Monday, February 19, 2018

CFA: Scholarships for MENA-based early-career scholars

The American Political Science Association (APSA) is pleased to announce a call for applications from early-career scholars based in the MENA region who are interested in attending the 2018 ICPSR Summer Program. Together with ICPSR, APSA will sponsor 2-3 scholars to attend the First Session (June 25-July 20) in Ann Arbor.

Selected participants will receive a full registration fee wavier, round-trip economy-class airfare, and housing. The application deadline is Sunday, March 11, 2018.

Please refer to the call for applications for additional information.


Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Registration is now open!

Visit our Registration page for instructions on how to register for all 2018 ICPSR Summer Program courses.

This summer we're offering more than 80 courses! Check out our complete schedule.

Unfamiliar with the Summer Program? We invite you to watch a recording of the webinar, "An Overview of the 2018 ICPSR Summer Program," in which we discuss our courses, registration, scholarships, and other topics.

We hope you'll join us this summer!


Monday, January 22, 2018


We offer scholarships for our four-week sessions!

All application materials must be submitted through our online scholarship application manager. Additionally, scholarship applicants must register through our portal for the courses they would like the scholarship to cover.

The application deadline for all 2018 ICPSR scholarships is Saturday, March 31, 2018.


Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Webinar: An Overview of the 2018 ICPSR Summer Program

Interested in learning more about the 2018 Summer Program? On Monday, January 29 at 2:00 p.m. EST, we'll host a webinar in which we discuss our 2018 courses, scholarships, and registration, as well as answer your questions.


Friday, November 3, 2017

An Interview with David Darmofal

David Darmofal is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of South Carolina. He has co-taught the Summer Program workshop "Maximum Likelihood Estimation II: Advanced Topics" since 2012. For more information about David, visit his website.

Tell us about your current work and research.
Much of my work focuses on spatial analysis and survival models and my current research reflects this. I'm currently working on two book projects. One is the second edition of Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists, which I'm joining as a co-author with Jan Box-Steffensmeier and Brad Jones. We envision this book as being a bold, cutting-edge volume that maintains the first edition's user-friendly approach while introducing researchers to the state of the art in event history analysis. The second edition will incorporate recent advances in the field while also providing a more comprehensive treatment of topics covered in the first edition. I'm also working on another book with one of my recent Ph.D. students, Ryan Strickler. This book, Demography, Politics, and Partisan Polarization in the United States, 1828-2016 is under contract for the Spatial Demography series at Springer. In this book, we examine the political geography of partisan voting from the advent of Jacksonian democracy through the Trump vs. Clinton election in 2016. We have several principal findings. First, the familiar red state vs. blue state maps mask a great deal of sub-state variation in partisan voting. We map the political geography of this vote since 1828 using spatial analytic methods. We also find, in contrast to the Big Sort thesis, there hasn't been a marked rise in geographic polarization in recent elections. We have lived through far more segregated times in terms of partisanship than we live in today. Finally, the Jackson to Trump time-frame is fortuitous as it allows us to examine voting for these two candidates who were quite similar in many ways. And we do find a similarity in voting patterns! Counties that went strongly for Andrew Jackson in 1828 also tended to go strongly for Donald Trump in 2016. In addition to these two book projects, I'm also currently working on several spatial papers, including ones on roll-call voting (with Chuck Finocchiaro and Indridi Indridason), the spatial diffusion of deunionization (with Chris Witko, Nate Kelly, and Sarah Young), and county-level behavior under the Voting Rights Act (with Susan Miller).

How did you become interested in American political behavior and geography? And in methodology?
My interests in American political behavior really began as a graduate student at the University of Illinois. It's a great place to study political behavior and the members of my dissertation committee (Peter Nardulli, Jim Kuklinski, Wendy Tam Cho, and Brian Gaines) were influential in sparking my interest in political behavior, political geography, and American political development. Wendy was one of two scholars who were particularly influential in my interest in methodology. Luc Anselin had just moved to the University of Illinois and Wendy was working with him on some methods projects. She suggested that I look into spatial analysis because of the leverage it could provide on my dissertation project. Wendy really changed my entire career path. I wouldn't be where I am today without Wendy's influence. Another scholar I can easily say that about is Jan Box-Steffensmeier. I was fortunate enough to take her event history class through the Big 10's Interactive Television Program in Advanced Political Methodology and that led to a post-doc position in Jan's Program in Statistics and Methodology (PRISM) at Ohio State and subsequent co-authorships.

