Search results

(1 - 2 of 2)

Title

Doing What I Say: Connecting Congressional Social Media Behavior and Congressional Voting

Creator

Shapiro, Matthew A., Hemphill, Libby, Otterbacher, Jahna

Date

2012-03-10, 2012-03-10

Description

Public officials’ communication has been explored at length in terms of how such their statements are conveyed in the traditional media, but...
Show morePublic officials’ communication has been explored at length in terms of how such their statements are conveyed in the traditional media, but minimal research has been done to examine their communication via social media. This paper explores the kinds of statements U.S. officials are making on Twitter in terms of the actions they are trying to achieve. We then analyze the correlation between these statements, Congressional communication network structures, and voting behavior. Our analysis leverages over 29,000 tweets by members of Congress in conjunction with existing DW-NOMINATE voting behavior data. We find that pro-social and self-promoting statements correlate with Congressional voting records but that position within the Congressional communication network does not correlate with voting behavior.
Sponsorship: Social Networks Research Group at IIT, IIT Graduate College
Show less

Title

Completing the Puzzle: Comparable Community Determination for Illinois Municipalities

Creator

Ahrens, Aric G.

Date

2012-07-16, 1998-05

Description

In the process of negotiating for new contracts, public safety (i.e. Police and Firefighters) employee unions and municipal managers compare...
Show moreIn the process of negotiating for new contracts, public safety (i.e. Police and Firefighters) employee unions and municipal managers compare the essential elements of their contract (i.e. wages) with those of other “comparable” municipalities. The wages, benefits and working conditions of other “comparable” municipalities are used to provide evidence supporting the positions taken on both sides of the negotiating table. The problem is that negotiating teams rarely employ a consistent and accurate method to determine which municipalities should be compared to their own. Negotiating teams make their own determinations of comparability, which must be defended should arbitration proceedings become necessary. However, most of the methods of comparability determination currently employed by negotiating teams are extremely simple and are lacking a sound analytical basis. These methods are inadequate in terms of accuracy, and would be difficult to defend in arbitration proceedings. The method outlined in the following report provides a sound analytical basis for comparability determination. The recommendation is to employ the use of Comparability Tables. Comparability Tables : The Tables provide a list of which communities are most comparable to each particular community, and how comparable they are. This solution is augmented by three supporting elements which help to address the weaknesses apparent in the Comparability Tables. The three supporting elements are a Dissimilarity Matrix, Factor Analytic Rankings, and Factor Analytic Tables. Dissimilarity Matrix : The Matrix provides a comparability determination for communities not listed on a particular community’s Comparability Table. Factor Analytic Rankings : The Rankings allow a determination of why two communities are or are not comparable. Factor Analytic Tables : The Tables allow a quick reference to the particular characteristics of each community. The Comparability Tables, along with the supporting elements, provide negotiating teams with a list of comparable communities that is more accurate and defensible than the lists provided by other methods. This method describes which communities are comparable, how comparable they are, and why they are comparable. Negotiating teams who employ this method of comparability determination can approach their negotiations confident that their choice of comparable communities is accurate and can stand up to an arbitrator’s inquiry.
Show less