarah N. Davis, Katrina Running
Journal: Public Policy and Administration 32(3): 175-196
Abstract:
Stakeholders include scientists, interest groups, leaders, professionals, government and NGO employees, and activists; they are individuals or groups that play an increasingly important role in public policy. As such, stakeholders are frequently used as a source to better inform public decision making. Given the growing importance of stakeholders’ understanding and thus communication concerning the issues on which they inform the public, it is timely to ask: How do stakeholders comprehend, or mentally construct an understanding of the policy issues upon which they are asked to weigh in? In an attempt to address this issue, this paper uses a case study of a policy issue, river restoration. Results from a survey of 85 stakeholders and a follow up interview of 20 stakeholders shed light on whether stakeholders predominantly prefer to think of river restoration in terms of science or through policy narratives. The findings indicate that stakeholders prefer explanations that use science and the engaged citizen narrative when they think about the river’s restoration. Additionally, stakeholders who work for government particularly emphasize that the river should be described in scientific terms. We use this data to further analyze what elements of science and narratives are divisive to stakeholders and which are not and conclude with advice on how stakeholders can speak in a non-divisive way to the public and other stakeholders.
What Butterfly Effect?: The Contextual Differences in Public Perceptions of Health Risk Posed by Climate Change (2015)
Authors: James W. Stoutenborough, Kellee J. Kirkpatrick, M. Jeremy Field, Arnold Vedlitz
Journal: Climate 3(3): 668-688
Abstract:
One of the most difficult aspects of persuading the public to support climate change policy is the lack of recognition that climate change will likely have a direct impact on an individual’s life. Anecdotal evidence and arguments within the media suggest that those who are skeptical of climate change are more likely to believe that the negative externalities associated with climate change will be experienced by others, and, therefore, are not a concern to that individual. This project examines public perceptions of the health risk posed by climate change. Using a large national public opinion survey of adults in the United States, respondents were asked to evaluate the health risk for themselves, their community, the United States, and the world. The results suggest that individuals evaluate the risk for each of these contexts differently. Statistical analyses are estimated to identify the determinants of each risk perception to identify their respective differences. The implications of these findings on support for climate change policy are discussed.