DOCSLIB.ORG

Donald P. Green

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Donald P. Green Donald P. Green Contact Professor of Political Science Phone: +1 212 854 0397 Information Columbia University E-mail: [email protected] 815 IAB, Mail Code: 3320 Website: www.donaldgreen.com New York, NY 10027 Employment John William Burgess Professor, Department of Political Science 2016 to present Columbia University Professor, Department of Political Science 2011 to 2016 Columbia University Director, Institution for Social and Policy Studies 1996 to 2011 Yale University A. Whitney Griswold Professor, Department of Political Science 2001 to 2011 Yale University Professor, Department of Political Science 1994 to 2001 Yale University Associate Professor, Department of Political Science 1993 to 1994 Yale University Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science 1989 to 1993 Yale University Education Ph.D., Political Science 1988 University of California, Berkeley M.A., Political Science 1984 University of California, Berkeley B.A., Political Science and History 1983 UCLA summa cum laude Books Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2015. Get Out The Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout, Third Edition. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpreta- tion. New York: W.W. Norton. Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2008. Get Out The Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2004. Get Out The Vote! How to Increase Voter Turnout. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press. Green, Donald P. and Ian Shapiro. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press. (German translation published in 1999 and Chinese translation published in 2001) Academic Essays Experiments and Experimental Research Methods Lin, Winston, and Donald P. Green. 2016. Standard Operating Procedures: A Safety Net for Pre-Analysis Plans. PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (July): 495-499. Kern, Holger L., Elizabeth A. Stuart, Jennifer Hill, and Donald P. Green. 2016. Assessing Methods for Generalizing Experimental Impact Estimates to Target Populations. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 9(1): 103-127. Nosek, B.A., G. Alter, G. C. Banks, D. Borsboom, S. D. Bowman, S. J. Breckler, S. Buck, C. D. Chambers, G. Chin, G. Christensen, M. Contestabile, A. Dafoe, E. Eich, J. Freese, R. Glennerster, D. Goroff, D. P. Green, B. Hesse, M. Humphreys, J. Ishiyama, D. Karlan, A. Kraut, A. Lupia, P. Mabry, T. Madon, N. Malhotra, E. Mayo-Wilson, M. McNutt, E. Miguel, E. Levy Paluck, U. Simonsohn, C. Soderberg, B. A. Spellman, J. Turitto, G. VandenBos, S. Vazire, E. J. Wagenmakers, R. Wilson, and T. Yarkoni. 2015. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348(6242):1422-1425. Aronow, Peter M., Donald P. Green, and Donald K.K. Lee. 2014. Sharp Bounds on the Variance in Randomized Experiments. Annals of Statistics 42(3):850-871. Green, Donald P., and Dane R. Thorley. 2014. Field Experimentation and the Study of Law and Policy. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 10:53-72. Green, Donald P., Brian R. Calfano, and Peter M. Aronow. 2014. Field Experimental Designs for the Study of Media Effects. Political Communication 31(1):168-180. E. Miguel, C. Camerer, K. Casey, J. Cohen, K. M. Esterling, A. Gerber, R. Glennerster, D. P. Green, M. Humphreys, G. Imbens, D. Laitin, T. Madon, L. Nelson, B. A. Nosek, M. Petersen, R. Sedlmayr, J. P. Simmons, U. Simonsohn, and M. Van der Laan. 2014. Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research. Science 3 January:30-31. Druckman, James N., and Donald P. Green. 2013. Mobilizing Group Membership: The Impact of Personalization and Social Pressure E-mails. SAGE Open 3(2). doi: 10.1177/2158244013492781 Green, Donald P., and Alexander Coppock. 2013. Field Experiments. Oxford Bibliographies Online. doi: 10.1093/OBO/9780199756223-0092 Aronow, Peter A., and Donald P. Green. 2013. Sharp Bounds for Complier Average Potential Outcomes in Experiments with Noncompliance and Incomplete Reporting. Statistics and Probability Letters 83:677-679. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Allison Carnegie. 2013. Evaluating Public Health Law Using Randomized Experiments. In Public Health Law and Research: Theory and Methods, Alexander C. Wagenaar and Scott Burris, eds. New York: Jossey-Bass, pp. 283-305. Sinclair, Betsy, Margaret McConnell, and Donald P. Green. 2012. Detecting Spillover Effects: Design and Analysis of Multi-level Experiments. American Journal of Political Science 56:1055- 1069. Green, Donald P., and Holger L. Kern. 2012. Modeling heterogeneous treatment effects in survey experiments with Bayesian Additive Regression Trees. Public Opinion Quarterly 76:491-511. Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia (eds.). 2011. Cam- bridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. Green, Donald P. 2011. Field Experiment. The Encyclopedia of Political Science. George Thomas Kurian (ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp.591-592. Arceneaux, Kevin, Alan S. Gerber, and Donald P. Green. 2010. A Cautionary Note on the Use of Matching to Estimate Causal Effects: An Empirical Example Comparing Matching Estimates to an Experimental Benchmark. Sociological Methods and Research 39:256-282. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, Edward H. Kaplan, and Holger L. Kern. 2010. Baseline, Placebo, and Treatment: Efficient Estimation for Three-Group Experiments. Political Analysis 18:297-315. Green, Donald P., and Daniel Winik. 2010. Using Random Judge Assignments to Estimate the Effects of Incarceration and Probation on Recidivism among Drug Offenders. Criminology 48(2):357- 387. Davenport, Tiffany C., Alan S. Gerber, and Donald P. Green. 