05.03.2014 Views

pdf - Institute for Policy Research - Northwestern University

pdf - Institute for Policy Research - Northwestern University

pdf - Institute for Policy Research - Northwestern University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

and comparable school neighborhoods <strong>for</strong><br />

childhood obesity and physical activity<br />

research. International Journal of Health<br />

Geographics 5(14).<br />

Mason, M., P. Meleedy-Rey, K. K.<br />

Christoffel, M. Longjohn, M. P. Garcia, and<br />

C. Ashlaw. 2006. Prevalence of overweight<br />

and risk of overweight among 3- to 5-yearold<br />

Chicago children, 2002-2003. Journal of<br />

School Health 76(3): 104-10.<br />

Shari Diamond<br />

Diamond, S. S., M. R. Rose, B. Murphy, and<br />

S. Smith. 2006. Juror questions during trial:<br />

A window into juror thinking. Vanderbilt<br />

Law Review 59(6): 1927-72.<br />

Diamond, S. S. 2006. Beyond fantasy and<br />

nightmare: A portrait of the jury. Buffalo<br />

Law Review 54(3): 717-63.<br />

Diamond, S. S. 2006. Juror questions at<br />

trial: In principle and in fact. New York State<br />

Bar Journal 78(8): 23.<br />

Diamond, S. S., M. R. Rose, and B. Murphy.<br />

2006. The costs and benefits—but mostly<br />

benefits—of unanimity. Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Courts<br />

Review Fall:10-13.<br />

Diamond, S. S. 2006. When ethics and<br />

empirics are entwined. In Jury Ethics, ed.<br />

J. Kleinig and J. Levine, 119-30. Herndon,<br />

Va.: Paradigm.<br />

Diamond, S. S., M. R. Rose, and B. Murphy.<br />

2006. Revisiting the unanimity requirement:<br />

The behavior of the non-unanimous<br />

civil jury. <strong>Northwestern</strong> <strong>University</strong> Law<br />

Review 100(1): 201-30.<br />

Daniel Diermeier<br />

Diermeier, D., and S. Gailmard. 2006.<br />

Self-interest, inequality, and entitlement<br />

in majoritarian decision making. Quarterly<br />

Journal of Political Science 41(1): 327-50.<br />

Diermeier, D., with S. M. D. Seaver, R.<br />

D. Malmgren, A. A. Moreira, M. Sales-<br />

Pardo, and L. A. N. Amaral. Social<br />

cognition in complex team networks. 2006.<br />

In Proceedings of the 2005 Workshop on<br />

Social Agents, ed. D. Sachar and C. Macal.<br />

Argonne National Laboratory.<br />

Diermeier, D., with W. J. Hopp and S.<br />

Iravani. 2006. Innovating under pressure:<br />

Towards a science of crisis manage-ment. In<br />

NBER’s Innovation <strong>Policy</strong> and the Economy,<br />

vol. 7, ed. A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, and S. Stern,<br />

125-54. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.<br />

Diermeier, D. 2006. Coalition government.<br />

In The Ox<strong>for</strong>d Handbook of Political<br />

Economy, ed. B. Weingast and D. Wittman,<br />

162-79. New York: Ox<strong>for</strong>d <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />

Diermeier, D. 2006. A strategic perspective<br />

on corporate social responsibility. In<br />

Responsible Leadership, ed. N. Pless and T.<br />

Maak, 155-69. New York: Routledge.<br />

Diermeier, D., H. Eraslan, and A. Merlo.<br />

2006. The effects of constitutions on<br />

coalition governments in parliamentary<br />

democracies. In Democratic Constitutional<br />

Design and Public <strong>Policy</strong>, Analysis and<br />

Evidence, ed. R. Congleton and B. Swedenborg,<br />

133-62. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.<br />

Wendy Espeland<br />

Sauder, M., and W. Espeland. 2006.<br />

Strength in numbers? The advantages of<br />

multiple rankings. Indiana Law Journal<br />

81(1): 205-27.<br />

Sean Gailmard<br />

Diermeier, D., and S. Gailmard. 2006.<br />

Self-interest, inequality, and entitlement<br />

in majoritarian decision making. Quarterly<br />

Journal of Political Science 1(4): 327-50.<br />

Gailmard, S., with F. Boehmke and J. Patty.<br />

2006. Whose ear to bend? In<strong>for</strong>mation<br />

“Despite the dominance of<br />

the Iraq war in the headlines,<br />

Americans have not wavered<br />

from their long-held commitment<br />

to international engagement<br />

on a range of important<br />

issues, nor have they abandoned<br />

their sense of restraint<br />

on the use of U.S. power and<br />

influence, favoring cooperative<br />

and multilateral rather than<br />

unilateral <strong>for</strong>eign policies.”<br />

Page, B. I., et al. 2006. Part I: The<br />

U.S. Worldview. In Global Views<br />

2006: The United States and the<br />

Rise of China and India: Results of a<br />

2006 Multination Survey of Public<br />

Opinion, ed. M. M. Bouton, 13-31<br />

(p. 13). Chicago: Chicago Council<br />

on Global Affairs and the Asia<br />

Society.<br />

www.northwestern.edu/ipr 63

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!