Representation revisited: Concepts, typologies, and case selection

Empirical scholars in political science have generally allowed normative theorists to conceptualize key concepts such as democracy, accountability, and representation (Collier and Adcock 1999; Pitkin 1967). For some empiricists, taking the time to revisit the very concepts that they are purportedly measuring and testing seems at best too philosophical, and hence out of their domain (although see Goertz 2006 for a comprehensive treatment of social science concepts). Consequently, the empirical literature on representation has focused too heavily on statistical roll-call analyses, which to a certain degree can help us ascertain the extent to which legislators represent their constituents in legislatures and Congress. Substantive representation, however, involves much more than how legislators vote. In order for political scientists to understand why, we must think carefully about what representation involves. This essay will examine the concept of representation by briefly considering what normative theorists such as Jane Mansbridge and Hanna Pitkin have said about the subject, and then analyzing the concept of representation through the lens of what more recent empirical researchers have said about concepts, typologies, and case selection

Tables_and_Figures_SupplementaryAppendix_UAR_4.16.18 – Supplemental material for Sanctuary Cities: Public Attitudes Toward Enforcement Collaboration Between Local Police and Federal Immigration Authorities

<p>Supplemental material, Tables_and_Figures_SupplementaryAppendix_UAR_4.16.18 for Sanctuary Cities: Public Attitudes Toward Enforcement Collaboration Between Local Police and Federal Immigration Authorities by Jason P. Casellas and Sophia Jordán Wallace in Urban Affairs Review</p

A Genome-wide Map of CTCF Multivalency Redefines the CTCF Code

The “CTCF code” hypothesis posits that CTCF pleiotropic functions are driven by recognition of diverse sequences through combinatorial use of its 11 zinc fingers (ZFs). This model, however, is supported by in vitro binding studies of a limited number of sequences. To study CTCF multivalency in vivo, we define ZF binding requirements at ∼50,000 genomic sites in primary lymphocytes. We find that CTCF reads sequence diversity through ZF clustering. ZFs 4–7 anchor CTCF to ∼80% of targets containing the core motif. Nonconserved flanking sequences are recognized by ZFs 1–2 and ZFs 8–11 clusters, which also stabilize CTCF broadly. Alternatively, ZFs 9–11 associate with a second phylogenetically conserved upstream motif at ∼15% of its sites. Individually, ZFs increase overall binding and chromatin residence time. Unexpectedly, we also uncovered a conserved downstream DNA motif that destabilizes CTCF occupancy. Thus, CTCF associates with a wide array of DNA modules via combinatorial clustering of its 11 ZFs

Interactome maps of mouse gene regulatory domains reveal basic principles of transcriptional regulation.

A key finding of the ENCODE project is that the enhancer landscape of mammalian cells undergoes marked alterations during ontogeny. However, the nature and extent of these changes are unclear. As part of the NIH Mouse Regulome Project, we here combined DNaseI hypersensitivity, ChIP-seq, and ChIA-PET technologies to map the promoter-enhancer interactomes of pluripotent ES cells and differentiated B lymphocytes. We confirm that enhancer usage varies widely across tissues. Unexpectedly, we find that this feature extends to broadly transcribed genes, including Myc and Pim1 cell-cycle regulators, which associate with an entirely different set of enhancers in ES and B cells. By means of high-resolution CpG methylomes, genome editing, and digital footprinting, we show that these enhancers recruit lineage-determining factors. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the turning on and off of enhancers during development correlates with promoter activity. We propose that organisms rely on a dynamic enhancer landscape to control basic cellular functions in a tissue-specific manner. Cell 2013 Dec 19; 155(7):1507-20