Sample Haynes Grant Proposal



Dissertation Narrative
Statement of Future Plans and Goals


The following sample proposal is intended only to serve as an example of a successful proposal. The application requirements sometimes change, as do the expectations and preferences of evaluating committees. Also note that one appendix could not be posted on this web site, as it contains mathematic symbols that can only be displayed with the use of special browser plug-ins.


"The Politics of Minor Concerns:
Congressional Action and American Indian Legislation, 1947-1998"

by Charles Turner
Graduate, Politics and Policy, CGU


Research Question

Over the past half-century, American Indian politics has undergone a transformation from a minor concern that was ignored by most, to a civil rights struggle and national controversy, and, finally, to a topic of well-defined partisan and regional division.[1] While the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) often has a more immediate impact on the lives of American Indians, as Utter (1993, 179) points out: “Congress, and not the BIA, is ultimately and constitutionally responsible for all the federal government’s Indian Affairs policies and programs” (emphasis in original). My dissertation aims to answer two broad questions about American congressional politics: “What factors influence development and change within American Indian politics?” and, “In what ways does a field of minor legislation—like American Indian policy—behave differently from, and create a need for adaptation in our theories of, major legislation?” As I demonstrate below, the answers the existing literature gives to both questions are either outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete.[2]

In regard to the first question, much of the existing literature on American Indian politics treats Indian issues as bipartisan (Fenno 1973, Benham 1977, Wunder 1994, Cooper 1996) and of low salience (Gross 1989) throughout the modern congressional era (1947-present), thus failing to provide a reasonable understanding of the policy dynamics involved. Indeed, scholars continue to write of “the reality that few know about, or care, what happens in a policy area that benefits so few people” and remark that “it is evident that party politics tend to have little significance on Indian bills historically, as well as presently.”[3] Unfortunately, while such statements are often based on close historical observation, they have rarely been tested empirically. Indeed, these claims assume a static environment and overlook the ebbs and flows of American Indian politics. I argue that these assumptions ignore the effects of the Indian civil rights movement and the resulting transformation of congressional American Indian policy from a minor concern to a topic of national attention, and back to a minor (yet transformed) field.[4]

The literature on congressional action is equally ineffective in answering the second question.[5] It does provide a cogent understanding of congressional decisionmaking on several levels, but most congressional studies focus on issues of high national salience, and assume that the results apply to other arenas as well. Individual member preferences, for example, are held to be a function of either electoral concerns alone (Mayhew 1974, Arnold 1990) or of a combination of electoral concerns with other issues: the influence of fellow members, desire for power and influence within Congress, and desire for good public policy (Fenno 1973, Kingdon 1989). Since American Indians have remained largely stable as a percentage of district voters throughout the period under investigation, and since minor policy involves little power or influence, it seems unlikely that these factors could be driving the above noted changes in American Indian policy.[6]

In considering non-electoral explanations of the shift from uniformity to contention in federal American Indian legislation, one must also consider the influence of committee behavior. Fenno (1973, but see also Deering and Smith 1997) provides perhaps the most attentive account of the motivations of the Congressional Interior committees.[7] Unfortunately, Fenno’s conclusion is that these committees are the most likely to be driven by electoral concerns. As noted above, such concerns cannot explain the recent changes in Native American policy.

Finally, scholars addressing the role of political parties and ideology provide important insights for understanding the determinants of legislative change. Cox and McCubbins (1993) revive a long dormant contention when they argue that parties do matter when it comes to congressional policymaking and Poole and Rosenthal (1997) conclude that a unidimensional left-right continuum is the best overall estimate of congressional roll call behavior. These models provide the most useful explanations for the present investigation. Indeed, it would appear that change in Native American policy is closely tied to partisan and ideological concerns; the Democratic party has gradually emerged as a defender of American Indians while the Republican party has moved in the opposite direction.[8]

One shortcoming of the above works is that they uniformly fail to address Native Americans directly. By examining a substantive policy area that has received relatively scant attention from congressional scholarship, this dissertation will provide evidence of the degree to which existing theories accurately predict action in less-publicized arenas. This investigation will require the examination of variables the congressional literature has identified as key, as well as those it ignores, yet which seem of crucial importance to the case at hand: re-election concern, issue salience, partisanship, ideology, and region.

