Pub Date : 2022-11-25DOI: 10.1017/S104909652200110X
Evelyn M. Simien, S. Wallace
This article summarizes the literature on exclusion and disproportionate service faced by women academics and faculty of color in political science. Recommendations based on this scholarship will inform provosts, deans, directors, and other institutional actors who recognize the need for documenting structural inequities and investing in high-impact, long-term solutions. If the discipline wants to diversify its membership, knowing the experiences of exclusion and disproportionate service that result in negative outcomes for women academics and faculty of color is essential to achieve that goal (Alexander-Floyd 2008, 2015; Sinclair-Chapman 2015).
{"title":"The Impacts of Exclusion and Disproportionate Service on Women and Faculty of Color in Political Science","authors":"Evelyn M. Simien, S. Wallace","doi":"10.1017/S104909652200110X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909652200110X","url":null,"abstract":"This article summarizes the literature on exclusion and disproportionate service faced by women academics and faculty of color in political science. Recommendations based on this scholarship will inform provosts, deans, directors, and other institutional actors who recognize the need for documenting structural inequities and investing in high-impact, long-term solutions. If the discipline wants to diversify its membership, knowing the experiences of exclusion and disproportionate service that result in negative outcomes for women academics and faculty of color is essential to achieve that goal (Alexander-Floyd 2008, 2015; Sinclair-Chapman 2015).","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"25 1","pages":"291 - 294"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89309847","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-25DOI: 10.1017/S1049096522001159
Cyril Ghosh, Hongying Wang
This contribution to the symposium focuses on implicit bias, microaggression, and bullying. These forms of conduct are oppressive and have their most egregious effects on scholars who might be said to be on the “margins”1 of the discipline, including racial and ethnic minorities; women of all races and ethnicities; the LGBTQþ identified; (especially new) immigrants; individuals living with disabilities; and others whose identities are despised or devalorized bymanymembers of dominant social groups.2 The analysis draws on extant research and an exploratory study that includes a survey3 and elite interviews conducted during the summer and early fall of 2021.4 This study asks whether and to what extent there is a systemic problem of implicit bias, microaggression, and bullying that political science scholars must negotiate. To be sure, extant studies have addressed related questions. Mershon and Walsh (2015, 459) have reported that “pervasive stereotypes are perpetuated by the attitudes and practices of both women and men, who reward those who hew most closely to white, heterosexual, masculine, and middle-class norms.”Hesli Claypool and Mershon (2016) explored the relationship between the degree of departmental diversity and the friendliness, collegiality, and productivity of the associated faculty. A 2017 American Political Science Association (APSA) survey indicated that approximately one third of respondents had experienced some form of harassment during the previous four APSA Annual Meetings (Sapiro and Campbell 2018). Our study, based on a national survey and elite interviews, broadened the investigation beyond the annual meetings to cover the climate and context within departments. It also deepened the inquiry by reporting the testimony of individuals who accepted the survey’s invitation to provide detailed narratives in open-ended replies.
{"title":"Implicit Bias, Microaggression, and Bullying","authors":"Cyril Ghosh, Hongying Wang","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001159","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution to the symposium focuses on implicit bias, microaggression, and bullying. These forms of conduct are oppressive and have their most egregious effects on scholars who might be said to be on the “margins”1 of the discipline, including racial and ethnic minorities; women of all races and ethnicities; the LGBTQþ identified; (especially new) immigrants; individuals living with disabilities; and others whose identities are despised or devalorized bymanymembers of dominant social groups.2 The analysis draws on extant research and an exploratory study that includes a survey3 and elite interviews conducted during the summer and early fall of 2021.4 This study asks whether and to what extent there is a systemic problem of implicit bias, microaggression, and bullying that political science scholars must negotiate. To be sure, extant studies have addressed related questions. Mershon and Walsh (2015, 459) have reported that “pervasive stereotypes are perpetuated by the attitudes and practices of both women and men, who reward those who hew most closely to white, heterosexual, masculine, and middle-class norms.”Hesli Claypool and Mershon (2016) explored the relationship between the degree of departmental diversity and the friendliness, collegiality, and productivity of the associated faculty. A 2017 American Political Science Association (APSA) survey indicated that approximately one third of respondents had experienced some form of harassment during the previous four APSA Annual Meetings (Sapiro and Campbell 2018). Our study, based on a national survey and elite interviews, broadened the investigation beyond the annual meetings to cover the climate and context within departments. It also deepened the inquiry by reporting the testimony of individuals who accepted the survey’s invitation to provide detailed narratives in open-ended replies.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"571 1","pages":"285 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85735007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-11DOI: 10.1017/S1049096522000750
Alexandre Fortier-Chouinard, M. Bodet, F. Gélineau, J. Savoie, Mathieu Ouimet
ABSTRACT Mail-delivered get-out-the-vote (GOTV) field experiments have been found to increase voter turnout in some but not all contexts. We hypothesize that mail-delivered GOTV interventions are more successful in low-salience elections and test this in a systematic way for the first time. Relying on a systematic literature review and a meta-regression framework, we find that primary elections have a strong and significant positive impact on the success of mail-delivered GOTV interventions, whereas other commonly used measures of election salience, such as voter turnout, margin of victory, and a dummy for local elections, do not. These results highlight the possibility of fostering voter turnout using GOTV mail messages, especially in primary elections.
