Search results

Members of Congress become involved in scandals on a regular basis. These range from personal imbroglios, like sexual affairs or substance abuse, to professional scandals like embezzlement of campaign funds, abuse of office, or insider trading. As a common feature of congressional life, scholars have shown that scandals frequently disrupt the electoral and legislative trajectories of representatives' careers.

However, it must be remembered that congressional offices are comprised of more than just an individual member. Congressional offices are legislative enterprises, and a representative's staff are integral to his or her political and lawmaking activities. Accordingly, studying how scandals relate to the careers of congressional staff is an important but overlooked topic.

In this chapter, the authors investigate the relationship between members' malfeasances and the careers of the staff around them. The authors combine a list of congressional scandals with a dataset that captures the turnover of staff in congressional offices. The chapter proceeds in four parts. First, the authors describe the structure of a congressional office and the relationship between members and their staff. Next, the authors provide an overview of scandals in Congress and what previous literature has uncovered about their effects. Third, the authors examine staffing patterns and turnover in offices hit by scandal, uncovering evidence that scandals are associated with staff departures. The authors end by considering how Congress as an institution could help to protect and support employees who are caught up in a member's poor choices.

Congress has spilled a good deal of ink in an attempt to support survivors of sexual assault and to prevent sexual violence from occuring. Legislation has been passed to address and prevent sexual assault in the military environment, higher education, and even within various government agencies. However, Congress has had a long and sordid history of burying incidents of sexual assault within its own halls. Prior to the #Metoo movement, Congress had a rather lackluster bill that provided minimal protection for those who were harassed or assaulted by a member of Congress and rarely held anyone accused accountable for their actions. In fact, the original Congressional Accountability Act included a fund that was used to pay off those who came forward with allegations of sexual harassment or assault against a member of Congress. This chapter follows the legislative history of Congress with regard to the response to and prevention of sexual assault and its shocking lack of oversight of its own members who were frequently committing the same assaults that they were legislating against in other areas. The chapter also highlights the brave work of survivors of assault during their time in Congress, and the work of the #MeTooCongress movement, including current members of Congress, who helped to bring more accountability to Congress as a result of their efforts.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the sources and qualities of information on climate change commissioned by the US Congress from its affiliated research bodies.

Cited material in reports commissioned by Congress from three legislative research bodies were categorized and tallied for the years 1990‐2005. Qualities of cited material, such as indicators of primary‐level data analysis and references to peer‐reviewed academic scholarship were considered.

Of the three agencies, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) makes reference to peer‐reviewed academic scholarship most often. Nevertheless, only around a quarter of all cited material in CBO reports are from academic journals and comparatively few cites are to articles in top‐tier journals. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) cites its own past publications more often than it cites peer‐reviewed scholarship.

Refereed academic journals are not the only source of rigorous scientific information in the reference materials used by the three legislative research bodies. Primary‐level data are found in governmental gray literature, and these data are analyzed by the legislative research bodies in their reports to Congress. The research bodies also make use of peer‐reviewed research by private research organizations, though these latter materials may not be published in academic journals. Further research is needed to determine whether and to what extent the legislative research bodies' reports are consequential in shaping lawmakers' deliberations versus other sources of information and persuasion, e.g. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, news reportage, constituent perspectives, witness testimony in hearings, campaign contributions, etc.

Legislative research organizations are official conveyors of policy‐relevant information to Congress. It is reasonable to expect these organizations to provide competent analyses derived from peer‐reviewed science. The present paper suggests that commissioned reports by these organizations vary in terms of the range of source materials relied on, but reference materials are seldom derived from top‐tier academic journals. At least one research body, the CRS, frequently refers to its own reports as a major source for information on climate change. Two out of three of the legislative support bodies make greater use of governmental gray literature versus academic scholarship.

References to purported shortcomings in the legislative research bodies' technical/analytical capacities exist in the public affairs literature, but are anecdotal. The present paper offers an empirical exploration of this concern, focusing on the most important environmental problem of the time.

This is the seventh article on business and law (BSL) databases in a continuing series of articles summarising and commenting on new database products. It has two companion articles: one covering science, technology and medicine (STM) appeared in Online & CDROM Review vol. 20, no. 1 and the other covering social science, humanities, news and general (SSH) appeared in Online & CDROM Review vol. 20, no. 2. The articles are based on the newly appearing database products in the Gale Directory of Databases. The Gale Directory of Databases (GDD) was created in January 1993 by merging Computer‐Readable Databases: A Directory and Data Sourcebook (CRD) together with the Directory of Online Databases (DOD) and the Directory of Portable Databases (DPD).

This paper aims to discuss the methods that were used to do egalitarian research with ten Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Rather than doing research “on” these institutions, the authors worked with them to understand their successes and build upon their capacity in the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) areas. Through this process, the authors aimed to bring exposure and interest to the practices that HBCUs use to increase and nurture success in African American students – practices that are rarely used in mainstream STEM programs and, in fact, run counter to well-established practices across STEM. The goal is to challenge traditional methods for pursuing STEM education research as the authors offer alternative methods the uplift and empower HBCUs.

The authors used the constant comparative method in developing, testing, and writing-up the HBCU success stories. The constant comparative method collects data in a systematic way by engaging in ongoing exploration and verification of findings with key stakeholders (in this case, the teachers, students and staff at the HBCUs). Across the ten HBCUs in the sample, at least one success story or model at each institution was identified; in some instances, there were more.

