{"id":4375,"date":"2026-02-19T20:59:47","date_gmt":"2026-02-19T20:59:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/connect.apsanet.org\/centennialcenter\/?page_id=4375"},"modified":"2026-04-08T17:41:39","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T17:41:39","slug":"2022-summer-centennial-center-research-grant-winners","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/connect.apsanet.org\/centennialcenter\/summer-centennial-center-research-grants\/previous-summer-centennial-center-research-funds-recipients\/2022-summer-centennial-center-research-grant-winners\/","title":{"rendered":"2022 Summer Centennial Center Research Grant Winners"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

2022 Summer Centennial Center Research Grant Winners<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The American Political Science Association (APSA) is pleased to announce that it has awarded 41 Summer Centennial Center Research Grants to APSA members in order to fund research and collaborative projects aimed at improving the discipline. These 41 grants, which were selected from a highly competitive field of 148 applications, amount to $123,634 in funding support. The winning projects will help political scientists of all career stages from institutions across the United States and around the world to carry out innovative work that will contribute to our understanding of some of the most pressing issues facing the profession and the world around us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

APSA\u2019s Summer Centennial Center Research Grants are awarded each year to individual and group projects submitted by APSA members. Applicants have the option to apply for any of the 12 specialized grant funds that make up the overall award pool and projects are selected by a panel of volunteer judges drawn from mid- and later-career APSA members. \u201cWe were doubly fortunate this year to have a large pool of grant funds to draw from and a wealth of exciting applications to choose from,\u201d said Dr. Steven Rathgeb Smith, APSA\u2019s Executive Director. \u201cAPSA is proud to support our members in all aspects of their work, and the Summer Centennial Center Research Grants embody our commitment to doing everything we can to ensure that our members will be able to conduct exciting research, regardless of their institutions or career statuses. We are very excited to be supporting these 41 projects and we wish all of our grantees the best of luck with their research.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This grant announcement<\/strong><\/a> includes more details about all 41 projects selected for a Summer Centennial Center Research Grant, including an abstract for each project as well as the names and photos of each principal investigator (PI), the monetary amount of each award, and the source of the award funds. This announcement also includes a brief glossary that provides the name and purpose of each of the 12 funds that support the Summer Centennial Center Research Grants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Counterinsurgent Urbanism: Weaponizing Land and Heritage in the Kurdish Region of Turkey<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/summary>\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Ronay Bakan. Ph.D. Candidate, Johns Hopkins University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>My project explores bureaucratic strategies employed by states to target ostensibly \u201cthreatening\u201d populations. Specifically, I look at the relation between urban planning, tourism, heritage-making, and violence. This project draws on multi-sited fieldwork within the Kurdish city of Diyarbak\u0131r, which in 2015 emerged as a prominent and particularly violent site of urban warfare between the Turkish state and Kurdish guerrillas. Following the conflict, the government declared urgent expropriation decrees and aggressively built up the district\u2019s touristic potential as a key part of its ongoing security agenda instead of providing a path to return for the residents. My research seeks to understand the spectrum of such legal and developmentalist strategies employed by states such as Turkey and the consequences of their deployment. I do so by exploring the politics surrounding land reclamation, heritage conservation, touristification, and their intersection with ethnic politics. I argue that the socio-legal reconstruction of urban landscapes including urban planning and heritage preservation becomes tools of pacification and profit-making in the aftermath of military conflict, and term these strategies as \u201ccounterinsurgent urbanism\u201d. My ethnographic research will be supplemented by archival research at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris, France.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Racial Pragmatism and Opinion Change Among Black Voters<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>William Bishop, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Maryland, College Park<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, William A. Steiger Fund for Legislative Studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>Despite largely converging on party preference and their support of social policies designed to reduce inequality, Black Americans differ in their views on strategy and how the group should tactically strive to advance in America. In this project I offer a theory and measure of racial pragmatism to understand how these strategic considerations influence the political opinions of Black Americans. Through a scale of original and adapted survey questions, I measure whether due to their marginalized status, Black Americans feel they must utilize pragmatic strategies such as relying on doble-consciousness and strategic deracialization to help Blacks advance in politics and America generally. I expect that Black Americans who hold higher levels of racial pragmatism will report more moderate, but not conservative attitudes on racial policies when compared to group members who are less pragmatic. Additionally, building upon Katherine Tate\u2019s (2003) research on opinion change among Black voters when responding to threat, I analyze whether this pragmatism leads Black voters to compromise on and update their policy attitudes when appraised of political constraints. I will use this award from the Centennial Center to test my theory by fielding a survey with a national sample of Black Americans. This survey will contain framing experiments on policy to measure attitude change, as well as other survey items to measure pragmatism and support for a host of racialized and ostensibly race-neutral policies to interrogate heterogeneity in Black public opinion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Marginalized Across Gender & Ethnicity: Multi-issue Policies & Mobilizing Latinas<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Margaret Bower<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PIs: <\/strong>Margaret T. Bower, Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard University; Amanda Sahar d\u2019Urso, Postdoctoral Fellow, Dartmouth College<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$4,068, Rita Mae Kelly Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>This research project aims to elevate and examine the decision-making factors that mobilize Latinas to support policy agendas led by advocacy groups. Advocacy groups are important actors for communicating and engaging people in the policymaking process, especially people of color and women. Latinas, cis or trans women that identify as Hispanic or Latinx, are a unique group when it comes to supporting policies. They are marginalized across at least two axes of their identities: gender and ethnicity. Latinas can additionally be marginalized by their native language, citizenship status, and income-level. Marginalization across these multiple categories can position Latinas between several policy issues at one time such as immigration, poverty, and gendered violence. In this project, we examine different underlying causal mechanisms to help explain when and why Latinas are mobilized by certain policy agendas. Conducting a conjoint experiment that focuses on Latinas as a unique group, allows us to thoughtfully consider what aspects of a policy agenda are most important to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Amanda Sahar d’Urso<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