Clearly, the existing literatures on Congress and American Indian politics talk past each other rather than to each other when it comes to explaining the dynamics of federal American Indian legislation. They fail to examine the interaction of multiple levels of analysis and they fail to empirically test claims based on historical observation. By synthesizing the efforts of scholars in these distinct fields—by posing policy questions to legislative models and by empirically testing policy claims with legislative data—this dissertation will provide a more satisfying answer to the questions it poses than the existing literature does.


Clearly, the research questions require better answers. This dissertation attempts to provide them by testing the following four hypotheses, each with a separate level of analysis:

1. The passage of favorable Native American legislation[9] by Congress, and the presence of partisan voting are partially determined by the salience of Native American issues nationally.

2. The likelihood of support for American Indian legislation by an individual member of Congress is positively related to partisanship and region to a greater extent than it is related to the member’s constituency.[10]

3. The type of favorable legislation passed will depend on the partisan and ideological composition of the relevant committees, with conservative/Republican committees passing more economic libertarian legislation and liberal/Democratic committees passing more social welfare and civil liberty legislation. Due to a decline in bipartisanship, this trend will become more pronounced over time.

4. The increasing complexity and sophistication of interest group lobbying leads to a set of party issue monopolies in relation to Native American policy that is increasingly bifurcated over time.

By investigating multiple levels of congressional action (Congress as a whole, the individual member, the committee, and the political party), I elucidate the nature and extent of the influence of party, salience, ideology, region, and constituency on the formation of American Indian legislation. Testing these hypotheses will help answer the two broad research questions. The results will reveal both which factors influence legislative behavior in Indian affairs and whether minor legislation indeed operates according to a different set of criteria than does major legislation. A better understanding of the variables involved in enacting change—who is likely to support a proposed change, what type of change they are likely to support, and when this support will be most likely to occur—should bring this policy area into sharper focus. Indeed, regardless of the specific outcome of the hypotheses, this study will enhance our understanding of both congressional action and Native American politics.


Methodology and Design

In the test of the first hypothesis, I use logistic regression analysis to examine the aggregate data.[11] The unit of analysis is the bill and the level of analysis is Congress as a whole.[12] I examine each bill introduced in Congress that is either assigned to an American Indian committee/subcommittee or that is considered vital to Native American interests (determined by statements of Native American advocacy groups) for the period 1947-1998 (the 80th Congress through the 105th Congress), and that results in at least one roll call vote (N = 180).[13] The dichotomous dependent variable is legislation affecting American Indians. Those bills favorable to the predominant American Indian position that pass and those bills opposed to the predominant American Indian position that fail will be assigned a value of 1.[14] Those bills opposed by the predominant American Indian position that pass and those bills supported by the predominant American Indian position that fail will be assigned a value of 0. The independent variables address the issues of salience and partisanship. Specifically, they consist of: a dummy variable for American Indian civil rights movement (1 for present—years 1967-74, 0 for absent—all other years), a national public perception proxy consisting of the combined number of articles addressing American Indians in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times for the previous year, and a dummy variable that identifies partisan votes (1 for partisan, 0 for not partisan).[15] The argument here is that Congress is more likely to pay attention to the needs and desires of Native Americans when Native Americans actively seek and receive national attention. A positive, significant coefficient for each predictor variable would support the first hypothesis and suggest that minor policy fields, like American Indian politics, are much more susceptible to the effects of the rise and fall of national public attention than are major policy areas.[16]

The second hypothesis addresses the more detailed question of which factors influence member preferences. I predict that partisanship and region are stronger influences on individual legislators’ voting patterns than the variable suggested by the congressional literature, reelection concern (represented here as constituency). The dependent variable is the member’s favorability rating (votes in favor of the pro-Indian position/total number of votes) and its continuous nature allows for ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression (N = 2854). The independent variables are party (coded 1 for Democrat and 0 for Republican), region (coded 1 for 18 Western states and 0 for all other states) and constituency (the percentage of the member’s constituency identified as Native American in the nearest decennial census).[17] I predict that the party variable will be significant and will strengthen over time and that the region and constituency variables will be less significant and unchanging over time. After an aggregate longitudinal run, I examine the data independently for each decade. This latter test will reveal whether change over time does or does not occur and will help elucidate the nature of the relationship between these factors and the salience measures addressed in the previous hypothesis.

