JUDICIAL SELECTION: THE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS' VIEW*

This paper is an assessment of the contributions which social scientists have made to the debate on the most appropriate mode for selecting state judges. Specific analyses of the assumptions behind differing normative positions qoverning judicial selection (e.g., accountability versus independence) are discussed. Considerable empirical research has been completed on elective and Missouri Plan systemic. It is suggested however, that more definitive conclusions might be possible through cross-system analysis. The methodological barriers to effective comparisons among the systems are high, but that area of inquiry appears to offer the potential for social scientists to make a significant policy contribution.     

Strategies of Policy Advocacy Organizations and Their Theoretical Affinities: Evidence from Q‐Methodology

Policy advocacy is an increasingly important function for many nonprofit organizations, yet their advocacy activities have largely escaped theoretical grounding. The literature on nonprofits has described how they engage in policy advocacy, without linking them to theories of policy change. The policy studies literature, on the other hand, has explained how various forms of influence result in policy change, but has largely ignored organizational perspectives on those processes. These two literatures remain largely disconnected. Drawing upon interviews with a purposive sample of policy advocacy directors at 31 nonprofit organizations, this study applies Q‐methodology to identify and describe six distinct policy advocacy strategies employed by the organizations, and their resonant theoretical views of policy processes. These findings suggest strategic approaches for nonprofits seeking to influence policy processes. They also enhance the academic literature on policy processes by adding the advocates’ views and expectations. Implications for further research are also identified.