 In the future, we hope to build on this research by similarly teasing out these differences among other multiply-marginalized groups of women such as Black women, Asian-American women, and LGBTQ women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 In an increasingly diverse U.S. polity, teasing out these experiences is exceptionally important for ensuring that policymaking equitably represents all people, especially groups like Latinas, that hold multiple marginalized identities.<\/p>\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>Despite largely converging on party preference and their support of social policies designed to reduce inequality, Black Americans differ in their views on strategy and how the group should tactically strive to advance in America. In this project I offer a theory and measure of racial pragmatism to understand how these strategic considerations influence the political opinions of Black Americans. Through a scale of original and adapted survey questions, I measure whether due to their marginalized status, Black Americans feel they must utilize pragmatic strategies such as relying on doble-consciousness and strategic deracialization to help Blacks advance in politics and America generally. I expect that Black Americans who hold higher levels of racial pragmatism will report more moderate, but not conservative attitudes on racial policies when compared to group members who are less pragmatic. Additionally, building upon Katherine Tate\u2019s (2003) research on opinion change among Black voters when responding to threat, I analyze whether this pragmatism leads Black voters to compromise on and update their policy attitudes when appraised of political constraints. I will use this award from the Centennial Center to test my theory by fielding a survey with a national sample of Black Americans. This survey will contain framing experiments on policy to measure attitude change, as well as other survey items to measure pragmatism and support for a host of racialized and ostensibly race-neutral policies to interrogate heterogeneity in Black public opinion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Clientelism in American Political Development<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Jeffrey Broxmeyer, Associate Professor, University of Toledo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, Presidency Research Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>My research explores the \u201cspoils system\u201d in American political development. From the Age of Jackson to the Gilded Age, political parties were built by strategically distributing patronage to allies. Party leaders appointed spoilsmen to government jobs in return for organizational and financial support during elections. In this way, patron-client relations, also known as clientelism, became deeply engrained, outlasting the Whig party, the Civil War, and innumerable political careers. Using archival methods, I plan to investigate the federal appointment of western territorial officeholders, U.S. foreign diplomats, and federal land agents. My goal is to analyze how clientelism shaped the process of state-building across three dimensions: national consolidation, foreign policy, and economic development. Ultimately, I want to know how spoils worked in diverse historical contexts and why the dynamics of party clientelism transformed over time. A better understanding of the spoils system will show the impact of clientelism on long-term patterns of democratization in America.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

New World Racial Orders: Transnational Racial Formation and Charting a Space for Afro-Latinos<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI:<\/strong> Michelle Bueno Vasquez, Ph.D. Candidate, Northwestern University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$1,548, Marguerite Ross Bennett Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>U.S.  political language around Black and Latino minority groups has historically excluded those who exist at the intersection of these seemingly disparate groups. This erasure of Afro-Latinos has dire consequences: their double vulnerability to race-based discrimination, lack of government recognition and assistance, and political disenfranchisement. I argue that this erasure is not coincidental and has historical and contemporary links to imperialism, minority activism, and Census administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through my dissertation, I pursue the questions: How did U.S. military interventions export U.S. racism and Black erasure to Latin American nations? How did adding the \u201cHispanic\u201d category erase Afro-Latino presence in data and Latino politics? Can diaspora change notions of race and restore Black empowerment across borders?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I answer these queries over time. Using archival methods and process tracing, I demonstrate how the U.S. occupations of the Dominican Republic contributed to the creation of a Dominican racial rhetoric of Black denial during the early 20th century. I analyze the development of the U.S. and Dominican Census from the 1980s to the 2010s and how they continue the work of invisibilizing Afro-Latinos through a theory I call minority essentialization. Finally, I study how Black Lives Matter activism in 2020 sprouted Black consciousness throughout the Afro-Latino diaspora through a digital ethnography of the movement\u2019s spread through Twitter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This interdisciplinary project can be located within diverse literature on race and ethnicity in the humanities and social sciences. Beyond academia, my work advances the study of intersectionality, the pursuit of equity for the minorities within minorities, and the power of activism in restoring lost roots and unifying communities across borders.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