The third hypothesis explores the influence of party and ideology at the committee level using OLS regression. The dependent variable is the ratio of social welfare and civil liberty legislation that is passed favorably out of committee each year divided by that figure plus economic libertarian legislation (N = 52).[18] Dividing the legislation substantively helps explore partisanship in greater detail. While previous hypotheses have assumed a simple split—with Democrats favoring pro-Indian legislation and Republicans opposing it—this one tests a more nuanced possibility: partisanship in Indian affairs may be based on specific ideological concerns. The predictors are a dummy variable for the majority party within the committee (1 for Democratic, 0 for Republican) and an ideology index consisting of the committee’s median ADA score for that session.[19] Here, the prediction is that both variables will be significant and positive, indicating that partisanship and ideology guide the substantive direction of American Indian policy. A contrary finding will lead to the rejection of this hypothesis and highlight the complicated interactions between party and ideology in American Indian politics. Dividing the sample into earlier and later segments indicates whether the variables strengthen over time.

The fourth hypothesis examines the influence of Native American interest groups on the political process. While interest groups have been lurking in the background of previous hypotheses (in the form of salience), they come to the forefront here, through a largely qualitative comparison between party platforms and interest group legislative agendas for each of the four-year party cycles under investigation (N = 13).[20] By once again dividing the issues into two ideological segments, this test anticipates finding a bifurcation of substantive interests along party lines that becomes more pronounced over time. A finding of growing ideological dissimilarity between the party platforms in regard to American Indians will confirm this hypothesis. In other words, the hypothesis predicts that the Democratic platform will gradually refine its position on American Indian policy to emphasize social welfare and group rights, while the Republican platforms will emphasize a smaller role for federal government in Indian economies. A rejection of this hypothesis means that partisan division has been less pronounced than anticipated, or that it has occurred along different lines than overall party division.


The contemporary state of relations between American Indians and Congress is complex, partisan, and underdetermined by current theories. If Americans are to create a more just paradigm in the future, we must discover which factors influence congressional action in the present. In this dissertation I propose to enhance our understanding of these issues by providing a thorough empirical examination of the potential determinants of change in federal Native American legislation. I argue that these changes create a need for modification in traditional theories of congressional action. Confirmation of the above hypotheses will indicate that American Indian policy—a minor legislative field—operates according to a different set of rules than does major legislation, and that theories of congressional action must attempt to explain this difference. More specifically, confirmation indicates that salience, partisanship, ideology, and region are all more important—and constituency less important—to American Indian policy than had been assumed previously. Rejection of any or all of the hypotheses provides useful knowledge as well. Since I developed the hypotheses from modifications of existing general theories of congressional behavior based on the addition of subject-specific political and historical knowledge, rejection would indicate either the nonessentiality of the modifications or the failure of historical depiction to provide enough thick description to indicate which modifications are needed. In either case, the result will be a better understanding of the important variables in the process of Native American legislation. By exploring and testing hypotheses like those set forth here we can hope for a better understanding of a legislative process that directly affects over two million Native Americans, and indirectly affects us all.


Appendix A: Committees with
Jurisdiction Over American Indian Affairs


House Committee


Public Lands


Interior and Insular Affairs


Natural Resources






Senate Committee


Public Lands

80th, 1st session

Interior and Insular Affairs

80th, 2nd session-94th

Select Committee on Indian Affairs


Permanent Select Committee on Indian Affairs




Appendix B: American Indian Interest Groups

I consult various policy statements and legislative recommendations of the following national, regional, and tribal organizations and publications for part or all of the time period under investigation (since some were only founded more recently) to determine Native American positions on congressional legislation. Careful attention has been paid to membership/authorship in order to exclude the traditionally paternalistic “friends of the Indian” groups, which are composed largely of non-Indians.