On your website, you say that your research “is motivated by the questions of whether and how American democracy functions effectively.” Following the 2016 election, how would you judge the current state of democracy in America? What gives you hope and/or concern?
I've never been overly optimistic about the state of democracy in the U.S. I've just never been in the camp that views elite cues as a shortcut to overcome a citizen's lack of knowledge about politics and policy. This said, I'm not a glass half-empty person either. I think the most interesting questions are under which conditions can citizens perform the types of tasks that a reasonable model of citizen influence would expect of them in a representative democracy. I believe that elites can overcome some of the inertia that busy citizens with more pressing concerns than politics face in their lives as political actors, but that political elites too often lack incentives to educate the citizenry, and citizens often lack the time to pursue such civic education. This highlights the importance of the media and non-partisan civic groups in providing the essential information that citizens need to make effective decisions.

Who had the biggest influence on your career path?
Definitely my dissertation committee members and Jan. I hope every grad student can be as fortunate as I was in crossing paths with such caring and supportive scholars early in their careers.

How did you become an instructor for the Summer Program? 
I had long thought I would like to be an instructor in the Summer Program once I got tenure. Once that happened, I got in touch with the then ICPSR Summer Program Director, Bill Jacoby, to express my interest in being an instructor. He told me about the opportunity to teach in the Advanced MLE workshop and I've been teaching the two weeks on time series cross-sectional models in that workshop ever since. I really enjoy it every year. It's great to come back to the community at the ICPSR Summer Program, reconnect with old friends in the program, and meet students from across the world. They really inspire me.

What moment at the Summer Program stands out as the most memorable?
Two moments in particular stand out. The first are the office hours in which I get a chance to meet students from around the world, and from a variety of disciplines, and learn about their work. I really enjoy that. It's inspiring to see all of this excellent work that's being done by students today. The other are the Blalock lectures. Getting to see some of the top scholars across a variety of disciplines presenting their current work sparks new insights for me. That's an added bonus to being a part of the ICPSR Summer Program community.

Outside of political science, tell me something interesting about yourself.
I'm a huge Cubs fan. I'm just glad I didn't have to wait 108 years to see a World Championship team like some Cubs fans did!

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Modeling Enthusiasm

One day this past summer, a Summer Program participant in need of help showed up to Samantha Marinello and Rachel Nordgren’s office hours. “He was trying to do this complicated thing with his own data. It was a question of fixing code,” says Nordgren, who was a teaching assistant, along with Marinello, for Longitudinal Analysis. The participant was clearly frustrated. Marinello and Nordgren worked with the participant until, finally, he got the program to run and produce output. To their surprise, he started cheering. In the library.

The teaching duo’s longitudinal workshop was filled with other equally enthusiastic participants. “We had a loyal core that spent a fair amount of time at office hours,” says Nordgren. Among these regular attendees were a few individuals seeking more than guidance on a class assignment. Nordgren mentions one “awesome” participant. “Not only did she want to know what she was doing, but she wanted to figure out how think about it, and how to translate what she was seeing into her own research.”

Another participant wanted to understand what was going on with the models. He seemed compelled by the question, “How does this all fit together?” “There was one day he came to office hours, and no one else came, so we just ended up talking for two hours about sampling distribution and the central limit theorem,” says Marinello. “It was fun talking to him, and you could tell that things were clicking together.”

“If your students are not excited and don’t care, it is so much harder to be enthusiastic yourself,” says Nordgren, a PhD student in biostatistics at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Prior to working at the Summer Program, she’d been a research assistant in her department, but never a TA. Teaching experience was a must, Nordgren’s advisor had informed her, if she intended to pursue a career in academia. Rather than be a TA in her department for a mandatory intro stats course, Nordgren applied for a “TAship” at the Summer Program, which she’d heard about from Michael Berbaum, a UIC professor with whom she’d conducted research. “This seemed like a cool way to actually have a chance to be with people who are motivated to learn, and get exposed to how social science thinks about stats,” Nordgren says.

Samantha Marinello (pink shirt) and Rachel Nordgren (far
right) in the workshop "Longitudinal Analysis."
This was also Marinello’s first time as a TA, although she’d had prior experience tutoring students. “I thought it would be a really good opportunity to teach, because you really have to know the material to be able to teach it,” she says. A PhD student in health policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Marinello was energized by her meetings with participants. “They asked really deep, very good questions, and on top of that, we got to know the students,” she says. “Outside of helping them with assignments or going over material with them in class, I got to talk to students who were applying to PhD programs.” She shared her experiences and knowledge about things like writing a statement of purpose and switching advisors.

