POLI 7961 (Fall 2006)
51 Pages

POLI 7961 (Fall 2006)

Course Number: POLI 7961, Fall 2008

College/University: LSU

Word Count: 14657

Rating:

Document Preview

POLI 7961 Seminar in Scope and Approaches to the Study of Politics Fall 2006 James C. Garand Emogine Pliner Distinguished Professor Office: 205 Stubbs Hall Phone: 578-2548 Email: pogara@lsu.edu Epistemology: "the part of philosophy that deals with the origin, nature, and limits of knowledge." Source: The World Book Dictionary Too much attention to epistemology induces hallucinations of negativism. V.O....

Unformatted Document Excerpt
Coursehero >> Louisiana >> LSU >> POLI 7961

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one
below including study guides, practice problems, reference materials, practice exams, textbook help and tutor support.

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, practice problems, reference materials, practice exams, textbook help and tutor support.

7961 POLI Seminar in Scope and Approaches to the Study of Politics Fall 2006 James C. Garand Emogine Pliner Distinguished Professor Office: 205 Stubbs Hall Phone: 578-2548 Email: pogara@lsu.edu Epistemology: "the part of philosophy that deals with the origin, nature, and limits of knowledge." Source: The World Book Dictionary Too much attention to epistemology induces hallucinations of negativism. V.O. Key, Jr. Method without substance may be sterile, but substance without method is only fortuitously substantial. V.O. Key, Jr. (1958 APSA Presidential Address) Introduction The major purpose of this seminar is to provide a broad overview of the nature of inquiry and explanation in political science. In essence, it is the objective of this seminar to: (1) examine the historical, epistemological, structural, theoretical, and methodological foundations of American political science; (2) acquaint students with the nature of the political science discipline as an intellectual enterprise; and (3) apprise students of the range of analytic procedures that can be employed in the search for knowledge about politics. At the very core of this seminar are questions that are central for anyone undertaking rigorous political analysis. What is political knowledge? How do we assess critically the quality of political analysis and the knowledge obtained from such analysis? What can we know about the political world and its processes? Why is political knowledge important in the first place? To this end, we address several major issues in this seminar. First, we discuss the debates that have shaped the discipline of political science in the second half of this century; in particular, we explore the sharp disagreements among political scientists over the behavioral, post-behavioral, and anti-behavioral movements in the profession. Second, we discuss the possibility of a scientific study of politics. Specifically, we address the questions of whether or not politics can be studied scientifically, the meaning and philosophy of science, as well as the elements of socialscientific explanation. Finally, we spend several weeks on the methodology and design of scientific political research. In this section we discuss the quantitative-qualitative debate that divides political (and other social) scientists, and we explore possible areas of agreement among these perspectives. We also consider the general logic and rationale underlying social scientific analysis, concept measurement, data collection, experimental and quasiexperimental research designs, strategies for analysis, and ethical issues in political research. We examine research examples drawn from the political science literature in order to understand the best (or at least better) ways of exploring empirical questions of interest to political scientists. Several points should be made about this seminar. First, this seminar is the first of a two-part sequence on political methodology that is (1) required of all graduate students in political science at LSU, and (2) designed to socialize students into the profession in a way usually ignored in one's undergraduate political science training. The 2 second seminar (POLI 7962: Seminar in Research Design and Quantitative Techniques) is also offered this semester. POLI 7961 has been designed to complement the quantitative methods seminar and to provide a foundation upon which the subject matter of the second seminar can be built. Second, this seminar is non-substantive in nature; in other words, we are not concerned directly with specific substantive areas of political science. Instead, the focus of this seminar is epistemological, and the examples of research employed throughout are directed at methodological, and not substantive, issues. Third, it is not the object of this seminar to force individuals to adopt a particular epistemological perspective. Instead, we emphasize the dominant frameworks characterizing current political science, as well as criticisms of these frameworks. It is left to individual students to select an appropriate framework to guide their future research work. Finally, this seminar is designed to equip each student with basic concepts, analytical criteria, and research skills that will facilitate participation in later seminars and allow each student to plan a general program of study at LSU. The issues and problems discussed in general terms in this seminar will arise repeatedly in more specific terms in future research reading and in substantive seminars. Course Requirements and Evaluation Each student will be evaluated on the basis of the following: Research design paper Final examination General class participation 1. 50% 25% 25% Research Design Paper. A major research design paper (equivalent to a research grant proposal or dissertation prospectus) will be required of all students. This paper will involve original empirical research on a topic of each student's own choosing that addresses a theoretically-grounded research question of interest to political scientists. Students will be expected to design a research project that could be utilized to evaluate the empirical validity of a single hypothesis or set of hypotheses pertaining to the political phenomenon under study. Ideally, the finished product should be, subject to modest revision, of sufficient quality and plausibility to be considered as a thesis, dissertation, or grant proposal. Each student should begin to consider possible research topics as soon as possible, and should consult frequently with the instructor about potential topics and relevant literature. Further, each student is expected to gain approval of the selected topic from the instructor before beginning work, and should be prepared to work closely with the instructor in fine-tuning the proposed research. All research design papers are due on Friday, December 8, 2006. All papers should be (1) typed (double spaced), (2) written in accordance with the APSR style manual, (3) proofread for mistakes, and (4) neat and professionally presented. In order to facilitate the completion of papers by the end of the semester, the following suggested deadlines for various components of the paper should be met: October 2 October 23 November 13 December 8 Selection of paper topic Draft of introduction and literature review completed Draft of theory and research design sections Final paper completed In addition, students will be required to make a brief presentation of their papers to a colloquium of fellow seminar students and interested departmental faculty and graduate students. Each student is expected to give a short presentation (e.g., 10 minutes) of professional quality, similar to a presentation that might be given at a professional conference. More information on this presentation will be provided later in the semester. 3 2. 3. Final Examination. A comprehensive final examination will be required for all students. Information pertaining to the format of the final examination will be provided to all students later in the semester. Class Participation. Class participation and preparedness is a major component of evaluation in graduate seminars. Each student will be evaluated on the basis of the quality of informed participation and contribution to seminar discussion. Specifically, each student is expected to attend every seminar meeting (without exception), have read and reflected upon all assigned readings before class, and be prepared to discuss critically the issues raised in the literature during the seminar meeting. Reading The following books have been ordered and are available at the University bookstore. I have ordered books that will be read either in part or in their entirety during the semester. Required: Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton University Press, 1994) Chava Frankfort-Nachmias and David Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th edition) (Worth Publishing, 2001) John Geering, Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework (Cambridge University Press, 2001) In addition to the books ordered for the seminar, there is a sizeable set of additional articles and book chapters that will be required reading for the seminar. All additional readings are listed on the following semester outline. Readings will be made available to students electronically (as .pdf files) from the following web site: http://jgarand.lsu.edu/poli7961.htm Readings on the seminar outline are divided into two categories. First are those readings required of all students; these are denoted by an asterisk (*). Second are supplemental readings, which may be read depending on each student's interest and inclination. The following represent journal abbreviations found in this outline: APSR AJPS JOP PS PRQ WPQ SSQ BJPS LSQ APQ ISQ JPAM American Political Science Review American Journal of Political Science Journal of Politics PS: Political Science and Politics Political Research Quarterly Western Political Quarterly (now PRQ) Social Science Quarterly British Journal of Political Science Legislative Studies Quarterly American Politics Quarterly International Studies Quarterly Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 4 Membership in the APSA The American Political Science Association (APSA) is the national professional organization representing political scientists in the United States. Political scientists who are active in the profession are expected to be members of the APSA. For students, membership dues are quite reasonable ($38). Members receive the American Political Science Review, the official scholarly journal of the APSA, as well as PS: Political Science and Politics, a journal that discusses people, events, and activities in the profession, and Perspectives on Politics, a relatively new APSA journal. Although membership in the APSA is not a requirement of this course, students are encouraged in the strongest terms to become members of the organization representing their profession. You can join the APSA at the following web site: http://www.apsanet.org/member/index.cfm Academic Misconduct Statement Academic misconduct is defined by the Code of Student Conduct. You are encouraged to familiarize yourself with the LSU policy on academic misconduct, particularly regarding plagiarism. The LSU Code of Student Conduct can be found on the web site for the LSU Dean of Students: http://appl003.lsu.edu/slas/dos.nsf/index Academic misconduct is a serious violation of university policy, but more importantly it is a significant scholarly violation for political scientists. Plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct will not be tolerated in this seminar. Charges of academic misconduct will be turned over to the Dean of Students for appropriate disciplinary action. About the Instructor James C. Garand (Ph.D., University of Kentucky, 1984) is the Emogene Pliner Distinguished Professor in Political Science. Professor Garand has teaching and research interests in the fields of legislative politics, electoral politics, public policy, state politics, bureaucratic politics, domestic political economy, and methodology and statistics. His research on a wide range of topics in American politics has been published in numerous journals, including the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, British Journal of Political Science, Political Research Quarterly, Western Political Quarterly, Comparative Political Studies, American Politics Research (formerly American Politics Quarterly), Public Choice, Social Science Quarterly, and Legislative Studies Quarterly. His coedited book, Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections, was published by Sage Publications in 2000. Professor Garand was President of the Southern Political Science Association in 2004. He served as VicePresident and Program Chair in 2001 for the Southern Political Science Association, and he remains a member of the SPSA Executive Council. He is also former president of the State Politics Section of the American Political Science Association. Professor Garand is former editor of the American Politics Quarterly, one of the leading subfield journals in American politics. He currently serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Politics, American Politics Research, State and Local Government Review, and Journal of Political Marketing, and he is a former member of the editorial boards of the American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, State Politics and Policy, and Legislative Studies Quarterly. His current research agenda includes numerous projects relating to the study of American politics. Professor Garand has received numerous faculty awards. In 1997 Professor Garand received the LSU Alumni Association Distinguished Faculty Award in recognition of sustained excellence in teaching, research, and service. In 2001 he received the LSU Foundation Distinguished Faculty Award in recognition of his excellence in graduate teaching, and in 1990 he received the university-wide Student Government Association Teaching Excellence Award for undergraduate teaching. He is also a recipient of the Alpha Lambda Delta Freshman Honor Society certificate of recognition for superior instruction of freshman students during the Fall 2000 semester. 