Organizations and Publications

American Indian Movement/Survival News


Americans for Indian Opportunity/Red Alert


Association of American Indian Affairs/Indian Affairs


Association of American Indian Physicians


Council of Energy Resource Tribes[23]


Lakota Times/Indian Country Today[24]


National Congress of American Indians/NCAI News


National Indian Youth Council/Americans Before Columbus


National Tribal Chairman’s Association


National Urban Indian Council/American Indian Review


Native American Rights Fund


United Indians of All Tribes Foundation/Daybreak Star


United Southeastern Tribes



Appendix C: Formula for Computing
American Indian Proportion of Districts


Since data on American Indian populations is scarce at the Congressional district level before the 1980s, I employed the following method to approximate Indian proportions of congressional districts in the 1970s.[25],[26] The example given is for the 4th District in Missouri.

1. I divided the state’s proportion of American Indian residents in 1980 by that proportion in 1970 to determine the rate of Indian population growth (or decline) as a function of the state’s total population growth (or decline) over the decade:

American Indians in Missouri in 1970 (5,405)

Total Population of Missouri in 1970 (4,676,501) = .001156

American Indians in Missouri in 1980 (12,321)

Total Population of Missouri in 1980 (4,916,686) = .002506


.001156 = 2.16782[27]


2. Since the American Indian proportion of the population for the entire state of Missouri in 1980 was about 216% higher than it was in 1970, I will assume that this rate of change was constant across each district in the state. Thus, my estimate for the American Indian proportion of the 4th district in the 1970s is:

Indian proportion of district in 1980s (.003)

Rate of Change (2.16782)

= .00138


3. Thus, I conclude that American Indians comprised about .1% of the 4th district in Missouri during the 1970s. A similar procedure is used for the 1960s and 1950s.[28]





Arnold, R. Douglas. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.

Benham, William J. “The Role of Congress in Indian Affairs.” ERIC Clearinghouse Document, ED178241, December 1977.

Brady, David W., and Craig Volden. Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy From Carter to Clinton. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1998.

Buchanan, James M., and Gordon Tullock. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962.

Cooper, Mary. “Native Americans’ Future.” The CQ Researcher 26 (July 12, 1996): 601-24.

Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Christopher J. Deering, and Steven S. Smith. Committees in Congress. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997.

Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.

Fenno, Richard F., Jr. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1973.

French, Laurence A. The Winds of Injustice: American Indians and the U.S. Government. New York: Garland, 1994.

Groseclose, Tim, Steven L. Levitt, and James M. Snyder, Jr. “Comparing Interest Group Scores Across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U. S. Congress.” American Political Science Review 93 (March 1999): 33-50.

Gross, Emma R. Contemporary Federal Policy Toward American Indians. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989.

Hero, Rodney E. Latinos and the U.S. Political System: Two-Tiered Pluralism. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1992.

Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. Red Power: The American Indians’ Fight for Freedom. New York: American Heritage Press, 1971.

Kingdon, John W. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1989.

Lacy, Michael G. “The United States and American Indians: Political Relations.” In American Indian Policy In The Twentieth Century, ed. Vine Deloria, Jr., 83-104. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985.

Mayhew, David R. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

O’Brien, Sharon. American Indian Tribal Governments. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989.

Passel, Jeffrey S. “The Growing American Indian Population, 1960-1990: Beyond Demography.” In Changing Numbers, Changing Needs: American Indian Demography and Public Health, eds. Gary D. Sandefur, Ronald R.

Rindfuss, and Barney Cohen, 79-102. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.

Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Sandefur, Gary D., Ronald R. Rindfuss, and Barney Cohen, eds. Changing Numbers, Changing Needs: American Indian Demography and Public Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.

Snipp, C. Matthew. American Indians: The First of This Land. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1989.

________. “The Size and Distribution of the American Indian Population: Fertility, Mortality, Residence, and Migration.” In Changing Numbers, Changing Needs: American Indian Demography and Public Health, eds. Gary D. Sandefur, Ronald R. Rindfuss, and Barney Cohen, 17-52. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.

Taylor, Theodore W. The Bureau of Indian Affairs. With a Foreward by Phillip Martin. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1984.

Utter, Jack. American Indians: Answers to Today’s Questions. Lake Ann, Michigan: National Woodlands Publishing Company, 1993.

Wunder, John R. Retained by the People: A History of American Indians and the Bill of Rights. New York: Oxford UP, 1994.



