chunk_id
stringlengths 5
8
| chunk
stringlengths 1
1k
|
|---|---|
1783_17 | The document begins with "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." and then goes on to outline the movement's goal to exploit perceived discrepancies within evolutionary theory in order to discredit evolution and scientific materialism in general. Much of the strategy is directed toward the broader public, as opposed to the professional scientific community. The stated "governing goals" of the CSC's wedge strategy are:
1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies
2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God |
1783_18 | Critics of intelligent design movement argue that the Wedge Document and strategy demonstrate that the intelligent design movement is motivated purely by religion and political ideology and that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy obfuscates its agenda. The Discovery Institute's official response was to characterize the criticism and concern as "irrelevant," "paranoid," and "near-panic" while portraying the Wedge Document as a "fund-raising document."
Johnson in his 1997 book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds confirmed some of the concerns voiced by the movement's gainsayers:
Kansas evolution hearings |
1783_19 | The Kansas evolution hearings were a series of hearings held in Topeka, Kansas, from May 5 to May 12, 2005, by the Kansas State Board of Education and its State Board Science Hearing Committee to change how evolution and the origin of life would be taught in the state's public high school science classes. The hearings were arranged by the conservative Board with the intent of introducing intelligent design into science classes via the "Teach the Controversy" method.
The hearings raised the issues of creation and evolution in public education and were attended by all the major participants in the intelligent design movement but were ultimately boycotted by the scientific community over concern of lending credibility to the claim, made by proponents of intelligent design, that evolution is purportedly the subject of wide dispute within the scientific and science education communities. |
1783_20 | The Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement, played a central role in starting the hearings by promoting its Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan which the Kansas State Board of Education eventually adopted over objections of the State Board Science Hearing Committee, and campaigning on behalf of conservative Republican candidates for the Board.
Local science advocacy group Kansas Citizens for Science organized a boycott of the hearings by mainstream scientists, who accused it of being a kangaroo court and argued that their participation would lend an undeserved air of legitimacy to the hearings. Board member Kathy Martin declared at the beginning of the hearings "Evolution has been proven false. ID (Intelligent Design) is science-based and strong in facts." At their conclusion she proclaimed that evolution is "an unproven, often disproven" theory. |
1783_21 | "ID has theological implications. ID is not strictly Christian, but it is theistic," asserted Martin. The scientific community rejects teaching intelligent design as science; a leading example being the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a policy statement saying "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."
On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) |
1783_22 | In the movement's sole major case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, it was represented by the Thomas More Law Center, which had been seeking a test-case on the issue for at least five years. However conflicting agendas resulted in the withdrawal of a number of Discovery Institute Fellows as expert witnesses, at the request of DI director Bruce Chapman, and mutual recriminations with the DI after the case was lost. The Alliance Defense Fund briefly represented the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in its unsuccessful motion to intervene in this case, and prepared amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the DI and FTE in it. It has also made amicus curiae submissions and offered to pay for litigation, in other (actual and potential) creationism-related cases. On a far smaller scale, Larry Caldwell and his wife operate under the name Quality Science Education for All, and have made a number of lawsuits in furtherance of the movement's anti-evolution agenda. In 2005 they brought at |
1783_23 | least three separate lawsuits to further the intelligent design movement's agenda. One was later abandoned, two were dismissed. |
1783_24 | Reception by the scientific community
Intelligent design advocates realize that their arguments have little chance of acceptance within the mainstream scientific community, so they direct them toward politicians, philosophers and the general public. What prima facie "scientific" material they have produced has been attacked by critics as containing factual misrepresentation and misleading, rhetorical and equivocal terminology. A number of documentaries that promote their assertion that intelligent design as an increasingly well-supported line of scientific inquiry have been made for the Discovery Institute. The bulk of the material produced by the intelligent design movement, however, is not intended to be scientific but rather to promote its social and political aims. Polls indicate that intelligent design's main appeal to citizens comes from its link to religious concepts. |
1783_25 | An August 2005 poll from The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life showed 64% of Americans favoring the teaching of creationism along with evolution in science classrooms, though only 38% favored teaching it instead of evolution, with the results varying deeply by education level and religiosity. The poll showed the educated were far less attached to intelligent design than the less educated. Evangelicals and fundamentalists showed high rates of affiliation with intelligent design while other religious persons and the secular were much lower.