{"title":"Getting the Message Out: Why Mail-Delivered GOTV Interventions Succeed or Fail","authors":"Alexandre Fortier-Chouinard, M. Bodet, F. Gélineau, J. Savoie, Mathieu Ouimet","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522000750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522000750","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Mail-delivered get-out-the-vote (GOTV) field experiments have been found to increase voter turnout in some but not all contexts. We hypothesize that mail-delivered GOTV interventions are more successful in low-salience elections and test this in a systematic way for the first time. Relying on a systematic literature review and a meta-regression framework, we find that primary elections have a strong and significant positive impact on the success of mail-delivered GOTV interventions, whereas other commonly used measures of election salience, such as voter turnout, margin of victory, and a dummy for local elections, do not. These results highlight the possibility of fostering voter turnout using GOTV mail messages, especially in primary elections.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"7 1","pages":"42 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75623188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-02DOI: 10.1017/S1049096522001196
Richard Johnson, Lisa L. Miller
{"title":"The Conservative Policy Bias of US Senate Malapportionment—CORRIGENDUM","authors":"Richard Johnson, Lisa L. Miller","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001196","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"312 1","pages":"193 - 193"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79591755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-24DOI: 10.1017/S1049096522001093
Maruice Mangum
ABSTRACT This article describes my experiences in collaborating with undergraduate students on research projects, including published works in peer-reviewed outlets. The article discusses the courses and assignments that engendered the collaborations and compares the institutions and students. By describing several significant similarities and differences, I compare and contrast white students in The Midwest at Predominantly White Institutions with African American students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities in The South.
{"title":"Collaborating on Research with Undergraduate Students: A Comparative Institutional-Racial Analysis","authors":"Maruice Mangum","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001093","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article describes my experiences in collaborating with undergraduate students on research projects, including published works in peer-reviewed outlets. The article discusses the courses and assignments that engendered the collaborations and compares the institutions and students. By describing several significant similarities and differences, I compare and contrast white students in The Midwest at Predominantly White Institutions with African American students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities in The South.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"1 1","pages":"150 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76849298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-13DOI: 10.1017/S1049096522001172
Alesha Porisky, Aarie Glas
ABSTRACT There is a growing consensus around both the importance of researcher positionality for the conduct of research and the intersectional and variable salience of positionality and its effects. However, at the same time, static assumptions of “insider” and “outsider” status prevail. This article presents a productive and two-fold intervention in these discussions. First, we show that the insider/outsider distinction is fraught on logistical and conceptual grounds. Relying on our experiences in conducting interview research from rural villages to diplomatic offices, we show that these elements of status are fluid and dynamic. Second, we suggest an alternative to this dichotomy through the aspirational status of a “credible visitor.” We define this as a performative aspect of positionality founded on humility and reflexivity and enacted through showcasing competence and engaging in transparency. We describe how this approach to performing status may facilitate access as well as fruitful and ethical research interactions.