[1] The terms Native American, American Indian, and Indian will be used interchangeably to refer to all of the indigenous peoples of the United States.

[2] Quotations are from Gross (1989, 88) and Benham (1977, 13) respectively.

[3] Quotations are from Gross (1989, 88) and Benham (1977, 13) respectively.

[4] The Indian civil rights movement covers (roughly) 1967-74. For more on this topic, see Josephy (1971), Benham (1977), and Lacy (1985).

[5] Throughout, my references to Congress assume both the House of Representatives and the Senate. All tests described below are conducted for each chamber separately as well as in combination.

[6] For a discussion of the historical lack of election data on ethnic minorities, see Hero (1992, Chapter 10). For a discussion of the particular impediments to studying American Indian demography over time, see the essays in Sandefur, Rindfuss, and Cohen (1996). Moreover, the electoral connection does not provide a clear model for the issues at hand. A district with few American Indians might provide fewer incentives for voting in favor of legislation desired by American Indians, but a district with a larger native population would likely have more disincentives for voting in favor of said bill since many of these issues (e.g., land rights) provide zero sum gains for a member’s constituency.

[7] For a complete committee listing see Appendix A.

[8] While Cox and McCubbins’s strong party model is largely based on committee-structuring and majority leadership, I contend that substantive party ideology also plays a crucial role in deciding the state of American Indian policy. Additionally, since the abstract Poole and Rosenthal model is ‘blind’ to individual members and bill substance, I provide a specific test of their theory.

[9] I define favorable legislation as that broadly supported by Native American interest groups during the time period under consideration. While American Indians by no means unanimously agree on the necessity of each bill, examination of policy statements by multiple national and regional supratribal organizations reveals consensus positions. In general, inter-tribal conflict is not a major difficulty, as issues tend to be either regionally isolated (and therefore only affect one tribe) or national (in which case, especially beginning in the 1960s, a pan-Indian position typically develops) with relatively few issues pitting rival American Indian interests against one another. See Appendix B for a listing of several major American Indian organizations. Additionally, as Taylor (1984, 118) notes, Native American interest groups have frequently sought unity on positions in order to better their bargaining position. That being said, conflicts do emerge, as in the Eastern Cherokee opposition to the Lumbee Recognition Act—a bill the Cherokee feared would reduce their own state funding (French 1994, 178). Cases where intense conflict within the Native American community precludes a consensus position are removed from this portion of the analysis. In all cases, effort has been made to avoid imposing cultural or historical values on the definition of ‘favorable legislation’ by objectively recording the demands groups made during the legislative eras under investigation.

[10] While logrolling, or trading support, (see Buchanan and Tullock 1962 and Downs 1957) almost certainly affects the decisions I examine in the first two hypotheses, Poole and Rosenthal (1997) find that roll call votes still split along ideological lines when logrolling is involved. Thus, this factor should not adversely affect the results. Additionally, Cox and McCubbins (1993) argue that logrolling plays a much more limited role in congressional action than previous scholars had thought.

[11] Thus, the theoretical equation takes the form: , where is each bill i, is the intercept, is the slope coefficient, represents the independent variables and is the error term. Consult Appendix C for the symbolic models of each hypothesis.

[12] Sources for legislative data for this and subsequent hypotheses include Congressional Roll Call, the National Journal, Congressional Record, the congressional Online service THOMAS, and Poole and Rosenthal’s (1997) compilation of roll call data used in conjunction with their NOMINATE program. Congress passes 80-90 bills every year that have some impact on Native Americans (O’Brien 1989, 267); only a portion of these bills involve roll call votes.

[13] The Congressional Reorganization Act of 1946, the absence of extensive roll call data for earlier periods, and the advent of termination policy at about this time are all important reasons for starting with the 80th Congress.

[14] Throughout, coding of bills will be performed by both the researcher and an independent associate with access to the same background materials to assure inter-coder reliability.

[15] I selected these periodicals for their national scope and audience and to offset possible partisan effects by providing one generally liberal and one generally conservative source. The potentially high correlation between the civil rights and public perception predictors will require testing each of these variables separately as well as in tandem. Two variations on the above-mentioned variables are also constructed to explore salience in greater depth; one treats the Indian civil rights movement as a before/after event and the other lags the newspaper variable by one year. To better meet the normality assumption, the log of the newspaper variables is used in the analysis. Partisanship is an interactive term, tested as both an independent cause of bill passage and a dependent outcome of the salience measures.

