Melissa Schnyder
Dr. Melissa Schnyder is Professor in the Doctoral Program in Global Security and Professor of International Relations at American Public University. A former Fulbright Fellow to the European Union, her research focuses on European Union politics, transatlantic relations, human security policy issues (forced displacement, climate change, sustainability, food sovereignty), and norm creation and norm change driven by non-state actors in these policy areas. Dr. Schnyder has been awarded competitive grant funding for international research projects involving large-scale surveys of NGOs in 28 countries and fieldwork in more than six countries. Her research has been published in a variety of peer-reviewed journals including the Journal of Contemporary European Research, Journal of European Integration, Comparative European Politics, Social Movement Studies, the Journal of Human Rights Practice, Interface: A Journal for and about Social Movements, and includes books published by Roman and Littlefield International Press and Lexington Books. From 2017-2019 she served as the Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed journal, Global Security and Intelligence Studies, and currently teaches courses on Global Governance, Quantitative Methods, and Statistics.
Address: American Public University
111 W. Congress Street
Charles Town, WV 25414
USA
Address: American Public University
111 W. Congress Street
Charles Town, WV 25414
USA
less
InterestsView All (13)
Uploads
refugees in France and Germany changes when refugee protection
is framed as a national security matter. In focusing on public attitudes four years after the height of Europe’s refugee crisis, the paper
examines two competing theoretical predictions: (a) that support
for refugees should decrease when the matter is framed in terms of
security, and (b) that sustained intergroup contact over time should
decrease prejudice toward out-groups. Using a survey experiment
design, research participants in France and Germany were randomly assigned into either a treatment or control group. The treatment
group was exposed to a security frame, whereas the control groups
did not see a frame. The experiment shows no evidence that a security frame has an overall effect on opinions about refugee protection,
suggesting that this issue frame may not generate significant framing
effects in these two countries, which have settled a large percentage
of refugees and have had time for intergroup contact. The conclusion contextualizes these findings and presents avenues for future
research on issue framing.
organisations. This paper investigates these questions by empirically examining the cleavages among the membership base of two EU umbrella organisations: the European Council on Refugees and
Exiles and the European Network Against Racism. Data come from a content analysis of member organisations’ websites and interviews with directors of European umbrella organisations. Factor
analysis techniques are used to assess empirically the different dimensions that structure diversity, examining several fault lines: identity/ideology, target population and worldview. The results point
to cleavages that can differentially affect participation in the umbrella and present strategies used by leaders of umbrella organisations to encourage more active participation by certain types of
under-represented member organisations.
refugees in France and Germany changes when refugee protection
is framed as a national security matter. In focusing on public attitudes four years after the height of Europe’s refugee crisis, the paper
examines two competing theoretical predictions: (a) that support
for refugees should decrease when the matter is framed in terms of
security, and (b) that sustained intergroup contact over time should
decrease prejudice toward out-groups. Using a survey experiment
design, research participants in France and Germany were randomly assigned into either a treatment or control group. The treatment
group was exposed to a security frame, whereas the control groups
did not see a frame. The experiment shows no evidence that a security frame has an overall effect on opinions about refugee protection,
suggesting that this issue frame may not generate significant framing
effects in these two countries, which have settled a large percentage
of refugees and have had time for intergroup contact. The conclusion contextualizes these findings and presents avenues for future
research on issue framing.
organisations. This paper investigates these questions by empirically examining the cleavages among the membership base of two EU umbrella organisations: the European Council on Refugees and
Exiles and the European Network Against Racism. Data come from a content analysis of member organisations’ websites and interviews with directors of European umbrella organisations. Factor
analysis techniques are used to assess empirically the different dimensions that structure diversity, examining several fault lines: identity/ideology, target population and worldview. The results point
to cleavages that can differentially affect participation in the umbrella and present strategies used by leaders of umbrella organisations to encourage more active participation by certain types of
under-represented member organisations.
This book empirically investigates the rich varieties of cooperative cross-border activity, and compares how the same groups behave at both the national and transnational levels. It uses an original survey – the Survey of European Migrant Inclusion NGOs – to document four types of cooperative political tactics used by NGOs cross the European Union: information-sharing, technical expertise-sharing, resource-sharing, and coordination of common projects. It also looks across the current EU member states to analyze how differences in the national policy context specific to migrants’ issues facilitate and constrain these varied forms of transnational cooperation. In doing so, the book argues that to understand the overall prevalence of transnational mobilization and the extent to which it represents the emergence of a global civil society, we need to expand the focus of social movement studies beyond just visible, public displays of contentious activity.
Global Security and Intelligence Studies is a bi-annual, peer-reviewed, open access publication designed to provide a forum for the academic community and the community of practitioners to engage in dialogue about contemporary global security and intelligence issues. The journal welcomes contributions on a broad range of intelligence and security issues, and from across the methodological and theoretical spectrum. The journal especially encourages submissions that recognize the multidisciplinary nature of intelligence and security studies, and that draw on insights from a variety of fields to advance our understanding of important current intelligence and security issues. In keeping with the desire to help bridge the gap between academics and practitioners, the journal also invites articles about current intelligence and security related matters from a practitioner perspective. In particular, GSIS is interested in publishing informed perspectives on current intelligence and security related matters.