Scientists responding to a poll overwhelmingly said intelligent design is about religion, not science. A 2002 sampling of 460 Ohio science professors had 91% say it's primarily religion, 93% say there is not "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution," and 97% say that they did not use intelligent design concepts in their own research. |
1783_26 | In October and November 2001, the Discovery Institute advertised A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism in three national publications (The New York Review of Books, The New Republic and The Weekly Standard), listing what they claimed were "100 scientific dissenters" who had signed a statement that "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Shortly afterwards the National Center for Science Education described the wording as misleading, noting that a minority of the signatories were biologists and some of the others were engineers, mathematicians and philosophers, and that some signatories did not fully support the Discovery Institute's claims. The list was further criticized in a February 2006 article in The New York Times which pointed out that only 25% of the signatories by then were biologists and that signatories' "doubts |
1783_27 | about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs." In 2003, as a humorous parody of such listings the NCSE produced the pro-evolution Project Steve list of signatories, all with variations of the name Steve and most of whom are trained biologists. As of July 31, 2006, the Discovery Institute lists "over 600 scientists," while Project Steve reported 749 signatories; as of May 30, 2014, 1,338 Steves have signed the statement, while 906 have signed A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism as of April 2014. |
1783_28 | Structure
The 'big tent' strategy
The movement's strategy as set forth by Phillip E. Johnson states the replacement of "materialist science" with "theistic science" as its primary goal; and, more generally, for intelligent design to become "the dominant perspective in science" and to "permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." This agenda is now being actively pursued by the Center for Science and Culture, which plays the leading role in the promotion of intelligent design. Its fellows include most of the leading intelligent design advocates: William A. Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells and Stephen C. Meyer. |
1783_29 | Intelligent design has been described by its proponents as a 'big tent' belief, one in which all theists united by having some kind of creationist belief (but of differing opinions as regards details) can support. If successfully promoted, it would reinstate creationism in the teaching of science, after which debates regarding details could resume. In his 2002 article in Christian Research Journal, Discovery Institute fellow Paul A. Nelson credits Johnson for the 'big tent' approach and for reviving creationist debate since the Edwards v. Aguillard decision. According to Nelson, "The promise of the big tent of ID is to provide a setting where Christians (and others) may disagree amicably, and fruitfully, about how best to understand the natural world, as well as Scripture." |
1783_30 | In his presentation to the 1999 "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference," "How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won," Johnson affirmed this 'big tent' role for "The Wedge" (without using the term intelligent design):
The Discovery Institute consistently denies allegations that its intelligent design agenda has religious foundations, and downplays the religious source of much of its funding. In an interview of Stephen C. Meyer when World News Tonight asked about the Discovery Institute's many evangelical Christian donors the Institute's public relations representative stopped the interview saying "I don't think we want to go down that path." |
1783_31 | Obfuscation of religious motivation |
1783_32 | Phillip E. Johnson, largely regarded as the leader of the movement, positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism" and intelligent design as the method through which God created life. Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design recognized "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message." Hence intelligent design arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately introducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson emphasizes "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from |
1783_33 | scientific fact" only then can "biblical issues" be discussed. In the foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000) Johnson writes "The intelligent design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." |
1783_34 | Organizations
The Center for Science and Culture
The Center for Science and Culture, formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, is a division of the Discovery Institute. The Center consists of a tightly knit core of people who have worked together for almost a decade to advance intelligent design as both a concept and a movement as necessary adjuncts of its wedge strategy policy. This cadre includes Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe, William A. Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer. They are united by a religious vision which, although it varies among the members in its particulars and is seldom acknowledged outside of the Christian press, is predicated on the shared conviction that America is in need of "renewal" which can be accomplished only by unseating "Godless" materialism and instituting religion as its cultural foundation. |
1783_35 | In his keynote address at the "Research and Progress in intelligent design" (RAPID) conference held in 2002 at Biola University, William A. Dembski described intelligent design's "dual role as a constructive scientific project and as a means for cultural renaissance." In a similar vein, the movement's hub, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture had until 2002 been the "Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture." Explaining the name change, a spokesperson for the CSC insisted that the old name was simply too long. However, the change followed accusations that the center's real interest was not science but reforming culture along lines favored by conservative Christians. |
1783_36 | Critics of the movement cite the Wedge Document as confirmation of this criticism and assert that the movement's leaders, particularly Phillip E. Johnson, view the subject as a culture war: "Darwinian evolution is not primarily important as a scientific theory but as a culturally dominant creation story. ... When there is radical disagreement in a commonwealth about the creation story, the stage is set for intense conflict, the kind of conflict that is known as a 'culture war.'" |
1783_37 | Recently the Center for Science and Culture's has moderated its previous overtly theistic mission statements to appeal to a broader, a more secular audience. It hopes to accomplish this by using less overtly theistic messages and language. Despite this, the Center for Science and Culture still states as a goal a redefinition of science, and the philosophy on which it is based, particularly the exclusion of what it calls the "unscientific principle of materialism," and in particular the acceptance of what it calls "the scientific theory of intelligent design." |
1783_38 | Promotional materials from the Discovery Institute acknowledge that the Ahmanson family donated $1.5 million to the Center for Science and Culture, then known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, for a research and publicity program to "unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy." Mr. Ahmanson funds many causes important to the Christian religious right, including Christian Reconstructionism, whose goal is to place the US "under the control of biblical law." Until 1995, Ahmanson sat on the board of the Christian Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation. |
1783_39 | Other organizations
The Access Research Network (ARN) has become a comprehensive clearinghouse for ID resources, including news releases, publications, multimedia products and an elementary school science curriculum. Its stated mission is "providing accessible information on science, technology and society issues from an intelligent design perspective." Its directors are Dennis Wagner and CSC Fellows Mark Hartwig, Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson. Its 'Friends of ARN' is also dominated by CSC Fellows.
The Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) is a Christian non-profit organization based in Richardson, Texas, that publishes textbooks and articles promoting intelligent design, abstinence, and Christian nationism. CSC Fellows Charles Thaxton and William A. Dembski have served as academic editors for the Foundation. The FTE has close associations with the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement and other religious Christian groups. |
1783_40 | The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA Center) is a Christian nonprofit organization formed originally as a student club promoting intelligent design at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). There are about 25 active chapters of the organization in the United States, Kenya, Canada, Ukraine, and the Philippines. There have been 35 active chapters formed and several others are currently pending. Six out of the listed 32 chapters in the United States are located at high schools. In December 2008, biologist Allen MacNeill stated, on the basis of analysis of the webpages of the national organization and local chapters, that it appeared that the organization is moribund. |
1783_41 | The Intelligent Design Network (IDnet) is a nonprofit organization formed in Kansas to promote intelligent design. It is based in Shawnee Mission, Kansas. The Intelligent Design Network was founded by John Calvert, a corporate finance lawyer with a bachelor's degree in geology and nutritionist William S. Harris. Together, Calvert and Harris have published the article in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. Calvert also has written a play about intelligent design in a high school biology class with Daniel Schwabauer. |
1783_42 | Activism
The intelligent design movement primarily campaigns on two fronts: a public relations campaign meant to influence the popular media and sway public opinion; and an aggressive lobbying campaign to cultivate support for the teaching of intelligent design amongst policymakers and the wider educational community. Both these activities are largely funded and directed by the Discovery Institute, from national to grassroots levels. The movement's first goal is to establish an acceptance of intelligent design at the expense of evolution in public school science; its long-term goal is no less than the "renewal" of American culture through the shaping of public policy to reflect conservative Christian values. As the Discovery Institute states, intelligent design is central to this agenda: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." |
1783_43 | The Discovery Institute has also relied on several polls to indicate the acceptance of intelligent design. A 2005 Harris poll identified ten percent of adults in the United States as taking what they called the intelligent design position, that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." (64% agreed with the creationist view that "human beings were created directly by God" and 22% believed that "human beings evolved from earlier species." 49% accepted plant and animal evolution, while 45% did not.) Although some polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls have been criticized as suffering from considerable flaws, such as having a low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions. |
1783_44 | Critics of intelligent design and its movement contend that intelligent design is a specific form of creationism, neo-creationism, a viewpoint rejected by intelligent design advocates. It was bolstered by the 2005 ruling in United States federal court that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, United States District Judge John E. Jones III also ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. |
1783_45 | In pursuing the goal of establishing intelligent design at the expense of evolution in public school science, intelligent design groups have threatened and isolated high school science teachers, school board members and parents who opposed their efforts. Responding to the well-organized curricular challenges of intelligent design proponents to local school boards have been disruptive and divisive in the communities where they've taken place. The campaigns run by intelligent design groups place teachers in the difficult position of arguing against their employers while the legal challenges to local school districts are costly and divert scarce funds away from education into court battles. Although these court battles have almost invariably resulted in the defeat of intelligent design proponents, they are draining and divisive to local schools. For example, as a result of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, the Dover Area School District was forced to pay $1,000,011 in legal |
1783_46 | fees and damages for pursuing a policy of teaching the controversy - presenting intelligent design as an allegedly scientific alternative to evolution. |
1783_47 | Leading members of the intelligent design movement are also associated with denialism, both Phillip E. Johnson and Jonathan Wells have signed an AIDS denialism petition.
