Research

Abstract: In the last decade, international relations scholarship on shaming by NGOs has grown dramatically, providing us with many insights into how country-level improvement occurs in the areas of human rights and the environment, among other issues. Using machine learning techniques, this project builds an updated dataset on NGO shaming in the media. Our approach allows researchers to explicitly examine shaming as a dyadic event, occurring from a specific sender to a specific target. Using our new dataset, we first validate existing research on shaming in the current populist era and then examine how the nature of the NGO and the nature of the country jointly facilitate shaming. Our approach and dataset will be useful both to academics and to the policy community.

Abstract: Although violence has always been in states’ toolkit against civil society organizations (CSOs), there has been a global trend where governments set legal and logistical barriers to nonviolently repress CSOs, especially INGOs (International Non-Governmental Organizations) since the mid-2000s. During this period, states present variations in CSO repression, ranging from moderate regulation to violent expulsion. Why do countries vary the repression? I argue that different levels of repression are based on governments’ perceived repression effectiveness in reducing INGOs’ threat. For better illustration, I propose the effectiveness-perception framework, where repression effectiveness comes from the interaction between regime type and local trust in INGOs while the perception of effectiveness is rooted in the domestic political structure. To conduct empirical tests, I create a latent variable, local trust, to measure threats of INGOs conditional on local communities. Relying on the sample from 1996 to 2012, I find that consolidated democracies and autocracies, compared to middling countries, are more likely to adjust the repression levels based on local trust in INGOs. I expect the finding to produce some strategy-relevant insights for INGOs’ survival in the current political environment.

The Frank J. Klingberg Award for Best Faculty Paper at ISA Midwest 2021

Abstract: A crackdown on the activities of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has recently swept the globe. When faced with increased restrictions, how do NGOs respond? We argue that there is a curvilinear relationship between increases in NGO repression and the conflict-to-cooperative nature of NGO interactions with a government. On one end of the spectrum, when civil society repression is limited or nonexistent, NGOs have many reasons to be cooperative with the government. As NGO repression increases, we should see NGOs take more of a conflictual stance, publicly voicing their displeasure and bringing attention to the abuses and deficiencies they see with the regime. As NGO repression continues to increase, however, we argue that there will be a tipping point where the NGOs that remain in the country will once again take a more cooperative tack with the government. We use a quantitative event data approach to examine the implications of our arguments. 

Co-authoring with Nnenne Onyioha-Clayton, Jie (Jason) Lian, and Amanda Murdie

Under Review

Abstract: What factors influence media attention on human trafficking? Estimates of individuals directly impacted by human trafficking have more than quadrupled in the last decade, even while state and non-state attention to the issue has grown. In this project, we examine the spread of media attention concerning human trafficking over time, focusing on how human trafficking is framed across print and broadcast sources. Using a variety of big data techniques, we create a novel dataset of human trafficking over time. While global awareness of the issue has increased, our analysis reveals notable “blind spots” and suggests missing populations in mainstreamed human trafficking discussions. Our project has implications for how scholars and advocates should analyze future social movements in both online and offline spaces and connects human trafficking to the broader literature on contentious politics and transnational advocacy.

Abstract: The current era of closing civil society space forces international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) to make difficult decisions, including compliance with repressive policies. This adaption contradicts INGOs’ ideals regarding human rights. However, an adaptation could also be justified as a strategy since physical existence in a repressive country could better achieve INGOs’ norms in the long run. What are the effects of INGOs’ contentious adaptation on private donations in the harsh political environment? In this project, I argue that two perceived factors, the level of democracy of the repressive country and the organizational type of the INGO, could determine to which extent individual donors accept an organization’s adaptation. Relying on an online survey experiment with factorial design, I find that only an INGO’s organizational type influences donors’ assessments, where respondents prefer the adaptation of advocacy INGOs over service organizations in the case of closing space. This finding can offer survival-relevant insights for INGOs, who need private donations in the ongoing global pushback.

Co-authoring with Robert Brathwaite, Amanda Murdie, Baekkewan Park, and Justin Strait

Abstract: HROs’ (Human Rights International Organizations) conflictual behaviors can motivate different responses from target governments, such as cooperation, compromise, and repression. In the context of current global pushback to civil society, governments tend to repress conflictual HROs to different extents. What leads to the variation of repression? We argue that the specific issues prioritized in HROs’ conflictual actions can vary government responses. After conceptualizing the issue prioritized in HROs’ shaming a country as issue preference, we combine a network community detection method and IR literature to create the new measure at the country-year level. Then, based on a time-series cross-sectional sample capturing HRO-government interactions in civil society repression since the 2000s, we find that countries highlighted by HROs focusing on politically salient issues are more likely to increase civil society repression. Our findings regarding issue preference can offer insights into HROs’ survival under civil society repression.

The 1st runner-up for ISA South 2021 Jim Winkates Graduate Student Paper Competition

Abstract: HROs (Human Rights Non-Governmental Organizations) tend to name and shame repressive governments for human rights protection. Based on their worldwide fame and abundant resources, leading HROs are expected to stand out against human rights abuses. However, in the case of Covid-19, it is challenging for leading HROs to name and shame governments, significant contributors to collective public health but capable human rights violators when coping with the pandemic. I propose target specificity, where leading HROs tend to vary attitudes towards different branches/levels of government, to illustrate how leading HROs strategically adapt to this case. Based on the sentiment analysis of tweet text as data, I find out that first, compared to central governments grasping the substantive power across issues, extended branches of government, such as prisons, police departments, and customs, are more likely to be named and shamed more harshly. Second, leading HROs tend to present radicals towards national governments but moderate the tone towards local governments. This study offers strategy-relevant insights for NGOs interacting with actors in contentious cases. 

Co-authoring with Tina Kempin Reuter 

Abstract: To assess Alabama healthcare physicians' clinical attitudes towards LGBTQ patients, we worked with the Medical Association of the State of Alabama to conduct an online survey using a validated LGBTQ-specific scale that measures physicians' attitudes and clinical preparedness towards LGBTQ patients. Based on the findings, we developed policy recommendations as training suggestions for healthcare workers.