UWRF International Trade Survey 2012-13

During fall 2012, Dr. Erick Highum led a team of UWRF student researchers to determine the level of support that UW-RF students have for policies regarding the issue of international trade.  The team included UWRF students Erynn Delahousaye, Michael DeMatties, Chad Hanson, Hannah Carlson, and Kathryn Van Putten, who helped create the survey and gathered responses from more than 340 students.    The survey was designed to determine the level of support that UWRF students have for policies of the U.S. government regarding the issue of international trade and international institutions that focus on trade.   The questions in the survey also tested the level of support that UWRF students have for the theoretical approaches to the issue of international trade of free trade, and fair trade.

Student researchers will be presenting the results of the survey at the April 2013 National Conference of Undergraduate Research, and will be informing the UWRF community of student views on this important international relations topic in spring 2013.

The overall results for each of the questions for all participating students are contained in this pdf document: UWRF International Trade Survey 2012-13. The overall results suggest that UWRF students who participated in the survey:

1. Have much stronger support for fair trade policies (question #31) over free trade policies (question #30) and protectionism policies (question #15);
2. Strongly support policies whereby the U.S. Government increases trade with countries that have established health and safety protections for their workers (question #29); with countries that support women’s rights (question #27); and with countries that have democratic governance (question #28);
3. Are in strong agreement with policies that promote trade based on the ethical treatment of workers and farmers (question #35), and are environmentally sustainable (question #36);
4. Are in relatively strong agreement that trade sanctions and other trade restrictions will affect political outcomes in targeted countries (question #17);
5. Have mixed results regarding which sets of countries the U.S. government should increase trade with.  The strongest support is for trade with countries in the European Union (question #26), and in Latin America (question #23), with significantly less support for trading with countries that assisted in U.S. military operations in Afghanistan (question #21), in Africa (question #22), in Asia (question #24), and in the Middle East (question #25).   Open ended comments indicated that some survey participants would have liked to see the regions of the world broken down further in this survey section.

UWRF International Terrorism Survey 2011-12

During fall 2011, Dr. Erick Highum led a team of UWRF student researchers to determine the level of support that UWRF students have for policies of the U.S. government regarding the issues of international terrorism and domestic security measures used to prevent terrorism. The team included UWRF students Erynn Delahousaye, Michael Ritter, Alicia Carlson, and Christina Zimmerman, who helped create the survey and gathered responses from more than 360 students. The survey also tested the level of support that UWRF students have for the international relations theoretical approaches of realism and liberalism on this issue-area; and measured UWRF student reactions to international terrorism and domestic security policies enacted after September 11, 2001. Student researchers have applied to use the results of the survey as the basis for presenting original research on this topic at the March 2012 National Conference of Undergraduate Research, and will be informing the UWRF community of student views on this important international relations topic in spring 2012.

The overall results for each of the questions for all participating students are contained in this pdf document: UWRF International Terrorism Survey 2011-2012.

The overall results suggest that UWRF students who participated in the survey:

1. strongly support the policy of working cooperatively with other nations to capture suspected terrorists (question #38);
2. are in strong agreement with the liberal theoretical perspective that in order to reduce global terrorism, nations should treat it as a global crime, not through war (question #19); and increase international police and intelligence efforts to capture and convict terrorists (question #21).
3. have mixed results regarding the realist theoretical perspective, namely they are in strong agreement that in order to reduce global terrorism, nations should use sanctions to terminate financial support for terrorists groups (question #22); rather than create a world-wide military campaign against terrorist groups (questions #20).
4. strongly do not support the policies of government surveillance of cell phone communications (question #32); internet use (question #31); and financial accounts (question #33); but are less opposed to government surveillance of social networking sites (question #34).
5. strongly support the policies that allows habeas corpus (the right to a trial) for suspected terrorists (question #36); and allows judges to review suspected terrorists cases (question #37).

UWRF Afghanistan War Survey, 2010-11

During fall 2010 and spring 2011, Dr. Erick Highum led a team exploring both views about and potential policy recommendations for the Afghanistan War. The team included UWRF students Rachel Ryan, Jonathan Lyksett, and Cory Heaton, who helped create the survey and gathered responses from more than 300 students. The purpose was to compare various policy approaches to the Afghanistan War, and to test whether there is a difference in the recommendations made by students regarding the Iraq War in 2008-2009, with those in the Afghanistan War survey in 2010-2011. Six policy positions were examined:

1. make no change in current policy;
   
2. work with local leaders to extract raw materials;
   
3. stimulate Afghanistan's economic development;
   
4. increase training of Afghani security forces;
   
5. withdraw U.S. troops; and
   
6. increase U.S. troop levels.
   

The overall results for each of the questions for all participating students in the 2010 UWRF Afghanistan War survey and the 2008 UWRF Iraq War survey are contained in the following two pdf documents: 2008 Iraq War Survey and 2010 Afghanistan War Survey.

The overall results suggest that UWRF students who participated in the 2010 Afghanistan survey, have very consistent policy views to those expressed by students taking the UWRF Iraq War survey in 2008-2009. Namely that participating students:

1. would like to see a change in the current U.S. policy in Afghanistan (#10), which are consistent with results in the Iraq survey question #12;
2. are in strong agreement that Afghanistan is currently in a state of civil war (#14), which are consistent with results in the Iraq survey question #21;
3. are in strong agreement that economic development is an effective tool to create jobs and promote peace in Afghanistan (#16),  which are consistent with results in the Iraq survey question #23;
4. are in strong agreement that there is a correlation between Afghanistan's high unemployment rate and the likelihood of involvement in terrorist organizations (#17), which are consistent with results in the Iraq survey question #24;
5. are in strong agreement that the Afghani people want U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan and would favor a partial U.S. troop withdrawal (#29 and #32 respectively), which are consistent with results in the Iraq survey questions #33 an #34 respectively;
6. 6) remain unsure of the affect on Afghanistan of pulling U.S. troops out (#33 and #35 respectively), which are consistent with results in the Iraq survey questions #38 and 40 respectively.