Campaigns
The Discovery Institute, through its Center for Science and Culture, has formulated a number of campaigns to promote intelligent design, while discrediting evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism." |
1783_48 | Prominent Institute campaigns have been to "Teach the Controversy" and, more recently, to allow Critical Analysis of Evolution. Other prominent campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to ideologies such as Nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008). Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
The response of the scientific community has been to reiterate that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (see list of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design). |
1783_49 | Politics and public education
The main battlefield for this culture war has been US regional and state school boards. Courts have also become involved as those campaigns to include intelligent design or weaken the teaching of evolution in public school science curricula are challenged on First Amendment grounds. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. |
1783_50 | Intelligent design is an integral part of a political campaign by cultural conservatives, largely from evangelical religious convictions, that seek to redefine science to suit their own ideological agenda. Though numerically a minority of Americans,. the politics of intelligent design is based less on numbers than on intensive mobilization of ideologically committed followers and savvy public relations campaigns. Political repercussions from the culturally conservative sponsorship of the issue has been divisive and costly to the effected communities, polarizing and dividing not only those directly charged with educating young people but entire local communities. |
1783_51 | With a doctrine that calls itself science among non-scientists but is rejected by the vast majority of the real practitioners, an amicable coexistence and collaboration between intelligent design advocates and upholders of mainstream science education standards is rare. With mainstream scientific and educational organizations saying the theory of evolution is not "in crisis" or a subject doubted by scientists, nor intelligent design the emergent scientific paradigm or rival theory its proponents proclaim, "teaching the controversy" is suitable for classes on politics, history, culture, or theology they say, but not science. By attempting to force the issue into science classrooms, intelligent design proponents create a charged environment that forces participants and bystanders alike to declare their positions, which has resulted in intelligent design groups threatening and isolating high school science teachers, school board members and parents who opposed their efforts. |
1783_52 | In a round table discussion entitled "Science Wars: Should Schools Teach Intelligent Design?" at the American Enterprise Institute on 21 October 2005 and televised on C-SPAN, the Discovery Institute's Mark Ryland and the Thomas More Law Center's Richard Thompson had a frank disagreement, in which Ryland claimed the Discovery Institute has always cautioned against the teaching of intelligent design, and Thompson responded that the Institute's leadership had not only advocated the teaching of intelligent design, but encouraged others to do so, and that the Dover Area School District had merely followed the Institute's calls for action. As evidence, Thompson cited the Discovery Institute's guidebook Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula written by the Institute's co-founder and first director, Stephen C. Meyer, and David K. DeWolf, a CSC Fellow, which stated in its closing paragraphs: "Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to |
1783_53 | permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design." |
1783_54 | Higher education
In 1999, William A. Dembski was invited by Baylor University president Robert B. Sloan to form the Michael Polanyi Center, described by Dembski as "the first Intelligent Design think tank at a research university." Its creation was controversial with Baylor faculty, and in 2000 it was merged with the Institute for Faith and Learning. Dembski, although remaining as a research professor until 2005, was given no courses to teach. |
1783_55 | Two universities have offered courses in intelligent design: Oklahoma Baptist University, where ID advocate Michael Newton Keas taught 'Unified Studies: Introduction to Biology,' and Biola University, host of the Mere Creation conference. Additionally, numerous Christian evangelical institutions have faculty with interests in intelligent design. These include Oral Roberts University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Patrick Henry College teaches creationism but also exposes its students to both Darwinian evolution and intelligent design.
In 2005, the American Association of University Professors issued a strongly worded statement asserting that the theory of evolution is nearly universally accepted in the community of scholars, and deploring requirements "to make students aware of an 'intelligent-design hypothesis' to account for the origins of life." It said that such requirements are "inimical to principles of academic freedom."
