The Adams Federalists

Originally published in 1953. Between 1789 and 1803, the United States existed as a developing national state, sparsely settled. The de facto precedents of America's nascent political system had not yet been fleshed out by the generation of statesmen who paved its political way. Historians have examined the rise of the party system in US politics by emphasizing the Jeffersonians, who—led by Thomas Jefferson—helped to develop an agrarian voting bloc. In The Adams Federalists, Manning J. Dauer attends to Adams's struggles with the Federalist Party, arguing that his term is the key to understanding the success of the Jeffersonians in promoting their own democratic ideals. Dauer attributes the fall of Federalism to Adams's failure to maintain a moderate cohort in the White House. The Federalist Party's leadership increasingly adopted policies that isolated the Federalists' agrarian supporters, who in turn found support in the Jeffersonians' archaic politics. Professor Dauer provides an alternative explanation for the popularity of Jefferson's political faction and argues that economic factors undergirded the political organization of early America's voting base. Since its publication, scholars have recognized The Adams Federalists as a definitive study of the Federalist Party during the Adams administration

Dispute Resolution and Preventive Law: A Reply to Professor Brown

Within our discussion of scientific models and the processes of dispute resolution,\u27 we suggested a single continuum along which the strategies of Preventive Law and of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) could be arrayed. Beneath that synthesis lay a proposition which we may not have made entirely clear: That the two bodies of hitherto separate principles address problems which are not themselves distinct

Preliminary Analysis of the Uses of Scientific Models in Dispute Prevention, Management and Resolution, A

The ambition of this article is modest-to suggest linkages at a theoretical level rather than to prove them empirically. A fully rigorous analysis, employing the three model-use variants strictly as independent variables, would require the articulation of a comprehensive theory of dispute resolution, a construction which the state of the literature does not yet allow. To the extent that the analysis does lead to at least some preliminary hypotheses about the linkage between process tools and conflict outcomes, it may be useful to the eventual elaboration of such a theory

Using Critical Integrative Argumentation to Assess Socioscientific Argumentation Across Decision-Making Contexts

Socioscientific issues (SSI) are often used to facilitate students’ engagement in multiple scientific practices such as decision-making and argumentation, both of which are goals of STEM literacy, science literacy, and integrated STEM education. Literature often emphasizes scientific argumentation over socioscientific argumentation, which involves considering social factors in addition to scientific frameworks. Analyzing students’ socioscientific arguments may reveal how students construct such arguments and evaluate pedagogical tools supporting these skills. In this study, we examined students’ socioscientific arguments regarding three SSI on pre- and post-assessments in the context of a course emphasizing SSI-based structured decision-making. We employed critical integrative argumentation (CIA) as a theoretical and analytical framework, which integrates arguments and counterarguments with stronger arguments characterized by identifying and refuting counterarguments. We hypothesized that engaging in structured decision-making, in which students integrate multidisciplinary perspectives and consider tradeoffs of various solutions based upon valued criteria, may facilitate students’ development of integrated socioscientific arguments. Findings suggest that students’ arguments vary among SSI contexts and may relate to students’ identities and perspectives regarding the SSI. We conclude that engaging in structured decision-making regarding personally relevant SSI may foster more integrated argumentation skills, which are critical to engaging in information-laden democratic societies