Rachel VanSickle-Ward, Ph.D.
rvansick@pitzer.edu
Pitzer College
Country: United States (California)
About Me:
Rachel VanSickle-Ward (B.A. Pitzer College; M.A. and Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley) is a Professor of Political Studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. Her research interests include public policy, public law, and gender and politics. She has published work on the politics of statutory language, gender and political ambition, and administrative law. Her first book, The Devil is in the Details: Understanding the Causes of Policy Specificity and Ambiguity (SUNY Press, 2014), explores the impact of political and institutional fragmentation on policy wording and was awarded the Herbert A. Simon Book Award in 2018. She is a frequent commentator on KPCC’s Take Two (Southern California Public Radio). Her writing has appeared in Talking Points Memo, The Washington Post (The Monkey Cage), and U.S News and World Report. She was named the 2012 Pitzer College Scholar in Residence for her research on contraception politics and policy, and her book on the subject, The Politics of the Pill, is forthcoming with Oxford University Press (2019). She is currently co-editing a volume on Hillary Clinton's legacy (Bloombsbury Publishing, under contract).
Research Interests
Gender and Politics
Public Policy
Health Politics and Policy
Elections, Election Administration, and Voting Behavior
Judicial Politics
State and Local Politics
Reproductive Health
Gender And Ambition
Statutory Creation/interpretation
Countries of Interest
United States
Publications:
Journal Articles:
Good education requires student experiences that deliver lessons about practice as well as theory and that encourage students to work for the public good—especially in the operation of democratic institutions (Dewey 1923; Dewy 1938). We report on an evaluation of the pedagogical value of a research project involving 23 colleges and universities across the country. Faculty trained and supervised students who observed polling places in the 2016 General Election. Our findings indicate that this was a valuable learning experience in both the short and long terms. Students found their experiences to be valuable and reported learning generally and specifically related to course material. Postelection, they also felt more knowledgeable about election science topics, voting behavior, and research methods. Students reported interest in participating in similar research in the future, would recommend other students to do so, and expressed interest in more learning and research about the topics central to their experience. Our results suggest that participants appreciated the importance of elections and their study. Collectively, the participating students are engaged and efficacious—essential qualities of citizens in a democracy.
There is evidence that some obstacles to women running for political office emerge early in the political development of women and girls. Lawless and Fox (2005 Lawless , Jennifer and Richard Fox . 2005 . It Takes a Candidate. New York : Cambridge University Press . [Google Scholar] ) identify several reasons for lower political ambition among women relative to men. Among their explanations are that girls are less likely to be engaged in political conversations in their childhood homes than are boys, and women receive less encouragement to run for office by family members and friends. While it is unclear what interventions may help close the ambition gap, research suggests some avenues for change. We consider how to use the classroom as a place to encourage female college students to reflect on their own potential as candidates. We detail and test two ways in which instructors can offer students opportunities to learn about the ambition gap and to consider their own possible political future. On balance, our findings demonstrate that classroom exercises that expose students to women in political office, coupled with literature and discussion that contextualizes those individuals’ experiences, encourage greater self-reported political ambition, particularly among female students. Moreover, we find this positive outcome in both small seminars and large lecture courses. with Jill Greenlee and Mirya Holman
Since 1996, twenty-eight states have adopted legislation mandating insurance coverage of prescription contraceptives for women. Most of these policies include language that allows providers to opt out of the requirement because of religious or moral beliefs-conscience clause exemptions. There is striking variation in how these exemptions are defined. This article investigates the sources and consequences of ambiguous versus precise statutory language in conscience clauses. We find that some forms of political and institutional fragmentation (party polarization and gubernatorial appointment power) are correlated with the degree of policy specificity in state contraceptive mandates. This finding reinforces previous law and policy scholarship that has shown that greater fragmentation promotes ambiguous statutory language because broad wording acts as a vehicle for compromise when actors disagree. Interestingly, it is the more precisely worded statutes that have prompted court battles. We explain this with reference to the asymmetry of incentives and mobilizing costs between those disadvantaged by broad (primarily female employees) versus precisely worded statutes (primarily Catholic organizations). Our findings suggest that the impact of statutory ambiguity on court intervention is heavily contextualized by the resources and organization of affected stakeholders. with Amanda Hollis-Brusky
Books Written:
The announcement of a Health and Human Services (HHS) rule requiring insurance providers to cover the costs of contraception as part of the Affordable Care Act sparked widespread political controversy. How did something that millions of American women use regularly become such a fraught political issue? In The Politics of the Pill, Rachel VanSickle-Ward and Kevin Wallsten explore how gender has shaped contemporary debates over contraception policy in the U.S. Within historical context, they examine the impact that women and perceptions of gender roles had on media coverage, public opinion, policy formation, and legal interpretations from the deliberation of the Affordable Care Act in 2009 to the more recent Supreme Court rulings in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Zubic v. Burwell. Their central argument is that representation matters: who had a voice significantly impacted policy attitudes, deliberation and outcomes. While women's participation in the debate over birth control was limited by a lack of gender parity across institutions, women nevertheless shaped policy making on birth control in myriad and interconnected ways. Combining detailed analyses of media coverage and legislative records with data from public opinion surveys, survey experiments, elite interviews, and congressional testimony, The Politics of the Pill tells a broader story of how gender matters in American politics.
The level of detail in a given law can have dramatic consequences for how that law is interpreted and applied. In The Devil Is in the Details, Rachel VanSickle-Ward focuses on the dynamics of social policy construction in the United States in order to better understand why the wording of legislation can range from the specific to the ambiguous. When policies are high salience, the fissures produced by partisan discord, interest group diversity, and pluralistic executive branches promote ambiguous policy. When policies are lower profile, this relationship is more tenuous and, at times, inverted, with contention producing more policy detail. Put simply, on important and controversial legislation, ambiguity serves as a vehicle for compromise when key participants disagree over details. Moreover, fragmentation is a more powerful driver of ambiguity than limits in technical expertise or legislative capacity. This multi-method investigation is the first to measure statute specificity directly. VanSickle-Ward combines comprehensive content analysis of more than 250 health and welfare bills passed in 44 states in the 1990s and 2000s with in-depth interviews of policy-making elites.
Media Appearances:
Radio Appearances:
Gender Pay Disparity (starts at 7:28)
How the DACA debate is playing out in California
Is the future of the Democratic Party Female
Choosing a running mate isn't exactly rocket science
Hillary Clinton's breakthrough moment was a long time coming
Other:
Over the Counter Birth Control
The ‘Economic Woman’: Why Hillary Clinton's economic message still matters
Why women’s representation may suffer when Hillary Clinton is attacked as ‘ambitious’ and ‘unqualified'
Clinton Does Inspire
Here are 2 ways that Breyer's Wonky Opinion in Whole Women's Health Could Transform Abortion Politics.
A Mother for President
Latina Voters say Adiós To Trump
The Supreme Court is Debating Ambiguities in Obamacare. So why do Politicians Even Write Ambiguous Laws?
“‘Narrow’ Hobby Lobby Ruling Dangerously Affirms that Women’s Health is Separate.”