The TA job was not without its challenges, such as finding more than one way to explain the interpretation of a nonlinear model to a participant. “Being a TA for the first time, you have to learn there are times you don’t know the answer,” says Marinello. “And that’s hard to deal with. Sometimes it’s not bad, because you’re like, ‘Let me get back to you.’ There have been a couple of times where I’ve sent emails to students later that day, [saying], ‘Here’s a really good full explanation.’”

Marinello and Nordgren’s tireless efforts didn’t go unrecognized by participants. “They’d be excited about understanding something. They were so appreciative,” says Marinello.

“We had a bunch of people make a really big point of thanking us today in the last class,” says Nordgren. “To some of them, I was like, ‘Thank you!’”

An Interview with Alison H. Merrill

Alison H. Merrill is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at Texas A&M University. Alison was a participant in the 2015 Program. In 2017, she worked as a teaching assistant for the Summer Program workshop "Time Series Analysis II: Advanced Topics." For more information about Alison, visit

Can you tell us about your research?
My main research interests focus primarily on American political institutions and decision making, with an emphasis on judicial politics and applications of quantitative methodology to the study of judicial decision making. In particular, my principal research agenda investigates how strategic behavior by litigants and Supreme Court justices influences which cases the Court hears and how they are decided. In my dissertation, I focus on how the Supreme Court's discretion in selecting cases shapes behavior by lower court judges and litigants prior to certiorari in ways that ultimately feed into the Supreme Court's decision-making. I address this issue by considering the Supreme Court's decisions as the results of layers of strategic behavior that should be considered together. The Supreme Court of the United States has substantial discretion over the composition of its docket. Parties must petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and four justices must consent for the Court to accept arguments on the merits of a case. This set of institutional arrangements provides ample opportunity for the Court’s justices as well as litigants and lower court judges to act strategically in anticipation of (uncertain) decisions on the merits nested within (uncertain) decisions about certiorari. Although there is a growing recognition among scholars of Supreme Court decision-making of the need to account for pre-certiorari choices in theoretical and empirical models of judicial behavior, the vast majority of research on the topic focuses exclusively on votes and decisions at the merits stage. My work aims to move past these limitations and understand Supreme Court decisions as political outcomes nested in earlier strategic choices made inside and outside the Court.

How did you become interested in this topic?
I have always been absolutely fascinated by the Supreme Court. The Court is hands-down my favorite building in Washington, D.C. and I find learning about the justices' personalities and how they structure the interactions between justices and other members of the government to be interesting and engaging. I remember my mom giving me a copy of The Brethren (Bob Woodward's inside look at the Burger Court) and absolutely devouring the book, and hunting for more information on the justices when I was in middle school. With the same kind of energy, I devoured Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine. However, the research that I got involved in as an undergraduate at Virginia Tech focused more on voting and elections, and the role of young adults in the political process. I applied to grad school with the intention of studying the effect of young adult participation on macro (or aggregate) public opinion. During my first semester at Texas A&M, I was in the American Political Institutions seminar and we were reading McGuire and Stimson's 2004 article "The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited," and was intrigued about their application of aggregate policy mood to understanding and explaining Supreme Court liberalism. It was really the first time that I had seen public opinion and Supreme Court decision making in the same study. I went to my professor, now advisor, Joe Ura, and asked if it would be possible to apply the same framework to Supreme Court affirmances, instead of just reversals (which is what McGuire and Stimson analyzed), and that question lead to our first co-authored project. The more we worked on that paper, the more I read about the Court from a decision making perspective. And I started to want to better understand how the Supreme Court structures their docket, which considerations come into play, whether or not the considerations vary across issue areas, and how other actors (such as litigants, lower court judges, and elected officials) influence the menu of cases that the Court selects from when setting their agenda for any given term. I soon realized that there were not a lot of answers to these questions because the literature on certiorari and the literature on agenda-setting and decision making, while complementary and acknowledging one another, did not actually engage one another theoretically or empirically. Finding that gap helped me to come up with my overall research agenda and dissertation topic.

What has your research revealed?
In one of my dissertation chapters, "Selecting on the Economy? Economic Issues, Public Opinion and the Supreme Court," I consider how changing macroeconomic conditions influence incentives for litigants, lower court judges, and justices to make choices resulting in cases dealing with economic issues decided by the Court. I argue that the various actors' influence on the cumulative process can be parsed, to a limited extent, by the temporal structure of the association between the economy and case production. More proximate economic effects likely act through justices' behavior directly, and longer-lagged economic effects likely act through antecedent actors. I find that higher unemployment is associated with greater attention to the economy in the Supreme Court's docket at multiple lags, indicating economic case selection dynamics among the Court's justices and at preceding stages of the case production process. However, economic growth is significantly associated with attention to the economy at a relatively early lag, suggesting that growth brings cases to the Court via the actions of parties and judges outside the Court.

