William Jacoby jacoby@gwm.sc. edu) Friday, August 16, 2002 3:00 PM rebecca@msu.edu AA few further thoughts on your paper Hi Rebecca, Well, as it turns out, I had 2 chance to read the rest of your paper this morning and earlier this afternoon. I thought I would be spending most of the day packing up, but that went very quickly. In fact, I find myself sitting here thinking "Why did I decide to stay in AA another day?” Oh well, I did eo thate it, Anyway, I have gotten through the paper, and have some zeactions/conments that ace, I hope, & bit more complete and coherent than those I conveyed earlier. As I said, I do 1ike the overall objective of your analysis. As you said, the measurement and empirical work could still be refined a bit, but that is always the case with an initial effort. So, I do think this paper has some promise, and is probably worth pursuing (at least as a secondary thing while comps and the dissertation are occupying the center of your attention!) First, = VERY general suggestion: I think a gentle reframing of the main argument might be helpful. In line with my comments yesterday, perhaps it would be better to ease into the subject matter by painting out the multiplicity of conceptions of "sophistication" in the liserature. And, despite all the attention, there remain significant gapa and ambiguities. A major one of these is the question: Are people who rely on party ID sophisticated or not?/A reading of many other studies suggests that the answer to thie question mgnt be negative. But, I (i.e. you) have a different view ... This latter approach gets you away from relying on the assertion that previous political scientists viewed partisan perception/attitude structuring as “unsophisticated.” Second, another suggestion for a "cosmetic" change: How about using the term “analytic Partisans" rather than “scientific voters"? It gets you away from a term ("scientific") that some readers might view as more value-laden than you intend, and I believe it still. gets the idea across. Third, I think you should explain the measurement of your dependent variable in greater detail, in the body of the text (rather than leaving it aa a table in the Appendix). After all, this is one of the critical aspects of your argument here confront readers with it directly! And, related to this, you probably need to explain your coding decisions on that variable 2 little more explicitly. For example, wouldn't a, say Democrat, who finds things to dislike about the Democ. Party and things to like about the Republican Party be displaying analytical/scientific thinking? 1f I am reading the table correctly, such a person would currently be coded as a zero. Extending that last idea a bit, let me raise the question about excluding independents. I see why you do it, but how about an alternative: An analytical or scientific independent ts cne who sees equal merit or difficulty in the two parties. Therefore, any independent who shows likes and/or dislikes toward both parties could count in this category, too. This is just a thought I had while Looking at the table in the Appendix. But, I think it might help because it serves to Gifterentiate your concept of "scientific" from the category of "partisan." (does that make any sense?) . Finally, I am not sure why you need the two logistic regressions currently reported in Tables 2 and 3. Isn't the dependent variable dichotomous? If so, then the results for one would imply those for the other. And, FINALLY, finally: Two small stylistic points: Your lit review is longer than it needs to be (thats the Editor in me talking, although I did see the citation to my 1986 piece that I hadn;t noticed before. Of course, this DEFINITELY has to stay in the paper ... Just kidding!!). and, you probably go into more detail than necessary in describing the NES 1sample characteristics and the details of the explanatory variables. Most of this is aiready familiar or easily available to people who use the NES. Again, I hope this helps! Don't worry about the negative comments from luke Keele. This is Very reasonable first stab and I believe there is a great deal of potential here. With streamlining" and some clarification of terms/measures, I think this has a good shot of appearing in print! hast, but not least, many thanks for taking the scaling course! T always appreciate the willingness of ICPSR participants to take part of their summer to attend these things. But, in your case, the trek over from East Lansing every day, with car problems to boot, js clear evidence of effort above and beyond the call of duty. And, your questions in the ‘Editors Session (or whatever it wae calledj" really added enormously te the information that was conveyed in that event! Keep in touch, and let me know if I can help further with the paper! T assume I'll see you in Savannah (btw when are your comps? Does the SPSA convention interfexe with them? Comps and a convention in a single semester would have devastated me!}. Bill William G. Jacoby Bemail: william-Jacobyésc.edu Dept, of Gove. and Tnt'l studies Fhone: (803) 777-6902 University of South Carolina Fax: (803) 777-8235 columbia, sc 29208