The Web |
1783_56 | Much of the actual debate over intelligent design between intelligent design proponents and members of the scientific community has taken place on the Web, primarily blogs and message boards, instead of the scientific journals and symposia where traditionally much science is discussed and settled. In promoting intelligent design the actions of its proponents have been more like a political pressure group than like researchers entering an academic debate as described by movement critic Taner Edis. The movement lacks any verifiable scientific research program and concomitant debates in academic circles. |
1783_57 | The Web continues to play a central role in the Discovery Institute's strategy of promotion of intelligent design and it adjunct campaigns. On September 6, 2006, on the Center's Evolution News & Views blog, Discovery Institute staffer Casey Luskin published a post entitled "Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries." In the post, Luskin reprinted a letter from a reader complaining that Wikipedia's coverage of ID to be "one sided" and that pro-intelligent design editors were censored and attacked. Along with the letter, Luskin published a Wikipedia email address for general information and urged readers "to contact Wikipedia to express your feelings about the biased nature of the entries on intelligent design." |
1783_58 | International
Despite being primarily based in the United States, there have been efforts to introduce pro-intelligent design teaching material into educational facilities in other countries. In the United Kingdom, the group Truth in Science has used material from the Discovery Institute to create free teaching packs which have been mass-mailed to all UK schools. Shortly after this emerged, government ministers announced that they regarded intelligent design to be creationism and unsuitable for teaching in the classroom. They also announced that the teaching of the material in science classes was to be prohibited. |
1783_59 | Criticisms of the movement |
1783_60 | One of the most common criticisms of the movement and its leadership is that of intellectual dishonesty, in the form of misleading impressions created by the use of rhetoric, intentional ambiguity, and misrepresented evidence. It is alleged that its goal is to lead an unwary public to reach certain conclusions, and that many have been deceived as a result. Critics of the movement, such as Eugenie Scott, Robert T. Pennock and Barbara Forrest, claim that leaders of the intelligent design movement, and the Discovery Institute in particular, knowingly misquote scientists and other experts, deceptively omit contextual text through ellipsis, and make unsupported amplifications of relationships and credentials. Theologian and molecular biophysicist Alister McGrath has a number of criticisms of the Intelligent design movement, stating that "those who adopt this approach make Christianity deeply... vulnerable to scientific progress" and defining it as just another "god-of-the-gaps" theory. He |
1783_61 | went on to criticize the movement on theological grounds as well, stating "It is not an approach I accept, either on scientific or theological grounds." |
1783_62 | Such statements commonly note the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, Reasons to Believe ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. Similarly confusing lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas. In another instance, the Discovery Institute frequently mentions the Nobel Prize in connection with Henry F. Schaefer, III, a CSC Fellow, and chemist at the |
1783_63 | University of Georgia. Critics allege that Discovery Institute is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" because Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years. |
1783_64 | This criticism is not reserved only to the Institute; individual intelligent design proponents have been accused of using their own credentials and those of others in a misleading or confusing fashion. For example, critics allege William A. Dembski gratuitously invokes his laurels by boasting of his correspondence with a Nobel laureate, bragging that one of his books was published in a series whose editors include a Nobel laureate, and exulting that the publisher of the intelligent design book The Mystery of Life's Origin, Philosophical Library, also published books by eight Nobel laureates. Critics claim that Dembski purposefully omits relevant facts which he fails to mention to his audience that in 1986, during the Edwards v. Aguillard hearings, 72 Nobel laureates endorsed an amicus curiae brief that noted that the "evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept." |
1783_65 | Another common criticism is that since no intelligent design research has been published in mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals, the Discovery Institute often misuses the work of mainstream scientists by putting out lists of articles that allegedly support their arguments for intelligent design drawing from mainstream scientific literature. Often, the original authors respond that their articles cited by the center don't support their arguments at all. Many times, the original authors have publicly refuted them for distorting the meaning of something they've written for their own purposes.
Sahotra Sarkar, a molecular biologist at the University of Texas, has testified that intelligent design advocates, and specifically the Discovery Institute, have misused his work by misrepresenting its conclusions to bolster their own claims, has gone on to allege that the extent of the misrepresentations rises to the level of professional malfeasance: |
1783_66 | An October 2005 conference called "When Christians and Cultures Clash" was held in Christ Hall at Evangelical School of Theology in Myerstown, Pennsylvania. Attorney Randall L. Wenger, who is affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, and a close ally of the Discovery Institute, and one of the presenters at the conference advocated the use of subterfuge for advancing the movement's religious goals: "But even with God's blessing, it's helpful to consult a lawyer before joining the battle... For instance, the Dover area school board might have had a better case for the intelligent design disclaimer they inserted into high school biology classes had they not mentioned a religious motivation at their meetings... Give us a call before you do something controversial like that... I think we need to do a better job at being clever as serpents."
Critics state about the wedge strategy that its "ultimate goal is to create a theocratic state". |
1783_67 | See also
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Intelligent design in politics
Intelligent design network
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Wedge strategy
Notes
References
External links
Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Institute
— Debate between paleontologist Peter Ward and Stephen C. Meyer co-founder of the Discovery Institute
Understanding Evolution — A collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education
Religion and politics
Religion and education
Discovery Institute campaigns
Denialism
Pseudoscience
Theocrats |
1784_0 | Zachary Thomas LaVine ( ; born March 10, 1995) is an American professional basketball player for the Chicago Bulls of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He was selected in the first round of the 2014 NBA draft with the 13th overall pick by the Minnesota Timberwolves. A two-time Slam Dunk Contest champion, he was named an NBA All-Star in 2021 and 2022 .
LaVine grew up in the Seattle area, where he was honored as the state's top high school player. He played college basketball for the UCLA Bruins. After one season at UCLA, he entered the NBA after being named one of the top freshmen in the Pac-12 Conference. As a rookie with Minnesota, LaVine won the league's Slam Dunk Contest, and was named to the NBA All-Rookie Second Team. In 2016, he became the fourth NBA player to ever win consecutive dunk contests. He was traded to Chicago in 2017. |
1784_1 | Early life
LaVine was born in the Seattle, Washington suburb of Renton to athletic parents. His father, Paul, played American football professionally in the United States Football League (USFL) and National Football League (NFL), and his mother, CJ, was a softball player. Around the age of five, LaVine developed an interest in basketball after watching Chicago Bulls star Michael Jordan in the film Space Jam. Later, he also became a fan of Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant, and modeled his game after his childhood idols.