From Resistance to Cooperation: The Conditional Effect of Land Reform in Mexico<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Manuel Cabal, Teaching Fellow, University of Chicago<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500,Alma Ostrom and Leah Hopkins Civic Education Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>I specialize in comparative politics with a regional focus on Latin America. My research interests are in state-building, authoritarianism, and the political economy of development. Methodologically, I combine comparative-historical approaches with quantitative data analysis. My research asks when and how state institutions emerge and why they persist for long periods, using insights from the research tradition on historical institutionalism. I am especially interested in state institutions to provide public goods that foster economic development, such as public education and other human services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My book project addresses a comparative politics puzzle: revolutionary regimes are among the most durable autocracies despite seldom having capable state organizations. In contrast to the conventional wisdom, I argue that revolutions do not provide by themselves the conditions conducive to building \u201cstate capacity,\u201d as they are prone to elite factionalism and state-society conflict. Through the study of the geography of public education access after the Mexican Revolution, I highlight an understudied source of institutional dysfunctionality: the strength of territorially-based interests and identities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More broadly, my research agenda leverages diverse aspects of public education to investigate the construction and consolidation of authoritarian states. I also study the different channels through which the economic elites in unequal societies, such as Latin America, shape public policy and institutions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Government Digital Surveillance in Sub-Saharan Africa<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Karol Czuba, Assistant Professor, Nazarbayev University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, Alma Ostrom and Leah Hopkins Civic Education Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>Government adoption of digital surveillance technologies, from facial recognition to mobile device hacking software, in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has increased substantially in the wake of improved internet access on the continent. While a growing literature in Political Science has explored the effects of such surveillance on repression, cooptation, and public goods provision in other parts of the world, few scholars have studied the phenomenon in the African context; as a result, available evidence is limited, unsystematic, and largely descriptive. This project expands our knowledge of the phenomenon by providing more systematic evidence of government digital surveillance in SSA and explaining the adoption of the technologies that make surveillance possible. The project involves the collation of an original dataset that details instances of digital surveillance undertaken by African governments for political purposes as well as field research in several countries, starting with Kenya.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Identifying and Measuring the Linguistic Specificity of Individual Political Socialization<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Alejandro Flores, Postdoctoral Fellow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grand Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>This research is part of a broader investigative agenda that looks at the political experience of bilinguals, a sizeable, pivotal segment of the U.S. electorate that engages in politics across two linguistic environments. For these individuals, each language promotes a particular way of thinking such that the decisions they make may depend on which language they are using. Long-standing theoretical explanations of electoral choice do not account for such a reality, nor do they anticipate the interference that language\u2014and not a correlate of language\u2014can have on political orientations and outcomes. Thus, as a new approach in the study of American politics, the collection of original data is required. This project will use a series of survey experiments, conducted on nationally representative samples of bilinguals to explore the role of language on opinion formation. Taken together, this line of inquiry gives new answers to the overarching question of how politicians and scholars alike can promote the interests of multicultural, multilingual populations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Protests Against Large-Scale Land Acquisitions, Electoral Democracy, and Rural Citizenship in Senegal<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Marie Gagn\u00e9, Postdoctoral Researcher, Concordia University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>In Senegal, large-scale land acquisitions for agriculture and biofuel production have increased dramatically in the last two decades. Because these projects often encroach on populations\u2019 farmland and pastures, they can profoundly disrupt rural livelihoods. In response, aggrieved communities have frequently organized opposition campaigns to prevent the seizure of their land, most of which is managed by elected municipal councils. Citizens have in many cases ousted municipal councilors with a record of poor land governance. But in others, incumbent candidates have been re-elected despite widespread opposition to land deals. My research seeks to explain this intriguing variation through a combination of statistical analysis and qualitative interviews. More broadly, it aims to understand the expectations that rural citizens have toward their elected officials and measure whether contested land deals lead to party turnover at the local level. Fieldwork in Senegal will provide critical insights on the democratic aspirations that citizens have in terms of land governance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Public Trust and Urban Governance in Delhi, India<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Shagun Gupta, Ph.D. Candidate, American University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, Warren E. Miller Fund in Electoral Politics<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>By 2031, an estimated 600 million Indians will be living in urban areas, comprising megacities such as Delhi, as well as smaller cities and towns that have emerged to meet the demands of a rapidly urbanizing population. The capacity of local governments to respond to the needs of this population remains limited, and we know that citizens\u2019 trust in their local governance bodies is essential for effective delivery of public goods and services. My dissertation project explores the factors associated with citizens\u2019 trust in government, focusing specifically on local governance bodies in urban India. I aim to identify the factors that explain differences in public trust in urban local governance bodies in rapidly urbanizing cities characterized by high levels of urban informality and uneven government performance. I focus on trust among residents of unauthorized colonies in Delhi, India and argue that while government performance is an important factor that influences generalized levels of trust, it is not sufficient in explaining citizens\u2019 trust in their local governance bodies. I also argue that the strength of ties between households, and between households and neighborhood associations together shape levels of political participation and thereby influence levels of public trust in these local bodies. I employ a mixed-methods design combining a large-N quantitative survey of neighborhoods in Delhi with qualitative interviews, beginning with a pilot data collection phase in May \u2013 August 2022 and extended fieldwork starting May 2023.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Issue Salience Representation & Partisan Competition: The Role of Issue Salience in Shaping Citizen Preferences in Congressional Elections<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Isaac Hale<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PIs: <\/strong>Isaac Hale, Assistant Professor, Occidental College; Carlos Algara, Assistant Professor, Claremont Graduate University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, William A. Steiger Fund for Legislative Studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>Democratic representation in the United States relies on the relationship between constituents and legislators. Scholars of congressional representation have largely focused on two criteria to evaluate whether legislators are effective agents who reflect the will of their voters. First, do citizens and legislative candidates ideologically align? Second, does the partisan makeup of Congress reflect the preferences of the mass public? In this paper, we seek to assess a third criterion for effective representation: do congressional candidates emphasize and advocate for the issues most important to voters? If, as many have argued, a key element of democracy is the extent to which the electorate is able to exercise control over what issues are on the political agenda and how resources are distributed, then candidates\u2019 policy priorities should affect citizens\u2019 vote choices. To assess this third criterion, we survey voters using a module in the 2022 Cooperative Election Study (CCES).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Carlos Algara<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This module includes both a survey experiment and questions that ask voters to evaluate real-world congressional candidates. These data allow us to determine whether candidates\u2019 prioritization of issues affects who voters support in elections. This research complements and builds upon existing studies, merging candidate-centric and party-centric theories of electoral legislative accountability by introducing issue emphasis as a key component of how citizens choose candidates.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Study and Action Workshops: Women of Color in Comparative Politics Network<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PIs: <\/strong>Roselyn Hsueh, Associate Professor, Temple University; Nermin Allam, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University; Natasha Behl, Associate Professor, Arizona State University; Alexsia Chan, Assistant Professor, Hamilton College; Jaira Harrington, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois; Akasemi Newsome, Associate Director, Institute of European Studies, University of California, Berkeley; Erica Townsend-Bell, Associate Professor, Oklahoma State University; Robin Turner, Associate Professor, Butler University<\/p>\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$10,000, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>\u201cStudy and Action Workshops: Women of Color in Comparative Politics Network\u201d supports a transregional network of women of color, non-binary, and gender expansive scholars in the Comparative Politics subfield to gather in virtual workshops and panels and in-person; and to study, share, and develop strategies to confront the distinct intersectional and systemic challenges we face. Studies have documented individual and institutional discrimination faced by women of color (WOC) scholars in Political Science. WOC in the Comparative Politics (CP) subfield face further challenges at home and in the field. Ascriptions of foreigner status and neocolonialism faced at home and during international fieldwork to those of non-white and Global South ancestry, the misogynoir and erasure confronting Black women, and the disappearance of Indigenous women join with the more mundane experience of being the only one \u2013 in home departments, in graduate school, on conference panels, and even in Americanist dominant minority networks. Those based in the Global South are further professionally marginalized and face distinct institutional challenges. The network of WOC in CP includes\/seeks scholars distributed across various ranks and in various academic positions at colleges and universities in North America, Europe, and the Global South.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

