RUTGERS UNIVERSITY–NEW
Political Science 532-533 Leech,
Licklider, Schochet
Research Design in Political
Science 2004-2005
This unusual (!)
course is taught by three faculty over the academic
year. We keep changing the sequence of
materials to respond to student comments and the academic calendar. In the fall this year the first four weeks
will be taught by Licklider and the remainder by
Leech. In the normal sequence, Licklider would teach the first five weeks and Schochet the remainder of the spring semester; however,
that is still unsettled at the moment.
It is fair to ask why
this somewhat bizarre sequence is the only course required of all graduate
students in the department. It reflects
our judgement that graduate students, as opposed to
undergraduates, should focus on research, on contributing to the ongoing
debates of the discipline and evaluating the contributions of others, and that
this process needs to start early rather than late in graduate education. It also reflects our hope that a focus on
research design, on how empirical research is and should be conducted, will
encourage students to actively enter these debates.
We give particular
attention to quantitative methods, not because they are necessarily better than
others, but because they are very important in contemporary political science
but unfamiliar to many of our students.
Thus, after two introductory classes, the remainder of the semester will
be devoted to quantitative methods, starting with discussions of their
strengths and weaknesses and our first research design, followed by learning
about various statistical research techniques.
At the beginning of the second semester we will take up small-N analysis
and formal theory, followed by more systematic discussions of philosophy of
science and epistemology.
Because of the unusual
nature of the course, faculty will assign grade for their own sections; they
will be combined, weighted by the number of classes taught each semester. Thus for the first semester it will be Licklider 1/3 and Leech 2/3; for the second semester it
will be Licklider 1/3 and Schochet
2/3.
Because of the large
amount of material to be covered, there will be required reading before the
first day of class for both semesters, as noted below.
This section of the
course is designed to evaluate three general approaches to empirical research,
(a) quantitative or large-N analysis, (b) case studies or small-N analysis, and
(c) formal theory. Our goal is to sharpen
our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each so we can make more
informed choices about using them in our own research and judging their use by
others. We will begin with a brief
discussion of experimentation as an example of a particular approach. At the same time each student will be asked
to select an issue in political science which interests them. We will then spend two weeks on each of the
main methods. The first week will be a
discussion of the major arguments about the utility of each of the three
methods and an intensive discussion of some examples of its use taken
from the current literature. It is
particularly important that you read the example with great care. For the second week of each section students
will prepare short research designs showing how this particular method
could usefully be applied to their own issue; these will be presented and
discussed in class. The section will
conclude with a discussion of ethical issues in research.
The research
designs are clearly central to this part of the course. They require you to show how you would apply
each method to a single problem within political science with which you
are familiar. This problem should be a general,
theoretical issue (not a methodological one) on which there is serious
dispute within the field. Normally
this will have produced at least two conflicting explanations for the same
phenomenon. Examples might be the
impact of mass media and party membership on elections, the relationship
between democracy, wealth, and interstate war, whether a social movement will
have more impact by working within one political party or developing a third
party in the U.S., or whether legislative votes are driven more by personal
ideologies or party loyalties. Pick an issue
whose theoretical literature you know fairly well, perhaps something from a
previous course. Feel free to discuss it
with me. Unfortunately, since I teach on
the
At the second class
meeting, please submit a first draft of a statement of such a problem. I will comment on them and return them to
your mailboxes; we should then talk about each one as necessary. At the third class meeting, submit a one to
two page revised problem statement which includes (1) a written summary
of the dispute (a few sentences), (2) a brief presentation of the different
positions within the discipline (a short bibliography is recommended but
optional), and (3) a hypothesis (a general, empirical, testable, comparative
statement) which, if tested, would help reduce the disagreement between
the two sides. Do this by converting the
empirical question into a causal statement--A is more likely to occur when B is
true than when B is not true. Make your
hypothesis as precise as possible.
Remember that hypotheses about the future cannot be tested, since we
have no data about the future, so they cannot be used. Therefore hypotheses should be written using
the past or present tense. (4) Explain
briefly how knowing the truth or falsity of this hypothesis would help
reduce the disagreement. This material
(or a revised version of it) will become the introduction for all three
research designs which you will submit.