{"title":"Insiders, Outsiders, and Credible Visitors in Research","authors":"Alesha Porisky, Aarie Glas","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001172","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There is a growing consensus around both the importance of researcher positionality for the conduct of research and the intersectional and variable salience of positionality and its effects. However, at the same time, static assumptions of “insider” and “outsider” status prevail. This article presents a productive and two-fold intervention in these discussions. First, we show that the insider/outsider distinction is fraught on logistical and conceptual grounds. Relying on our experiences in conducting interview research from rural villages to diplomatic offices, we show that these elements of status are fluid and dynamic. Second, we suggest an alternative to this dichotomy through the aspirational status of a “credible visitor.” We define this as a performative aspect of positionality founded on humility and reflexivity and enacted through showcasing competence and engaging in transparency. We describe how this approach to performing status may facilitate access as well as fruitful and ethical research interactions.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"36 1","pages":"51 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81068602","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-07DOI: 10.1017/S1049096522001147
Hui-Zhen Fu, L. Shao
ABSTRACT This study conducted a bibliometric analysis of Chinese politics research from 2001 to 2020 (N = 11,285) using Social Sciences Citation Index data. The number of publications in the field by scholars from Mainland China surged in the past 20 years; however, their influence on academia remained limited. Chinese institutions serve as the major hubs of collaborative networks. Using structural topic models, we identified 25 research topics that can be categorized in three clusters. In the past 20 years, scholars from Mainland China steered the focus of Chinese politics by causing a reduction in the proportion of international relation topics and an increase in the proportion of political economy topics. Domestic politics topics had the most citations. Scholars from Mainland China have made contributions to better research methods in the field. This article is a comprehensive view of Chinese politics research using a tool that is rarely used by political scientists. It depicts how studies of Chinese politics influence academia from a bibliometrics perspective.
{"title":"Telling Our Own Story: A Bibliometrics Analysis of Mainland China’s Influence on Chinese Politics Research, 2001–2020","authors":"Hui-Zhen Fu, L. Shao","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001147","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study conducted a bibliometric analysis of Chinese politics research from 2001 to 2020 (N = 11,285) using Social Sciences Citation Index data. The number of publications in the field by scholars from Mainland China surged in the past 20 years; however, their influence on academia remained limited. Chinese institutions serve as the major hubs of collaborative networks. Using structural topic models, we identified 25 research topics that can be categorized in three clusters. In the past 20 years, scholars from Mainland China steered the focus of Chinese politics by causing a reduction in the proportion of international relation topics and an increase in the proportion of political economy topics. Domestic politics topics had the most citations. Scholars from Mainland China have made contributions to better research methods in the field. This article is a comprehensive view of Chinese politics research using a tool that is rarely used by political scientists. It depicts how studies of Chinese politics influence academia from a bibliometrics perspective.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"49 1","pages":"18 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87439733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-07DOI: 10.1017/S1049096522001081
Brian R. Urlacher
ABSTRACT In October 2021, the US Census Bureau piloted a new set of questions to operationalize sex and gender identity. This move follows a larger trend across the social sciences to rethink how surveys ask about sex and gender. Although this step is normatively positive, it complicates well-established protocols for weighting survey data. This article explores the likely pitfalls for survey researchers that accompany a shift in how the US Census Bureau measures gender. A preliminary empirical investigation of survey weighting indicates that using more inclusive gender categories will not negatively affect weighting metrics. Whereas the creation of a new set of US or even global best practices in measuring gender may be helpful to survey researchers, at this stage, there remain important empirical and ethical questions that are not well understood.
{"title":"Gender Identification and Survey Weighting: A Shifting Landscape","authors":"Brian R. Urlacher","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001081","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In October 2021, the US Census Bureau piloted a new set of questions to operationalize sex and gender identity. This move follows a larger trend across the social sciences to rethink how surveys ask about sex and gender. Although this step is normatively positive, it complicates well-established protocols for weighting survey data. This article explores the likely pitfalls for survey researchers that accompany a shift in how the US Census Bureau measures gender. A preliminary empirical investigation of survey weighting indicates that using more inclusive gender categories will not negatively affect weighting metrics. Whereas the creation of a new set of US or even global best practices in measuring gender may be helpful to survey researchers, at this stage, there remain important empirical and ethical questions that are not well understood.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"56 - 60"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79229782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-05DOI: 10.1017/S1049096522000877
