Advanced Research Colloquium

All meetings occur at 12pm Eastern via Zoom.


Welcome to the official page of the Advanced Research Colloquium. This series of meetings is for scholars to present their in-progress work and receive feedback on it. Presenters will send out some initial material before the workshop, present some of it at the workshop, and then receive questions and feedback over the course of an hour. This colloquium connects Binghamton graduate students, faculty, and alumni in a format that allows them to continue sharing their research, connecting, and developing ideas. We also welcome the participation of other scholars looking to share their work with like-minded researchers.

Next Meeting

October 15th – Michael Catalano (Binghamton University), Wendy Martinek (Binghamton University), Sara Benesh (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), and Taraleigh Davis (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) will present “The Public Appearances of U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Public Support for the Court.”

Upcoming Presentations and Meetings

November 19th – Graig Klein (Leiden University), “TBD.”

December 10th – Sam Bell (Kansas State University), “TBD.”

Previous Presentations

September 10th –Paul Collins, Christine Bailey, Jesse H. Rhodes, and Douglas Rice. “The Effect of Judicial Decisions on Issue Salience and Legal Consciousness in the LGBTQ+ Community “

Paul m. Collins, Jr.


Scholars have long questioned whether courts can influence society. We contribute to this significant debate by investigating the ability of judicial decisions to shape issue attention and affect toward courts in the LGBTQ+ community. To do this, we compiled an original database of LGBTQ+ magazine coverage of court cases from 1998-2004, a period that includes two major gay rights decisions: Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health (2003). We argue that these cases will influence attention to sodomy laws (Lawrence) and same-sex marriage (Goodridge), and increase the positive tone of coverage of those issues. Combining sophisticated computational social science techniques, including structural topic modeling and sentiment analysis, with rich qualitative analysis, we find support for our expectations. We reveal that Lawrence and Goodridge increased attention to sodomy laws and same-sex marriage, respectively, and both enhanced the affect of the LGBTQ+ community toward courts. Further, we demonstrate the ways in which media coverage of Goodridge helped shape the legal consciousness of the LGBTQ+ community.  

Fatih Erol
Yüksel Alper Ecevit

August 20th – Yüksel Alper Ecevit (Çukurova University) and Fatih Erol (Koc University), “Stand up for Whom? A Cross-National Investigation of Elite-Mass Congruence in Ideological Orientation and Polarization.”

Abstract: In contrast to the vast literature on the ideological alignment between citizens and parties, little is known about whether citizen-candidate congruence on political beliefs and polarization affects satisfaction with democracy and political efficacy. As a way forward, by combining mass survey data on partisans (e.g., Comparative Study of Electoral Systems [CSES] modules 3 to 5) with candidates survey data (e.g., Comparative Candidates Survey [CCS] waves 1 and 2), we assess how attitudes towards democratic representation vary according to congruence on ideology and polarization at the levels of partisans and candidates. Notably, the (mis)match between the candidates and partisans on their ideological standing and their parties’ ideological orientation is related to the satisfaction with the current functioning of democracy and the feeling of greater opportunities for political influence. Concerning citizen-elite congruence on polarization, however, we did not come across any meaningful effects on satisfaction with democracy and political efficacy. The results also highlight that meaningful partisan-candidate congruence effects are not confounded by alternative explanations such as the winner-loser gap and populism.

July 16th – Olga Shvetsova (Binghamton University),‪Andrei Zhirnov (University of Exeter), and Julie VanDusky-Allen (Boise State University), “TBD.”

June 18th – Ben Farrer (Knox College).

Ben Farrer is an associate professor in the environmental studies department at Knox College, where he has taught since 2015. His research focuses on the political organizations created by under-represented groups, as well as environmental policy and research methods. His CV is available here.

Title: “A Model of The Public Sphere as a Common Pool Resource, Subject to Technological Risks.”

Abstract: In this paper, we develop a theory of public attention to politics as a common-pool resource problem, where the resource extraction is mediated by increasingly risky technologies. We begin with the idea that political actors compete for public attention, but if the public are exposed to too many high-intensity appeals for attention, the result will be a more polarized and less attentive public. We then argue that contemporary social media technology accelerates this process, in two ways. First, algorithmic microtargeting makes appeals more intensely engaging, so public attention is exhausted faster. Second, sharing content with friends creates a link between the public and private spheres. This means that polarization and apathy in politics will lead to conflict expanding even further across society. Our model therefore illustrates the crucial role of technology in political attention, and in CPRs more broadly. We conclude that Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) findings about how to prevent CPR collapses, can be useful for improving the public sphere.

May 21st – Anessa Kimball (Université Laval), Director of the Center on International Security (CSI) at the Graduate School of International Studies (ÉSÉI) and Co-Director of the Canadian Defense and Security Network (CDNS).

Title: “Rational strategic problems and the collaborative defense of North America: Canadian credibility, Arctic sovereignty & defense (NATO/NORAD) burden-sharing.”

Abstract: Examining the intersection of credible commitment, rational strategic problems, sovereignty, and bargaining over defense burden sharing, this research brings together issues facing continental North America. US and Canadian disagreements over the Arctic space offer a special look into how the partners continually collaborate despite disagreements over certain fundamental issues (i.e. where boundaries are drawn). The strategic importance of the Arctic region as a consequence of external factors such as climate change, Russian Arctic aspirations and assertions, as well as the importance of navigable shared commerce routes. Another issue of friction concerns strategic defence over North America in the context of NORAD the binational anchoring operational institution ensuring Canadian access to US strategic thought (Kimball 2018). NORAD’s informal structure followed by consequent adaptation to changing contexts offers evidence why such agreements are useful in defense, as they cut out other political veto-players. NATO binds the continental partners to collaborative deployments in Europe and beyond for the last seven decades (Kimball 2019). Burden sharing within NATO offers a vast by incomplete literature due to heterogeneity across models, years, and cases selected; notwithstanding the contested criteria that national budget allocate of 2% on defense & military spending. The managements of political and security risks during post cold war enlargement rounds (Kimball 2020) confirmed the essential role of US defense and security underwriting concerning newer partners. Contributions to NATO are dissected across multiple aspects to go ‘Beyond the 2%’ in the study of burden sharing. Finally, data visualizations of the extent of partner and competitor defense & security links to the US identify clusters of states and implications are offered (Kimball, forthcoming).