Search results

Legislative action was historically the means by which U.S. states abolished capital punishment, but such action ceased for decades following the Supreme Court's 1976 Gregg decision that reaffirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty. Despite the fact that several legislatures have considered abolition bills in the modern era, only three states successfully enacted such legislation. It is my purpose in this study to analyze why states are currently struggling to pass abolition legislation and to determine which factors contribute to success. I conduct a comparative, qualitative case study of New Jersey, the first state to legislatively abolish since 1976, and Maryland, a similar state whose abolition effort recently failed. I analyze the content of legislators’ debates about the abolition bills in committee and on the legislature floor, as well as news coverage of the abolition efforts in each state's largest newspapers. I reach two primary conclusions. First, an abolition bill is more likely to be passed by Democrats than Republicans, but unified Democratic control of the government is not a sufficient condition for abolition. Second, arguments about the risk of wrongful executions and the deleterious collateral consequences of the death penalty process on the family members of murder victims are powerful sources of political support for abolition, especially where doubts about the deterrent effect of the death penalty are widespread. This study reaffirms the central importance of the innocence frame in the modern death penalty debate, and it presents the first scholarly analysis of the collateral consequences frame. These findings may help activists in the abolition movement more effectively frame their arguments to appeal to legislators.

The growth in popularity of new media has led some television networks in the United States to experiment with alternative forms of political debate by encouraging viewers of all ages to submit video questions to political candidates. Surprisingly, however, experimentation with this new type of debate format in the 2008 U.S. presidential election cycle did not lead to the adoption of new debate formats in the subsequent 2012 election cycle, despite its success with viewing audiences. This study examines various debate formats to understand the value of participatory, user-generated debate question formats versus more traditional debate question formats whereby moderators or live audience members ask presidential candidates scripted questions.

Using a between-subjects experiment, this study examines four types of televised debate formats to assess young adult viewers’ impressions of each format as well as image perceptions of a political candidate and the individual posing the debate question.

The findings suggest debate formats impact perceptions of a political candidate’s image differently for young men and young women. In addition, varying the debate format impacts young voters’ perceptions of debate questioners as well as their overall perceptions of the debate. Implications for viewing audiences are discussed.

U.S. presidential candidates should embrace presidential debate formats that encourage citizens to participate in the political process via new media technologies.

This study shows implementing more engaging and interactive presidential debate formats can positively impact young voters’ perceptions.

In his interview as part of the project to mark the 50th anniversary of the Comparative and International Education Society, Steve Klees offered sound advice to young scholars entering the field of comparative education, “Understand our debates, understand there are no right positions in our debates, and understand your own position in our debates and engage in the debates.”

In this chapter, the author argues that in recent years those theoretical debates that are central to comparative education have been ignored, or at least played down, resulting in a lot of work that is “atheoretical.” In this context, “atheoretical” does not mean that the work is not based on theoretical assumptions but that those assumptions are not thoroughly examined. Consequently, certain positions are adopted by default, seen as “natural.” This has not only affected comparative education but also is endemic to the field of educational research more generally, where methodological debate has been simplified to a choice between quantitative or qualitative methods.

This chapter will examine the epistemological, ontological, and sociological decisions that must be the foundation of any educational research, illustrating the points with key debates in the field of comparative and international education.

The purpose of this paper is to problematize the need for debate in operationalizing the planetary boundaries framework when accounting for the Anthropocene.

This paper’s aim is achieved through a literature review focusing on the assumptions around the Anthropocene, planetary boundaries and organizations. The author conducted an integrated review of 91 documents discussing the operationalization of the planetary boundaries framework and the need for debate.

This paper develops two major findings. First, the author identifies the four main dimensions of the planetary boundaries that need to be debated: social, normative, narrative and control aspects. Second, the author exposes proposals in the literature that have the potential to fuel the debate, but which are themselves a source of debate.

This paper argues that, while being scientifically informed, the planetary boundaries framework leaves decision-makers with critical choices and decisions that need to be openly debated. This paper identifies some relevant proposals for doing so.

This paper underlines the need to open forums of debate for scientists and other stakeholders to raise the democratic legitimacy of the planetary boundaries framework.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is one of the very first papers to investigate dimensions of the planetary boundaries that need to be debated to respond to the challenge of its operationalization.

The aim of this paper is to analyse the structure of evolving debates in online discussion forums to see how science‐related debates evolve over time.

A graph‐based approach is applied to analyse the structure of graphs of connected terms in online debates. A number of different graph properties, such as the Densification Power Law (DPL), diameter (γ) and effective diameter (δ), are used to observe the properties of the graphs over time.

The graphs of connected terms obey the DPL and the effective diameters (δ) of the graphs tend to shrink as the debates progress. Slight fluctuations can occur, however, when new terms are integrated into the graphs. These two properties suggest that a graph of connected terms can be modelled through a number of blocks of terms, each of which becomes densely connected over time as indicated by δ and DPL plots.

This paper proposes observing the dynamic changes of evolving debates by using graphs of connected terms. The structures and properties of these graphs may be useful for understanding the evolution of public debates about controversial science‐related topics, such as embryonic stem cell research, and to track debates that can potentially explode into major issues.

The study aims to explain the communicative basis of conflicts in which actors stand in opposition in defining a negotiated situation and to deepen knowledge of environmental conflict development, in particular on how frames are (re)shaped through discursive choices in interaction.

