 | This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The Presidential Performance Study The Presidential Performance Study ratings (1982, 00, 00, 2004-2004).
In 1982, Robert K. Murray and Tim H. Blessing of the Pennsylvania State University, founded the Presidential Performance Study, putting together a 19-page survey on the presidents requiring 00 individual answers. The survey was sent to all full-time American historians at four year or better schools of higher education who held the Ph.D, were listed in the American Historical Association’s Guide to the Departments of History (1981), and who did not hold joint appointments. The answers to the questions provided insights into many contested issues among historians and political pundits and provided a framework for their book, Greatness in the White House. Greatness in the White House’s chapters summarized historians’ responses to the issues of 00, 00, 00, . . . . . In addition, by analyzing demographic information provided by respondents and analyzing internal patterns found in the data, Murray and Blessing were able to demonstrate that historians differed on some presidential ratings by depending on the respondents gender, age, 00.
In 1988, using the same techniques, Murray and Blessing analyzed historians reactions to the presidency of Ronald Reagan, finding that 00. Upon the retirement of Robert Murray, Blessing in 00 asked psychologist Anne Skleder, now Provost of Wilkes University, to become the methodologist for the Presidential Performance Study. They created a new survey on Reagan which demonstrated that Reagan’s standing had changed with the passage of years from being 00 to being 00. They also demonstrated that analysts of Reagan’s controversial presidency could be divided into four camps:
Noting the continuing lack of consensus in many presidential ratings, particularly in regards to more recent presidents, in 2004 and 2005 Blessing and Skleder designed a new survey, based on the same multiple question methodology, and sent it to the historical profession based on the American Historical Association’s 2004 Guide to Departments of History. While asking the normal broad range of questions, some questions were designed to encourage partisan and ideological responses. 00 historians responded. The responses showed that liberal and conservative historians had widely different reactions on a variety of issues, including presidential rankings. Their rankings for Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), and Clinton were:
References
editExternal links
edit