[16] A significance level of .05 is used for all analyses.

[17] To better meet the normality assumption, the log of this figure is used in the analysis. For efforts to account for the deficiency in constituency data at the district level for the earlier years of this analysis, see Appendix D.

[18] Bills that do not fit into either category are excluded from this portion of the analysis.

[19] Americans for Democratic Action scores for members of Congress are a widely used estimate of ideological preference; they range from 0 (very conservative) to 100 (very liberal). For the importance of the median—as opposed to mean—legislator, see, for example, Brady and Volden (1998). For a critical adjustment that I use to enhance the validity of comparisons over time, see Groseclose, Levitt, and Snyder (1999).

[20] While the investigation is largely qualitative, I also I construct a correlation matrix to provide a graphical presentation of similarities and differences.

[21] With the exception of the Senate’s creation of an Indian Affairs committee and the House’s consolidation of committees in 1995, these name changes are largely cosmetic. Various subcommittees on Indian Affairs have also existed from time to time in the House, but at other times Indian legislation has been handled by the whole committee. From the 81st to the 92nd Congress, there was also a Joint Committee on Navajo-Hopi Indian Administration. Legislation from this committee is included in the analysis as well.

[22] Known as the American Association on Indian Affairs before 1946.

[23] CERT is composed of 23 western tribes and is modeled after OPEC.

[24] This publication changed names in 1992.

[25] The Bureau of the Census (1973) did publish figures for states with a total Indian population in excess of 25,000. In districts for which this data exists, and in the six states with at-large Representatives, the exact figures are used. This information accounts for 83 of the 435 districts. A comparison between these known data and the calculated figures reveals differences that are typically very small (e.g., in the thousandths place).

[26] Migration and redistricting are possible sources of error in this estimation. The Pearson correlation between district American Indian populations in the 1980s and 1990s was .866 and significant at the .01 level (2-tailed), suggesting that migration and redistricting are not major problems. Moreover, Snipp (1989, 303) notes, “The Geography of American Indian migration can be described in terms of broad shifts and local flows. The broad shifts follow patterns of the U.S. population at large.” The local flows often represent back-and-forth, employment-driven migration between reservations and regional urban centers. Snipp (1996, 35) further notes: “Despite the substantial increase in the number of American Indians since 1970, especially that due to changes in racial self-identification, the basic distribution of the American Indian population has remained surprisingly stable for the past two decades.” In addition, I compared district boundaries and noted major changes (e.g., those that changed the district representation for a reservation). Finally, I tested this formula for selected districts in the 1980s and found results very much in accordance with extant data. Obviously, even despite such assurances, results based on these estimations must be approached with caution. At the very least, though, they provide a reasonable estimate of Indian district populations—and one that is not necessarily less accurate than that known to legislators representing these districts at the time.

[27] This unusually high growth rate is not an uncommon finding when examining American Indian populations. See Snipp (1996) and Passel (1996) for a discussion of how changes in census enumeration and Indian self-identification contribute to this seemingly impossible rate of change.

[28] Since some states had a larger number of seats in previous decades, data for some districts that no longer exist is not available. Efforts were made to use reasonable approximations when available (e.g., substituting the state figures for each district during decades when North Dakota had two Representatives).


Statement of Future Plans and Goals

by Charles Turner
Graduate, Politics and Policy, CGU

Since the defense of my dissertation proposal last Summer, I have spent the past academic year holding down several part-time jobs while working on my dissertation. While I have greatly appreciated this opportunity to gain teaching experience, I feel that I am now at a point where I need to take a step back from these endeavors and bring my dissertation to the front burner. I know that my dissertation has benefited from ruminating in my mind over the past year, but now I need to push ahead, treating the dissertation as a full-time job, in order to bring this project to completion. I do not mean to suggest that I have made no progress over the past year. Chapters one through four (out of seven) are in draft form, but plenty of work lies ahead. I have been working diligently on the dissertation during my free time; my difficulty has simply been a shortage of free time. A Haynes Grant will allow me to devote a much greater portion of my work week to the dissertation.

