@article{davis_leppard_kinney_2022, title={A shame of inches: Are teams with black head coaches more heavily penalized in Division 1 college football?}, ISSN={["1540-6237"]}, DOI={10.1111/ssqu.13117}, abstractNote={Background A popular line of media discourse has sought to provide explanations for college football's lack of diversity in the coaching ranks. A related effort has recently sought to explain why black coaches are faced with institutional barriers to success in athletic fields. While research on race and the sociology of sport has frequently focused on racial characteristics and expectations of players for on-field penalization, this literature neglected to examine racialized leadership positions such as coaching. Further, the vast majority of this line of literature that has examined racial leadership has explored the effects of race on hiring and promotion decisions off the field rather than on-field dynamics. Objective This article fills this gap by exploring the relationship between the race of college football coaches and the level of on-field penalization their teams incur. Are teams coached by black coaches more heavily penalized than those coaches by non-black coaches? Methods Using data from a merged unique data set and a two-step approach comprising two statistical procedures, we explore this question empirically. We first examine the mean levels of penalties at the game level using a comparison of means, followed by a panel analysis of penalties at the yearly-school level. Results In our comparison of means across all games played between white and black coaches in the 2019/2020 college football season, we find that black coaches are more heavily penalized than white coaches in terms of both penalties per game as well as penalty yardage. Findings of our longitudinal analysis covering all Division 1 college football teams from the college football playoff era (2014/2015 season until the 2019/2020 season) reveal that teams coached by black coaches receive more penalties per game than do teams coached by non-black coaches. Conclusion To conclude, we discuss implications for these findings and suggest ameliorative prescriptions to combat bias in college sports. We contextualize our findings within the context of racialized organizational processes in college sports.}, journal={SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY}, author={Davis, Andrew P. and Leppard, Tom R. and Kinney, Alexander B.}, year={2022}, month={Mar} }
 @article{davis_gibson-light_bjorklund_nunley_2022, title={Institutional Arrangements and Power Threat: Diversity, Democracy, and Punitive Attitudes}, ISSN={["1745-9109"]}, DOI={10.1080/07418825.2022.2045343}, journal={JUSTICE QUARTERLY}, author={Davis, Andrew P. and Gibson-Light, Michael and Bjorklund, Eric and Nunley, Teron}, year={2022}, month={Feb} }
 @article{davis_vila-henninger_2021, title={Charismatic authority and fractured polities: A cross-national analysis}, volume={72}, ISSN={["1468-4446"]}, DOI={10.1111/1468-4446.12841}, abstractNote={Sociological research has overlooked the political consequences of charismatic leadership that arises in existing democratic political bureaucracies. In this article, we theorize the consequences of charismatic leadership in democratic nations by revisiting Max Weber's theory of charismatic authority. Our extension of Weber's theory of charismatic authority helps to address a gap in the political polarization literature concerning the role of charismatic leadership. This article provides a foundational link in the research on charismatic authority-bridging the literatures on charisma and cross-national comparative sociology. This bridging is enabled by advances in data collection that include information on charismatic authority in cross-national context. This article makes use of a Driscoll and Kraay fixed-effects analysis across 76 democracies from 1960 to 2009 to explore the relationship between charismatic leadership and political polarization. Our findings suggest that nations with higher levels of charismatic leadership tend to have higher levels of political polarization. These results contribute to both the literature on political polarization and charisma-as well as support our extension of Weber's theory of charismatic authority.}, number={3}, journal={BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY}, author={Davis, Andrew P. and Vila-Henninger, Luis}, year={2021}, month={Jun}, pages={594–608} }
 @article{pfaffendorf_davis_kinney_2021, title={Masculinity, Ritual, and Racialized Status Threat: Examining Mass Shooter Manifestos Using Structural Topic Models}, volume={91}, ISSN={["1475-682X"]}, DOI={10.1111/soin.12409}, number={2}, journal={SOCIOLOGICAL INQUIRY}, author={Pfaffendorf, Jessica and Davis, Andrew P. and Kinney, Alexander B.}, year={2021}, month={May}, pages={287–312} }