2010. Field Experiments and the Study of Political Behavior. In Jan E. Leighley (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 69-88. Green, Donald P., Terence Y. Leong, Holger L. Kern, Alan S. Gerber, and Christopher W. Larimer. 2009. Testing the Accuracy of Regression Discontinuity Analysis Using Experimental Benchmarks. Political Analysis 17(4):400-417. de Rooij, Eline A., Donald P. Green, and Alan S. Gerber. 2009. Field Experiments on Political Behavior and Collective Action. Annual Review of Political Science 12:389-395. Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2008. Field Experiments and Natural Experiments. In Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (pp. 357-381). New York: Oxford University Press. This essay was reprinted in 2009: See Robert E. Goodin (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Political Science (pp. 1108-1132). New York: Oxford University Press. Green, Donald P., and Rachel Milstein Sondheimer. 2006. Field Experimentation. In Neil J. Salkind (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology. SAGE Publications. Arceneaux, Kevin, Alan S. Gerber, and Donald P. Green. 2006. Comparing Experimental and Matching Methods using a Large-Scale Voter Mobilization Experiment. Political Analysis 14:1-36. Druckman, James N., Donald P.Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. 2006. The Growth and Development of Experimental Research Political Science. American Political Science Review 100(4):627-636. Reprinted in Selecting Research Methods, W. Paul Vogt (ed.). 2008. London: SAGE Publications. Reprinted in Experimental Design in the Behavioural and Social Sciences, Sandra L. Schneider (ed.). 2013. London: SAGE Publications. Reprinted in Quantitative Research in Political Science, Robert J. Franzese (ed.). 2015. London: SAGE Publications. Reprinted in Generating Data, Bruce Curtis and Cate Curtis (eds.). 2016. London: SAGE Publications. Green, Donald P. 2005. On Evidence-Based Political Science. Daedelus 134(3):96-100. Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2005. Field Experimentation. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Volume 2, Kimberly Kempf-Leonard (ed.). New York: Academic Press. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Edward H. Kaplan. 2004. The Illusion of Learning from Observational Research. In Ian Shapiro, Rogers Smith, and Tarek Massoud, eds., Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Field Experiments and their Critics, Dawn Teele (ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. Green, Donald P. 2004. Field Experimentation. In Michael Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim Futing Liao (eds.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 383-384. Green, Donald P., and Elizabeth Levy Paluck. 2004. Double-Blind Procedure. In Michael Lewis- Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim Futing Liao (eds.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 284-285. Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2004. Introduction. In Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber (eds.) Experimental Methods in the Political Sciences. American Behavioral Scientist 47(5):485-487. Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2003. The Underprovision of Experiments in Political and Social Science. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589(1):94-112. Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2002. Reclaiming the Experimental Tradition in Political Science. In Helen V. Milner and Ira Katznelson,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rational Choice and Security Studies
    Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Stephen M. Walt Rational Choice and Security Studies The past decade has witnessed a growing controversy over the status of formal approaches in political science, and especially the growing prominence of formal rational choice theory. Rational choice models have been an accepted part of the academic study of politics since the 1950s, but their popularity has grown signiªcantly in recent years.1 Elite academic departments are now expected to include game theorists and other formal modelers in order to be regarded as “up to date,” graduate students increasingly view the use of formal rational choice models as a prerequisite for professional advancement, and research employing rational choice methods is becoming more widespread throughout the discipline.2 Is the increased prominence of formal rational choice theory necessary, inevitable, and desirable? Advocates of formal rational choice approaches assert that these techniques are inherently more scientiªc than other analytic Stephen M. Walt is Professor of Political Science and Master of the Social Science Collegiate Division at the University of Chicago. He will join the faculty of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in July 1999. I thank the following individuals for their comments on earlier drafts of this article: Graham Allison, Robert Art, Michael Desch, George Downs, Erik Gartzke, Charles Glaser, Joseph Grieco, Robert Jervis, John Mearsheimer, Barry Posen, Jack Snyder, Stephen Van Evera, and the partici- pants at seminars at Princeton, Rutgers, Duke, and the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard. Barry O’Neill provided an exceptionally detailed and useful set of criticisms, for which I am especially grateful, and Ann Ducharme, David Edelstein, and Seth Jones were able research assistants and made valuable suggestions as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Research-Misconduct-SS.Pdf