LaVine practiced playing in the family backyard, where his father had him repeatedly emulate the NBA's Three-Point Shootout. He attended Bothell High School in the Seattle suburb of Bothell. Playing point guard, he was their primary ball handler. By his junior year, he had grown to , and he would practice dunking for hours in his backyard after his shooting routine would end. |
1784_2 | As a senior, he averaged 28.5 points, 3.4 rebounds, and 2.5 assists per game, and was named the 2013 Associated Press Washington state player of the year and Washington Mr. Basketball. He was also recognized nationally as a first-team Parade All-American. He played in the Ballislife All-American Game, and won the event's slam dunk contest. Considered a four-star recruit by Rivals.com, LaVine was listed as the No. 12 shooting guard and the No. 44 player in the nation in 2013. |
1784_3 | College career
On June 20, 2012, LaVine verbally committed to attending the University of California, Los Angeles, and playing for coach Ben Howland for the 2013 season. After Howland was fired nine months later, LaVine considered staying in-state and attending the University of Washington instead. However, he decided to remain with UCLA and their new coach, Steve Alford; LaVine had inherited an affection for UCLA from his father, who grew up a fan of Bruins basketball while growing up in nearby San Bernardino, California. |
1784_4 | After a strong start to 2013–14 as the team's sixth man, featuring an impressive display of outside shooting and explosive dunks, the former point guard LaVine evoked memories of former Bruin Russell Westbrook's UCLA beginnings. NBA draft pundits began ranking LaVine high on their projections for the 2014 NBA draft if he declared himself eligible. ESPN.com draft expert Chad Ford attributed LaVine's appeal to the Westbrook comparisons. At one point, Ford listed him as the 10th overall pick, while NBADraft.net ranked him fifth. During the season, LaVine typically entered the game with coach Alford's freshman son, Bryce Alford, who usually handled the ball, while starter Kyle Anderson was the team's main facilitator. During a six-game span beginning on January 26, 2014, LaVine endured a shooting slump where he made just 7 of 36 shots from the field. He averaged 9.4 points per game during the season, fourth best on the team, and his 48 three-point field goals made were the second most |
1784_5 | by a freshman in the school's history. However, LaVine did not reach double-figures in scoring in 14 of the final 18 games, and totaled just 11 points and was 0 for 8 on three-point attempts in the final five games. Despite his late-season struggles, he was voted to the Pac-12 All-Freshman Team, and he was named with Bryce Alford as the team's most valuable freshmen. |
1784_6 | On April 16, 2014, he declared for the NBA draft, forgoing his final three years of college eligibility.
Professional career
Minnesota Timberwolves (2014–2017) |
1784_7 | 2014–15 season |
1784_8 | On June 26, 2014, LaVine was selected by the Minnesota Timberwolves with the 13th overall pick in the 2014 NBA draft. The Timberwolves drafted him more for his long-term potential than for immediate returns. He signed his rookie scale contract with the team on July 8, 2014. During the offseason, he won the slam dunk contest at the Seattle Basketball Pro-Am League while using many of the same moves he used to capture the Ballislife contest. Over the first five games of the 2014–15 season, LaVine played a total of 12 minutes. When an ankle injury sidelined starter Ricky Rubio indefinitely, LaVine became the starting point guard over veteran Mo Williams. After being switched back to the bench by coach Flip Saunders in favor of Williams, LaVine scored 28 points in a 120–119 win over the Los Angeles Lakers on November 28. He became only the second teenager ever in the NBA to have at least 25 points and five assists as a reserve. LaVine moved back into the starting lineup after back spasms |
1784_9 | sidelined Williams. On December 6 against the San Antonio Spurs, LaVine had 22 points and 10 assists for his first double-double. He became just the fourth teenage player to record a 20-point, 10-assist game in the NBA. |
1784_10 | Rubio returned in February 2015, resulting in a dip in playing time for LaVine. However, Williams was also traded that month which opened up more opportunities. Again incorporating moves from the Ballislife contest two years earlier, LaVine won the Slam Dunk Contest during the 2015 NBA All-Star Weekend. He became the youngest champion since an 18-year-old Kobe Bryant in 1997. LaVine became a crowd favorite after his first dunk, which he performed while wearing Michael Jordan's No. 23 jersey from the movie Space Jam. With a perfect 50 on each of his first two dunks, he was the first player since Dwight Howard in 2009 with a perfect score on multiple dunks. Yahoo! Sports hailed him as "the most electrifying performer of All-Star Saturday Night... and, if we're being honest, in quite a number of years." LaVine also participated in the Rising Stars Challenge that weekend. On April 11, LaVine had a season-best game with 37 points and nine rebounds in a loss to the Golden State Warriors. |
1784_11 | For the season, LaVine played in 77 games, starting in 40, and averaged 10.1 points, 2.8 rebounds, and 3.6 assists, while shooting 42.2 percent overall and 34.1 percent on three-pointers. He was subsequently named to the All-NBA Rookie Second Team. |
1784_12 | 2015–16 season |
1784_13 | On October 21, 2015, the Timberwolves exercised their third-year team option on LaVine's rookie scale contract, extending the contract through the 2016–17 season. With Ricky Rubio sidelined in early November, LaVine took over the starting point guard role and took advantage of the increased minutes. On November 13, he scored a season-high 26 points in a loss to the Indiana Pacers. He later topped that mark on December 13, scoring 28 points in a loss to the Phoenix Suns. In a 114–107 loss to the Cleveland Cavaliers on January 25, 2016, LaVine, Karl-Anthony Towns, and Andrew Wiggins became the first trio of NBA teammates under age 21 to score at least 20 points in the same game. On January 27, he scored 35 points against the Oklahoma City Thunder, just two points shy of his career high. His 35 points set a franchise record for a bench player and set the highest scoring total by a non-starter in the league in 2015–16. He tied Minnesota single-game records with a shooting percentage of |
1784_14 | 82.4 (14 for 17) and most two-point field goals without a miss (9 for 9). During the 2016 All-Star Weekend, LaVine scored 30 points for Team USA in the Rising Stars Challenge to capture MVP honors. He also became the fourth player ever to win consecutive Slam Dunk Contests. His battle with Aaron Gordon through two tie-breakers in the final round drew comparisons to the showdown between Jordan and Dominique Wilkins in 1988. |
1784_15 | 2016–17 season |