\"\"Roselyn Hsueh<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

\"\"Robin Turner<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

\"\"Nermin Allam<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

 <\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Past as Prologue: Founding Stories and Narrative Democratization in South Korea and Taiwan<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Eun A Jo, Postdoctoral Fellow, George Washington University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, Huang Hsing Chun-tu Hsueh International Fellowship Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Fund: <\/strong>How do states narrate their founding moments and why do these stories change? Post-conflict nations often construct their founding stories around enemies against which people fought and recovered a sense of autonomy. Yet, given the complex nature of collective traumas, who becomes the dominant \u201cenemy\u201d and how narratives about them evolve are far from predetermined. Because these narratives are purposefully curated to legitimize the exercise of political sovereignty and rule, changing them entails risks of instability. This dilemma is exemplified by the cases of postcolonial, postwar, and post-authoritarian Taiwan and South Korea. Despite shared traumas of Japanese colonialism and wars against their communist rivals, Taiwan and South Korea have developed divergent founding stories. What explains their narrative trajectories? To answer, I conduct a historical comparison of Taiwanese and South Korean national narratives, combining a quantitative, hand-coded content analysis of 602 commemorative speeches from 1948 to 2021 with a qualitative analysis of archival and elite interview data. My interdisciplinary theoretical framework and mixed-method research design provide a novel approach to understanding how nations in post-conflict settings narrate their enemies\u2014and thus, themselves.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Housing as Welfare: How Subsidized Homeownership Creates Social Mobility Through Wealth, Voice, and Dignity in India<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Tanu Kumar, Assistant Professor, Clairmont Graduate University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,400, Edward Artinian Fund for Publishing<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>While most existing research on housing in low- and middle-income countries focuses on the causes and consequences of living in informal settlements and slums, governments here are actively involved in large-scale projects to provide the poor with government constructed housing to own. How does subsidized homeownership for the poor shape their lives? I conceive of subsidized homeownership as providing beneficiaries with a large, durable asset that they can use, rent, or sell as they wish. The support housing provides to families is in-kind, but when it is owned and can easily be bought or sold, its benefits approach those of pure income transfers. The widespread implementation of subsidized homeownership, moreover, suggests that transfers made through housing may be more politically expedient than something like a basic income guarantee.  I argue that through this type of transfer, subsidized homeownership helps even the poorest households build wealth, exercise their voice as citizens, and live with dignity. I illustrate the argument through the study of three different housing policies across India.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Running for Justice? Understanding Women\u2019s Path to Prosecutorial and Judicial Office<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Jamil Scott<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PIs: <\/strong>Elizabeth Lane, Assistant Professor, Louisiana State University; Jamil Scott, Assistant Professor, Georgetown University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,250, Women and Politics Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>What does it take for women to seek legal office? Unlike seeking legislative office, where women often feel the need to gain more degrees, training, and credentials before seeking office, the baseline for legal office is the same — a Juris Doctorate. Is there a gendered ambition gap for legal office or is the playing field more even? What is necessary for women to run for legal office and succeed? Using state bar passage data, we have the population of potential candidates and nominees for state and local prosecutors and judges. We will collect state, local, and personal information for each of individuals who ran for office to determine who, when, where, and under what circumstances do these attorneys seek office. Furthermore, this research will also provide us with names and information for a larger project to interview candidates and nominees to understand what motivates women to pursue a nomination or run for prosecutorial or judicial office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Elizabeth Lane<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Our findings not only have implications for women and race and ethnicity politics, but also for studies of state and local politics and policy, and judicial politics. Representation and diversity in institutions important for citizens\u2019 feelings of trust and efficacy, this is of the utmost importance in the legal institutions given their complicated relationship with minorities and constant strife and injustices.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Choosing Chains? On the Incarceration of FN Offspring in French Prisons<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Shirley Le Penne, Ph.D. Candidate, Cornell University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount: $2,500, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: Delving into the trauma generated by the Algerian War of Independence led by the FLN, Shirley Le Penne analyzes in her research its impact on Algerian experiences of incarceration in French prisons today. While scholarship on the punishment and incarceration of Algerians, both as colonial and national subjects, has moved forward, knowledge on the perpetuation of these practices in today\u2019s France is still lacking. Yet, Algerians, by nationality or origin, are now incarcerated at unprecedented rates \u2013 by the very state that has oppressed their ancestors. How do Algerians make sense of their journey from colonization to immigration to incarceration to release in and by France? To what extent does the political legacy of their grandparents inform their experience of imprisonment? By tracing the carceral experience of FLN offspring in French prisons, this project aims to broaden our understanding of the interplay between (post)colonialism, intergenerational trauma, and incarceration.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Politicians\u2019 Attitudes towards Democracy: Surveying the Argentine Congress<\/strong><\/summary>\n

PIs: <\/strong>Scott Mainwaring, Professor, Notre Dame University; Sandra Botero, Associate Professor, Universidad del Rosario; Carlos Gervasoni, Associate Professor, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$10,000, William A. Steiger Fund for Legislative Studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>We plan to undertake a pioneering survey of Argentine federal deputies\u2019 and senators\u2019 attitudes toward democracy. The survey will allow social scientists, policy analysts, and historians to systematically measure how Argentine members of congress perceive tradeoffs between democracy and other potentially desirable outcomes. These are vital questions in contemporary social science and for the world of democratic practice and policy at a time of democratic backsliding in many countries around the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the end of the Cold War, the most common path to democratic breakdowns has been incremental processes by which the executive gradually crushes democratic checks and balances and tilts the playing field. Illiberal executives supported by illiberal parties have led all of these executive takeovers. Therefore, understanding variation in how members of congress perceive tradeoffs between democracy and other desirable outcomes is a key question for democracy worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

The Junior Americanist Workshop Series Pre-Conference<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PIs:<\/strong> Joshua McCrain, Assistant Professor, University of Utah; Austin Bussing, Assistant Professor, Sam Houston State University; Leach Christiani, Assistant Professor, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Alexander Furnas, Research Assistant Professor, Northwestern University; Christina Ladam, Assistant Professor, University of Nevada, Reno; David Miller, Assistant Professor, East Tennessee State University; Rachel Porter, Assistant Professor, Notre Dame\u00a0<\/p>\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund:<\/strong> $9,943, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n

Project Abstract: The Junior Americanist Workshop Series (JAWS) is a virtual workshop created during the pandemic in order to provide opportunities for graduate students, post-docs, non-tenure track faculty, and early-career tenure-track faculty studying American politics to present their research, receive feedback, and network with peers. JAWS was designed to help fill the gap caused by canceled conferences, professional development opportunities, and networking events. Since September 2020, JAWS has held 20 panels with nearly 900 participants, as well as 3 professional development roundtables \u2013 all virtual and free of charge. The APSA Summer CCRG grant will fund the first JAWS in-person pre-conference ahead of the MPSA annual meeting in 2023. We will be able to defer most costs for junior-career individuals selected to present, while also paying a stipend to encourage established scholars to serve as discussants. We will also facilitate meals and networking opportunities. The event will be open to anyone (conditional on space limitations).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

