Honoring Judith S. Trent’s Contributions to American Behavioral Scientist

Since the presidential primary campaign of 1988, Dr. Judith S. Trent of the University of Cincinnati has contributed her research to every special issue of American Behavioral Scientist’s Political Communication Presidential Election Issue. The research has been remarkable for its consistent focus on one vital topic in the study of political campaign communication: the nature of the desired attributes of “the ideal candidate,” from the perspective of the public and of the media. In these quadrennial articles, she and her coresearchers have compared and contrasted the media and public views of the ideal candidate’s qualities, the way these views change over time from one presidential campaign to another, and the differences in views associated with partisan affiliation. The sheer scope and consistency of examining the same research questions over a period of 28 years, from 1988 through 2016, for eight presidential primary campaigns, has provided an impressive body of information for political communication scholars. The diversity of the audience surveyed is also unusually broad, as she succeeded in getting feedback from hundreds and at times over a thousand of adult voters who had a broad range of political views.

Dr. Trent’s research methods are not for the faint-hearted. She traveled to New Hampshire in the dead of winter, and spent the week before each presidential primary driving around the state and standing in the snow, attending candidate events, and surveying members of the media and of the public attending those events. (I often traveled with her, so I can speak from personal experience.) She chose New Hampshire because it is the first presidential primary, all the candidates compete there, and for many years the vote there was prophetic of the results in November. She sought to attend events on behalf of every candidate, including a sampling of their town halls, debates, panels, press conferences, factory and school visits, and individual speeches. She and her team arrived early and passed out and collected surveys among the audiences. They quickly learned that in the often long waits for the candidates to arrive, audience members were eager for diversion, and were happy to fill out the one-page survey distributed. The researchers had press passes and were able to speak with members of the media as well. [Note: By 2000, press access became increasingly difficult, as the media organizations discouraged their staff from doing interviews. Dr. Trent then shifted to all-public interviews.]

This ambitious long-term research required extensive planning and flexibility, as a political campaign frequently changes. Dr. Trent had to keep in touch with multiple campaigns in New Hampshire to get their schedules, deal with occasionally hostile campaign staff dubious about strangers passing out surveys, and coordinate travel to three or more events a day in disparate parts of the state. She played several roles in this research, not only as the lead researcher but also as a mentor and co-researcher with graduate students and faculty colleagues on her team. Her research directly on the ground was of great interest to many media outlets, and she conducted media interviews during and after the trip. She often spoke about this research at colleges (such as Emerson College) and professional conventions.

The American Behavioral Research special issue provided an excellent opportunity for Dr. Trent’s research to appear regularly over the years, for the benefit of a wide audience interested in political campaign communication. Her research on the ideal candidate has made a major contribution to our knowledge.