PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
For abstract, hover on image. For paper, click image.
Rice, Douglas. 2016. "Issue Divisions and U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making." Journal of Politics (forthcoming).
Cranmer, Skyler, Douglas Rice and Randolph Siverson. 2016. "What to do about Atheoretic Lags." Political Science Research & Methods.
Rice, Douglas and Christopher Zorn. 2016. "Troll-in-Chief? Affective Opinion Content and the Influence of the Chief Justice." In David Danelski & Artemus Ward, eds. The Chief Justice: Appointment and Influence. University of Michigan Press.
Clark, Tom, Jeffrey Lax and Douglas Rice. 2015. "Measuring the Political Salience of Supreme Court Cases." The Journal of Law and Courts 3(1):36-65.
Rice, Douglas. 2014. "On Courts and Pocketbooks: Macroeconomic Judicial Behavior Across Methods of Judicial Selection." The Journal of Law and Courts 2(2):327-347.
Rice, Douglas. 2014. "The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda." Law & Society Review 48(1):63-90.
- Winner, American Political Science Association's Law and Court's Section's Best Graduate Student Paper Award, 2010-2011.
- Second Place, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research's Graduate Student Paper Award, 2010-2011.
- Presented at the 2010 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, November 6, 2010.
- Presented at the 2010 Midwest Political Science Association Conference, April 23, 2010.
Clark, Tom, Jeffrey Lax and Douglas Rice. 2014. "Measuring Salience as a Latent Variable." Law and Courts: The Newsletter of the Law and Courts Section 24(2):8-10.
Rice, Douglas. "Measuring the Issue Content of Supreme Court Opinions through Probabilistic Topic Models."
- Winner, American Political Science Association's Law and Court's Section's Best Graduate Student Paper Award, 2012-2013.
- Poster presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology, UNC, July 20, 2012.
- Presented at New Faces in Political Methodology, Penn State University, April 28, 2012.
- Presented at the 2012 Midwest Political Science Association Conference, April 13, 2012.
Rice, Douglas. "Placing the Ball in Congress’ Court: Congressional Responses to Supreme Court Requests."
- Presented at the 2014 Southern Political Science Association Conference, January 16, 2015.
Caldeira, Greg, Douglas Rice, Charles Smith and Christopher Zorn. "The Ideological Content of Reversals and Affirmances Revisited"
- Presented at the 2016 American Political Science Association Conference, September 1, 2016.
Dowling, Conor and Douglas Rice. "Campaigning from the Bench: New-style Judicial Campaigns and Opinion Content."
- Presented at the 2016 Midwest Political Science Association Conference, April 7, 2016.
Rice, Douglas and Christopher Zorn. "Corpus-based Dictionaries for Sentiment Analysis of Specialized Vocabularies." [PDF]
- Presented at the 2014 Midwest Political Science Association Conference, April 6, 2014.
Rice, Douglas and Christopher Zorn. "The Evolution of Consensus in the U.S. Supreme Court." [PDF]
- Presented at the 2014 Southern Political Science Association Conference, January 8, 2014.
- Presented at the 2013 Midwest Political Science Association Conference, April 11, 2013.
"Agenda Dynamics in the Federal Courts" (under review).
Whether courts set the agenda or simply react to policy attention in other institutions is a question unresolved by social scientists and legal scholars, and one with important implications for policymakers. For example, by using the courts, do interest groups garner attention for their preferred policies? Through litigation, do citizens gain the attention of government? These and other questions are part of a larger puzzle: what part do federal courts play in the policy process? On this, two separate perspectives have emerged. In the first view, the courts are passive implementers of policy, with attention in the courts following attention in other institutions. Contrary to this perspective, an emerging literature suggests the courts can be used by litigants and interest groups to proactively shift issue attention across multiple policymaking institutions. To address these questions, this research offers the first comprehensive, long-term study of issue attention across the federal judiciary. I employ automated text analysis and machine learning methods to measure the activity of litigants, judges, and interest groups in the courts. With this information, I determine patterns of issue attention within the judicial hierarchy and then, beyond the judiciary, I test competing theories of how Congress and the executive branch impact, or are impacted by, the issue attention of actors within the legal system. In doing so, my project offers a unique contribution to studies of the hierarchical relationships of federal courts as well as the role of courts in the policy process.