This study adopts an interactional approach to framing and 1) identifies the frames shaped and reshaped in four environmental debates and 2) analyzes how framing activities affect the course of the debates.

This study contributes to understanding 1) the interactive nature of conflicts; 2) how the reception and interpretation of issue framing depends on the surrounding identity and characterization framing and 3) how framing activities, like identity work, emotional alignment and reframing, can affect the course of environmental debates toward polarizing or bridging.

On a methodological level, this study contributes to communication research by applying methodologies for investigating framing processes on a micro-level. This study investigates interactional framing, considering the perspectives of frame strategists engaging in issue arenas. The study provides an in-depth discourse analysis of the debates but lacks an overview on the entire issue arena regarding this conflict.

Skilled actors span boundaries by articulating issue frames that accommodate opponents' concerns and values while demonstrating the added value of the new frame, adjusting identity work in favor of relations with opponents. Furthermore, calibrating emotional intensity offers opportunities to mobilize support.

This research investigates which communicative competences are essential to act adequately in environmental conflicts, given their intractable nature, and suggests opportunities for cocreation by making discursive choices. This approach helps to uncover the micro-processes that escalate and de-escalate a conflict.

Given today’s pressing societal challenges, business schools are increasingly expected to incorporate sustainability in their curricula. Yet, while research on corporate sustainability is on the rise, there is less innovation in teaching methods as most institutions rely on traditional methods to teach sustainability in the classroom. This paper aims to present the case-based debate as an appropriate teaching method for exposing students to the complexity of business sustainability issues.

The pedagogical background of the traditional case method and the debate method have been analyzed to provide an integrated understanding of the benefits of combining the two in the case-based debate. Building on the authors’ experiences from using case-based debates in the classroom, the paper describes what a case-debate is and how it can be implemented.

The paper offers a practical tool that can be used to teach sustainability in business schools and other educational institutions. Case-based debates can elicit active participation, support the development of students’ critical thinking skills and improve reflexivity by compelling students to seriously and actively engage with opposing viewpoints on a given issue.

This paper presents a hybrid approach for sustainability teaching that combines the benefits of the traditional case method with those of an in-class debate. The case-based debate method has received little attention in educational research and business sustainability teaching practice but can serve multiple teaching objectives relevant to sustainability teaching.

Some employers contend that the college graduates they hire should have stronger communication and critical thinking skills upon arrival from their various college/university programs in which they majored. As higher education continues its efforts to meet the demands for employers, the authors contend that the benefits of participation in debate exercises can be incorporated into various courses as a teaching tool to increase facility with these soft skills. A practical application of debate in a specific organizational leadership course is presented, along with highlights of the student participants’ reflections upon the experience, and the initial signs of positive impact on these skills. Suggestions of future application of debate into curricula are also shared.

The aim of this paper is to address both the socio-moral climate and how teams process debate and decision comprehensiveness as pre-conditions for team innovation.

A total of 67 teams comprising 413 participants were surveyed. Data were analyzed with a multiple-step multiple-mediation procedure.

The socio-moral climate was positively related to innovation. The positive relation between the socio-moral climate and innovation was mediated stepwise through debate and decision comprehensiveness.

To overcome the limitations of a cross-sectional design, future research opportunities exist in the longitudinal evaluation of participatory socio-moral climates and comparisons between organizations. Debate and decision comprehensiveness can be further studied using behavior-based methodological designs, such as observation.

From this study, practitioners can learn of the needs and opportunities for participative approaches when managing innovation in teams. Promoting a socio-moral climate of cooperation, communication, openness, appreciation, trust and respect and leaving open the possibility that debating can help integrative decision comprehensiveness and thus innovation.

This paper expands the literature on organizational climate, debate, decision comprehensiveness, and innovation. On the one hand, the results empirically linked the socio-moral climate, a theoretically well-founded climate construct, to process variables. On the other hand, the literature on debate and decision comprehensiveness was expanded by adding the socio-moral climate as a pre-condition of debate and decision comprehensiveness. Furthermore, both were linked to a crucial outcome variable, innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to enhance knowledge on debates as a pedagogical learning technique.

This empirical research was conducted in a northeastern university in the USA on graduate and undergraduate business students taking human resource management (HRM) classes. This research was conducted in the spring summer, and fall semesters of 2009. A total number of 68 completed student surveys from both graduate and undergraduate students were collected over the entire year. This empirical paper provides the null and alternate hypotheses for understanding the relationship between debates and short‐ and long‐term learning outcomes. This study uses the Pearson's correlations and significance levels to reject or accept the hypotheses. The means, SD, and percentages of students' responses with their open‐ended comments are also provided to enhance understanding of the subject.

This research suggests there are positive correlations between debates and short‐ and long‐term learning outcomes. Further, most of the statements for short‐ and long‐term learning outcomes and debates are significant at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels. Open‐ended comments from students in the survey also enrich the data by providing relevant positive and negative comments.

This study will help educators enhance the understanding of debates and also the impact of short‐ and long‐term outcomes on student learning. This paper also provides debate prompts and formats that HRM professors could possibly adopt in their classes.

This paper has integrated the learning taxonomies of Bloom's and Angelo and Cross' with the learning process of debates to provide a comprehensive theoretical understanding of this learning technique.