    Research and Scholarship Integrity Program Small Group Discussion 1 Research Misconduct Social Sciences Original text available at: http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/how-a-gay- marriage-study-went-wrong How a Gay-Marriage Study Went Wrong May 22, 2015 By Maria Konnikova Last December, Science published a provocative paper about political persuasion. Persuasion is famously difficult: study after study—not to mention much of world history—has shown that, when it comes to controversial subjects, people rarely change their minds, especially if those subjects are important to them. You may think that you’ve made a convincing argument about gun control, but your crabby uncle isn’t likely to switch sides in the debate. Beliefs are sticky, and hardly any approach, no matter how logical it may be, can change that. The Science study, “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality,” seemed to offer a method that could work. The authors—Donald Green, a tenured professor of political science at Columbia University, and Michael LaCour, a graduate student in the poli-sci department at U.C.L.A.—enlisted a group of canvassers from the Los Angeles L.G.B.T. Center to venture into the L.A. neighborhoods where voters had supported Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. The canvassers followed standardized scripts meant to convince those voters to change their minds through non-confrontational, one-on-one contact. Over the following nine months, the voters were surveyed at various intervals to see what those conversations had achieved. The survey highlighted a surprising distinction.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeastern University College of Social Sciences and Humanities
    Northeastern University College of Social Sciences and Humanities PROPOSAL Submitted in response to Village of Port Chester #2017-02 Alternative Governance Options for Consideration in Future Village Trustee Elections Statement of Qualifications COSTAS PANAGOPOULOS,Ph.D. Dr. Costas Panagopoulos is Professor of Political Science and Director of Big Data, Quantitative Methods and Networks Initiatives at Northeastern University. He was previously Professor of Political Science and Founder of the Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy and the graduate program in Elections and Campaign Management at Fordham University. A leading expert on campaigns and elections, voting behavior, political psychology, campaign finance, and experimental research. Dr. Panagopoulos has been part of the Decision Desk team at NBC News since the 2006 election cycle. He is also editor of American Politics Research, a peer-reviewed journal published by Sage. In 2015-2016, Dr. Panagopoulos was Visiting Professor of Political Science and Resident Fellow at the Institution for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University. He was selected by the American Political Science Association as a Congressional Fellow during 2004-2005, and he served in the office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Since 2012, he has also taught graduate courses in the Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences program at Columbia University. Panagopoulos is the author of over 60 scholarly articles published in outlets including: American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Political Research Quarterly, Political Behavior, Public Opinion Quarterly, Political Psychology, Presidential Studies Quarterly, the Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, American Politics Research, PS: Political Science and Politics, Women & Politics, the Journal ofSocial and Political Psychology, Social Influence, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, and the Journal of Political Marketing.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout
    This is a preprint of an article published in [Green, Donald P., Mary C. McGrath, and Peter M. Aronow. 2013. Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 23(1): 27-48]. Pagination of this preprint may differ slightly from the published version. Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout1 DONALD P. GREEN*, MARY C. MCGRATH** & PETER M. ARONOW** * Columbia University, USA; **Yale University, USA ABSTRACT Although field experiments have long been used to study voter turnout, only recently has this research method generated widespread scholarly interest. This article reviews the substantive contributions of the field experimental literature on voter turnout. This literature may be divided into two strands, one that focuses on the question of which campaign tactics do or do not increase turnout and another that uses voter mobilization campaigns to test social psychological theories. Both strands have generated stubborn facts with which theories of cognition, persuasion and motivation must contend. For more than a century, voter turnout has attracted scholarly attention from every corner of political science. Some are drawn to the normative question of whether democratic institutions are legitimate when large segments of the electorate fail to vote or are prevented from doing so (Lijphart, 1997; Lipset, 1981; Piven & Cloward, 1988; Teixeira, 1992). Others are troubled by the distributive consequences of unequal turnout rates among socioeconomic or ethnic groups (Burnham, 1982; Hicks & Swank, 1992; Hill & Leighley, 1992; Mebane, 1994; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Verba et al., 1978). Still others regard unusually high rates of turnout with concern, either because high rates suggest coercion (Shi, 1999; Zaslavsky & Brym, 1978) or fraud (Jockers et al., 2010; Myagkov et al., 2007), or because surges in turnout mean greater influence for new voters with weaker commitments to democratic values (Bennett & Resnick, 1990).
    [Show full text]