1784_16 | On October 24, 2016, the Timberwolves exercised their fourth-year team option on LaVine's rookie scale contract, extending the contract through the 2017–18 season. On November 9, he tied his career high with 37 points in a 123–107 win over the Orlando Magic. On December 23, he scored a career-high 40 points and tied a career best with seven three-pointers in a 109–105 loss against the Sacramento Kings. He had 19 points in the second quarter, marking his second-highest quarter of his career; he previously had 20 in the fourth against Golden State on April 11, 2015. On February 4, 2017, LaVine was ruled out for the rest of the season after an MRI revealed he had a torn ACL in his left knee. Ten days later, he underwent successful surgery to reconstruct the knee. On June 22, 2017, LaVine was traded, along with Kris Dunn and the rights to Lauri Markkanen (the 7th pick in the 2017 NBA draft), to the Chicago Bulls in exchange for Jimmy Butler and the rights to Justin Patton (the 16th pick |
1784_17 | in the 2017 NBA draft). |
1784_18 | Chicago Bulls (2017–present)
2018–19 season
On January 13, 2018, in his first game in 11 months, LaVine scored 14 points in the Bulls' 107–105 win over the Detroit Pistons. On February 9, he scored a season-high 35 points in a 114–113 win over his former team the Minnesota Timberwolves. |
1784_19 | On July 6, 2018, the restricted free agent LaVine received a four-year, $80 million offer sheet from the Sacramento Kings. Two days later, the Bulls exercised their right of first refusal and matched the offer sheet extended to LaVine by the Kings. LaVine scored at least 30 points in each of the Bulls' first three games of the season, becoming the third Chicago player to do so, joining Michael Jordan (1986) and Bob Love (1971). On October 24, he made two free throws with 0.5 seconds left to lift the Bulls to a 112–110 win over the Charlotte Hornets. He finished with 32 points for his fourth straight 30-point game to start the season. On November 5, he scored a career-high 41 points, including the game-winning free throw with 0.2 seconds left, as the Bulls beat the New York Knicks 116–115 in double overtime. On November 10, he scored 24 points in a 99–98 win over the Cleveland Cavaliers, thus scoring 20 or more points in each of Chicago's 13 games to begin the season and in a |
1784_20 | career-high 14 straight overall, dating to his final game of 2017–18. The last Bulls player to score 20-plus points in 14 consecutive games was Jimmy Butler, who did it 15 straight times in 2016. He scored 26 points against the Dallas Mavericks on November 12 for 15 straight, before a 10-point game on November 14 against the Boston Celtics ended the streak. On December 26, after missing five games with a sprained left ankle, LaVine had 28 points in 26 minutes off the bench in a 119–94 loss to the Timberwolves. |
1784_21 | On February 23, 2019, he scored a career-high 42 points in a 126–116 win over the Celtics. On March 1, he scored 47 points in a 168–161 quadruple-overtime win over the Atlanta Hawks, the third highest scoring game in NBA history. On March 6, he scored 39 points and hit the go-ahead layup in the closing seconds to lift the Bulls to a 108–107 win over the Philadelphia 76ers. LaVine missed the end of the season with right leg injuries. He led the Bulls in points scored in the season with 1492 points while playing in only 63 games. |
1784_22 | 2019–20 season
In the second game of the 2019–2020 season he scored 37 points in a 110-102 win against the Memphis Grizzlies. On November 16, 2019 Lavine scored 36 points in a loss to the Brooklyn Nets. On November 23, LaVine scored a career high 49 points, with 13 three-point field goals, including the game-winning three pointer to defeat the Charlotte Hornets 116–115. On November 27, he had 36 points against Golden State. On January 25, 2020, LaVine recorded 44 points, ten rebounds and eight assists in a 118–106 win over the Cleveland Cavaliers. On February 11, he scored 41 points on 15-of-21 shooting, including 8 three-pointers, to go with nine rebounds, in a 126–114 loss to the Washington Wizards. On February 25, 2020 LaVine again scored 41 points in a 124–122 loss to the Oklahoma City Thunder. He was the leading scorer in 42 of the 65 games played in the shortened season. |
1784_23 | 2020–21 season
On February 10, LaVine scored a season-high 46 points with nine 3-pointers in a 129-116 victory over the New Orleans Pelicans. With a new head coach in Billy Donovan and averaging career highs in scoring and shooting efficiency, on February 24, 2021, he was named a reserve for the 2021 NBA All-Star Game. It was his first All-Star selection and the first Bulls player selected since Jimmy Butler in 2017. In the 34th game of the season, LaVine had his 17th game scoring 30 points or more. On March 7, he played 28.19 minutes and scored 13 points during the All-Star game. On April 9, LaVine scored 39 of his career-high 50 points in the first half in a 120-108 loss to the Atlanta Hawks. For the season, he averaged a career-high 27.4 points per game, which ranked seventh in the NBA. He also reached career highs in rebounds (5.0), assists (4.9), 3-point shooting (41.9%), overall field goal percentage (50.7), and free throw percentage (84.9). |
1784_24 | 2021–22 season
On November 19, 2021, LaVine scored a season-high 36 points in a 114–108 road victory over the Denver Nuggets. At the All-Star break Lavine had played in 47 of the Bulls 59 games and was averaging 24.6 points per game with 4.9 rebounds and 4.5 assists.
National team career
Lavine was selected as one of the players on Team USA at the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo, Japan. He started one game and was a valuable sixth man averaging 10.6 points. Prior to the Gold medal game, he was second in assists, playing solid defense and was shooting a team-best 47% from three-point range.
Career statistics
NBA
Regular season |
1784_25 | |-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"| Minnesota
| 77 || 40 || 24.7 || .422 || .341 || 842 || 2.8 || 3.6 || .7 || .1 || 10.1
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"| Minnesota
| 82 || 33 || 28.0 || .452 || .389 || .793 || 2.8 || 3.1 || .8 || .2 || 14.0
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"| Minnesota
| 47 || 47 || 37.2 || .459 || .387 || .836 || 3.4 || 3.0 || .9 || .2 || 18.9
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
| 24 || 24 || 27.3 || .383 || .341 || .813 || 3.9 || 3.0 || 1.0 || .2 || 16.7
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
| 63 || 62 || 34.5 || .467 || .374 || .832 || 4.7 || 4.5 || 1.0 || .4 || 23.7
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
| 60 || 60 || 34.8 || .450 || .380 || .802 || 4.8 || 4.2 || 1.5 || .5 || 25.5
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"| Chicago |
1784_26 | | 58 || 58 || 35.1 || .507 || .419 || .849 || 5.0 || 4.9 || .8 || .5 || 27.4
|- class="sortbottom"
| style="text-align:center;" colspan="2"| Career
| 411 || 324 || 31.4 || .458 || .385 || .824 || 3.8 || 3.8 || .9 || .3 || 19.1 |
1784_27 | College
|-
| style="text-align:left;"| 2013–14
| style="text-align:left;"| UCLA
| 37 || 1 || 24.4 || .441 || .375 || .691 || 2.5 || 1.8 || .9 || .2 || 9.4
Off the court
In March 2016, LaVine guest starred in an episode of the Disney XD television series Kirby Buckets.