The research project had several implications for the social and economic health of society. First, supporting the work of HBCUs contributes to the diversification of the STEM fields and addresses the severe drought in the STEM workforce. It is without doubt that a diverse workforce – the unique perspectives and backgrounds of each individual – has a positive and significant influence on progress and innovation in any field. Despite increasingly growing minority communities across the country, many Blacks continue to face roadblocks that impede their opportunities and abilities in the K-20 pipeline and STEM education, specifically. Because HBCUs have a long history and record of tearing down those roadblocks and contributing Black students to the STEM workforce, they are prime and optimal sites for long-term investment. Second, improving the abilities of HBCUs to support student success in STEM also increases the likelihood of greater STEM minority teachers and faculty. A significant factor in the success of minority students in STEM is the opportunity to be taught and mentored by faculty members that look like them and/or deeply understand their personal background and struggles. For many Black students, the presence of a Black science professor can improve and retain student interest and aspiration in STEM. But with so few Black STEM faculty members, many students can easily fall through the cracks. Third, aside from the nation’s security and health, supporting HBCUs’ work in STEM student achievement represents immeasurable benefits for the individual and his/her family for many generations to come (i.e. society overall). Occupations in STEM are plentiful and fruitful for those who achieve the required credentials. Increasing opportunities for Black students to pursue these STEM careers can establish a path toward upward social mobility. The realization of these benefits is contingent upon the investment in early achievement in STEM courses.

Several research based outcomes are scheduled to result from this project, including a major policy report on HBCUs and their approaches to STEM education (co-constructed with the HBCU representatives); several peer reviewed articles (authored by us as well as the HBCU representatives); a national convening (showcasing both the best practices and the results of the HBCUs’ funded capacity building projects with the HBCU representatives as the primary speakers rather than us); a website featuring the work of the 10 HBCUs, active use of social media to disseminate the findings of the project; several op-eds written for a general audience and co-authored with HBCU representatives; and an authored book published by a university press.

Best practices gleaned from this project are being shared in a scholarly manner, but they will be shared in ways that are accessible to practitioners, including presidents, faculty, academic advisors, student success staff and other HBCU practitioners. In addition, best practices will be shared with majority colleges and universities to strengthen and improve practices more broadly in STEM. The authors are working with organizations such as the Association of American Universities, Association of Public Land Grant Universities and the American Association of Colleges and Universities to showcase the work of HBCUs and disseminate information.

Conducting research projects in which the research inquiry is co-constructed and the resulting research products are also co-constructed and even co-authored is an empowering and collaborative way to work across institutional types. More importantly, this approach brings attention to those researchers and teachers at HBCUs that are doing the day-to-day work with students, training them to be scientists, doctors and professors. Too often, only those conducting studies on STEM are credited with “discovering” success models for student learning. The authors think that those who have created these models and use them should be recognized and included in the research and dissemination process, and the authors encourage others to think more broadly and openly about collaborative research that engages the voices of HBCU researchers and students.

This project also has much to teach others about collaborating through research. First, collaborating when conducting research related to STEM is essential, as it encourages collaboration within STEM and among STEM researchers. HBCU researchers that were a part of our project – biologists, physicist and chemists – were encouraged to work across disciplinary lines and together to understand their own STEM education practices more fully.

The US Congress is a racialized governing institution that plays an important role structuring the racial hierarchy in the nation. Despite Congress’s influence, there is little theoretical and empirical research on its racialized structure – that is, how it operates and the racial processes that shape it. This lacuna has developed from a narrow conceptualization of Congress as a political institution, and it ignores how it is a multifaceted organization that features a large and complex workplace. Congressional staff are the invisible force in American policymaking, and it is through their assistance that members of Congress can fulfill their responsibilities. However, the congressional workplace is stratified along racial lines. In this chapter, I theorize how the congressional workplace became racialized, and I identify the racial processes that maintain a racialized workplace today. I investigate how lawmakers have organized their workplace and made decisions about which workers would be appropriate for different types of roles in the Capitol. Through a racial analysis of the congressional workplace, I show a connection between Congress as an institution and workplace and how racial domination is a thread that connects and animates both its formal and informal structures.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

Just over ten years ago, the American legislative system was rocked by a series of scandals surrounding powerful lobbyist Jack Abramoff who claimed to have “bought” influence in nearly half of the United States congressional offices. The Abramoff scandal brought public attention to three critical areas of corruption in congressional politics: loopholes in gift-giving laws, campaign finance, and the revolving door. For instance, why are lobbyists allowed to buy a meal for congressional representatives if they are both standing up but not if they are sitting down? Why is sharing a simple meal with an elected official banned but allowed so long as campaign contribution checks are exchanged (i.e., the mystery of the $5,000 hamburger)? And just how much does it cost to buy your congressman? We explore these areas of corruption that were brought to light in 2006 by “the biggest political scandal of the century,” and examine how things have, or in some instances, haven’t changed in the years since the Abramoff scandal broke. Does Congress run cleaner today? Or is it still politics as usual?

In spite of escalating efforts to curb abuse, fraud, and corruption in Congress, members of Congress persist in violating the norms, rules, and laws that aim to ensure they behave ethically. This chapter combines qualitative and quantitative analysis to describe congressional corruption in the modern era. Case studies illustrate consequential financial scandals while also differentiating four categories of corrupt financial practices.

Existing datasets on congressional scandals span the time period from 1972 to 2010, and this chapter extends the dataset to 2018. The analysis next uses the dataset to answer important questions empirically. Which types of scandals occur more often? Have these scandals grown more common or less common over time? What are the consequences of financial scandals for representatives' careers as public servants?