FROM THE PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE:

ASSESSING THE REPRESENTATIONAL

VALIDITY OF A CODING SCHEME OF

CITIZENS’ LEGAL COMMUNICATION ABOUT

BALLOT INITIATIVES

Robert C. Richards, Jr.

The Pennsylvania State University

Department of Communication Arts & Sciences

Presentation at National Communication Association, November, 2014

Purpose

To determine the extent to which measures

used to analyze citizens’ legal

communication about proposed laws tap

concepts that are actually present in citizens’

minds when they think about such laws –

that is, to determine the representational

validity of those measures.

Overview

Previous Research and Goals for This Study

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

Setting

Direct Democracy

• Citizens making their own laws in ballot-

initiative elections

• 24 U.S. states have statewide ballot

initiative processes

The Issue

Citizens often misunderstand legal aspects of

ballot initiatives

Official explanatory statements are citizens’ chief

source of legal information about initiatives

Citizens’ knowledge gap is likely due to

communication flaws in explanatory statements

Theoretical Frameworks

Plain Legal Language Theory

• Effective communication matches citizens’

communicative practices

Social Cognitive Theory

• Effective communication matches cognitive

structures and processes in citizens’ minds

Approach: Descriptive Model

Develop a coding scheme that describes

attributes of citizens’ legal communication

about ballot initiatives

Based on transcripts of Oregon Citizens’

Initiative Review (CIR)

The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

• Public deliberation by a random sample of 24 citizens on a ballot initiative; analysis is published in official voter guide

• In 2010 two measures: (1) Mandatory Minimums, and (2) Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

Approach: Normative Model

Use the coding scheme of citizens’ legal

communication about initiatives, to evaluate

explanatory statements

Coding Scheme of Citizens’ Legal

Communication about Initiatives

Attributes: Topics, Functions, and Discursive

Modes

439 Codes

42 Categories

Cognitive Structures & Processes

Strategic Schema

• Citizens identify goal of initiative, and determine

likelihood of effectiveness in achieving it

Realistic Schema

• Citizens identify unintended consequences of

initiative, and determine likelihood of occurrence

Goals of This Study

1. Assess the representational validity of

major topical codes in the coding scheme

“Representational validity” = Codes match meanings

understood by citizens (i.e., the emic perspective)

“Major” = Most frequently observed in CIR transcripts

Goals of This Study (continued)

2. Identify higher-level dimensions of the

topical codes

3. Identify associations / distinctions among

topical codes

Methodology

Sorting exercise, on online

OptimalWorkshop platform

N = 109 undergraduates

Methodology (continued)

54 cards containing statements by 2010 Oregon CIR panelists, coded as designating topics in content analysis

Three cards per topic, total of 18 topics

The full text of cards is available at:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16652392/SortingExercise1ItemswithConcepts10-6-14.pdf

Methodology (continued)

Instructions:

1. Read ballot initiative on increasing criminal

sentences, plus ballot title, explanatory statement,

and financial impact statement

2. Place cards in piles; in each pile, place cards

“whose statements belong together,” in subject’s

view

3. Then label each pile “with a name that,” in the

subject’s view, “best describes items in the pile”

Analytical Methods

Similarity Statistics

Multidimensional Scaling

Cluster Analysis

Main Results

1. Most codes were recognized,

but extent of recognition varied.

Note regarding table on next slide: Codes

measured with three items, except that ** =

code measured with two items.

-Code

% of Subjects

Recognizing

Code

Experts’ Opinions, Fiscal Effects,

Other Jurisdictions’ Laws≥ 50%

Bases for Legal Challenges,

Delegation of Regulatory Authority,

History of Initiative, Policy Objectives**30-49%

Alternative Means**, Effects on Other Laws,

Language Choices, Means**,

Need for Initiative 20-29%

Unintended Consequences, Effectiveness,

Policy Reasons for Choosing Lawmaking,

Public Administration Effects,

Regulations in Force, Statutes in Force**

10-19%

2. Two dimensions of codes were

identified, but their meaning is

uncertain.

Note regarding table on next slide: Code names

indicate two items loading exclusively on the indicated

dimension with value of ≥|0.400|, except that * = only

one item loaded on the indicated dimension, *** = three

items loaded on the indicated dimension; and † = two

items loaded on the indicated dimension with values of

≥|0.100| & <|0.400|.

Dimension I Dimension II

Bases for Legal

Challenges,

Experts’ Opinions***,

Language Choices†

Effectiveness*,

Effects on Other Laws,

Alternative Means*,

Means,

Need for Initiative,

Policy Objectives,

Policy Reasons for

Choosing Lawmaking*

Unintended Consequences: all

three items loaded weakly [≥|0.100|

& <|0.400|] on Dimension I, and

one item loaded weakly on

Dimension II.

Possible Interpretations of Dimensions

Dimension I Dimension II

Realistic Schema, etc. Strategic Schema

System I Thinking System II Thinking

? ?

3. Codes were grouped in seven

clusters, six of which are readily

interpretable.

Note regarding table on next slide: Code name

indicates three items were placed in the cluster,

except that * = one item was placed in the cluster,

and ** = two items were placed in the cluster.

Cluster 1: Bases for Legal ChallengesCluster 4: Alternative Means**, Policy

Objectives**, Statutes in Force**

Cluster 2: Delegation of Regulatory

Authority, Effectiveness, Experts’

Opinions, Effects on Other Laws**,

History of Initiative, Means*, Need for

Initiative**, Other Jurisdictions’ Laws,

Policy Objectives*, Policy Reasons for

Choosing Lawmaking**

Cluster 5: Unintended Consequences

Cluster 3: Alternative Means*, Effects

on Other Laws*, Language Choices,

Policy Reasons for Choosing

Lawmaking*, Public Administration

Effects, Regulations in Force, Statutes

in Force*

Cluster 6: Fiscal Effects

Cluster 7: Experts’ Opinions*, Means**

Interpretations of Clusters

Cluster 1: Bases for

Legal Challenges

Cluster 4: Alternative

Means of Achieving

Policy Objectives

Cluster 2: Strategic

Schema

Cluster 5: Unintended

Consequences

Cluster 3: ? Cluster 6: Fiscal Effects

Cluster 7: Experts’

Opinions about Means

Conclusion

• Evidence that the codes tap concepts

present in citizens’ minds, but extent varies

• MDS & cluster analysis results are

consistent with view: Strategic & realistic

schemata operative in citizens’ minds

• Replicate this study

• Survey subjects on meaning of dimensions

Full text

The full text of the paper associated

with this presentation is available at:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2447343

Acknowledgements

•Grateful thanks to:

• Anonymous reviewers

• Professor James Dillard, Professor John

Gastil, and David Brinker of The

Pennsylvania State University Department of

Communication Arts & Sciences

Contact

Robert C. Richards, Jr., JD, MSLIS, MA, BA

• PhD Candidate

• The Pennsylvania State University Department of Communication

Arts and Sciences

• Email: rcr5122@psu.edu

• Web: http://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/about/about-the-author/