5 Recent publications (since 2000): Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections, coedited with James E. Campbell, Sage Publications, 2000. James C. Garand and Kelly M. Burke, Legislative Activity and the 1994 Republican Takeover: Exploring Changing Patterns of Sponsorship and Cosponsorship in the U.S. House, American Politics Research (March 2006: 159-88). SPSA Presidential Address: Fragmentation and Integration in Political Science: Exploring Patterns of Scholarly Communication in a Divided Discipline, Journal of Politics (November 2005: 979-1005). Horizontal Diffusion, Vertical Diffusion, and Internal Pressure in State Environmental Policy Making.19891998, with Dorothy Daley, American Politics Research (September 2005: 615-44) "Explaining Voter Turnout in Latin American Nations," with Tim Power and Carolina Fornos, Comparative Political Studies (October 2004: 909-40) "Measuring Constituency Ideology in U.S. House Districts: A Top-Down Simulation Approach," with Philip Ardoin, Journal of Politics (November 2003: 1165-89). Journals in the Discipline: A Report on a New Survey of American Political Scientists, with Micheal Giles, PS: Political Science and Politics (April 2003: 293-308). "Race-Based Redistricting, Core Constituencies, and Legislative Responsiveness," with Christine LeVeaux, Social Science Quarterly (March 2003: 32-51). "Are Government Employees More Likely to Vote? An Analysis of Turnout in the 1996 U.S. National Election," with Elizabeth Corey, Public Choice (April 2002: 259-83). "Race, Roll Calls, and Redistricting: The Impact of Majority-Minority Districts on Congressional Roll-Call Voting," with Christine LeVeaux Sharpe, Political Research Quarterly (March 2001: 31-52). "Explaining Divided Government in the United States: Testing an Intentional Model of Split-Ticket Voting," with Marci Glascock Lichtl, British Journal of Political Science (January 2000: 173-91). "Understanding Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt in the American States, 1950-1998," with Branwell Dubose Kapeluck, in Louis Imbeau and Francois Petry (eds.), Politics, Institutions, and Fiscal Policy: Public Deficits and Surpluses in Federated States (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 2003, forthcoming). Spending, Taxes, and Deficits: Fiscal Policy in the American States, with Kyle Baudoin, in Virginia Gray and Russell Hanson (eds.), Politics in the American States (8th edition) (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2003). 6 Brief Course Outline I. Introduction II. The History and Overview of Political Science A. History of the Discipline B. Contemporary Patterns of Division in Political Science III. Historical Debates in Political Science A. The Behavioral Debate in Political Science B. Old Wine in New Wineskins: The Perestroika Debate in Political Science IV. The Scientific Study of Politics A. B. C. D. Science and Politics: Can we study politics scientifically? Scientific Explanation, Causation, and Prediction The Philosophy of Social Science Controversies in the Philosophy of Social Science V. Method and Design in Scientific Political Research A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. Overview, Part I: The Quantitative-Qualitative Debate Overview, Part II: The Quantitative-Qualitative Debate Case Studies, Area Studies, and the Comparative Method in Political Research The Research Enterprise Concepts and Concept Formation Operationalizing Concepts: Indicators and Measurement Theory and Model Development Strategies for Data Collection Research Design: General Considerations Research Design: Experimental Designs Research Design: Quasi-experimental Designs Strategies for Studying Individuals Strategies for Studying Aggregates The Politics of Social Science The Ethics of Political Research 7 Schedule August September 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 Introductory meeting / Historical Debates in Political Science Labor Day Holidayno seminar meeting Behavioral Debate / Perestroika Science and Politics / Scientific Explanation Philosophy of Social Science The Quantitative-Qualitative Debate (Part I) The Quantitative-Qualitative Debate (Part II) Comparison in Political Research / Research Enterprise Concepts and Concept Formation / Operationalizing Concepts Theory and Model Development Strategies for Data Collection Research Designs: Experimental Designs Research Designs: Quasi-Experimental Designs Studying Individuals and Aggregates The Politics of Social Science / Ethics of Political Research October November December 8 Reading Load August 28 September 11 September 18 September 25 October 2 October 9 October 16 October 23 October 30 November 6 November 13 November 20 42 article pages 2 book chapters (48 pages) 86 article pages 2 book chapters (55 pages) 14 article pages 9 book chapters (211 pages) 27 article pages 13 book chapters (206 pages) 1 book (230 pages) 144 article pages 117 article pages 4 book chapters (88 pages) 93 article pages 5 book chapters (147 pages) 138 article pages 5 book chapters (111 pages) 27 article pages 11 book chapters (244 pages) 54 article pages 6 book chapters (164 pages) 99 article pages 2 book chapters (55 pages) 1 paper (30 pages) 143 article pages 2 papers (23 pages) 76 article pages 3 chapters (38 pages) 90 total pages 141 total pages 225 total pages 233 total pages 230 total pages 144 total pages 205 total pages 240 total pages 249 total pages 271 total pages 218 total pages 184 total pages November 27 December 4 166 total pages 114 total pages 2740 total pages Average 196 pages per week 9 Table 1: Weekly reading load, POLI 7961, Fall 2006 300 100 0 150 Pages per week 200 250 5 week 10 15 10 Course Outline I. Introductory Meeting (August 28) II. The History and Overview of Political Science (August 28) A. History of the Discipline * Freeman, "The Making of a Discipline," in Crotty (ed.), The Theory and Practice of Political Science, Volume One of Political Science: Looking into the Future. Dwight Waldo, "Political Science: Tradition, Discipline, Profession, Science, and Enterprise," in Greenstein and Polsby (ed.), Handbook of Political Science: Volume 1. Somit and Tanenhaus, The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Farr and Seidelman (eds.), Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States. Ricci, The Tragedy of Political Science. Seidelman, Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884-1984. Baer, Jewell, and Sigelman, Political Science: Oral Histories of a Discipline. Easton, Gunnell, and Graziano (eds.), The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Survey. B. Contemporary Patterns of Division in Political Science Almond, The Discipline Divided. Almond and Genco, Clouds, Clocks, and the Study of Politics, World Politics (July 1977: 489-522). * Almond, "Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science," PS: Political Science and Politics (Autumn 1988: 828-42). Monroe, Almond, Gunnell, Shapiro, Graham, Barber, Shepsle, and Cropsey, "The Nature of Contemporary Political Science: A Roundtable Discussion," PS (March 1990: 34-43). Gibbons, Political Science, Disciplinary History, and Theoretical Pluralism: A Response to Almond and Ecstein, PS (March 1990: 44-46). Dryzek and Leonard, History and Discipline in Political Science, APSR (December 1988: 1245-60). Holden, The Competence of Political Science: Progress in Political Research Revisited, APSR (March 2000: 1-19). * * Garand, SPSA Presidential Address: Integration and Fragmentation in Political Science: Exploring Patterns of Scholarly Communication in a Divided Discipline, JOP (November 2005: 979-1005). Gerring, The Problem of Unity Amidst Diversity, chapter 1 in Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. 11 III. Historical Debates in Political Science (September 11) A. The Behavioral Debate in Political Science Charlesworth (ed.), The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science. Graham and Carey, The Post-Behavioral Era. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, chapter 3. Dahl, "The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest," APSR (December 1961: 763-72). * * * Easton, "The Current Meaning of Behavioralism," in Charlesworth, Contemporary Political Analysis. Easton, "The New Revolution in Political Science," APSR (December 1969: 1051-61). Easton, The Future of the Post-Behavioral Phase in Political Science, in Kristin Monroe (ed.), Contemporary Empirical Political Theory. Lowi, "The Politics of Higher Education: Political Science as a Case Study," in Graham and Carey, The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science. Wolfe, "Unthinking About the Thinkable: Reflections on the Failure of the Caucus for a New Political Science," Politics and Society (1971: 393-406). Wahlke, "Pre-Behavioralism in Political Science," APSR (March 1979: 9-31). Miller, "The Role of Research in the Unification of a Discipline," APSR (March 1981: 9-16). Easton, "Political Science in the United States: Past and Present," International Political Science Review (1985: 133-52). Lindblom, "Another State of Mind," APSR (March 1982: 9-21). Huntington, "One Soul at a Time: Political Science and Political Reform," APSR (March 1988: 3-10). * Parenti, "The State of the Discipline: One Interpretation of Everyone's Favorite Controversy," PS (1983: 189-96). Lowi, "The State In Political Science: How We Become What We Study," APSR (March 1992: 1-7). Simon, "The State of American Political Science: Professor Lowi's View of our Discipline," PS (March 1993: 49-51). Lowi, "A Review of Herbert Simon's Review of My View of the Discipline," PS (March 1993: 51-53). Calvert, "Lowi's Critique of Political Science: A Response," PS (June 1993: 196-98). 12 B. Old Wine in New Wineskins: The Perestroika Debate (September 11) * Cohn, When Did Political Science Forget About Politics? Irrational Exuberance, The New Republic (October 25, 1999). Miller, Storming the Palace in Political Science: Scholars Join Revolt Against the Domination of Mathematical Approaches to the Discipline, Chronicle of Higher Education (September 21, 2001). Stewart, Revolution from Within, University of Chicago Magazine (April 2003: 1-8). Kasza, Quantitative Methodology vs. Methodological Pluralism: Reflections on the Files of Recent Job Candidates, unpublished paper. Kasza, Perestroika: For an Ecumenical Science of Politics, unpublished paper. Kasza, Technicism Supplanting Disciplinarity Among Political Scientists, unpublished paper. Smith, Putting the Substance Back in Political Science, unpublished paper. * Smith, Should We Make Political Science More of a Science or More About Politics? PS (June 2002: 199-201). Smith, An Open Letter to the APSA Leadership and Members, Smith, The Perestroika Movement in Political Science, call-in phone interview. * Finifter, APSR Editor Responds, APSR (December 2000: viii-xi). Kasza, Response to Ada Finifter, unpublished paper. Mr. Pravda, Some Thoughts on Perestroika and Political Science, H-Polmeth web site, July 12, 2002. * Bennett, Perestroika Lost: Why the Latest Reform Movement in Political Science Should Fail, PS (June 2002: 177-79). Landman, Rebutting Perestroika: Method and Substance in Political Science. unpublished manuscript, 2002. Dryzek, A Pox on Perestroika, a Hex on Hegemony: Toward a Critical Political Science, 2002 APSA paper. Monroe, Shaking Things Up? Thoughts about the Future of Political Science: An Introduction, PS (June 2002: 181-82). Hardin, Whither Political Science? PS (June 2002: 183-86). * Jervis, Politics, Political Science, and Specialization, PS (June 2002: 187-89). Ostrom, Some Thoughts about Shaking Things Up: Future Directions in Political Science, PS (June 2002: 191-92). Rudolph, In Defense of Diverse Forms of Knowledge, PS (June 2002: 193-95). Sartori, Where is Political Science Going? PS (October 2004: 785-87). 