\"\"Austin Bussing<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

\"\"Alexander Furnas<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

\"\"David Miller<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

\"\"Rachel Porter<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

 <\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Political Reasoning, Argumentation, and Attitude Change<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Isaac Mehlfaff, Ph.D. Candidate, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $2,400, Alma Ostrom and Leah Hopkins Civic Education Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: How do citizens reason about politics? Does reasoning have the power to change political attitudes? I argue that citizens\u2019 political reasoning capabilities are best utilized not when they attempt to reason on their own or even when they engage in casual political discussion. Instead, citizens are most likely to change their opinions and reduce their reliance on partisan stereotypes when they engage in debate, exchanging and evaluating a series of arguments and counterarguments with a discussion partner. I test this theory with a survey experiment in which I subtly manipulate whether respondents reason in an argumentative or contemplative context. A pilot study reveals that argumentation decreases the extremity of subjects\u2019 political attitudes and results in those attitudes being held less strongly, suggesting the potential for political argumentation to be used as a strategy for depolarization. Elsewhere in my dissertation, I use an innovative combination of online data sources and machine learning to understand how citizens engage each other in debate, change the attitudes of their interlocutors, and have their attitudes changed in turn.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Accepting the Olive Branch? Muslim Leadership and State Accommodation in Belgium and the Netherlands<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Yehia S. Mekawi, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Michigan<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$3,614, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>I study issues of religion, identity and representation, with a focus on how the state interacts with religious minorities in advanced democracies. My dissertation covers the provision of state benefits to Muslim communities at the sub-national level in Belgium and the Netherlands. I seek to explain why sub-national governments often vary in their accommodation of Islam despite operating within shared legal frameworks; in so doing, I identify the political determinants shaping the implementation of nominally bureaucratic policies. I then turn to the political behavior of religious leaders, and examine when and how Muslim leaders decide to cooperate with or shun state-led accommodation efforts. I focus specifically on how religious leaders rely on transnational networks of support to either facilitate relations with the state or substitute them altogether.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Politicized Identity in Digital Spaces: Creating Change through Consciousness-Raising and Mass Mobilization<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Melina Much, Ph.D. Candidate, UC Irvine<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>Twitter represents an invaluable space for sparking and mobilizing political movements. An example of this is the most recent iteration of the women\u2019s movement, spanning from #Metoo beginning in 2017 to the current moment surrounding the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court leak. This movement represents one of the largest social and political reckonings with sexual violence and women’s reproductive rights with social media being used as a key tool. Using an original dataset of Tweets on the movement over the last three years, this paper provides evidence through text analysis that consciousness-raising efforts using personal testimonials on Twitter helped mobilize individuals by activating more politicized conceptions of their identity groups, namely group consciousness. I propose a combination of topic analysis (Latent Dirichlet Allocation) and Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) to capture dynamic topical changes in the #Metoo movement’s language on Twitter starting with early consciousness-raising efforts and their subsequent politicized calls to action. In doing this, the paper presents both a novel approach to capturing the space between consciousness-raising and activated identity, as well as using unsupervised machine learning tools that are revamped to understand intersectionality and its nuances in text data. Lastly, the project will utilize structural topic modeling (STM) to understand the determinants of consciousness-raising versus politically mobilized topics.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Pandering Politics: Positive Racial Appeals in Political Campaigns<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Jeremiah Muhammad<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PIs: <\/strong>Jeremiah Muhammad, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Leah Christiani, University of Tennessee, Knoxville<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,500, Presidency Research Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>Though we know that positive racial appeals have increased, it is still unclear whether and when they are considered credible to the target group. For example, during the 2020 presidential campaign, then-candidate Joe Biden infamously said that Black voters \u201cain\u2019t Black\u201d if they vote for Trump. In a sense, this was a \u201cpositive\u201d appeal to Black voters, in that he was hoping to reach out to this demographic to gain their support. However, his attempt at aligning himself with the Black community was not received well \u2014 as it was seen as pandering rather than something genuine. In this research project, we seek to understand the conditions under which \u201cpositive\u201d explicit racial appeals for white politicians are successful in gaining support, with a focus on Black voters. We think that when white politicians attempt to cater to the Black community, their positive explicit appeal will not be successful unless they align themselves with a credible source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Leah Christiani<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Without alignment to a credible source, Black voters will likely perceive the positive, explicit appeal as disingenuous pandering rather than genuine commitment. Black voters, through their racial socialization experiences, learn to trust white Americans the least, as they are the group that has historically perpetrated the most discrimination against them. Thus, we expect that endorsements from a Black elite will be more successful in garnering support than positive explicit appeals \u2014 but that the combination of a positive explicit appeal and an endorsement may lead to the greatest gains in support.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Perception of China in Zimbabwe: Influence of Partisanship and Media Exposure<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
William Hatungimana<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PIs<\/strong>: Haruka Nagao, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University; William Hatungimana, Visiting Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $2,443, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: This study examines Zimbabwean people\u2019s perceptions of China with a focus on the influence of partisanship and media exposure. Despite the increasing presence of the Chinese state media in African countries, it remains unclear whether they influence the incumbent and opposition party supporters equally. Since the Chinese government often builds a favorable relationship with incumbent parties, opposition party supporters tend to be more critical of China. In Zimbabwe, the incumbent party ZANU-PF has a close relationship with China, while the opposition party leader, Nelson Chamisa, is known for his critical position against China. Further, Chinese media tend to positively portray China\u2019s engagement in Africa, whereas US media tend to portray it negatively. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Haruka Nagao<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Thus, incumbent and opposition party supporters may have different responses to Chinese and US media exposure. We conduct a unique experiment within an original online survey to examine how the positive and negative coverage of China influence attitudes along party lines. The partisan effect points to the agency and influence of Zimbabwean political leaders and public in determining a future direction of the bilateral relationship.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Democratic Distortions: Legislator Bias in State Policymaking<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI:<\/strong> Zoe Nemerever, Assistant Professor, Utah Valley University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund:<\/strong> $2,500, Edward Artinian Fund for Publishing<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: Legislators with constituencies that have divided policy preferences will have to choose which side to represent when they cast their single roll call vote on a bill. Previous studies find that when legislators must decide between representing different constituencies, they often favor White, affluent, and politically-engaged co-partisan constituents. However, political scientists do not yet know if there a geographic bias when legislators must choose between representing distinct urban, suburban, and rural segments of their districts. I examine whether rural voters, as geographic minorities whose proportion of the U.S. population is shrinking, are less likely to have their political preferences represented in state policymaking. To investigate this question, I compare expressed constituent preferences with legislator roll call votes on nearly 1,700 state bills across 58 different policy issues. Rural voters do indeed face a significant representation deficit when being represented by Democratic legislators, and this representation gap is persistent across race, ethnic, education, and gender subgroups. On the other hand, Republican legislators are only slightly more likely to represent the preferences of their rural constituents relative to their nonrural constituents. Although rural voters received disproportionate representation through malapportioned U.S. Senate districts and the Electoral College, there is troubling geographic bias in representation by American state legislatures.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

The European Union\u2019s Interpretations of Europe-anness: Discourse, Enlargement, and Legitimation<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI<\/strong>: Annie Niessen, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Pennsylvania<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $2,500, Edward Artinian Fund for Publishing<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: The research monograph, which will be based on my PhD thesis, will address an underexplored yet crucial aspect that has deeply influenced the development of European integration: the EU\u2019s discourse on Europe and Europeanness. The book will analyze the four interpretations of the \u201cEuropean State\u201d formulation (Art. 49 TEU)\u2014the primary membership requirement\u2014that were provided by the EU institutional actors to legitimize the applicant states\u2019 eligibility and, in turn, enlargement decisions. Building on an original corpus of archival material, the book will constitute the first wide-ranging study of EU supranational institutions\u2019 interpretations of the \u201cEuropean State\u201d formulation and related notions of Europe and Europeanness over the 70 years of European integration. Its core argument is that the \u201cEuropean State\u201d membership requirement and the discursive practices surrounding it have resulted in a new, institutional-driven, narrative on Europe and Europeanness that has been a significant part of the EU\u2019s legitimation discourse.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

