While emotions are an inherent component of the human experience that influence behavior, values, and beliefs, they have largely been left out of policy process studies theoretically and methodologically. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), with its focus on how individuals coalesce into coalitions around a set of common beliefs, we begin to situate emotions as a critical component of belief systems and discourse about public policies. This study analyzes legislative testimony from four policies debated during the 2021 Colorado Legislative Session using discourse analysis to identify the emotions and coalitional beliefs. We find that policy actors express emotions and beliefs similarly to other policy actors in the same coalition and differently from policy actors in the opposing coalition. We conclude this paper by discussing the theoretical and methodological contributions of including emotions in the ACF. The move to incorporate the analysis of emotional expressions, and hence the study of affect, into the ACF mirrors the ongoing incorporation of how people feel in politics and not just how they think.
Advocates often present veterans as an untapped resource for local governments to boost the public service workforce. However, there is a lack of understanding of how human resource (HR) professionals value military experience when assessing candidate preparedness for a managerial career in public service. We examine how veteran status affects U.S. city and county HR directors’ evaluations of candidates for entry-level managerial positions in local government. Using an experimental design, we randomly assign candidate characteristics of veteran status and gender, and we observe HR directors’ assessments of candidate preparedness. Our findings reveal a premium on veteran status for candidate assessments relative to similar private sector experience in assessments of candidate experience. At the same time, the results are less conclusive when compared to similar public sector experiences. In addition, we find no clear evidence of disparate assessments of candidate preparedness as a function of candidate gender.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.