COVID-19: Updates on library services and operations.

The 1992 presidential debates in focus /
edited by Diana B. Carlin and Mitchell S. McKinney.
Westport, Conn. : Praeger, 1994.
xxi, 274 p.
0275948463 (alk. paper)
More Details
Westport, Conn. : Praeger, 1994.
0275948463 (alk. paper)
catalogue key
Includes bibliographical references and index.
A Look Inside
Full Text Reviews
Appeared in Choice on 1995-04:
The Commission on Presidential Debates asked Carlin (communication, Univ. of Kansas) to explore reactions to the 1992 presidential campaign debates to suggest recommendations for future debates. She and graduate student McKinney organized 62 small groups in 16 states to view and discuss the debates. Carlin and McKinney, then, edited the contributions by the facilitators of the 62 focus groups. Although there is much insightful interpretation, much material is also repetitive and loosely organized. There are great variations in quality. The chapter on gender differences is tightly written, insightful, and builds well on previous research. In contrast, the statistical analysis of the impact of different sources of campaign information on South Dakota voters is muddled and methodologically suspect. Overall, the book would have benefited from a more systematic analysis of the focus group transcripts and some attention to political restraints and consequences. Of interest primarily to speech communication specialists. Upper-division undergraduate through faculty. R. E. O'Connor; Pennsylvania State University, University Park Campus
Review Quotes
'œOf interest primarily to speech communication specialists. Upper-division undergraduate through faculty.'' Choice
This item was reviewed in:
Choice, April 1995
To find out how to look for other reviews, please see our guides to finding book reviews in the Sciences or Social Sciences and Humanities.
Long Description
The results of a focus group research project, sponsored by the Commission of Presidential Debates and conducted during the 1992 presidential and vice presidential debates, are reported. The study involved 625 participants from 17 states who met in 60 focus groups held during the period of the debates. Focus group participants answered questions regarding what they learned from the debates, how they assessed the formats, what improvements they wanted in future debates, and how information provided by the debates compared with that from other news sources. The 14 chapters of this volume include a summary of past research on presidential debates, an outline of the focus group methodology used here, and the results of the focus groups, including numerous quotations from focus group members. The results specifically address the questions of debate format, voter learning, reactions to the third candidate, male versus female response to the debates, opinions of student voters, analyses of disagreements among focus group members, and a set of recommendations for future debates.
Table of Contents
About the Series by
Denton Foreword by
Acknowledgments Researching Presidential Debates A Rationale for a Focus Group Study by
Carlin Design & Implementation of the Focus Group Study by
McKinney The Focus Group as a Research Tool by Beverley Davenport Sypher Structuring the Debates Debating the Debates by
The Impact of Formats on Voter Reactions by
Let the People Speak: The Emergence of Public Space in the Richmond Presidential Debate by
"Children in a Sandbox:" Reaction to the Vice Presidential Debate by
Flirting with Perot: Voter Ambivalence about the Third Candidate by
The Impact of Debates Debates as a Voter Education Tool by
The Presidential Debate as a Source of Citizen Disagressment by
Debates versus Other Communication Sources: The Pattern of Information and Influence by
The Gender Gap? Male and Female Reactions to the 1992 Presidential Debates by
The Student Voter by
Conclusions Implications for Future Debates by
Table of Contents provided by Publisher. All Rights Reserved.

This information is provided by a service that aggregates data from review sources and other sources that are often consulted by libraries, and readers. The University does not edit this information and merely includes it as a convenience for users. It does not warrant that reviews are accurate. As with any review users should approach reviews critically and where deemed necessary should consult multiple review sources. Any concerns or questions about particular reviews should be directed to the reviewer and/or publisher.

  link to old catalogue

Report a problem