The Feminist Paradox: How Labels Divide the U.S. Public and Impact Representation<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI:<\/strong> Mariza Oceno, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Vanderbilt University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gran Amount and Grant Fund:<\/strong> $2,500, Edward Artinian Fund for Publishing<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: Women remain largely underrepresented in U.S. government. However, compared to other historically underrepresented groups in political office, they demonstrate much weaker, less consistent, and more conditional loyalty toward ingroup — same-gender — candidates. Why? Scholars have increasingly studied feminism as an important source of division among women, but its political underpinnings and consequences remain largely understudied. Furthermore, it remains profoundly unclear what identity, if any, stands on the other side of feminism: what does it mean to not identify as a feminist?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My book project proposes that both women and men in the U.S. electorate are divided into two highly salient and strongly politically charged but countervailing gender-related subgroups: feminists and non-feminists. I argue that non-feminism is a meaningful identity in and of itself. In other words, not calling oneself a feminist does not translate into outright rejection of all aspects of feminism. In fact, non-feminists are not only distinct from feminists but also far more heterogeneous in terms of their beliefs about gender inequality and discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Support from the APSA Centennial Center Gr ants will fund the next step in this project: conducting in-depth interviews with American women of different races and ethnicities to further identify the range of perceptions and connotations associated with non-feminism as compared to feminism across racial and ethnic identities. Shedding light on how race\/ethnicity interacts with feminist\/non-feminist identity can improve our understanding of what members of the public are mobilized or demobilized by feminist as compared to non-feminist platforms and agendas and, consequently, of the constraints and opportunities created by these labels.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Conservation and the Elasticity of State Authority in the Indian Himalayas<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI<\/strong>: Charitra Shreya Pabbaraju, MPhil Student, University of Oxford<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $2,500 Alma Ostrom and Leah Hopkins Civic Education Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: The research project investigates the role of women in politics and civil society, and feminist coalitions in particular, during Tunisia’s democratic transition (2011-2021). Existing research on women’s political participation during democratic transitions generally concludes that women participate in revolutions and the early years of democratic transitions but stop shortly after. In Tunisia, this was not the case. Both conservative (Islamist) and liberal (secular) women entered politics in historic numbers during the 2010-2011 Arab Spring and remained in politics. Tunisian women made up approximately 30% of elected officials, compared to the global average of 24.3%. They also established 300 new women’s rights organizations (compared to two before the Arab Spring). Over the past decade, liberal and conservative women activists and politicians formed coalitions that transcended ideological and political differences. These coalitions enabled them to draft, lobby, and pass crucial gender legislation throughout the democratic transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social and political actors who form coalitions despite deep ideological divisions during moments of political uncertainty deserve to be studied because they provide a model of increased cooperation across political and ideological differences when rights are up for debate. The research is especially salient during the rise of the Global Right and conservatism because conservative actors are resurrecting the old debates about women\u2019s political, social, and bodily rights.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Armed Radical Queer Politics: A Descriptive and Normative Framework<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI<\/strong>: Layla E. Picard, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Virginia<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $2,346, Warren E. Miller Fund in Electoral Politics<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: The United States of America is home to more firearms than people. While many gun owners keep pistols and rifles purely for recreational purposes, Americans also use guns as tools of political action. Social scientists have described some of the ways that Americans bear arms for political purposes, but these accounts tend to attribute practices to particular cultural or ideological positions. For example, scholars have shown that straight white conservative men bear arms in ways that reinforce the political status quo, which privileges people like them. But aside from research on violent revolutionary movements, we know very little about how minoritized and marginalized groups use arms in their political efforts, or how bearing arms changes the person who bears them and their politics. Even more importantly, we lack a normative framework for the role that arms ought to play in political life. My dissertation focuses on the practices and discourses of armed queer activists involved in radical leftist political projects. I explicate the meanings and values that queer radicals associate with arms, and the actual practices of bearing arms in which they participate, in order to provide a descriptive theory of subaltern militancy. I also draw upon the examples provided by queer militants to develop a normative argument about whether and under what conditions arms may play a positive and beneficial role in liberatory politics.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Immigration and Deportation: Attitudes in Brazil and the United States<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Zoila Ponce de Leon<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PIs<\/strong>: Zoila Ponce de Leon, Assistant Professor, Washington and Lee University; Gabriele Magni, Assistant Professor, Loyola Marymount University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $2,500, Marguerite Ross Barnett Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Gabriele Magni<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: Immigration has become an increasingly relevant political issue. This project examines a topic that has received limited attention in existing scholarly work on immigration attitudes, but that is central to the political discourse of various countries: the deportation of immigrants who are illegally in the country. What determines attitudes toward deportation? We focus on two countries where immigration is a key political issue and where populist right-wing politicians have been successful in recent years: the United States and Brazil. We explore what role economic, cultural, security, and health concerns play in driving attitudes toward deportation. Furthermore, we analyze how immigrants\u2019 characteristics influence natives\u2019 attitudes on deportation, focusing on three attributes: country of origin, religious denomination, and sexual orientation. We study these questions with original surveys conducted in the U.S. and Brazil with samples mirroring census quotas on key socio-demographics and use both observational and experimental items to measure attitudes toward deportation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Recall Elections in America<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI: <\/strong>Brandon Rottinghaus, Professor, University of Houston<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund: <\/strong>$2,000, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>Recall elections allow citizens to remove incumbent elected officials at the state or local level.  Is this good or bad for democracy?  In one view, these recall elections are a corrective measure, used to remove a corrupt official or due to abuse of the public trust.  Incumbents who fail to represent their constituents\u2019 best interests can be removed through a democratic process.  In another view, recall elections may circumvent the will of the voters by allowing a smaller group of citizens to remove an elected official already selected by a majority of the voting electorate.  This \u201cexcess of democracy\u201d lessens the independents of elected officials and raises the possibility that special interest groups game the system.  Although the number of recall elections nationally is increasing, the political fallout from successful and unsuccessful recall elections is unknown.  If a small number of voters can overturn elections at the state or local level, the impact of recall elections will be profound as polarization spreads across the nation and even at the local (sometimes non-partisan) level.  This project charts recall rules across states and explores the impact of these elections.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Congress in Crisis: Power Inequity and Limited Capacity in the Age of Twitter<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI<\/strong>: Annelise Russell, Assistant Professor, University of Kentucky<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $4,500, William A. Steiger Fund for Legislative Studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: Congress isn\u2019t a stranger to crises, political or otherwise. Lawmakers have overseen wars, managed recessions, responded to a global pandemic, and experienced the horrors of an insurrection. But as The New Yorker described it recently, many of the crises Congress faces today are self-imposed and a function of how the institution operates. This project considers how the staff and professionals that drive the daily operations of Congress have adapted to meet the rapid pace of news and information. The logistics of daily engagement in Congress mirror that of a disaster response. I explain how Congress has developed into a crisis communication operation, pairing interviews of current and former congressional communication professionals with congressional Twitter data to illustrate how Twitter and digital media have fueled the very same power asymmetries we expected new media to disrupt. The power of reputation-building online and rapid response has elevated Twitter in a way that ultimately constrains what little capacity lawmakers already had and makes the average member of Congress resource-dependent in terms of both policy and communication.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Fear of Falling Behind: How Global Status Concerns Affect Support for Domestic Policies<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI<\/strong>: Jonathan Schulman, Ph.D. Candidate, Northwestern University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $1,250, Presidency Research Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: Politicians regularly seize on Americans\u2019 anxiety over the United States falling behind its competitors or wealthy peers to bolster support for their candidacy or policy. Donald Trump campaigned heavily in 2016 on alarmist warnings of the United States losing its dominant status because of his predecessors\u2019 trade and immigration policies. Joe Biden repeatedly discussed the United States falling behind China in quality of domestic infrastructure and research and development to build bipartisan support for a large-scale infrastructure bill. Can this rhetoric increase support for a leader or a policy from individuals who would otherwise be opposed? Are there any unintended consequences to framing policies as competitions for global status, such as encouraging more aggressive or uncooperative foreign policy preferences, heightened political cynicism or anxiety, or higher tolerance of anti-Asian racism? I designed a survey experiment to test the effects of framing investments in domestic infrastructure as an arena in which the United States is said to be falling behind a rival or competitor to evaluate how this rhetoric affects Americans\u2019 budgetary preferences, general foreign policy preferences, tolerance of anti-Asian racism, and political cynicism and anxiety.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Muslim Family Law Index Website\/Visualization Project<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI<\/strong>: Y\u00fcksel Sezgin, Associate Professor, Syracuse University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $2,200 William A. Steiger Fund for Legislative Studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract: <\/strong>There are 53 countries (35 Muslim-, 18 non-Muslim-majority) in the world that formally integrate Muslim Family Laws (MFLs) into their national legal systems. much spatio-temporal variation in understanding and interpretation of women\u2019s rights and human rights under religious laws across these nations. The Muslim Family Law Index (MFL-I) aims to capture this spatio-temporal diversity and measure human\/women\u2019s rights compliance and the rule of law-friendliness of shari\u2018a-inspired family law systems for the period of 1919-2016. The Centennial Center Grant will be used to build a website to share with scholars, policymakers, and general public the project findings and a large body of literature collected by the research team.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Enver Hoxha\u2019s Grand Experiment on the Greeks of Albania: The Effects of Communist-era Ethnic Engineering on Ethnopolitical Identity Compliance During and After Dictatorship<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI<\/strong>: Mary Shiraef, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Notre Dame<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $2,500, William A. Steiger Fund for Legislative Studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: Did communist-era policies toward minority groups decisively engineer contemporary identity landscapes? This paper examines personal and political identity production processes sparked by Soviet-era ethnic identity engineering. Stalinist border-making departed sharply from the \u201cmelting pot\u201d model of the Western world by recognizing minority groups within regimes’ borders. These policies allowed for and even resourced minority identities, but also disregarded or repressed them in territories deemed for the majority ethnic group. The recognition policies provide a control comparison for this study\u2019s goal to learn the long-term impacts of coerced assimilation in Soviet contexts. I hypothesize that ethnic engineering effectively resulted in transmission trends of minority groups away from their ancestral identities in both the communist-era public record and in private-public gravestones in the post-communist period\u2013\u2013albeit to a far lesser extent. In terms of long-term back-lash of the policy, I posit that those who complied publicly with the ethnic designation of the regime\u2013\u2013but not in the long-term\u2013\u2013were also more likely in the post-communist period to carry anti-socialist political attitudes than those recognized as in the minority. I test these hypotheses at the southern border of Albania with Greece, where the communist leader\u2019s recognition of minority groups was long enough in duration and applied strictly enough to expect divergence in the resulting populations\u2019 identities. I draw my analysis from a differences-in-differences design applied on a hand-coded dataset from Albania\u2019s internal communist records and from cemeteries throughout Albania\u2019s districts neighboring the Albania-Greece border, paired against pre-communist data for the same districts.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