13 B. Old Wine in New Wineskins: The Perestroika Debate (continued) Smiley, A Plea for Academic Pluralism (and a Little More Intellectual Humility), PS (June 2002: 197-98). Monroe, Interdisciplinary Work and a Search for Shared Scientific Standards, PS (June 2002: 20305). * Bennett, Barth, and Rutherford, Do We Preach What We Practice? A Survey of Methods in Political Science Journals and Curricula, PS (July 2003: 373-78). Schwartz-Shea, Is This the Curriculum We Want? Doctoral Requirements and Offerings in Methods and Methodology, PS (July 2003) 379-89). Braumoeller, Perspectives on Pluralism, PS (July 2003: 387-89). Morrow, Diversity Through Specialization, PS (July 2003: 391-93). Smith, Progress and Poverty in Political Science, PS (July 2003: 395-99). Burawoy, To Advance, Sociology Must Not Retreat, Chronicle of Higher Education (August 13, 2004: B24). Fukuyama, How Academia Failed the Nation: The Decline of Regional Studies. http://www.saisjhu.edu/pubaffairs/publications/saisphere/winter04/Fukuyama.html, 2005. Laitin, Whither Political Science? Reflections on Professor Sartoris Claim PS (October 2004: 789-91). Colomer, Political Science is Going Ahead (By Convoluted Ways): A Commentary on Giovanni Sartori, PS (October 2004: 793-94). Mann, Linking Knowledge and Action: Political Science and Campaign Finance Reform, Perspectives on Politics (March 2003: 69-83). Wilson, Expanding the Domain of Policy-Relevant Scholarship in the Social Sciences, PS (March 2002: 1-4). * * Putnam, APSA Presidential Address: The Public Role of Political Science, Perspectives on Politics (June 2003: 249-55). Edwards, Political Science and Political Practice: The Pursuit of Grounded Inquiry, Perspectives on Politics (June 2003: 349-54). Brady, Introduction to Symposium on Two Paths to a Science of Politics, Perspectives on Politics (June 2004: 295-300). Smith, Identities, Interests, and the Future of Political Science, Perspectives on Politics (June 2004: 301-12). Granato and Scioli, Puzzles, Proverbs, and Omega Matrices: The Scientific and Social Significance of Empirical Impolications of Theoretical Models (EITM), Perspectives on Politics (June 2004: 313-23). * Hochschild, APSA Presidents Reflect on Political Science: Who Knows What, When, and How? Perspectives on Politics (June 2005: 309-34). 14 IV. The Scientific Study of Politics A. Science and Politics: Can We Study Politics Scientifically? (September 18) Chalmers, What is This Thing Called Science? Watson, The Double Helix. * * Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th edition), chapter 1. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, chapters 2, 4. McGaw and Watson, Political and Social Inquiry, chapter 1, pp. 3-13, 24-29. * Zuckerman, "What We Mean When We Call Political Science a Science: Ambiguity and Certainty in the Pursuit of Knowledge," chapter 6 in Zuckerman, Doing Political Science: An Introduction to Political Analysis. Landau, Political Theory and Political Science, chapter 1. Nagel, The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, chapters 1-2, 13. Goldberg, "Political Science as Science," in Polsby, Dentler and Smith (eds.), Politics and Social Life. Paris and Reynolds, The Logic of Policy Inquiry, chapters 2-3. Bueno de Mesquita, "Toward a Scientific Understanding of International Conflict: A Personal View," ISQ (June 1985: 121-36). Riker, "The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science," APSR (1982: 753-66). Riker, "The Future of a Science of Politics," American Behavioral Scientist (1977: 11-38). Kramer, "Political Science as Science," in Weisberg (ed.), Political Science: The Science of Politics. MacRae, "The Science of Politics and Its Limits," in Weisberg (ed.), Political Science: The Science of Politics. * * * Hill, The Lamentable State of Science Education in Political Science, PS (March 2002: 113-16) Thies and Hogan, The State of Undergraduate Research Training in Political Science, PS (April 2005: 293-97). Hill, Myths About the Physical Sciences and Their Implications for Teaching Political Science, PS: Political Science and Politics (July 2004: 467-71). Ozminkowski, A Reply to Myths about the Physical Sciences and Their Implications for Teaching Political Science, PS: Political Science and Politics (January 2005: 3-5). Strakes, In Response to Myths about Political Science, PS: Political Science and Politics (January 2005: 5). Hill, Science and Political Science Redux, PS: Political Science and Politics (January 2005: 6-7). * 15 B. Scientific Explanation, Causation, and Prediction (September 18) Campbell, Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science. Salmon, Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, chapter 1. * Cook and Campbell, Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, chapter 1. McGaw and Watson, Political and Social Inquiry, chapters 2, pp. 48-56. * * Gerring, Description and Prediction, chapter 6 in Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Gerring, Causation, chapter 7 in Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Gerring, Causation: A Unified Framework for the Social Sciences,.Journal of Theoretical Politics (2005: 163-98). Elster, Mechanisms, in Elster, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Brady, Models of Causal Inference: Going Beyond the Newman-Rubin-Holland Theory, paper presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the Political Methodology Group, Seattle, Washington. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (second edition), chapter 16. Blalock, Causal Inferences in Non-Experimental Research. Farr, "Situational Analysis: Explanation in Political Science," JOP (November 1985: 1085-1107) Friedman, "The Methodology of Positive Economics," in Friedman (ed.), Essays in Positive Economics. Moe, "On the Scientific Status of Rational Models," AJPS (February 1979: 215-43). * Campbell, The Science of Forecasting Presidential Elections, in Campbell and Garand (eds.), Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections. Campbell, "Polls and Votes: The Trial-Heat Presidential Election Forecasting Model, Certainty, and Political Campaigns," in Campbell and Garand (eds.), Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections. Campbell, "Forecasting the Presidential Vote in the States," AJPS (May 1992: 386-407). Glenn, "What We Know, What We Say We Know: Discrepancies Between Warranted and Unwarranted Conclusions," in Eulau (ed.), Crossroads of Social Science: The ICPSR 25th Anniversary Volume. Welch, "Causal Inferences? Can Caution Have Limits?" in Eulau (ed.), Crossroads of Social Science: The ICPSR 25th Anniversary Volume. Mock and Weisberg, "Political Innumeracy: Encounters with Coincidence, Improbability, and Chance," AJPS (November 1992: 1023-46). 16 C. The Philosophy of Social Science (September 25) Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science. Popper, Conjectures and Refutatoins: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Boyd, Gasper, and Trout, The Philosophy of Science. Gordon, The History and Philosophy of Social Science. Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Brodbeck, Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Diesing, How Does Social Science Work? Reflections on Practice, chapters 2-3. Miller, Fact and Method: Explanation, Confirmation, and Reality in the Natural and the Social Sciences. * * Chalmers, Introducing Falsificationism, chapter 5 in Chalmers, What is This Thing Called Science? Chalmers, Sophisticated Falsificationism, Novel Predictions, and the Growth of Science, chapter 6 in Chalmers, What is This Thing Called Science? Moon, "The Logic of Political Inquiry: A Synthesis of Opposed Perspectives," in Greenstein and Polsby (eds.), Handbook of Political Science (Volume 1: Political Science: Scope and Theory). 1. Thomas Kuhn, Paradigms, and Scientific Revolutions Polsby, Social Science and Scientific Change: A Note on Thomas S. Kuhns Contribution, in Polsby (ed.), Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 1. * Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, chapters 2-4, 6-9. Gutting, Paradigms and Revolutions: Applications and Appraisals of Thomas Kuhn's Philosophy of Science. Barnes, T. S. Kuhn and Social Science, chapter 3. Landau, Political Theory and Political Science, chapter 2. Toulmin, "Does the Distinction between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water?" in Lakatos and Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. * Chalmers, Theories as Structure I: Kuhns Paradigms, chapter 8 in Chalmers, What is This Thing Called Science? 17 2. Lakatos and Scientific Research Programs Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Lakatos and Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Lakatos, "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes," in Lakatos and Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Hull, Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. * * Chalmers, Theories as Structures II: Research Programs, chapter 9 in Chalmers, What is This Thing Called Science? Ball, "From Paradigms to Research Programs: Toward a Post-Kuhnian Political Science," AJPS (February 1976: 151-77). Dryzek, "The Progress of Political Science," JOP (May 1986: 301-320). Ostrom, "A Theory of the Budgetary Process as a Research Program in Public Administration," unpublished paper. Lowery, "Public Choice Theory as a Research Program," unpublished paper. Elman and Elman, How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research, ISQ (2002: 231-62). 3. Other thoughts on the subject Landau, Political Theory and Political Science, chapter 2. Fay and Moon, What Would an Adequate Philosophy of Social Science Look Like? in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Gunnell, "Realizing Theory: The Philosophy of Science Revisited," JOP (November 1995: 923-40). Becker and Ragin, What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Theory. Bleier (ed.), Feminist Approaches to Science. 18 D. Controversies in the Philosophy of Social Science (September 25) Martin and McIntyre, Introduction, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, chapters 11. 1. Laws in the Social Sciences Hempel, The Function of General Laws in History, Journal of Philosophy (January 15, 1942: 35-48). Reprinted in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Hayek, The Theory of Complex Phenomena, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Scriven, A Possible Distinction Between Traditional Scientific Disciplines and the Study of Human Behavior, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Fay, General Laws and Explaining Human Behavior, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Kincaid, Defending Laws in the Social Sciences, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. McIntyre, Complexity and Social Scientific Laws, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. 2. Reductionism and Methodological Individualism Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, chapter 9. Lukes, Methodological Individualism Reconsidered, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Miller, Methodological Individualism and Social Explanation, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Kincaid, Reduction, Explanation, and Individualism, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. 3. Relativism Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, chapter 10. 19 4. Objectivity and Values Weber, Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Taylor, Neutrality in Political Science, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Nagel, The Value-Oriented Bias of Social Inquiry, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Martin, The Philosophical Importance of the Rosenthal Effect, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Wylie, Reasoning about Ourselves: Feminist Methodology in the Social Sciences, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. 5. Functionalism Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, chapter 5 Hempel, The Logic of Functional Analysis, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Kincaid, Assessing Functional Explanations in the Social Sciences, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Landau, Political Theory and Political Science, chapter 4. 6. * Interpretation Theory Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, chapter 4. Taylor, Interpretation and the Sciences of Man, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Gertz, Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. * Bevir and Rhodes, Interpretive Theory, in Marsh and Stoker (eds.), Theory and Methods in Political Science, 2nd ed. Mishler and Pollack, "On Culture Thick and Thin: Toward a Neo-Cultural Synthesis," In Detlef Pollack and Jorg Jacobs, eds., Political Culture in Post-Communist Europe. Martin, Taylor on Interpretation and the Sciences of Man, in Martin and McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Schwartz, Participation and Multisubjective Understanding: An Interpretist Approach to the Study of Political Participation, JOP (November 1984: 1117-41). Scott, Weapons of the Weak. 20 V. Method and Design in Scientific Political Research A. Overview, Part I: The Quantitative-Qualitative Debate in Political Science (October 2) * King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Achen, "Toward Theories of Data: The State of Political Methodology," in Finifter (ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Bartels and Brady, "The State of Quantitative Political Methodology," in Finifter (ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. King, "On Political Methodology," Political Analysis (1990). Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, chapters 8. B. Overview, Part II: The Quantitative-Qualitative Debate in Political Science (October 9) * * Mahoney and Goertz, A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Political Analysis (2006: 227-49). Fenno, "Observation, Context, and Sequence in the Study of Politics," APSR (March 1986: 3-16). Brady and Collier, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Bartels, "Symposium on Designing Social Inquiry, Part I," The Political Methodologist (Spring 1995: 8-11). Brady, "Symposium on Designing Social Inquiry, Part II," The Political Methodologist (Spring 1995: 11-19). * * * * * * * * Laitin, "Disciplining Political Science," APSR (June 1995: 454-56). Caporaso, "Research Design, Falsification, and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide," APSR (June 1995: 457-60). Collier, "Translating Quantitative Methods for Qualitative Researchers: The Case of Selection Bias," APSR (June 1995: 461-66). Rogowski, "The Role of Theory and Anomaly in Social-Scientific Inference," APSR (June 1995: 46770). Tarrow, "Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Political Science," APSR (June 1995: 47174). King, Keohane, and Verba, "The Importance of Research Design in Political Science," APSR (June 1995: 475-81). Kritzer, "The Data Puzzle: The Nature of Interpretation in Quantitative Research," AJPS (February 1996: 1-32). Munck, Canons of Research Design in Qualitative Analysis, Studies in Comparative International Development (1998: 18-45). 21 B. Overview, Part II: The Quantitative-Qualitative Debate in Political Science (continued) McKeown, Case Studies and the Statistical World View, International Organization (Winter 1999: 161-90). Collier and Mahoney, Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research, World Politics (October 1996: 56-91). Collier, Mahoney, and Seawright, Claiming Too Much: Warnings about Selection Bias, in Brady and Collier (eds.), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lustick, History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias, APSR (September 1996: 605-18). Dion, Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case Study, Comparative Politics (January 1998: 127-45). Mahoney, Strategies of Causal Inference in Small-N Analysis, Sociological Methods and Research (2000: 387-424). Mahoney, Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macro-Causal Analysis, American Journal of Sociology (January 1999: 1154-96). Goertz, Introduction to the Special Issue on Causal Complexity and Qualitative Methods, Political Analysis (2006: 223-226). Mahoney and Goertz, A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Political Analysis (2006: 227-49). Bennett and Elman, Complex Causal Relations and Case Studies Methods: The Example of Path Dependence, Political Analysis (2006: 250-267). Braumoeller, Explaining Variance: Or, Stuck in a Moment We Cant Get Out Of, Political Analysis (2006: 268-290). Ragin, Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage, Political Analysis (2006: 291-310). Clark, Gilligan, and Golder, A Simple Multivariate Test for Asymmetric Hypotheses, Political Analysis (2006: 311-31). Rihoux, Two Methodological Worlds Apart? Praises and Critiques from a European Comparativist, Political Analysis (2006: 332-35). Schrodt, Beyond the Linear Frequentist Orthodoxy, Political Analysis (2006: 335-39). Shively, Case Selection: Insights from Rethinking Social Inquiry, Political Analysis (2006: 344-47). Beck, Is Causal-Process Observation an Oxymoron? Political Analysis (2006: 347-52). Brady, Collier, and Seawright, Toward a Pluralistic Vision of Methodology, Political Analysis (2006: 353-68). 22 C. Case Studies, Area Studies, and the Comparative Method in Political Research (October 16) Lijphart, "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method," APSR (September 1971: 682-93). Przeworski and Teune, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, chapters 1-2. Ragin, The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. * George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, chapter 1. Collier, "The Comparative Method," in Finifter (ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. * * * Gerring, What is a Case Study and What is It Good For? APSR (May 2004: 341-54). Jackman, "Cross-National Statistical Research and the Study of Comparative Politics," AJPS (February 1985: 161-82). Geddes, "How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics," Political Analysis (1990: 131-50). Lieberson, "Small Ns and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases," Social Forces (1991: 307-20). George, "Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison," in Lauren, Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy. Campbell, "Degrees of Freedom and the Case Study," Comparative Political Studies (1975: 178-93). Eckstein, "Case Study and Theory in Political Science," in Greenstein and Polsby (eds.), Handbook of Political Science (Volume 7: Strategies of Inquiry). George and McKeown, Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decision Making, Advances in Information Processing in Organizations, Volume 2. Collier and Mahon, Conceptual Stretching Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis, APSR (December 1993: 845-55). * Mahoney and Goertz, The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research, APSR (November 2004: 653-69). Sekhon, Quality Meets Quantity: Case Studies, Conditional Probability, and Counterfactuals, Perspectives on Politics (June 2004: 281-93). Murdoch, The Conceptual Basis for Area Research, World Politics (July 1950: 571-78). * * Bates, Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy? PS (June 1997: 166-69). Johnson, Preconception vs. Observation, or the Contributions of Rational Choice Theory and Area Studies to Contemporary Political Science, PS (June 1997: 170-74). Lustick, The Disciplines of Political Science: Studying the Culture of Rational Choice as a Case in Point, PS (June 1997: 175-79). 23 C. Case Studies, Area Studies, and the Comparative Method in Political Research (continued) * * Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina, The Constituency Service Basis of the Personal Vote for U.S. Representatives and British Members of Parliament, APSR (March 1984: 110-25). Gomez and Wilson, Cognitive Heterogeneity and Economic Voting: A Comparative Analysis of Four Democratic Electorates, AJPS (January 2006: 127-45). Radcliff, "The Welfare State, Turnout, and the Economy: A Comparative Analysis," APSR (June 1992: 444-54). Radcliff, Politics, Markets, and Life Satisfaction: The Political Economy of Human Happiness, APSR (December 2001: 939-52). Anderson and Guillory, "Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems," APSR (March 1997: 66-81). Iversen and Rosenbluth, The Political Economy of Gender: Explaining Cross-National Variation in the Gender Division of Labor and the Gender Voting Gap, AJPS (January 2006: 1-19). Inglehart, "The Renaissance of Political Culture," APSR (December 1988: 1203-29). Pacek and Radcliff, "Economic Voting and the Welfare State: A Cross-National Analysis,"JOP (February 1995: 44-61). Bollen, "Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measures," AJPS (November 1993: 1207-1230). D. The Research Enterprise (October 16) * Philliber, Schwab, and Sloss, Social Research: Guides to a Decision-Making Process, chapter 2. Zisk, Political Research: A Methodological Sampler, chapter 2. * * Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th edition), chapter 3. Sullivan, "On Students and Serendipity in Social Research," chapter 1a in Shively, The Research Process in Political Science. Blais, Accounting for the Electoral Success of the Liberal Party in Canada, Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, June 3, 2005. Dewald, Thursby, and Anderson, "The Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking Project," American Economic Review (September 1986: 587-603). Schwarts, Woloshin, and Baczek, Media Coverage of Scientific Meetings: Too Much, Too Soon? Journal of the American Medical Association (June 5, 2002: 2859-63). Epstein and King, The Rules of Inference, University of Chicago Law Review (2001: 1-92). Grant, Political Theory, Political Science, and Politics, Political Theory (August 2002: 577-95). 24 E. Concepts and Concept Formation (October 23) * Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th edition), chapter 2. McGaw and Watson, Political and Social Inquiry, chapters 5-6. Chafetz, A Primer on the Construction and Testing of Theories in Sociology, chapter 4. Walizer and Wiener, Research Methods and Analysis: Searching for Relationships, chapter 2. * * Gerring, Concepts: General Criteria, chapter 3 in Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Gerring, The Process of Forming Concepts, chapter 4 in Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Abramson, Political Attitudes in America, chapter 5. * * Kotowski, "Revolution," chapter 8 in Sartori, Social Science Concepts. Mansbridge, Rethinking Representation, APSR (November 2003: 515-28). Dahl, Modern Political Analysis, chapter 3. Easton, "A Reassessment of the Concept of Political Support," BJPS (October 1975: 435-57). Collier and Adcock, Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts, American Review of Political Science (1999: 537-65). Kahneman and Krueger, Developments on the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being, Journal of Economic Perspectives (Winter 2006: 3-24). F. Operationalizing Concepts: Indicators and Measurement (October 23) McGaw and Watson, Political and Social Inquiry, chapter 10. * Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th edition), chapters 7. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, chapter 3. Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman, Measures of Political Attitudes. Zeller and Carmines, Measurement in the Social Sciences. Sullivan and Feldman, Multiple Indicators. Converse, "Attitudes and Nonattitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue," in Tufte, The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. * * Adcock and Collier, Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research, APSR (September 2001: 529-46). Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus, "An Alternative Conceptualization of Political Tolerance: Illusory Increases, 1950s-1970s," APSR (September 1979: 781-94). 25 F. Operationalizing Concepts: Indicators and Measurement (continued) * Groseclose and Milyo, A Measure of Media Bias, The Quarterly Journal of Economics (November 2005: 1191-1237). Wattenberg, "The Decline of Political Partisanship in the United States: Negativity or Neutrality," APSR (December 1981: 941-50). Weisberg, A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Party Identification, Political Behavior (1980: 33-60). Reprinted in Niemi and Weisberg, Controversies in Voting Behavior, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984; Classics in Voting Behavior, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1992. McDonald and Popkin, The Myth of the Vanishing Voter, APSR (December 2001: 963-74). Mondak, Developing Valid Knowledge Scales, AJPS (January 2001: 224-38). Mondak, Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowledge, Political Analysis (1999: 57-82). Palmer and Duch, Do Surveys Provide Representative or Whimsical Assessments of the Economy, Political Analysis (2000: 58-77). Anderson and Silver, Measurement and Mismeasurement of the Validity of the Self-Reported Vote, AJPS (November 1986: 771-85). Grant, Unifying Political Metrology: A Probabilistic Model of Measurement, 2004 SPM paper. King, Murray, Salomon, and Tandon, Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research, APSR (February 2004: 191-207). Althaus, Edy, and Phalen, Using Substitutes for Full-Text News Stories in Content Analysis: Which Text is Best? AJPS (July 2001: 707-23). Laver, Benoit, and Garry, Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data, APSR (May 2003: 311-31). G. Theory and Model Development (October 30) * Lave and March, An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences, chapters 2-3. Stinchcombe, Constructing Social Theories. * * * Schneider and Ingram, Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools, JOP (May 1990: 457-76). Shepsle and Bonchek, Rationality: The Model of Choice, chapter 2 in Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions. Green and Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science, chapter 2. Friedman (ed.), The Rational Choice Controversy: Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered. Chong, Rational Choice Theorys Mysterious Rivals, in Friedman (ed.), The Rational Choice Controversy: Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered. 26 G. Theory and Model Development (continued) * Cox, The Empirical Content of Rational Choice Theory: A Reply to Green and Shapiro, Journal of Theoretical Politics (1999: 147-69). Monroe, "The Theory of Rational Action: What Is It? How Useful Is It for Political Science?" in Crotty (ed.), The Theory and Practice of Political Science, Volume One of Political Science: Looking into the Future. Blais, Is it Rational to Vote? in Blais, To Vote or Not to Vote: The Merits Limits and of Rational Choice Theory. Fotos and Franklin, Nave Political Science and the Paradox of Voting, 2002 MPSA paper. Haspel and Knotts, Location, Location, Location: Precinct Placement and the Cost of Voting, JOP (May 2005: 560-73). * Rohde, "Risk-Bearing and Progressive Ambition: The Case of the U.S. House of Representatives," AJPS (February 1979: 1-26). Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," Journal of Legal Studies (January 1997: 1-68). Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, chapters 23, 6-7. Schelling, Micromotives and Macrobehavior. * McCrone and Kuklinski, "The Delegate Theory of Representation," AJPS (May 1979: 278-300). Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan, Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote to Improve the Well-Being of Others, unpublished paper, 2005. * Shapiro, Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, or Whats Wrong with Political Science and What to do About It, Political Theory (August 2002: 596-619). Sigelman, "Toward a Stupidity-Ugliness Theory of Democratic Electoral Defeats," PS (March 1990: 18-20). Sheehan, Madison v. Hamilton: The Battle over Republicanism and the Role of Public Opinion, APSR (August 2004: 405-24). Lane, Pitkins Dilemma: The Wider Shores of Political Theory and Political Science, Perspectives on Politics (September 2004: 459-73). * * * Michelbach, Scott, Matland, and Bornstein, Doing Rawls Justice: An Experimental Study of Income Distribution Norms, AJPS (July 2003: 523-39). Smith, Political Science and Political Philosophy: An Uneasy Relation, PS (June 2000: 189-91) Mayhew, Political Science and Political Philosophy: Ontological Not Normative, June PS (2000: 192-93). McCormick, Political Science and Political Philosophy: Return to the ClassicsNo, Not Those! June PS (2000: 195-97). 27 H. Strategies for Data Collection (November 6) * Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th edition), chapters 813 (skim). Webb, Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences. McGaw and Watson, Political and Social Inquiry, chapter 16. * Fenno, Homestyle: House Members in Their Districts, appendix. Fenno, Watching Politicians: Essays on Participant Observation. * * Humphreys, "Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places," in Golden (ed.), The Research Experience. Humphreys, "Methods: The Sociologist as Voyeur," in Golden (ed.), The Research Experience. Krosnick, Maximizing Questionnaire Quality, chapter 2 in Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman (eds.), Measures of Political Attitudes. Babbie, Survey Research Methods, chapters 3-4. Dryzek, "The Mismeasure of Political Man," JOP (August 1988: 705-25). Muller and Opp, "Rational Choice and Rebellious Collective Action," APSR (June 1986: 471-88). Burden, Voter Turnout and the National Election Studies, Political Analysis (2000: 389-98). * * * * Seligson, Improving the Quality of Survey Research in Democratizing Countries, PS (January 2005: 51-56). Monroe and Tiller, Commitment to Work Among Welfare-Reliant Women, Journal of Marriage and the Family (2001: 816-28). Brown, Cosmic Voyage: A Scientific Discovery of Extraterrestrials Visiting Earth, chapters 1-2. Abramson, "Probing Well Beyond the Bounds of Conventional Wisdom," AJPS (April 1997: 675-82). 28 I. Research Design: General Considerations (November 13) * * * J. Gerring, Research Design: General Criteria, chapter 8 in Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Gerring, Methods, chapter 9 in Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Gerring, Strategies of Research Design, chapter 10 in Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Research Design: Experimental Designs (November 13) * Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th edition), chapter 5. Campbell and Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching, pp 1-34. * Campbell, "Factors Relevant to the Validity of Experiments in Social Settings," in Campbell and Overman, Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers of Donald T. Campbell. Kinder and Palfrey, Experimental Foundations of Political Science. Palfrey, Laboratory Research in Political Economy. * Kinder and Palfrey, "On Behalf of an Experimental Political Science," in Kinder and Palfrey (eds.), Experimental Foundations of Political Science. Green and Gerber, The Underprovision of Experiments in Political Science, The Annals (September 2003: 94-112). Sherman, Misleading Evidence and Evidence-Led Policy: Making Social Science More Experimental, The Annals (September 2003: 6-19). Lee, Transue, and Aldrich, Treatment Spillover Effects Across Survey Experiments, 2005 MPSA paper. Horiuchi, Imai, and Taniguchi, Designing and Analyzing Randomized Experiments, unpublished manuscript, 2005. * * Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus, "Ideological Constraint in the Mass Public: A Methodological Critique and Some New Findings," AJPS (May 1978: 233-49). Iyengar, Peters, and Kinder, "Experimental Demonstrations of the Not-So-Minimal Consequences of Television News Programs," APSR (December 1982: 848-58). Rosenberg, Bohan, McCafferty, and Harris, "The Image and the Vote: The Effect of Candidate Presentation on Vote Preference," AJPS (February 1986: 108-27). Anderson, Mellor, and Milyo, Do Liberals Play Nice? The Effects of Party and Political Ideology in Public Goods and Trust Games, unpublished paper, 2004. 29 J. Research Design: Experimental Designs (continued) Reothlisberger, "The Hawthorne Experiments," in Natemeyer (ed.), Classics of Organizational Behavior. Schafer, Mark. "Cooperation in an Objective Conflict of Interest? Approaches," Journal of Politics (August 1997: 729-750). Testing Two Psychological Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock, and Kendrick, "The New Racism," AJPS (May 1991: 423-47). Gilens, "Race Coding and White Opposition to Welfare," APSR (September 1996: 593-604). Schuman and Bobo, Survey-Based Experiments on White Racial Attitudes Toward Residential Integration, American Journal of Sociology (September 1988: 273-99). * Sniderman, Hagendoorn, and Prior, Predisposing Factors and Situational Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities, APSR (February 2004: 35-49). Davis and Silver, Stereotype Threat and Race of Interviewer Effects in a Survey on Political Knowledge, AJPS (January 2003: 33-45). * Gerber and Green, The Effect of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment, APSR (September 2000: 653-63). Imai, Do Get-Out-the-Vote Calls Reduce Turnout? The Importance of Statistical Methods for Field Experiments, APSR (May 2005: 283-300). Gerber and Green, Correction to Gerber and Green (2000), Replication of Disputed Findings, and Reply to Imai (2005), APSR (May 2005: 301-13). O'Leary, Spiegelman, and Kline, "Do Bonus Offers Shorten Unemployment Insurance Spells? Results from the Washington Experiment," JPAM (Spring 1995: 245-69). Skidmore, "Overview of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment Final Report," in Bingham and Felbinger (eds.), Evaluation in Practice: A Methodological Approach. Hanushek, Evidence, Politics, and the Class Size Debate, unpublished paper, 2000. Howell, Wolf, and Campbell, School Vouchers and Academic Performance: Results from Three Randomized Field Trials, unpublished paper, 2000. Glenn, No Classroom Left Behind, Chronicle of Higher Education (May 28, 2004). Cullen, Jacob, and Levitt, The Effect of School Choice on Student Outcomes: Evidence from Randomized Lotteries, unpublished paper, 2005. Town and Hilton, Implementing Random Field Trials in Education: Report of a Workshop, National Research Council report, 2004. 30 K. Research Design: Quasi-Experimental Designs (November 20) * * Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th edition), chapter 6. Campbell et al., "Quasi-Experimental Designs," in Campbell and Overman, Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers of Donald T. Campbell. Campbell and Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching, pp. 34-71. Cook and Campbell, Quasi-Experiments: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, chapter 3. Achen, The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments. Campbell, "Reforms as Experiments," American Psychologist (1969: 409-29); reprinted in in Campbell and Overman, Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers of Donald T. Campbell. Campbell and Ross, "The Connecticut Crackdown on Speeding: Time-Series Data in QuasiExperimental Analysis," in Tufte (ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems; reprinted in Campbell and Overman, Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers of Donald T. Campbell. Campbell and Erlebacher, "How Regression Artifacts in Quasi-Experimental Evaluations Can Mistakenly Make Compensatory Education Look Harmful," in Struening and Guttentag (eds.), Handbook of Evaluation Research. Garand and Gross, "Changes in the Vote Margins for Congressional Candidates: A Specification of Historical Trends," APSR (March 1984: 17-30). * Garand and Clayton, "The Socialization to Partisan Legislative Behavior: The Effect of the Speaker's Task Force," LSQ (August 1986: 409-28). Lewis-Beck and Alford, "Can Government Regulate Safety? The Coal Mine Example," APSR (September 1980: 745-56). McCrone and Hardy, "Civil Rights Policies and the Achievement of Racial Economic Equality, 19481975," AJPS (February 1978: 1-17). Wood, "Principals, Bureaucrats, and Responsiveness in Clear Air Enforcements," APSR (March 1988: 213-34). Wright, Gerald C. and Dorothy M. Stetson. "The Impact of No-Fault Divorce Law Reform on Divorce in the American States." Journal of Marriage and the Family (August 1978: 575-80). * Nakonezny, Shull, and Rodgers, "The Effect of No-Fault Divorce Law on the Divorce Rate Across the Fifty States and Its Relation to Income, Education, and Religiousity," Journal of Marriage and the Family (May 1995: 477-88). Garand, Monroe, and Vlosky, Do No Fault Divorce Laws Increase Divorce Rates in the American States? A Pooled Test, 1945-1995," paper presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. * 31 K. Research Design: Quasi-Experimental Designs (continued) Legge, "Reforming Public Safety: An Evaluation of the 1983 British Seat Belt Law," Law and Policy (1987: 17-36). Wood, "Does Politics Make a Difference at the EEOC?" AJPS (May 1990: 503-30). Eisner and Meier, "Presidential Control versus Bureaucratic Power: Explaining the Reagan Revolution in Antitrust," AJPS (February 1990: 269-87). Wood and Waterman, "The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy," APSR (September 1991: 801-28). Wood, "Federalism and Policy Responsiveness: The Clean Air Case," JOP (August 1991: 851-59). * Feldman and Sigelman, The Political Impact of Prime-Time Television: The Day After, JOP (June 1985: 556-78). Davis and Davenport, "The Political and Social Relevancy of Malcolm X: The Stability of African American Political Attitudes," JOP (May 1997: 550-64). * * Davis, "The Direction of Race of Interviewer Effects Among African-Americans: Donning the Black Mask," AJPS (January 1997: 309-22). Houston, Richardson, and Neeley, "Legislating Traffic Safety: A Pooled Time Series Analysis," SSQ (1995: 328-45). Houston, Richardson, and Neeley, "The Effectiveness of Child Passenger Protection Legislation in the States," unpublished paper. Rossell and Armor, "The Effectiveness of School Desegregation Plans, 1968-1991," APQ (July 1996). * Schneider, Teske, Marschall, Mintrom, and Roch, "Institutional Arrangements and the Creation of Social Capital: The Effects of Public School Choice," APSR (March 1997: 82-93). 32 L. Strategies for Studying Individuals (November 27) * * Madsen, A Biochemical Property Relating to Power Seeking in Humans, APSR (June 1985: 448-57). Madsen, Power Seekers Are Different: Further Biochemical Evidence, APSR (March 1986: 261-70). McDermott, The Feeling of Rationality: The Meaning of Neuroscientific Advances for Political Science, Perspectives on Politics (December 2004: .691-706). * * Alford and Hibbing, The Origins of Politics: An Evolutionary Theory of Political Behavior, Perspectives on Politics (December 2004: 707-23). Alford, Funk, and Hibbing, Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted, APSR (May 2005: 153-67). Converse and Markus, "Plus ca change: The New CPS Election Study Panel," APSR (March 1979: 3249). Markus, "Political Attitudes During an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study," APSR (September 1982: 538-60). * Jennings and Markus, "Partisan Orientations over the Long Haul: Results from the Three-Wave Political Socialization Panel Study," APSR (December 1984: 1000-18). Stoker and Jennings, "Life-Cycle Transitions and Political Participation: The Case of Marriage," APSR (June 1995: 421-33). Abramson, "Generational Change and the Decline of Party Identification," chapter 18 in Niemi and Weisberg, Controversies in American Voting Behavior (first edition). Sigelman, "The Nonvoting Voter in Voting Research," AJPS (February 1982: 47-56). Anderson and Silver, Measurement and Mismeasurement of the Validity of the Self-Reported Vote, AJPS (November 1986: 771-85). * Karp and Brockington, Social Desirability and Response Validity: A Comparative Analysis of Overreporting Voter Turnout in Five Countries, JOP (August 2005: 825-40). Huckfeldt and Sprague, "Networks in Context: The Social Flow of Political Information," APSR (December 1987: 1197-1216). Plutzer, Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood, APSR (March 2002: 41-56). Teske, Schneider, Mintrom, and Best, "Establishing the Micro Foundations of a Macro Theory: Information, Movers, and the Competitive Local Market for Public Goods," APSR (September 1993: 702-16). Clinton, Panel Bias from Attrition and Conditioning: A Case Study of the Knowledge Networks Panel, 2001 AAPOR paper. Gordon and Segura, "Cross-National Variation in the Political Sophistication of Individuals: Capability or Choice?" JOP (February 1997: 126-47). 