Heather Stoll, Michele McLaughlin-Zamora, Sarah E. Anderson
Recent events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, racial justice protests, and the #MeToo Movement, highlighted the various ways that systemic racism and sexism persist in academia. Underrepresentation, obstacles to career advancement, and difficult department climates persist for women and underrepresented minority (URM) faculty, despite what we know now about this “leaky pipeline” (American Political Science Association 2004). Political science is no exception. In 2020, the American Political Science Association (APSA) renewed its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) (American Political Science Association 2020). However, as discussed in Reinhardt and King’s introduction to this symposium, the political science profession remains one of the most maleand white-dominated social science fields (Mershon and Walsh 2016; Michelson and Monforti 2021). Inequities in faculty workloads are one principal source of the leaky faculty pipeline. Vital to the functioning of institutions of higher education, service and mentoring are both major elements of faculty workloads. However, these work activities have been shown to be disproportionately undertaken by women and historically marginalized groups. Although the literature currently does not offer a satisfactory explanation for these observed workload inequities, it is unambiguous about the negative consequences for a host of outcomes, ranging from department climate to retention to advancement through the ranks of the professoriate. Unfortunately, and complicatingAPSA’smission to address systemic inequity, few programs exist that attempt evidencebased interventions. To move the disciplinary conversation forward and to add a tool to the resources of political science departments, this article describes a faculty workload intervention program based on O’Meara et al.’s (2018) Faculty Workloads and Rewards Project (FWRP) that also includes the work activity area of mentoring. Here, we apply this program to a hypothetical political science department. This workload intervention program currently is being implemented at four pilot departments across the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) campus, with funding from theUniversity of California Office of the President’s Advancing Faculty Diversity program. THE PROBLEM
最近发生的事件，包括2019冠状病毒病大流行、种族正义抗议和#MeToo运动，突显了学术界持续存在的系统性种族主义和性别歧视的各种方式。尽管我们现在知道这种“漏水的管道”(美国政治科学协会，2004年)，但女性和少数族裔(URM)教员的代表性不足、职业发展障碍和困难的院系环境仍然存在。政治学也不例外。2020年，美国政治科学协会(APSA)重申了其对多样性、公平和包容(DEI)(美国政治科学协会2020)的承诺。然而，正如莱因哈特和金在本次研讨会的介绍中所讨论的那样，政治学专业仍然是男性和白人主导的社会科学领域之一(Mershon和Walsh 2016;michael son and Monforti 2021)。教员工作量的不平等是教员输送管道漏水的一个主要原因。对高等教育机构的运作至关重要的是，服务和指导都是教师工作量的主要因素。然而，这些工作活动已显示不成比例地由妇女和历史上处于边缘地位的群体承担。虽然目前的文献并没有对这些观察到的工作量不平等提供一个令人满意的解释，但它对一系列结果的负面影响是明确的，从部门气氛到保留，再到通过教授级别的晋升。不幸的是，使apsa解决系统性不平等的任务复杂化的是，很少有项目尝试基于证据的干预。为了推进学科对话并为政治科学系的资源添加工具，本文描述了一个基于O ' meara等人(2018)的教师工作量和奖励项目(FWRP)的教师工作量干预计划，该计划还包括指导的工作活动领域。这里，我们把这个程序应用到一个假想的政治科学系。这项工作量干预计划目前正在加州大学圣巴巴拉分校(UCSB)校区的四个试点部门实施，由加州大学校长推进教师多样性计划办公室提供资金。这个问题
{"title":"Concrete Diversity Initiatives in Political Science: A Faculty Workload Intervention Program","authors":"Heather Stoll, Michele McLaughlin-Zamora, Sarah E. Anderson","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522000877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522000877","url":null,"abstract":"Recent events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, racial justice protests, and the #MeToo Movement, highlighted the various ways that systemic racism and sexism persist in academia. Underrepresentation, obstacles to career advancement, and difficult department climates persist for women and underrepresented minority (URM) faculty, despite what we know now about this “leaky pipeline” (American Political Science Association 2004). Political science is no exception. In 2020, the American Political Science Association (APSA) renewed its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) (American Political Science Association 2020). However, as discussed in Reinhardt and King’s introduction to this symposium, the political science profession remains one of the most maleand white-dominated social science fields (Mershon and Walsh 2016; Michelson and Monforti 2021). Inequities in faculty workloads are one principal source of the leaky faculty pipeline. Vital to the functioning of institutions of higher education, service and mentoring are both major elements of faculty workloads. However, these work activities have been shown to be disproportionately undertaken by women and historically marginalized groups. Although the literature currently does not offer a satisfactory explanation for these observed workload inequities, it is unambiguous about the negative consequences for a host of outcomes, ranging from department climate to retention to advancement through the ranks of the professoriate. Unfortunately, and complicatingAPSA’smission to address systemic inequity, few programs exist that attempt evidencebased interventions. To move the disciplinary conversation forward and to add a tool to the resources of political science departments, this article describes a faculty workload intervention program based on O’Meara et al.’s (2018) Faculty Workloads and Rewards Project (FWRP) that also includes the work activity area of mentoring. Here, we apply this program to a hypothetical political science department. This workload intervention program currently is being implemented at four pilot departments across the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) campus, with funding from theUniversity of California Office of the President’s Advancing Faculty Diversity program. THE PROBLEM","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"7 1","pages":"137 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76959257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：