The Persuasive Power of Black Women<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PIs<\/strong>: Paul Testa, Assistant Professor, Brown University; Karra McCray, Ph.D. Candidate, Brown University; Kylee Britzman, Assistant Professor, Lewis Clark State University; Tarah Williams, Assistant Professor, Allegheny College<\/p>\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $1,309, Women & Politics Fund<\/p>\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: Movements like #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter rely on social media to share individual experiences and personal pleas to galvanize others to take action for social change. The success of these messages depends upon the reach and persuasiveness of their messengers. Due to existing power disparities, race, gender, and the intersection of race and gender, can affect the reach and persuasiveness of messages. Black women may be uniquely trusted messengers for some groups, but they may also have more difficulty getting other groups to listen or to be persuaded. If some people are more or less likely to hear and respond to calls for reform depending on when they are made by a Black woman, a white person, or Black man, this creates both challenges and opportunities for sustaining coalitions for change. Different responses to social movement messengers could also lead to some interests being overlooked by movements and by the broader public. Our research will use qualitative interviews with Black women activists and a choice-based survey experimental design to assess whether people listen to and are convinced by social movement messages from Black women as compared to white women, Black men, and white men. This project has implications for social movement strategy but also broader implications for how we communicate with one another and how we convey who has authority.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Pre-Electoral Opposition Coalitions in Authoritarian Regimes<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI<\/strong>: Ozlem Tuncel Gurlek, Ph.D. Candidate, Georgia State University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Fund and Grant Amount<\/strong>: $2,500, William A. Steiger Fund for Legislative Studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: As of 2021, more than 68 percent of the world population lives under autocracies. International organizations and think tanks struggle tenaciously to find valuable and applicable mechanisms and strategies to facilitate a transition to democracy while creeping authoritarianism threatens every corner of the world. Contemporary autocracies are unique in the sense that they heavily depend on political parties and elections. This project interrogates the role of opposition parties in these competitive autocratic regimes, particularly examining these parties\u2019 ability to unite against the omnipresent autocrats and oust the incumbent to pave the way for a transition to democracy. This project seeks to understand why some opposition parties in competitive autocratic regimes are able to successfully form a pre-electoral coalition (PEC), while others fail to coordinate. What explains the cooperation of opposition parties in regimes where electoral politics is an uneven playing field, and harassment of opposition is a ubiquitous practice? In this research, I argue that opposition parties that successfully resolve differences among them and resolve conflicts within each party are more likely to form a coalition before elections. I rely on a mixture of evidence to corroborate this theory. I build an original dataset on coalitions, test my findings in disparate parts of the world, and focus on the Turkish opposition parties as a case study. Ultimately, this approach helps me to develop our knowledge on opposition strategies, reversing democratic backsliding, and the survival of authoritarian regimes.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Loving Us Through Lifting Others: Black Women, Heavy Lifting, and Leadership<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI<\/strong>: Jatia Wrighten, Assistant Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $1,406, Edward Artinian Fund for Publishing<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: The goal of this book is to examine the legislative behavior of Black women through a novel intersectional framework, the heavy lifter theory. The heavy lifter theory explains as to why and how Black women differ from both White women and Black men and offers insight to better understand Black women’s political behavior. Black women are continually increasing their representation in U.S. legislative institutions, specifically state legislatures. This research presents a historical context by which to understand and examine the gendered nature of the ascription process of Black women. Specifically, their experience as a marginalized group burdened them with the duty of the heavy lifter. Although being the heavy lifter is a burden, this focus on Black women\u2019s ability to thrive under constant discrimination in the form of racism and sexism should give scholars pause. In looking at Black women legislators\u2019 ability to gain leadership, the heavy lifter identity can potentially be a vehicle through which these Black women legislators can find a sense of purpose and psychological and social strength to forge a path that might not have been expected for them.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Normalization: Explaining Public Support for Government Censorship in Authoritarian Regimes<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI<\/strong>: Tony Zirui Yang, Ph.D. Candidate, Washington University in St. Louis<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund<\/strong>: $2,500, James Bryce Fund for Political Science<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: Traditional understandings of government censorship in authoritarian regimes regard it as a tool of the government to suppress political opposition. In light of such an understanding, scholars have found that authoritarian governments extensively censor online criticism of the regime, and ordinary citizens try to circumvent and resist government censorship. Yet, contrary to the conventional view, surveys consistently find that citizens in authoritarian regimes express high levels of support for government censorship. Why are citizens in authoritarian regimes supportive of government censorship? To explain this puzzle, I argue that citizens support government censorship because they no longer view censorship as suppression of political opposition. Rather, they view censorship as a normal government policy. I call such changes in perception “normalization of censorship.” Specifically, I explore two ways the normalization of censorship happens. First, the government expands the targets of censorship beyond criticism of the regime to other seemingly harmless non-political content such as entertainment and advertisement. As a result, citizens are more likely to believe that censorship is a normal policy that regulates both political and non-political content. Second, the government encourages citizens to participate in censorship by flagging content they do not like. Such participation diminishes the government’s responsibility for censorship. Thus, citizens are less likely to believe that censorship is a tool for political repression. I use various sources of data from China to support my arguments. Taken together, my research highlights how the normalization of censorship contributes to authoritarian governments’ control of society while maintaining popular support.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Propaganda as Provocation<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI:<\/strong> Eddy S. F. Yeung, Ph.D. Candidate Emory University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund:<\/strong> $2,500, Second Century Fund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract<\/strong>: Citizens in Western societies often take democracy for granted, but over half of the world population is still living in autocracies. Why are autocracies so persistent? What is the role of propaganda in sustaining authoritarian rule? A rich literature on authoritarian politics suggests that two functions of autocratic propaganda exist: first, persuading citizens of the regime\u2019s merits; second, signaling to citizens the regime\u2019s strength. I argue that there exists a third function of propaganda that also bene\ufb01ts authoritarian survival and yet through a different mechanism: provoking the opposition. By producing provocative propaganda to taunt and mock the opposition, the autocrat can evoke regime opponents\u2019 anger and radicalize them in mass movements. When these movements become increasingly radical, they start to lose legitimacy and public support. In turn, the public is less willing to join forces with the opposition and, consequently, the movements become less likely to succeed. Thus, provocative propaganda benefits the autocrat. To test my theory, I will conduct a survey experiment in Hong Kong, where provocative propaganda was prevalent during the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill movement. My project has important implications for top-down polarization as a regime survival strategy, and will advance our understanding of strategic provocation in domestic politics.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Transitional Feminist Coalitions: Islamist and Secular Women\u2019s Cooperation in Tunisia (2011-2021)<\/strong><\/summary>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

