Regional Subcultures of the United States

Lieske, Joel A.

doi:10.2307/2131941

Cited by 130 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These websites were found on a national database for CSAs (Wilson College, n.d.). This database allowed us to sample systematically CSAs across the considerable regional cultural diversity represented in the United States (Arbesman, 2012;Elazar, 1984;Garreau, 1981;Lieske, 1993Lieske, , 2010. Second, assessment of corporate communications through websites is well established in research examining corporate initiatives that respond to public demands for greater corporate citizenship, transparency, and responsibility (Capriotti & Moreno, 2007;Gomez & Chalmeta, 2011).…”

Section: Press and Arnould Narrative Transparency 1359 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrative transparency

Arnould

Press

2014

Journal of Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Press and Arnould Narrative Transparency 1359 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrative transparency

Arnould

Press

2014

Journal of Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…He classified the U.S. geopolitically, using individualistic, moralistic, and traditional labels delineating nine possible subcultures based on observations and outside research. While there has been criticism of Elazar's assertions about regional differences in the four decades since the publication of American Federalism (Nardulli, 1990;Lieske, 1993;Hero & Tolbert, 1996), and the composition of U.S. regional populations has certainly changed since described centralized control in the Midwest and traditionalist culture in the South, his ideas still hold. There are unarguably still distinct regional differences in culture; therefore, policies and policy adoption still exist (Lall & Yilmaz, 2001;Barnett & Coble, 2011;Thorlton, McElmurry, Park, & Hughes, 2012) that can therefore be expected to influence historic preservation.…”

Section: Regionalism: Differing Regional Climates Lead To Regional Vamentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Structuring and Variation in a Nonprofit Subfield: Examining Institutional and Regional Pressures in U.S. Historic Preservation Nonprofits

Velez

2018

J. Public Nonprof Aff.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public administration and management recognizes key subsectors in the public sphere as nested within and shaped by institutional fields. However, we know little about the forces that influence their development at different levels or how patterns in institutional fields and in forces shaping these fields vary by level and location. We therefore understand little about potential levels for shaping nonprofit advocacy, decision-making, and organizational capacity in nonhomogenous subsectors. This mixed methods study examines nested pressures shaping a U.S. nonprofit subsector, focusing on two ecological levels of influence in historic preservation nonprofits. I use data from 96 interviews with National Trust Partner organizations in 44 states to develop typologies of professional approaches to preservation and capacity. Findings indicate that both national and regional pressures shape scope and capacity in these nonprofits, underscoring the importance of considering institutional contexts structuring subsectors rather than assuming sector-wide patterns and behaviors. This study provides a baseline for future research on developments in the U.S. nonprofit historic preservation subsector and provides insight for practitioners and legislators into the levels that shape scope and capacity in nonprofit subsectors.

show abstract

“…The link between political culture and public policy is identified in the political science and public administration literature (Elazar, 1966;Fitzpatrick & Hero, 1988;Hanson, 1991;Johnson, 1976;Joslyn, 1980;Koven, 1988Koven, , 1999Lieske, 1993;Nardulli, 1990;Savage, 1981;Schiltz & Rainey, 1978;Wildavsky 1985).…”

Section: School Choice and Political Culturementioning

confidence: 99%