 @article{puetz_davis_kinney_2021, title={Meaning structures in the world polity: A semantic network analysis of human rights terminology in the world's peace agreements}, volume={88}, ISSN={["1872-7514"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.poetic.2021.101598}, abstractNote={• World polity theory examines institutional change through the lens of increasing isomorphism, convergence, and standardization . • Studying institutional concepts in relational terms instead enables analytic access to semiotic diversity and qualitative change. • We explore the shifting dynamics of human rights terms in the world's peace agreement texts using semantic network analysis. • The meaning structure of human rights changes over three decades, from 1990 to 2018. • We discuss how network-analytic methods offer tools for a more wholly relational world polity theory. We examine changes in the use of human rights language in peace agreement texts from 1990 to 2018. Existing research in world polity theory examines institutional change through the lens of increasing isomorphism, a lens that generally fails to appreciate qualitative transformations in the meaning of institutional concepts across time. As a corrective to this approach, we endorse a meaning-structure institutionalism that conceives institutional concepts in relational terms and use a method of textual analysis — semantic network analysis — to analyze and formally model the shifting meaning of human rights in peace agreement texts. We show that human rights language in peace agreements has undergone multiple qualitative shifts since its initial emergence in the mid-1980s. Specifically, the term human rights occupies a marginal position in peace agreement texts in the 1990s, is used in reference to and thus bridges multiple substantive themes in the 2000s, and, finally, inhabits a conceptual silo in the 2010s in the sense that it is associated with many concepts within but no concepts outside of a semantic community related to rights and democracy. We discuss implications for world polity theories of institutionalism that follow from our relational framework.}, journal={POETICS}, author={Puetz, Kyle and Davis, Andrew P. and Kinney, Alexander B.}, year={2021}, month={Oct} }
 @article{hill_gonzalez_davis_2021, title={The Nastiest Question: Does Population Mobility Vary by State Political Ideology during the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic?}, volume={64}, ISSN={["1533-8673"]}, DOI={10.1177/0731121420979700}, abstractNote={We consider the association between state political ideology and population mobility during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. We use first-party geo-behavioral data to estimate the average distance traveled by approximately 15,000,000 devices over 10 weeks (February 24, 2020 to April 27, 2020). Regression models with state clustered robust standard errors show lower shelter-in-place rates and higher mobility scores in states with larger percentages of voters who supported Trump in the 2016 presidential election. We also find that shelter-in-place rates increased and mobility scores declined at slower rates in states with greater Trump support. Shelter-in-place rates and average mobility scores were comparable in states governed by Republicans and Democrats. There was some evidence that shelter-in-place rates increased and average mobility scores declined at slower rates in states governed by Republicans. Overall, states with more Trump voters are more resistant to public health recommendations and state stay-at-home orders during the coronavirus pandemic.}, number={5}, journal={SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES}, author={Hill, Terrence D. and Gonzalez, Kelsey E. and Davis, Andrew P.}, year={2021}, month={Oct}, pages={786–803} }
 @article{davis_2021, title={WORKING FOR THE CLAMPDOWN: STATE REPRESSION AND CONFIDENCE IN LEGAL AUTHORITIES IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT}, volume={61}, ISSN={["1464-3529"]}, DOI={10.1093/bjc/azaa101}, abstractNote={Abstract Scholars have focussed on the national level factors affecting citizen perceptions of legal institutions, which vary a great deal across the world. Scepticism towards legal structures often arises as a result of corrupt or abusive practices on the part of legal actors that may poison relations between citizens and law enforcement. Empirical research on the cross-national determinant of confidence in the police have shown corruption to be an essential factor in predicting lower levels of confidence in the police. Yet, a focus on corruption oftentimes emphasizes the quality of governance and neglects abusive actions taken by officials that can undermine public trust. This article focusses on those abusive practices by examining the relationship between human rights and individual reports of confidence in legal authorities. Using a pooled sample across multiple waves of the World Values Survey and multilevel models, I test the extent to which protections from human rights abuses and perceptions of strong human rights practices are related to higher levels of confidence in legal authorities. Findings from the statistical analysis offer strong support for my theorized expectations.}, number={4}, journal={BRITISH JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY}, author={Davis, Andrew P.}, year={2021}, month={Jul}, pages={1126–1144} }
 @article{hill_dowd-arrow_davis_burdette_2020, title={Happiness is a warm gun? Gun ownership and happiness in the United States (1973-2018)}, volume={10}, ISSN={["2352-8273"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100536}, abstractNote={Although there is no empirical evidence linking gun ownership with happiness, speculation is widespread. In this paper, we assess the association between gun ownership and happiness. We use 27 years of national cross-sectional data from the General Social Survey (1973-2018) and logistic regression to model self-rated happiness as a function of gun ownership (n = 37,960). In bivariate and partially adjusted models, we observed that the odds of being very happy were higher for respondents who reported having a gun in their home. This association persisted with adjustments for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, employment status, household income, financial satisfaction, financial change, number of children, religious attendance, political