33 M. Strategies for Studying Aggregates (November 27) Robinson, "Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals," American Sociological Review (June 1950: 351-57). * * Freedman, Ecological Inference and the Ecological Fallacy, unpublished paper, 1999. Thernstrom, The Ecological Fallacy, unpublished paper, 2002. King, A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data, chapter 1. Schelling, Micromotives and Macrobehavior. Hibbing and Alford, "The Electoral Impact of Economic Conditions: Who is Held Responsible?" AJPS (August 1981: 423-39). Kinder and Kiewiet, "Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Voting," AJPS (August 1979: 495-527). Jacobson and Kernell, "Strategy and Choice in the 1982 Congressional Elections," chapter 13 in Niemi and Weisberg (eds.), Controversies in Voting Behavior (second edition). Wright, Erikson, and McIver, "Measuring State Partisanship with Survey Data," JOP (May 1985: 46989). * * Ardoin and Garand, "Measuring Constituency Ideology in U.S. House Districts in the 1980s and 1990s: A Top-Down Simulation Approach," JOP (2003: 1165-89). Peterson and Rom, "American Federalism, Welfare Policy, and Residential Choices," APSR (September 1989: 711-28). Schram, Mitz, and Krueger, "Without Cause or Effect: Reconsidering Welfare Migration as a Policy Problem," AJPS (January 1998: 210-30). Allard and Danziger, Welfare Magnets: Myth or Reality? JOP (May 2000: 350-68). * Bailey, Welfare and the Multifaceted Decision to Move, APSR (February 2005: 125-35). Cameron, "The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis," APSR (December 1978: 1243-61). Donohue and Levitt, The Impact of Legalizing Abortion on Crime Rates, Quarterly Journal of Economics (May 2001: 379-420) Lott and Whitley, Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births, 2001 unpublished paper. 34 N. The Politics of Social Science (December 4) Diesing, How Does Social Science Work? Reflections on Practice, chapters 6-8, 10. MacRae, The Social Function of Social Science. Rein and Winship, "Policy Entrepreneurs and the Academic Establishment: Truth and Values in Social Controversies," in White (ed.), Intelligence, Political Inequality, and Public Policy. Lindblom, "Professional Impairment," chapter 12 in Lindblom, Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society. Tetlock and Lebow, Poking Counterfactual Holes in Covering Laws: Cognitive Styles and Historical Reasoning, APSR (December 2001: 829-44). * * Lott, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, chapter 7, pp. 122-28. Maisel and Stone, The Politics of Government-Funded Research: Notes from the Experience of the Candidate-Emergence Study, PS (December 1998: 811-17). Eckstein, More About Applied Political Science, PS (March 1990: 54-56). Wilson, Expanding the Domain of Policy-Relevant Scholarship in the Social Sciences, PS (March 2002: 1-4). Epstein and King, The Rules of Inference, University of Chicago Law Review (2001: 1-92). Glenn, What the Data Actually Show about Welfare Reform: An Effort in Illinois is the Most Ambitious Project to Study the Impact on Peoples Lives, Chronicle of Higher Education (June 21, 2002: A14). * * Glenn, Calculated Risks: Harvard Professor Says Smokers Know Exactly What Theyre Doing, Chronicle of Higher Education (May 31, 2002: A14). Lupia, Evaluating Political Science Research: Information for Buyers and Sellers, PS (March 2000: 7-13). Ostrom, The Danger of Self-Evident Truths, PS (March 2000: 33-44). Brady, Contributions of Survey Research To Political Science, PS (March 2000: 47-57). * * Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte, Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty, The Forum (2005: 1-16). Ames, Barker, Bonneau, and Carmen, Hide the Republicans, the Christians, and the Women: A Response to Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty, The Forum (2005: 1-10). Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte, Fundamentals and Fundamentalists: A Reply to Ames et al., The Forum (2005: 1-10). Anderson, Right on Campus: Conservatives Begin to Infiltrate the Lefts Last Redoubt, Wall Street Journal (January 14: 2005). Klein and Western, How Many Democrats per Republican at UC-Berkeley and Stanford? Voter Registration Data Across 23 Academic Departments, Academic Questions. * 35 M. The Politics of Social Science (continued) Klein and Stern, How Politically Diverse are the Social Sciences and Humanities? Survey Evidence from Six Fields, Academic Questions. Klein and Chiang, The Social Science Citation Index: A Black Boxwith an Ideological Bias? Econ Journal Watch (April 2004: 134-65). Jacobson, Study Casts Doubt on Claims that Conservative Students Face Discrimination in Classes, Chronicle of Higher Education (March 30, 2006: 1-2) McEachern, AEA Ideology: Campaign Contributions of American Economic Association Members, Committee Members, Officers, Editors, Referees, Authors, and Acknowledgees, Econ Journal Watch (January 2006: 148-79). Klein and Chiang, Citation Counts and SSCI in Personnel Decisions: A Survey of Economics Departments, Econ Journal Watch (April 2004: 166-74). Bauerlein, Liberal Groupthink is Anti-Intellectual, Chronicle of Higher Education (November 12, 2004). APSA Task Force Report, American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality, Perspectives on Politics (December 2004: 651-66). DiIulio, Attacking Sinful Inequalities, Perspectives on Politics (December 2004: 667-70). Mead, The Great Passivity, Perspectives on Politics (December 2004: 671-75). Weir, Challenging Inequality, Perspectives on Politics (December 2004: 677-81). Williams, The Issue of Our Time: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, Perspectives on Politics (December 2004: 683-89). Bennett, Comment on American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality, unpublished paper, 2005. Randall, Feminism, in Marsh and Stoker (eds.), Theory and Methods in Political Science, 2nd ed. Herbers, The Loaded Language of Science, Chronicle of Higher Education (March 24, 2006: 1-2) Lindzen, Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence, Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2006: 1-2). Glenn, Scholarly Definitions are Fighting Words in Gun-Law Theorists Defamation Suit, Chronicle of Higher Education (April 20, 1006: 1-6). 36 O. The Ethics of Political Research (December 4) * Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th edition), chapter 4. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research, chapter 3. Smith, Johnson, Paulsen, and Shocket, Political Research Methods: Foundations and Techniques, chapter 3. The Nuremberg Code, http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html. * Milgram, "Behavioral Study of Obedience," in Golembiewski (ed.), The Small Group in Political Science. Deese, American Freedom and the Social Sciences, chapter 8. Cronbach, "Five Decades of Public Controversy Over Mental Testing," in Frankel (ed.), Controversies and Decisions: The Social Sciences and Public Policy. Ezrahi, "The Jenson Controversy: A Study of the Ethics and Politics of Knowledge in Democracy," in Frankel (ed.), Controversies and Decisions: The Social Sciences and Public Policy. Herrnstein and Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Gould, "Curveball," in Fraser (ed.), The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America. Nisbett, "Race, IQ, and Scientism," in Fraser (ed.), The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America. Sowell, "Ethnicity and IQ," in Fraser (ed.), The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America. Judis, "Hearts of Darkness," in Fraser (ed.), The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America. Glazer, "Scientific Truth and the American Dilemma," in Fraser (ed.), The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America. Patterson, "For Whom the Bell Curves," in Fraser (ed.), The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America. Lin-Liu, Asking Uncomfortable Questions: A Project in the Philippines Reflects the Growth in Asian Research on Sex, Chronicle of Higher Education (May 24, 2002: A18). * Wilson, An Ill-Fated Sex Survey at Mercer U.: A Research Project Sets Off a Debate Over Academic Freedom, Chronicle of Higher Education (August 2, 2002: A10). Schwarts, Woloshin, and Baczek, Media Coverage of Scientific Meetings: Too Much, Too Soon? Journal of the American Medical Association (June 5, 2002: 2859-63). 37 O. The Ethics of Political Research (continued) Alfred, The Church of Satan, in Glock and Bellah (eds.), The New Religious Consciousness. Postel, Did the Shootouts over Arming America Divert Attention from the Real Issues? Scholars Heaped Praise on a Book, Ignoring Critics who May Have Been Vindicated on Many Points, Chronicle of Higher Education (August 19, 2002). * Martinson, Anderson, and De Vries, Scientists Behaving Badly, Nature (June 2005: 737-38). American Civil Liberties Union, Science Under Seige: The Bush Administrations Assault on Academic Freedom and Scientific Inquiry, ACLU Report, 2005. American Anthropological Association, Papers of the American Anthropological Association El Dorado Task Force, 2002. Hernandez, Star Ec Prof Caught in Academic Feud, The Harvard Crimson Online (July 8, 2005), http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=508253 Hoxby, Article Presents Slanted View of Academic Debate, The Harvard Crimson Online (July 14, 2005), http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=508262. Brown, Superfluous Medical Studies Called into Question, Washington Post (January 2, 2006: 1-3) 1. The Replication Debate Hauck et al., "Verification/Replication," PS (September 1995:443-99). * * King, "Replication, Replication," PS (September 1995: 444-52). Herrnson, "Replication, Verification, Secondary Analysis, and Data Collection in Political Science," PS (September 1995: 452-55). Meier, "Replication: A View from the Streets," PS (September 1995: 455-59). Stone, "Reflection, Reflection: A Comment and Modest Proposal," PS (September 1995: 459-60). Peterson, "Community and Individual Stakes in the Collection, Analysis, and Availability of Data," PS (September 1995: 462-64). Sniderman, "Evaluation Standards for a Slow-Moving Science," PS (September 1995: 464-67). Maisel, "On the Inadequacy and Inappropriateness of the Replication Standard," PS (September 1995: 467-70). Box-Steffensmeier and Tate, "Data Accessibility in Political Science: Putting the Principle into Practice," PS (September 1995: 470-72). 38 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #1 (August 28) 1. What have been the major historical debates among political scientists? 2. What does Almond mean when he refers to "separate tables" in describing the current divisions in the political science discipline? Is his description a reasonable one? 3. What does Gerring mean by the phrase unity amidst diversity? In what ways are political scientists divided? In what ways are they unified? 4. Garand uses survey data on political scientists views toward the major scholarly journals in the discipline. What does his empirical research tells us about patterns of division and unity in political science? 5. What balance should political science seek between fragmentation and diversity, on one hand, and integration and unity, on the other? 39 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #2 (September 11) 1. David Easton reveals an intellectual shift in his three writings featured in the readings this week. What was Eastons initial position on behavioralism in political science? How did he change his views in his 1969 APSA Presidential address? What is his assessment of behavioralism and post-behavioralism as he is writing in the late 1990s? Where, according to Easton, should political science be going? 2. What is behavioralism? What are its assumptions and characteristics? What is your opinion of the validity of the behavioral approach as a framework for studying politics? What, in your view, are the strengths and weaknesses of this approach? Parenti (1983) takes what one might (diplomatically) refer to as an "anti-behavioral" perspective. What, in your view, are the strengths and weaknesses of Parenti's argument? Is Parenti's analysis of the state of the political science discipline correct? During the 1960s the political science discipline was in a state of disarray. Much of this confusion sprung up from the development of the Caucus for a New Political Science and its efforts to overthrow the governing regime in the American Political Science Association. What were the primary criticisms of contemporary political science raised by the adherents of the Caucus? What do these criticisms have to do with the behavioral-postbehavioral debates that have continued to this day? Finally, what impact did the Caucus have on the political science discipline? 3. 4. 