My specific plans for the upcoming academic year involve spending most of the Summer of 1999 coding and organizing the extensive data for Chapter five into a dataset, conducting statistical tests and analyzing the results, and writing a draft of the chapter. During the Fall of 1999 I will go through the same procedure for Chapter six and the concluding chapter. Finally, during the Winter, I will execute revisions and defend the dissertation before my committee in time for a May 2000 graduation date. Graduation by May of 2000 is an important personal goal. With the research I have already conducted, there is no doubt in my mind that a Haynes Grant will allow me to finish this project on time.

If awarded, I will use the grant to pay for my living and research-related expenses during the upcoming year. With a Haynes Grant, I will be able to devote my full attention to dissertation research. I believe that this situation will allow me not only to complete this project in the most timely and thorough manner possible, but will also aid my personal development as a professional scholar. Without a grant I would need to take on additional part or full-time employment in order to pay for my living expenses. I know from experience that the additional hours dedicated to employment would greatly reduce the amount of unfettered time that I could devote to dissertation work. This situation would likely push back my anticipated graduation date. As my wife is also a graduate student, I do not have the luxury of spousal income.

After graduation, I plan to seek full-time academic employment. Although I am willing to teach almost anywhere in the country, if given the opportunity, I would like to work at a college or university where I could pursue a balanced agenda of teaching in an intimate environment and continuing my academic research interests. I intend to pursue a rigorous research agenda that will, undoubtedly, begin with projects conceived during the course of my involvement with this dissertation project. Specifically, I will be pursuing a book contract for a version of my dissertation. I am truly looking forward to a career in academics and I believe a Haynes Grant will be an invaluable resource in helping me finish my studies at CGU and embark on this career.


Academic Timeline

August 1994

First enrolled in Ph.D. program in Politics and Policy at Claremont Graduate University.

May 1996

Received M.A. in Politics.

September 1997

Successful completion of doctoral qualifying exams.

June 1998

Dissertation proposal defense and advancement to candidacy.

September 1998

Draft of Chapters one and two completed.

November 1998

Draft of Chapter three completed.

March 1999

Draft of Chapter four completed.

August 1999

Anticipated draft of Chapter five.

November 1999

Anticipated draft of Chapters six and seven.

February 2000

Anticipated completion of revisions and dissertation defense.

May 2000

Anticipated graduation.



Haynes Grant Proposal:
Budget of Estimated Expenses for 1999-2000

by Charles Turner
Graduate, Politics and Policy, CGU 


CGU Writing Center Assistant Director: $2,000 (approximately)

Woodbury University Adjunct Instructor: $1,880

Mt. San Antonio College Adjunct Instructor: $2,200 


If I were to receive a Haynes Grant, I would limit my income to, at the most, just one of these sources.


Tuition and Fees: $1,730

Dissertation Fees: $100

Books and Photocopying: $650

Rent: $12,120

Transportation*: $1,400

Statistical software (SPSS): $200

Independent coder: $500

APSA Convention: $1,200

Food Expenses: $1,500

TOTAL:  $19,400

* Transportation costs include travel to and from the American Indian Studies Center library of the University of California, Los Angeles and the main library of the University of California, San Diego to make use of their special collections of the Native American periodicals and other archival materials which will be used for purposes of coding legislation. Additionally, a trip to Washington, D.C. is necessary to consult the archives of the National Congress of American Indians.

Financial Aid Received While at CGU

Fall 1994 through Spring 1995: 3/4 tuition fellowship

Fall 1995 through Spring 1996: 3/4 tuition fellowship

Fall 1996 through Spring 1997: full tuition fellowship (Jon and Lillian Lovelace Fellowship)

Spring 1997 and Summer 1997: teaching assistantship for PP481: Quantitative Research Methods with Dr. Ralph Miller

Fall 1997 through Spring 1998: research assistantship with Dr. Craig Volden

Spring 1998: Graduate Student Council Travel Award

Writing Center 141 East Twelfth Street, Claremont, CA 91711 909-607-0012

2017 Claremont Graduate University 150 E. 10th St., Claremont, CA 91711 (909) 621-8000 Campus Safety Emergency Info Campus Map/Driving Directions