DebateVis: Visualizing Political Debates for Non-Expert Users

Political debates provide an important opportunity for voters to observe candidate behavior, learn about issues, and make voting decisions. However, debates are generally broadcast late at night and last more than ninety minutes, so watching debates live can be inconvenient, if not impossible, for many potential viewers. Even voters who do watch debates may find themselves overwhelmed by a deluge of information in a substantive, issue-driven debate. Media outlets produce short summaries of debates, but these are not always effective as a method of deeply comprehending the policies candidates propose or the debate techniques they employ. In this paper we contribute reflections and results of an 18-month design study through an interdisciplinary collaboration with journalism and political science researchers. We characterize task and data abstractions for visualizing political debate transcripts for the casual user, and present a novel tool (DebateVis) to help non-expert users explore and analyze debate transcripts.

Técnicas de Seleção de Observadores para o Comportamento dos Candidatos: Revisão Sistemática da Literatura / Techniques for Selecting Observers for Candidate Behavior: Systematic Literature Review

O artigo tem como objetivo estudar, Técnicas de seleção de pessoas, tendo como base a observação dos comportamentos dos candidatos nas organizações. A fim de responder tais questionamentos esse trabalho tem como objetivo geral identificar e descrever os métodos utilizados por meio do comportamento humano, solidificando os processos de recrutamento. Pensando em responder tal problema o estudo tem como objetivo específico. Analisar; Comparar; Refletir. A metodologia adotada foi a revisão sistemática da literatura, foram estabelecidos os descritores: personalidade, recrutamento e profissionais .A busca foi realizada em três bases de dados : O interesse pessoal na pesquisa nasceu da vivência do pesquisador em sua rotina de trabalho.

Why Assessment Centers Do Not Work the Way They Are Supposed To

Assessment centers (ACs) are often designed with the intent of measuring a number of dimensions as they are assessed in various exercises, but after 25 years of research, it is now clear that AC ratings that are completed at the end of each exercise (commonly known as postexercise dimension ratings) substantially reflect the effects of the exercises in which they were completed and not the dimensions they were designed to reflect. This is the crux of the long-standing “construct validity problem” for AC ratings. I review the existing research on AC construct validity and conclude that (a) contrary to previous notions, AC candidate behavior is inherently cross-situationally (i.e., cross-exercise) specific, not cross-situationally consistent as was once thought, (b) assessors rather accurately assess candidate behavior, and (c) these facts should be recognized in the redesign of ACs toward task- or role-based ACs and away from traditional dimension-based ACs.

Do U.S. Senators Moderate Strategically?

Do U.S. senators adjust their policy positions or voting behavior—engage in “strategic moderation”—in their quest for reelection? In the June 1986 issue of this Review, Gerald Wright and Michael Berkman sought to demonstrate that Senate incumbents moderate their ideological positions as elections near. This endeavor was part of their larger effort to show the importance of policy issues in the selection of members of Congress. Robert Bernstein takes the view that the claims about strategic moderation rest on methodological flaws. But Wright and Berkman argue that most investigators agree on the general direction of senatorial candidate behavior. The controversy turns on conception and interpretation of analytical results.