affiliation, urban residence, region of interview, and survey year. In our fully adjusted model, gun ownership was unrelated to happiness. The original association between gun ownership and happiness was entirely confounded by marital status. In other words, gun owners only appeared happier because they are more likely to be married, which increases happiness. In the first study of gun ownership and happiness, we found that people who own guns and people who do not own guns tend to exhibit similar levels of happiness. This general pattern was consistent across nearly three decades of national surveys, a wide range of subgroups, and different measures of happiness. Our analyses are important because they contribute to our understanding of the epidemiology of happiness. They also indirectly challenge theoretical perspectives and cultural narratives about how guns contribute to feelings of safety, power, and pleasure.}, journal={SSM-POPULATION HEALTH}, author={Hill, Terrence D. and Dowd-Arrow, Benjamin and Davis, Andrew P. and Burdette, Amy M.}, year={2020}, month={Apr} }
 @article{hill_davis_roos_french_2020, title={Limitations of Fixed-Effects Models for Panel Data}, volume={63}, ISSN={["1533-8673"]}, DOI={10.1177/0731121419863785}, abstractNote={Although fixed-effects models for panel data are now widely recognized as powerful tools for longitudinal data analysis, the limitations of these models are not well known. We provide a critical discussion of 12 limitations, including a culture of omission, low statistical power, limited external validity, restricted time periods, measurement error, time invariance, undefined variables, unobserved heterogeneity, erroneous causal inferences, imprecise interpretations of coefficients, imprudent comparisons with cross-sectional models, and questionable contributions vis-à-vis previous work. Instead of discouraging the use of fixed-effects models, we encourage more critical applications of this rigorous and promising methodology. The most important deficiencies—Type II errors, biased coefficients and imprecise standard errors, misleading p values, misguided causal claims, and various theoretical concerns—should be weighed against the likely presence of unobserved heterogeneity in other regression models. Ultimately, we must do a better job of communicating the pitfalls of fixed-effects models to our colleagues and students.}, number={3}, journal={SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES}, author={Hill, Terrence D. and Davis, Andrew P. and Roos, J. Micah and French, Michael T.}, year={2020}, month={Jun}, pages={357–369} }
 @article{maher_seguin_zhang_davis_2020, title={Social scientists' testimony before Congress in the United States between 1946-2016, trends from a new dataset}, volume={15}, ISSN={["1932-6203"]}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pone.0230104}, abstractNote={Congressional hearings are a venue in which social scientists present their views and analyses before lawmakers in the United States, however quantitative data on their representation has been lacking. We present new, publicly available, data on the rates at which anthropologists, economists, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists appeared before United States congressional hearings from 1946 through 2016. We show that social scientists were present at some 10,347 hearings and testified 15,506 times. Economists testify before the US Congress far more often than other social scientists, and constitute a larger proportion of the social scientists testifying in industry and government positions. We find that social scientists' testimony is increasingly on behalf of think tanks; political scientists, in particular, have gained much more representation through think tanks. Sociology, and psychology's representation before Congress has declined considerably beginning in the 1980s. Anthropologists were the least represented. These findings show that academics are representing a more diverse set of organizations, but economists continue to be far more represented than other disciplines before the US Congress.}, number={3}, journal={PLOS ONE}, author={Maher, Thomas V. and Seguin, Charles and Zhang, Yongjun and Davis, Andrew P.}, year={2020}, month={Mar} }
 @article{davis_zhang_2019, title={Civil society and exposure to domestic terrorist attacks: Evidence from a cross-national quantitative analysis, 1970-2010}, volume={60}, ISSN={["1745-2554"]}, DOI={10.1177/0020715219837752}, abstractNote={This article examines the connection between a nation’s level of civil society organizational openness and the number of domestic terrorist attacks across 167 countries from 1970 to 2010. Following the contentious politics approach, we conceptualize terrorist organizations as engaged in high-risk movement activity and sensitive to organizational opportunities that make contention more likely. Panel fixed-effects negative binomial regression models support our hypothesis that a nation’s level of civil society openness increases exposure to domestic terrorist attacks. This work connects social movement theory with the cross-disciplinary literature working to understand terrorism by offering an explanation for terrorist attacks that are rooted in the organizational opportunity paradigm. It provides us a useful tool for future work on cross-national social movements in a cross-national perspective, as well as further work on terrorist organizations.}, number={3}, journal={INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY}, author={Davis, Andrew P. and Zhang, Yongjun}, year={2019}, month={Jun}, pages={173–189} }