23 Apr
2006
23 Apr
'06
8:05 p.m.
In Search of a Woman's Worth: Symbolic Effects of Female Representation
Current scholarship has presented contradictory conclusions regarding
the symbolic effects of female representation at the federal and state
levels. We find that the effects of representation by women on
political attitudes and behaviors to be minimal. Our analysis exploits
the benefits of ordered logit, negative binomial, and rare events
logit regression to accurately display the relationship of female
representation to hypothesized effects of symbolic representation. We
also include updated National Election Studies data through 2004 in
order to bring the analysis up to date. We then use genetic matching
to create a quasi-experimental data set and confirm the lack of
symbolic effect of female representation in the House and in the
Senate.
23 Apr
23 Apr
8:55 p.m.
You might want to throw in artificial neural networks (particularly a type
referred to on the Internet as perceptrons and trained with backpropagation
though you may have to ask to find out what terms to use in scholarly work and
make some modifications) for good measure. Symbolic effects might be reflected
by nonlinear relationships with nonlinearly separable fields of effect; these
are not well captured by generalized linear models. On the other hand, you
shouldn't have to look too hard. It might be a good idea to avoid referring to
"genetic matching" and instead refer to "advanced matching techniques"
and
mention them specifically later in the paper because Diamond's "genetic
matching" technique is extremely conservative and we may wish to carry out
other forms of matching which do utilize genetic algorithms, particularly those
which rely upon an underlying representation which is not of a fixed size for a
given population. Also, there is a small grammatical error; \emph{to be}
should be \emph{are}.
Quoting Sheldon Bond <sheldon.bond(a)gmail.com>om>:
In Search of a Woman's Worth: Symbolic Effects of
Female Representation
Current scholarship has presented contradictory conclusions regarding
the symbolic effects of female representation at the federal and state
levels. We find that the effects of representation by women on
political attitudes and behaviors to be minimal. Our analysis exploits
the benefits of ordered logit, negative binomial, and rare events
logit regression to accurately display the relationship of female
representation to hypothesized effects of symbolic representation. We
also include updated National Election Studies data through 2004 in
order to bring the analysis up to date. We then use genetic matching
to create a quasi-experimental data set and confirm the lack of
symbolic effect of female representation in the House and in the
Senate.
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
26 Apr
26 Apr
6:40 a.m.
Hello Sheldon and Emily,
I was thinking about this subject some more and wondered about the use of
trigonometric transformations and/or link functions of generalized linear
models (which would help with nonlinearly separable fields of effect though
potentially with some serious complications). I found this page which talks
about the use of trigonometric transformations:
http://www.stat.umn.edu/geyer/5931/mle/glm.pdf I do not know if it would be
useful to you, but it looks like it might be something to think about,
particularly if symbolic effects might occur periodically.
I hope that all is well with you.
Geoff
Quoting ghumphr(a)fas.harvard.edu:
You might want to throw in artificial neural networks
(particularly a type
referred to on the Internet as perceptrons and trained with backpropagation
though you may have to ask to find out what terms to use in scholarly work
and
make some modifications) for good measure. Symbolic effects might be
reflected
by nonlinear relationships with nonlinearly separable fields of effect; these
are not well captured by generalized linear models. On the other hand, you
shouldn't have to look too hard. It might be a good idea to avoid referring
to
"genetic matching" and instead refer to "advanced matching
techniques" and
mention them specifically later in the paper because Diamond's "genetic
matching" technique is extremely conservative and we may wish to carry out
other forms of matching which do utilize genetic algorithms, particularly
those
which rely upon an underlying representation which is not of a fixed size for
a
given population. Also, there is a small grammatical error; \emph{to be}
should be \emph{are}.
Quoting Sheldon Bond <sheldon.bond(a)gmail.com>om>:
In Search of a Woman's Worth: Symbolic
Effects of Female Representation
Current scholarship has presented contradictory conclusions regarding
the symbolic effects of female representation at the federal and state
levels. We find that the effects of representation by women on
political attitudes and behaviors to be minimal. Our analysis exploits
the benefits of ordered logit, negative binomial, and rare events
logit regression to accurately display the relationship of female
representation to hypothesized effects of symbolic representation. We
also include updated National Election Studies data through 2004 in
order to bring the analysis up to date. We then use genetic matching
to create a quasi-experimental data set and confirm the lack of
symbolic effect of female representation in the House and in the
Senate.
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
23 Apr
23 Apr
9:18 p.m.
Hi Sheldon and Emily,
You may not want to list all the different models you ran in the abstract.
You should probably focus on whatever the key methodological innovation(s)
is - perhaps in your case it is the use of matching to get better
estimates of causal effects. Do the results change noticeably when you
perform the matching?
(A general note for everyone that is probably worth emphasizing
again: no doubt you have all tried lots of things that didn't
really pan out or you ended up going in a different direction in the final
version of the paper. You should keep the focus on what your main
contribution(s) is (are), and not list everything you tried.)
More substantively, is the symbolic effect you are studying here primarily
regarding the effect of female representation on women? Or on men as
well? You might want a sentence that explains what the hypothesized
relationship is, so it is clear what you mean when you say you don't find
a symbolic effect.
Best,
Ian
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Sheldon Bond wrote:
In Search of a Woman's Worth: Symbolic Effects of
Female Representation
Current scholarship has presented contradictory conclusions regarding
the symbolic effects of female representation at the federal and state
levels. We find that the effects of representation by women on
political attitudes and behaviors to be minimal. Our analysis exploits
the benefits of ordered logit, negative binomial, and rare events
logit regression to accurately display the relationship of female
representation to hypothesized effects of symbolic representation. We
also include updated National Election Studies data through 2004 in
order to bring the analysis up to date. We then use genetic matching
to create a quasi-experimental data set and confirm the lack of
symbolic effect of female representation in the House and in the
Senate.
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
24 Apr
24 Apr
7:22 p.m.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Sheldon Bond wrote:
In Search of a Woman's Worth: Symbolic Effects of
Female Representation
good, tho you might also include the conclusion.
Current scholarship has presented contradictory conclusions regarding
the symbolic effects of female representation at the federal and state
levels.
at the end of this sentence, i want to know the effects on what? so that
question should probably be answered in that sentence rather than below.
maybe instead you could just say somethin glike, despite considerable
evideence to the contrary in the literature, we find...
We find that the effects of representation by women
on
political attitudes and behaviors to be minimal. Our analysis exploits
the benefits of ordered logit, negative binomial, and rare events
logit regression to accurately display the relationship of female
representation to hypothesized effects of symbolic representation. We
also include updated National Election Studies data through 2004 in
order to bring the analysis up to date. We then use genetic matching
to create a quasi-experimental data set and confirm the lack of
symbolic effect of female representation in the House and in the
Senate.
good tho a little unclear. you have a lot of 'stuff' that you did in
there and as a result less in the way of conclusions and why's.. i.e., it
reads a bit too much like namedropping of methods without giving the
reason why you were forced to bring out the big guns. giving the reasons
helps in convincing people that you're not merely trying to persuade them
by using complicated methods they don't understand.
Gary
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
6595
days inactive
6597
days old
gov2001@lists.gking.harvard.edu
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
ghumphr＠fas.harvard.edu -
king＠harvard.edu -
sheldon.bond＠gmail.com -
yohai＠fas.harvard.edu