Notes
References
External links
UCLA Bruins bio
USA Basketball bio |
1784_28 | 1995 births
Living people
African-American basketball players
American men's basketball players
Basketball players at the 2020 Summer Olympics
Basketball players from Washington (state)
Chicago Bulls players
Medalists at the 2020 Summer Olympics
Minnesota Timberwolves draft picks
Minnesota Timberwolves players
National Basketball Association All-Stars
Olympic gold medalists for the United States in basketball
Parade High School All-Americans (boys' basketball)
Point guards
Shooting guards
Small forwards
Sportspeople from Renton, Washington
UCLA Bruins men's basketball players
United States men's national basketball team players
21st-century African-American sportspeople |
1785_0 | The Alabama Cooperative Extension System (Alabama Extension) provides educational outreach to the citizens of Alabama on behalf of the state's two land grant universities: Alabama A&M University (state's 1890 land-grant institution) and Auburn University (1862 land-grant institution).
The system employs more than 800 faculty, professional educators, and staff members operating in offices in each of Alabama's 67 counties and in nine urban centers covering the major regions of the state. In conjunction with the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, the system also staffs six extension and research centers located in the state's principal geographic regions. |
1785_1 | Since 2004, "Alabama Extension" has functioned primarily as a regionally based system in which the bulk of educational programming is delivered by agents operating across a multi-county area and specializing in specific fields. County extension coordinators and county agents (where they are funded), continue to play integral roles in the extension mission, working with regional agents and other extension personnel to deliver services to clients within their areas.
Administrative structure |
1785_2 | In 1995, the Alabama Cooperative Extension System became the nation's first unified Extension program, combining the resources of the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions. The catalyst was a landmark federal court ruling, known as Knight vs. Alabama, handed down by Judge Harold Murphy. Under its terms, the Extension programs and other land-grant university functions of Alabama A&M, Auburn, and Tuskegee (historically African-American institution) universities were combined and served as cooperative partners within this unified system.
This combined effort is headed by a director appointed by the presidents of Alabama A&M and Auburn universities. The Extension director serves as the organization's chief executive officer and maintains offices at both campuses. |
1785_3 | In written remarks outlining his rationale for the ruling, Judge Murphy called for an expanded and updated Cooperative Extension mission that not only continued to address traditional programming needs but that also was better equipped to respond to the needs of a population that had become more urbanized and racially and ethnically diverse. Additionally to providing for an associate director for Rural and Traditional Programs, who would be housed at Auburn University. Judge Murphy also mandated that an associate director of Urban and New Nontraditional Programs be employed and housed at Alabama A&M University. This new associate director, Murphy stated, would be “expected to open new areas of Extension work and expand the outreach of the Alabama Cooperative Program to more fully serve all the people of Alabama.”
Directors of the Alabama Cooperative Extension System |
1785_4 | J. F. Duggar, 1914-1920
Luther N. Duncan, 1920-1937
P. O. Davis, 1937-1959
E. T. York, 1959-1961
Fred R. Robertson, 1961-1971
Ralph R. Jones, 1971-1974
W. H. Taylor (Acting), 1974-1975
J. Michael Sprott, 1975-1983
Ray Cavender (Acting), 1983-1984
Ann E. Thompson, 1984-1994
W. Gaines Smith (Interim), 1994-1997
Stephen B. Jones, 1997-2001
W. Gaines Smith, 2001-2011
Gary Lemme, 2011–present
2004 reorganization
In 2004, the Alabama Cooperative Extension System completed a restructuring effort. |
1785_5 | For decades, the bulk of Alabama Cooperative Extension programs were carried out by county agents – generalists who kept abreast of many different subjects and delivered a wide variety of programs. By the onset of the 21st century, urbanization was a key trend that resulted in fewer farms and altered public expectations. The advent of the World Wide Web changed information delivery methods from printed materials to online. These changes prompted the switch from using the generalist agents who had administered Extension programming throughout the previous century to regional agents specializing in one of 14 program priority areas.
Regional agents
Regional Extension agents work with other agents across regional and disciplinary lines, with area and state subject-matter specialists, and with sister agencies, such as the Alabama Farmers Federation, the Alabama Forestry Commission and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to deliver programs over a regional and statewide basis. |
1785_6 | Continuing county presence
Despite the growing emphasis on regional agents, Alabama Extension continues to operate offices in all 67 counties. These are headed by coordinators, who work with regional agents and other Extension staff to deliver programs within their counties.
Funding
One of the distinguishing traits associated with Cooperative Extension work throughout the country is the financial support it receives from every level of government. Like many of its sister programs throughout the country, Alabama Extension has begun looking for ways to supplement these traditional sources of funding with private support, typically in the form of grants and fees.
History |
1785_7 | A common perception is that the birth of Cooperative Extension followed passage of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, which provided federal funds to land-grant universities to support Extension work. In a formal sense, this is true. But the roots of Cooperative Extension extend as far back as the late 18th century, following the American Revolution, when affluent farmers first began organizing groups to sponsor educational meetings to disseminate useful farming information. In some cases, these lectures even were delivered by university professors – a practice that foreshadowed Cooperative Extension work more than a century later.