That litigants are thinking ahead to the decision on the merits when they chose whether or not to appeal their case to the Supreme Court is pretty cool! And in my other two dissertation chapters, I seek to better explain the mechanisms that help to structure the choices and decisions made by the litigants across issue areas.

What do you hope to accomplish with your work and research? 
Honestly, I am just so excited about the opportunity to contribute to the conversations that exist in Law&Courts concerning our understanding of the decision making process. I hope that my research helps to advance our understanding of the certiorari process and how the earlier actions taken by and decisions made by external actors influences the justices' decisions to hear cases in the first place and then the decision issued by the Court. One of my goals post-dissertation is to expand the data collection that I am currently engaged in, and create a database on certiorari that people can use in their own work. In this database, I hope to have information from the U.S. Courts of Appeals on the cases that were eligible for review by the Supreme Court, which cases were appealed, when that appeal was initiated, the issue area of the case, whether it was heard by a 3-judge panel or en banc (by the full bench, or all judges appointed to that circuit court), and whether or not the appeal was granted review by the Supreme Court. Having this information available, and in one location will greatly assist other scholars with their own research on the Supreme Court's decision making processes.

Who had the biggest influence on your career path?
The person who has had the biggest influence on my career path is my former undergraduate advisor, the late Dr. Craig L. Brians. It was Dr. Brians who first introduced me to quantitative methods and how you could use these methods to explain and predict political behavior. He was the one who brought me on to his undergraduate research team, mentored me through Master's-level coursework at Virginia Tech, and suggested I apply to graduate school. I definitely would not be where I am today without his guidance, optimism, and unfailing support and encouragement.

Sadly, Dr. Brians passed away unexpectedly in the fall of my first year at Texas A&M. It was, and still is, incredibly difficult knowing that he is no longer with us. I know this next part is going to sound a little cheesy, but it is the truth, so here it goes! However, with every milestone I hit in my graduate education (successfully completing my first year, passing my comprehensive exams, defending my dissertation prospectus, teaching my own class for the first time, and eventually defending my dissertation and (hopefully) getting a job), I know that he would be incredibly proud. I have honestly tried to work hard for his memory. To show him that his good faith and trust in me is being rewarded, and to become the scholar, researcher and teacher he believed that I could be.

How did you become a TA for the Summer Program? 
I was fortunate enough to become a TA for the Summer Program because of my experience as a participant. I remember talking to Sandy towards the end of the 2015 Summer Program and telling her that this was some of the most fun that I had ever had, while simultaneously being incredibly challenging. And that if she could use my help in the future, I would be beyond happy to come back. Thankfully, Texas A&M provides a rather rigorous and comprehensive Methods program for their grad students, and three of my colleagues had previously been TAs for the Summer Program (Clay Webb, Soren Jordan, and Andy Philips), so my background was well known. I was asked to TA for the 2016 Summer Program, but was unable to come because I got married that summer right in the middle of the two sessions. I kept in touch with Sandy, and let her know that I would be thrilled to have the opportunity to work as a TA for the 2017 session if she could find a place for me. Thankfully, I was asked to TA for Advanced Time Series by Paul Kellstedt (one of my advisors at A&M) and Mark Pickup. And hopefully, I'll be able to come back next summer as well!

What moment at the Summer Program stands out as the most memorable?
There are a couple of moments about the Summer Program that stand out as memorable, and I think that is one reason why the Summer Program is so successful and people love to come back any way that they can. As a participant, I made some amazing friends from all over the country, and we're still in touch! We make it a point to meet up at conferences whenever we can, and we share our research papers with one another to get feedback, talk about different applications of methods, and just provide one another with so much support. And as a TA, I have only increased that network, which is so amazing! Additionally, the Blalock Lectures really stick out to me. They cover a wide range of topics and are examples of how to be a good member of the discipline, effectively teach statistics, and effectively use and present different methodological approaches. I still reference notes I took during the Blalock Lectures I attended in 2015. It's such an amazing resource for the participants, TAs and instructors during the Summer Program. And, seeing Bill and Sandy's beautiful dalmatians at the picnics is pretty memorable as well! I have a dog who I absolutely adore! So, it's really hard to be apart from him while I'm at the Summer Program, and getting a chance to get my puppy fix is a definite plus!