PI:<\/strong> Maro Youssef, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Southern California<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant Amount and Grant Fund:<\/strong> $2,500, William A. Steiger Fund for Legislative Studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project Abstract:<\/strong> The research project investigates the role of women in politics and civil society, and feminist coalitions in particular, during Tunisia’s democratic transition (2011-2021). Existing research on women’s political participation during democratic transitions generally concludes that women participate in revolutions and the early years of democratic transitions but stop shortly after. In Tunisia, this was not the case. Both conservative (Islamist) and liberal (secular) women entered politics in historic numbers during the 2010-2011 Arab Spring and remained in politics. Tunisian women made up approximately 30% of elected officials, compared to the global average of 24.3%. They also established 300 new women’s rights organizations (compared to two before the Arab Spring). Over the past decade, liberal and conservative women activists and politicians formed coalitions that transcended ideological and political differences. These coalitions enabled them to draft, lobby, and pass crucial gender legislation throughout the democratic transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social and political actors who form coalitions despite deep ideological divisions during moments of political uncertainty deserve to be studied because they provide a model of increased cooperation across political and ideological differences when rights are up for debate. The research is especially salient during the rise of the Global Right and conservatism because conservative actors are resurrecting the old debates about women\u2019s political, social, and bodily rights.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/details>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

2022 Summer Centennial Center Research Grant Winners The American Political Science Association (APSA) is pleased to announce that it has awarded 41 Summer Centennial Center Research Grants to APSA members in order to fund research and collaborative projects aimed at improving the discipline. These 41 grants, which were selected from a highly competitive field of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25307,"featured_media":0,"parent":4360,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"zakra_sidebar_layout":"customizer","zakra_remove_content_margin":false,"zakra_sidebar":"customizer","zakra_transparent_header":"customizer","zakra_logo":0,"zakra_main_header_style":"default","zakra_menu_item_color":"","zakra_menu_item_hover_color":"","zakra_menu_item_active_color":"","zakra_menu_active_style":"","zakra_page_header":true,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4375","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/connect.apsanet.org\/centennialcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4375","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/connect.apsanet.org\/centennialcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/connect.apsanet.org\/centennialcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/connect.apsanet.org\/centennialcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25307"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/connect.apsanet.org\/centennialcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/connect.apsanet.org\/centennialcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4375\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/connect.apsanet.org\/centennialcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4360"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/connect.apsanet.org\/centennialcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}