These efforts became more formalized over time. By the 1850s, for example, many schools and colleges began holding farmer institutes – public meetings where lecturers discussed new farming insights. |
1785_8 | See also
Cooperative Extension Service
Luther Duncan
P.O. Davis
List of land-grant universities
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
State university system
Agricultural extension
Historical Panorama of Alabama Agriculture
Notes
External links
Alabama Cooperative Extension System
Alabama A&M University
Auburn University
Tuskegee University
Alabama Cooperative Extension System Historical Photographs
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension Service
Public education in Alabama
History of Alabama
Auburn University
Tuskegee University
Government agencies established in 1914
State agencies of Alabama
1914 establishments in Alabama
Alabama A&M University
Agricultural research institutes in the United States |
1786_0 | Research strategies in the field of election campaign communication research are the decisions made concerning the objective, the scope, the sampling and the methodology used within a study of election campaign communication.
Research objective
The overall purpose of conducting election campaign communication research is to reveal how election campaigns are organized with regard to communicational aspects as well as to show how and with what effect election campaigns are covered by media reports. A further goal refers to examining if and how country-specific context variables (e.g. history, political system) affect election campaign communication. In comparative election campaign communication research the objective is to analyze whether different countries share common practices with regard to the organization of campaign or the news coverage of elections. |
1786_1 | When conducting election campaign communication research, the specific objective needs to be defined, going along with phrasing the research question. The objective as well as the research question is directly linked to the scope of a study.
The scope of election campaign communication research
There are two main campaign communication channels, which can be examined when conducting election campaign communication research:
party-controlled election campaign communication
party-uncontrolled election campaign communication
Party-controlled campaign communication refers to "planned, coordinated communication efforts by candidates [or] parties", which includes e.g. party advertisements in newspapers or on television as well as party-owned websites or blogs. Based on collected feedback from opinion-polls or media monitoring about party-controlled communication, parties and candidates constantly adjust their communication strategies. |
1786_2 | In contrast to party-controlled messages, media coverage of election campaigns – whether in newspapers, on television or online – is party-uncontrolled. Party-uncontrolled communication can either be journalist-controlled or journalist-uncontrolled. Research on party-uncontrolled, journalist-controlled newspapers articles and television reports about an election may detect journalistic interventionism, which affects – whether intended or not – the electorate. Party- and journalist-uncontrolled communication refers to everyday communication about election related topics by the electorate. Often in contrast with national media, political science scholars seek to compile long-term data and research on the impact of political issues and voting in U.S. presidential elections, producing in-depth articles breaking down the issues |
1786_3 | A third election campaign communication channel refers to shared control about election related communication between political actors and media actors, i.e. a combination of the two main communication channels. Partly party-controlled and partly party-uncontrolled campaign communication refers to televised leader debates of election campaigns or talk shows, in which candidates or party-members are questioned by journalists or media actors. The following table illustrates the possible election campaign communication channels that can be analyzed.
Apart from party-controlled and party-uncontrolled election campaign communication the attitude and behavior of the electorate can be examined within election campaign research. Voter orientations can be analyzed by looking, e.g., at the "voters' use of the Internet for electoral information". |
1786_4 | Country sampling
With regard to election campaign communication research, two general approaches are possible:
non-comparative, single-country research
comparative research
Non-comparative research
Focusing on one single country allows in-depth analysis of the election campaign communication within this country. This way, variables influencing the campaign communication, such as the history and the political system of the considered country, can be taken into account. Joseph Trenaman and Denis McQuail, e.g., conducted a non-comparative, case study concerning the effects of television on political images in the British parliamentary election in 1959. |
1786_5 | Comparative research
Comparative research can either be spatial, i.e. comparing different countries, or temporal, which means taking a look at the campaign communication over time to examine longitudinal developments. A temporal analysis examining German newspaper coverage of election campaigns from 1949 to 1998, e.g., was conducted by Jürgen Wilke and Carsten Reinemann in 2001. Wilke and Reinemann showed an existing trend towards more interpretative coverage.
The goal of spatial comparative research is to show whether – despite all country-specific context variables – countries share common practices, e.g., with regard to the use of political commercials, the necessity for professional campaign consultants or the emerging importance of the media within election campaigns. |
1786_6 | Comparative cross-country research can be differentiated with regard to the selection of particular countries. The possible options are:
most similar systems, different outcome
most different systems, similar outcome
Within a most similar systems-design, countries, which have similar media and political systems and thus share similar context variables, are compared to reveal possible differences. An example of a most similar systems-design is Jesper Strömbäck and Toril Aalberg's study on the news coverage of elections in the democratic corporatist countries Sweden and Norway. |
1786_7 | If a most different system-design is used, the countries vary, e.g., with regard to their media system and their political campaign regulations. The research should reveal whether despite the differences similarities exist. The most far reaching study on election campaign communication using a most different system-design was conducted by Gunda Plasser and Fritz Plasser in 2002. Plasser and Plasser examined the attitudes and roles of political campaign consultants in 43 countries around the globe. |
1786_8 | The number of cases
In comparative research a minimum of two objects or cases has to be taken into account. Two-country studies considering election campaign news coverage e.g. are Jesper Strömbäck's studies which take a closer look at the similarities and differences between Swedish and U.S. American news coverage during election campaigns. Since the results of two-country studies only have a limited ability to be generalized, further studies take on a rather global perspective and thus compare more than two countries. In general, a distinction can be made between small-N analysis, which allows e.g. in-depth analyses of up to ten countries, medium-N analysis and large-N analysis, which mostly make use of a quantitative approach with statistical analyses testing a small number of variables in many cases.
Research methods |
1786_9 | Methodological developments |
1786_10 | Political communication, and as a subfield of it election campaign communication, is studied within several disciplines of social sciences including communication studies, political science, psychology as well as sociology. Research across disciplines leads to the development of a variety of different research methods. In the past scholars mainly examined single countries, i.e. conducting non-comparative, case studies. Comparative election campaign communication research arrived in the 1970s. In contrast to simple observation, which was historically used as research method to reveal how political communication is received and which consequences result, today, study methods are more deliberate and systematic. Quantitative approaches, e.g., include the formulation and testing of hypotheses by sophisticated statistical analyses. Due to the development of new campaign techniques, such as party-controlled digital and data campaigning, or online news coverage, research strategies need to be |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.