Overall results in the 2010 Afghanistan War survey that are unique to this survey are namely that participating students:

1. are in strong agreement that the U.S. government should work with Afghanistan leaders to extract minerals for economic development; and that the Afghani government should provide some regulation of the poppy industry (#19 and #26 respectively);  and
2. are in strong agreement that U.S. efforts to train Afghani security forces is an effective means to stabilize Afghanistan (#21) and remain uncertain if U.S. policy to increase troops levels has made a positive impact on Afghanistan (#12).

During fall 2009 and spring 2010, Dr. Erick Highum led a team exploring students' views about the issue of global climate change. The team included Cory Heaton, Jonathan Lyksett, and Jennifer Haug who helped create the survey and gathered responses from more than 350 students. The purpose was to determine if students thought that global climate change was an important issue, and the result of human industrial activities; and to compare various policy approaches to the global climate change issue contained in the United Nations Kyoto Protocol, as well as policy positions put forward by leading developed and developing states of the European Union, United States, Brazil, China, India, and Russia. To ensure against bias the researchers did not list the name of each nation associated with each policy position on the questionnaire. Current results are in the following pdf document. The "UWRF Climate Change Survey 2009-2010" file provides overall results for each of the questions in the survey; as well as the rating average score for each of the questions in the survey for all 352 participating students.

UWRF Global Climate Change Survey

Overall results suggest that UWRF students who participated in the survey:

1. agree that global warming is real, the result of human industrial activities, and that individuals can make a difference in preventing future global climate change (#7, #8, and #10 respectively);

2. are unsure of the reliability of climate change models, and whether global climate change is less important than having a strong economy (#9, and 14 respectively);

3. are in strong agreement that industrialized countries should try to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions; and that there is a heavier burden on industrialized developed nations to find a solution for climate change than developing nations (#16, and #18 respectively);

4. have mixed support for the principal provisions of the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, specifically:

a. do not support an emissions trading scheme that allows countries with little or no emissions to sell emissions to countries that are over their targets (#21);

b. are in relatively strong agreement that countries may meet emission reduction targets using land use changes such as reforestation; clean development mechanisms where developed countries invest in projects in developing countries; and joint implementation projects between developed countries carrying out projects with other industrialized developed countries (#22, #23, #24 respectively);

5. are in strong agreement that all nations should make a commitment to achieve at least a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020; and encourage investment in emission reduction technologies (#27 and #28 respectively);

6. are in strong agreement that government should:

a. support international climate negotiations (#30);
b. rely less on imported oil and more on renewable energy sources, including hydroelectric power (#33 and #36 respectively);
c. research clean energy options such as building efficiency, clean coal, and clean vehicles (#34);
d. increase the use of bio-fuels in the transportation sector (#37);
e. implement new national building codes to improve energy conservation (#44);
f. raise appliance efficiency standards for lighting, air conditioners, and home appliances (#45);
g. raise fuel economy standards on motor vehicles (#46);
h. increase government financing of solar power projects (#47);

7. have much less agreement for the following policies:

a. a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 30% in industrialized developed nations by 2020 (#26);
b. promoting the use of nuclear power as part of a national energy strategy (#40);
c. closing inefficient coal fired power plants (#48);

8. strongly support the policies of the following countries:

a. The United States, with the exception of a trading scheme involving emissions of greenhouse gases (#21);
b. China, with the exception that all nations should make a commitment to achieve at least a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020 (#27).

During fall 2008 and spring 2009, Dr. Erick Highum led a team exploring both views about and potential policy recommendations for the Iraq War. The team included Peter Wetzel, Regina Kunesh, John Byers, Marissa Merchant, and UWRF alum Tara Sowle, who helped create the survey and gathered responses from more than 300 students. The purpose was to compare various policy approaches to the Iraq War, and to test whether there is a difference in the recommendations made by students with military experience, and those without such experience. Six policy positions were examined:

a) make no change in current policy;
b) divide Iraq into three separate provinces: Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis;
c) Stimulate Iraq's economic development;
d) increase training of Iraqi security forces;
e) withdraw U.S. troops; and
f) increase U.S. troop levels.

Current results are in the following two pdf documents. The Summary results of 2008-2009 UWRF Iraq War Survey file provides overall results for each of the questions in the survey. The Crosstab Results - Averages of all responses 2008-2009 UWRF Iraq War Survey file provides average scores for each of the questions in the survey for all 332 participating students.

Overall results suggest that UWRF students who participated in the survey:
1) would like to see a change in the current U.S. policy in Iraq (#12);
2) are in strong agreement that Iraq is currently in a state of civil war (#21);
3) are in strong agreement that economic development is an effective tool to create jobs and promote peace in Iraq (#23);
4) are in strong agreement that there is a correlation between Iraq's high unemployment rate and the likelihood of involvement in terrorist organizations (#24);
5) are in strong agreement that the Iraqi people want the U.S. troops to leave Iraq and would favor a partial U.S. troop withdrawal (#34 and #37 respectively);
6) remain unsure of the affect on Iraq of pulling U.S. troops out (#38 and #40 respectively);
7) have arrived at a near consensus that U.S. policy should be to not further increase troops levels in Iraq (#41).
8) remain uncertain that the U.S. policy to send troops to Iraq was the correct or incorrect policy approach (#42).