5. In recent years there has emerged a movement, dubbed the Perestroika movement, that is critical of the current state of political science. What are the primary arguments raised by the Perestoikans, particularly by Cohn and Smith? Are these arguments reasonable? How does Finifter and Bennett respond? 6. How is the Perestroika movement similar and different to the movement that led to the development of the Caucus for a New Political Science during the 1960s and early 1970s? Is the Perestroika movement, in fact, old wine in new wineskins, or is there something new in the issues raised by the Perestoikans? 7. Should the political science profession, including organizations such as the American Political Science Association, take positions on political and policy issues facing the United States? For instance, should the APSA stake out a position on the possible war in Iraq, affirmative action, economic redistribution, and abortion rights? Do political scientists have more to say about these issues than, say, nonacademic Americans? 8. What is the public role of political science? What do political scientists have to offer to policy makers and politicians? What issues need to be balanced in order for political scientists to have a public role? 40 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #3 (September 18) 1. 2. 3. What is science? What are the assumptions of science? How does science compare with other approaches to knowledge? Can social phenomena generally, and politics specifically, be studied scientifically? Why or why not? What are the arguments against the scientific study of politics? Are these arguments valid? What are the arguments for the scientific study of politics? Are these arguments valid? 4. What are Landaus thoughts on the matter of the scientific study of politics? Are his ideas reasonable? Why or why not? 5. What does Hill mean when he discusses the lamentable state of science education in political science? Think about your own undergraduate training in political science. What kind of science training did you receive? What do Thies and Hogan suggest about the current state of science and methodological training in political science departments. What is causation? In the social sciences, how do we know it when we see it? How is causation in the social sciences different than causation in the natural sciences? In your view, is the study of political (or social) causation possible? What are the various approaches to causation? How do these approaches differ? What is the difference between explanation and prediction in the social sciences? Is explanation possible without prediction? Is prediction possible without explanation? Is prediction sufficient to justify social science? If we explain or understand, shouldnt we be able to predict? 6. 7. 8. 41 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #4 (September 25) 1. Much of the dominant writing on the philosophy of social science has focused on the work of Karl Popper and his intellectual progeny. In what ways have Popper influenced our conceptions of the philosophy of social science? According to Kuhn, what is scientific progress? Under what circumstances does scientific progress occur? How is Kuhn's view of scientific progress different from the conventional wisdom about how scientific knowledge develops? What is a paradigm? Is the concept of a paradigm relevant for the social sciences? Why or why not? Are there any paradigms in political science? At what stage does social science find itself in the pattern of scientific progress envisioned by Kuhn? 2. 3. 4. How does Kuhn's view of scientific progress compare with that presented by Lakatos? What are the features of Lakatos arguments? Who, in your view, is correct, and why? 5. How do we best disentangle competing paradigms or theoretical approaches? What philosophical standards do we use to make statements about the relative merits of competing paradigms or theoretical approaches? How do Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, and others see the competition among competing paradigmatic or theoretical frameworks? 6. What is naturalism? Anti-naturalism? What does the debate between the naturalists and anti-naturalists tell us about the degree to which the natural sciences are a good model for political science? 7. What is interpretism? How is interpretism different from other social-scientific methodologies? Is interpretism really different from the social-scientific approach to knowledge? If so, in what ways? What are the arguments in favor of and against an interpretivist approach? 8. One of the major debates that exists within political science is between those who see causality as the focus of scholarly work, on one hand, and interpretivists, on the other. What are the major arguments of interpretivists such as Taylor and Gertz? 9. What is hermeneutics, and what are its assumptions? How does hermeneutics relate to the views of interpretivists? 10. What is thick description? How is thick description used for the study of politics? In what kinds of studies is thick description particularly useful? Key terms: Falsificationism Normal science Dogmatic falsificationism Sophisticated methodological falsification Naturalism Interpretism Paradigm Scientific revolutions Methodological falsification Hard core and protective belt Anti-naturalism 42 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #5 (October 2) 1. What are the major differences between qualitative and quantitative research? Why is there so much tension between these two approaches to social knowledge? Is such tension necessary? According to King, Keohane, and Verba (1994), what are the major differences in these two approaches in terms of making valid inferences about social phenomena? What is an inference? What is the difference between descriptive inference and causal inference? According to King et al., what are the major components and goals of research design? Do these components and goals apply to both quantitative and qualitative designs? King et al. state (p. 43): " . . . the best way to understand a particular event may be by using the methods of scientific inference also to study systematic patterns in similar parallel events." Do you agree or disagree? Relatedly, what is the role of generalizability in social science research? Is this an important goal? Why or why not? What are the different views about causality discussed by King et al.? Can causal inferences be drawn from qualitative research? Why or why not? Moreover, what is the role of qualitative research in making causal inferences, above and beyond the role of quantitative research? According to King et al., what are the rules of thumb in constructing causal theories? Are these rules of thumb reasonable? What are the major pitfalls that should be avoided in social research? How do these pitfalls influence the validity of causal inference? Moreover, how do these pitfalls affect quantitative and qualitative research? Are the effects similar or different? What are the advantages associated with increasing the number of observations in social research? What are the problems associated with small numbers of observations? How are qualitative and quantitative research affected by the small-N problem? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. There has been quite a bit of discussion about whether King et al.s work has a unifying effect on the political science discipline. In other words, do King et al. provide a framework for analysis and inference that unifies qualitative and quantitative researchers? 43 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #6 (October 9) 1. 2 According to Mahoney and Goertz, what are the differences between quantitative and qualitative research? How does their perspective differ from that of King, Keohane, and Verba? What are the advantages associated with increasing the number of observations in social research? What are the problems associated with small numbers of observations? How are qualitative and quantitative research affected by the small-N problem? 3. There has been quite a bit of discussion about whether King et al.s work has a unifying effect on the political science discipline. In other words, do King et al. provide a framework for analysis and inference that unifies qualitative and quantitative researchers? 4. According to Fenno, what is the value of observing politicians? What does Fenno mean when he says that political scientists should take observation, context, and sequence into account? Finally, would Fennos argument be classified as interpretivist? Why or why not? 5. King et al. have written a book that has provoked quite a bit of discussion. What are the primary arguments made by Laitin, Caparaso, Collier, Rogowski, and Tarrow in evaluating King et al.? How do King et al. respond? Finally, are there any arguments that one might make against King et al. that are not represented in the symposium in the June 1995 issue of the APSR. According to Munck, what are the canons of research design in qualitative analysis? Are these reasonable? Why or why not? Moreover, what are the shortcomings of King et al.s approach to the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods? 6. 7. What is the role of interpretation in quantitative research, as suggested by Kritzer? How does this compare to interpretivism, particularly in qualitative research? Key terms: Quasi-experimental designs Thick description Selection bias Conceptual stretching Mills method of agreement Process tracing First, second, and third order interpretation Tropological analysis 44 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #7 (October 16) 1. What is a case? What is a case study? How do case studies differ from other kinds of research designs? 2. What is the perspective of George and Bennett and Gerring regarding case studies? Do these two sets of authors agree about case studies? How do they see case studies fitting into research designs using a statistical world view? How compatible are these works with the views expressed by King, Keohane, and Verba? 3. What is process tracing? How does process tracing work, both in theory and in practice? Does process tracing require a small N, or can process tracing be done with large sample sizes? 4. 5. 6. 7. What is the role of comparison in political research? What is it about comparison that provides the basis for stronger causal inferences? What are the disadvantages and pitfalls associated with comparative research? What are the characteristics of the comparative method? What is selection bias? According to Geddes and others, how does selection bias affect qualitative research? Is the concern with selection bias overstated? Understated? Does the use of the comparative method require one to have cross-national data? Can the advantages of comparison be realized in other types of research? 8. Many studies of comparative politics rely on small sample sizes. What is the role of selection bias in small N comparative research? Does selection bias matter? If so, how? 9. According to Mahoney and Goertz, what is the possibility principle? How does this work in the selection of cases? 10. What is areas studies? How does area studies differ from comparative cross-national research? 11. How would you evaluate the comparative elements of the research by Radcliff (1992) and Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina (1984)? What advantages are provided by comparison that would not be available in a study, say, of a single nation? 12. What are the major components of the research enterprise? How does one formulate research questions? How are research questions generated? Once these questions are formulated, how does one design political research in order to answer these questions? 13. According to Sullivan, what is the role of serendipity in political research? Moreover, how can one's students contribute to the research process? Are good research projects a function of luck? 45 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #8 (October 23) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What is a concept? In what ways are the study of concepts important for political and social scientific inquiry? What are the criteria suggested by Gerring for the evaluation of concepts? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the conceptual analyses of Mansbridge (representation) and Kotowski (revolution)? What is the function of operationalizing concepts? What is the difference between a concept and a variable? How are the two related? Why is measurement important? Is it important? Isn't the issue of measurement really a trivial one unworthy of our time and mental energy? Why do shoes usually have laces? If measurement is not a trivial issue, what are the implications of improper measurement? Can measurement structure the findings of empirical research? If so, how? Can you think of examples from your own reading in which improper measurement may contaminate research findings? What are the measurement issues raised by Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus (1979) and Groseclose and Milyo (2005)? How do the measurement issues raised in these works advance the study of politics? According to Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, what are the major types of data in the social sciences? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these data types? What are reliability and validity? Why are these two concepts important? What are the arguments made by Adcock and Collier about measurement validity? Do they propose something that is truly a shared standard for use with quantitative and qualitative research? 6. 7. 8. 9. 46 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #9 (October 30) 1. 2. What is a theory? What is the role of theory in political and social scientific inquiry? How does theory contribute to a furthering of our understanding of the political and social world? According to Lave and March, what standards should be utilized in evaluating social theories? How does one develop and revise theories? Stop and think: How do the theoretical orientations presented by McCrone and Kuklinski (1979) and Rohde (1979) stack up in comparison to the criteria laid out by Lave and March? What do Schneider and Ingram mean when they suggest that policy tools have "behavioral assumptions"? How are these "behavioral assumptions" different than social theories? Do policy makers think in theoretical terms when they are making public policies? The role of rational choice theories in the study of politics has generated a substantial amount of attention in recent years. What are the assumptions underlying rational choice theory? Are these assumptions reasonable? Does it matter whether the assumptions are reasonable or not? Green and Shapiro are not convinced of the value of rational choice theories. They raise a number of criticisms (i.e., pathologies) of rational choice theory. What are these criticisms? Are these criticisms reasonable? How does Cox, an adherent of rational choice theories, respond? According to Shapiro, what is wrong with political science from a theoretical standpoint? What is the solution to Shapiros concerns? How do (or should) political philosophy and political science intersect? What does political philosophy have to offer to modern empirical political science? According to Smith and Mayhew, how should political philosophy and empirical political science interact? According to Michelbach, Scott, Matland, and Bornstein, do citizens think about redistribution in Rawlsian terms? How does one evaluate their empirical evidence on this point? 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Key terms: Authority, incentive, capacity, symbolic, and learning tools Instrumental rationality Utility maximization Thin rationality Thick rationality Universalism of rational choice Partial universalism Segmented universalism Equilibria Formal vs. soft rational choice theory Methods-driven research Theory-driven research Problem-driven research 47 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #10 (November 6) 1. 2. 3. 4. What are the various approaches for collecting data for political analysis? How do these approaches differ, and what are their strengths and weaknesses? What are unobtrusive measures? What are the advantages of data obtained through unobtrusive data collection strategies? What are the special issues of data collection examined by Fenno, Humphreys, Seligson, and Monroe and Tiller? What solutions do these authors suggest to solve their special data collection problems? Emory University political scientist Courtney Brown has written a book in which he states that there are at least two civilizations of space aliens. (He is serious.) He claims to use scientific remote viewing to collect data on these space aliens. Is his data collection strategy scientific? What would various philosophers of science say about Brown's approach to data collection? What does Abramson suggest about the scientific validity of Brown's assertions? Are statements based on Browns data falsifiable? Key terms: Population Sample Probability sampling (simple random, systematic, stratified, cluster) Non-probability sampling (convenience, purposive, quota) Triangulation Laboratory experimentation Field experimentation Mail questionnaires Personal interviews Telephone interviews Internet surveys Response set bias Leading question bias Response bias Field research Participant observation Rapport Grounded theory Content analysis 48 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #11 (November 13) 1. What is meant by "research design"? Why must political scientists be concerned with research design when trying to learn about politics in a rigorous manner? In other words, can politics be studied rigorously without attention to issues of research design? According to Gerring, what are the major components of research designs? More importantly, what are the general criteria for evaluating research designs? How do the various types of research designs stand up to these evaluative criteria? What is meant by "threats to validity?" What are the major threats to validity described by Campbell and Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias? How do violations of these threats jeopardize the validity of one's research findings? What degree of confidence can one have in political research that violates one or more of these threats to validity? What is an experimental research design? What are its major characteristics that differentiate it from other types of designs? What are the strengths and weaknesses of experimental designs, particularly as they apply to the study of politics? What is experimental control? Why is this concept important in the conduct of experimental political research? Are valid experiments pertaining to political phenomena possible? Can the researcher use experimental designs to obtain generalizable and valid results about politics? What do Kinder and Palfrey say about the matter? Are their arguments reasonable? How effective are the experiments described by Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus (1978), Iyengar, Peters, and Kinder (1982), Gerber and Green (2000), and Sniderman, Hagendoorn, and Prior (2004)? Can one be confident in the findings suggested by these authors? Why or why not? For the experiments that you consider invalid or inappropriate, how would you improve upon the research designs employed by the authors in order to answer the research questions that they pose? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Key terms: Internal validity External validity Threats to validity Experimental design Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) Most-similar design Most-different design Confirmatory and exploratory methods Pretest-posttest control group design Solomon four-group design 49 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #12 (November 20) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What is a quasi-experimental design? How do quasi-experimental designs differ from experimental designs? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the former over the latter? How does the concept of "control" differ in experimental and quasi-experimental designs? Is this difference important? What threats to validity characterize quasi-experimental designs? What are the various types of quasi-experimental designs? Of these, which do you believe offers the greatest protection from threats to validity? What are the special issues of quasi-experimentation raised in the research of Garand and Clayton (1986), Nakonezny, Shull, and Rodgers (1995), Garand and Monroe (2001), Feldman and Sigelman (1985), Davis (1997), Houston et al. (1995), and Schneider et al. (1997)? Can one be confident in the findings presented by these authors? Do any of these studies suffer from threats to validity? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches employed by each author? Key terms: Quasi-experimental research designs Cross-sectional designs Interrupted time series designs Control series Time-series designs Panel research designs Pooled cross-sectional time-series designs Selection bias 50 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #13 (November 28) 1. What is the role of biology in the determination of political behavior? Is it possible that political behavior, such as power seeking behavior, can be explained in part by something as simple as a biochemical marker (such as whole blood serotonin)? What does Madsen (1985, 1986) suggest about the role of serotonin in shaping powerseeking behavior? 2. Is it possible that political attitudes are shaped by heredity? What about other biological determinants of behavior? According to Alford and Hibbing (2004) and Alford, Funk, and Hibbing (2005), how important is it for political scientists to take biological variables into account in their models of political behavior? Why? 3. What are the methodological advantages of studying monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins for separating the effects of heritability and environment on political attitudes and behavior? 4. 5. What is meant by "unit (or level) of analysis"? Why is the unit of analysis an important concept in political and social research? What is the difference between cross-sectional and panel designs? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? What kinds of inferences can be drawn from these two types of individual-level studies? What are the implications of the use of a panel design for the work of Jennings and Markus (1984)? Do individuals always remember and/or report their behavior accurately? Why or why not? If not, what are the implications of this for the study of political behavior? What strategy is adopted by Karp and Brockington (2005) to address this issue? What is contextual analysis? Why is it important? Is the unit of analysis in contextual analysis individual or aggregate? What is aggregate analysis? What are the pitfalls of aggregate analysis? Why can the inferences drawn from aggregate analysis be somewhat limited? Under what circumstances is aggregate analysis appropriate? What is the ecological fallacy? According to Freedman, what are the problems associated with the ecological fallacy? In practical terms, what issues are raised by Thernstrom as it relates to the ecological fallacy and the 2000 American presidential election? 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. What issues pertaining to the unit of analysis are raised by Ardoin and Garand (2003), Peterson and Rom (1989), and Bailey (2005)? Key terms: Biochemical marker Natural selection Wary cooperation Monozygotic (MZ) twins Dizygotic (DZ) twins Systematizing vs. empathetic spectrum Assortative mating Ecological fallacy Panel design 51 POLI 7961 Scope and Approaches STUDY QUESTIONS Class #14 (December 4) 1. Scientists often portray themselves and their work as being uninfluenced by the society in which they live. Is this a reasonable assertion? In what ways do critics of social science suggest that social scientists are influenced by society. Finally, what does all of this say about the possibility of a social science? The tasks performed by social scientists are done in the broader context of society. The American society has a range of incentive structures that reward some activities and create disincentives for others. How does this system of incentives and disincentives affect social scientists, social science, and social research? How are the activities of social scientists affected by the internal and external reward systems within their home disciplines? What is the role of public and private funding, publication outlets, universities, government, and the mass public in both the selection of research topics and the conduct of research in the social sciences? Do social scientists' personalities find expression in their work? If so, how? Do such expressions invalidate the possibility of a neutral social science? Why or why not? What is the role played by politics in political research, particularly as described in the work of Lott (1998), Maisel and Stone (1998), Lupia (2000), Glenn (2002), and Glenn (2002). What are the ethical responsibilities of political scientists to their subjects? What about to the community of political science scholars? In general? Are there certain, controversial research questions that should be outside the realm of social scientific inquiry? If so, what types of questions fit into this category? If not, why not? How should political scientists utilize the knowledge obtained in their political research? Should the knowledge be used for explicitly political purposes? Can the political scientist retain some semblance of scientific "objectivity" while at the same time using political research for political purposes? Is it legitimate to withhold information pertaining to one's research findings for a "greater good"? Is it legitimate to refuse to disseminate research findings because they violate the political scientist's personal, political values? Why or why not? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. How does one do research on subjects that are difficult to study or that make subjects uncomfortable or defensive (e.g., sex, drug use, race, religion)? 11. What is academic freedom? Should scholars be able to conduct legitimate scholarly research, even if it is controversial? 12. What is the obligation of political scientists to distribute their findings to the scholarly community, policy makers, and/or the public? Should findings be distributed even though they have not been through the journal review process?
MOST POPULAR MATERIALS FROM POLI
MOST POPULAR MATERIALS FROM LSU