On the days that the
papers are due, students will summarize their work in five-minute oral
presentations, and the class will discuss each separately. Papers may be rewritten for credit; the
second version will be graded independently and averaged with the first to
calculate the grade for that paper.
Students must talk to me before rewriting them.
ALTERNATIVE RESEARCH STRATEGIES, PART I (FALL)
Roy Licklider, licklide@rci.rutgers.edu, 212
865-8301
REQUIRED BOOKS: (abbreviated by
their titles in the syllabus; all paperback and available at the Douglass Bookstore):
Kenneth Hoover and Todd Donovan, The Elements of Social
Scientific Thinking, 8th edition
Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science
Because of the nature of the course, most assigned material is not
included in the books. Copies of other
required materials will be available in the Graduate Reserve Room at Alexander
Library and also on electronic reserve; as a backup full
citations are given in the syllabus to allow you to get them from the
university libraries. It is your
responsibility to obtain and read all assigned items before class and come
prepared to discuss them; this is not a lecture course. Items listed under “optional additional
readings” will not be on reserve but should be readily available from the
library; if not, please see me.
A PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: "INSTRUMENTAL POSITIVISM"
9/1: Roy Licklider,
"How Do We Know What We Know?"
The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking, chapters 1-2
Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, Introduction
and chapters 1 and 3
Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific
Inference
in Qualitative Research, pp. 3-49
Donald Puchala,
"Woe to the Orphans of the Scientific Revolution" in Robert
Rothstein, The Evolution of Theory in
International Relations, pp. 39-60
Andrew Bennett, Aharon Barth, and Kenneth
Rutherford, “Do We Practice What We Preach?
A Survey of Methods in Political Science Journals and Curricula,” P.S.: Political Science and Politics,
36:3 (July 2003), pp. 373-378
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL
W. Phillips
Charles Ragin, The Comparative Method,
chapters 1-2
James N. Rosenau, The Dramas of
Political Life, first edition, pp. 3-7 and 151-251
Jack Levy, “Explaining Events and
Developing Theories: History, Political Science, and the Analysis of
International Relations” in Colin Elman and Mirian Fendius Elman, Bridges and
Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International
Relations, pp. 39-83
Harold D. Lasswell,
“The Normative Impact of the Behavioral Sciences,” Ethics, 67, 3, 2 (1975), pp. 1-42
Jack Snyder, “‘Is’ and ‘Ought’:
Evaluating Empirical Aspects of Normative Research,” in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, Progress in
International Relations Theory (
CAUSATION AND EXPERIMENTS
9/8: FIRST DRAFT OF PROBLEM
STATEMENTS DUE (see discussion above)
Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific
Inference
in Qualitative Research, pp. 91-95 and 99-114
The Elements of Social Science Thinking, chapter 3
Russell Jones, Research Methods in the Social and
Behavioral Sciences, chapter 7
Kathleen McGraw and Valerie
Hoekstra, "Experimentation in Political Science: Historical and Future Directions" in
Michael X. Delli Carpini,
Leonie Huddy, and Robert Shapiro, Research in Micropolitics:
New Directions in Political Psychology, pp.
3-29
S. Iyengar,
M. Peters, and D. Kinder, "Experimental Demonstration of the 'Not-So-
Minimal' Consequences of Television News
Programs," American Political
Science Review, 76 (1982), 848-858
Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, chapters 4-6
LARGE-N STUDIES (STATISTICAL OR CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS)
9/15: FULL PROBLEM STATEMENT
DUE
The
Elements of Social Science Thinking, chapters 4-5 and appendices A & B
Alan Wolfe, "Up
From Scientism," New Republic
(December 23, 1996), pp. 29-35
John Vasquez, "The Steps to War: Toward a Scientific Explanation of Correlates
of
War
Findings," World Politics, 40 (October, 1987), pp.
108-145
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL
Stuart Bremer, et. al., The
Scientific Study of War, parts I-IV
Donald Campbell, "The
Charles Ragin, The Comparative Method, chapters 4-5 and 9
Thomas W. Pogge
and Sanjay G. Reddy, “Unknown: The Extent, Distribution, and Trend of Global Income
Poverty,” Martin Ravallion, “How Not to Count the Poor? A
Reply to Reddy and Pogge,” and Sanjay Reddy and
Thomas Pogge, “How Not to Count the Poor!–A Reply to Ravallion,”
2003, http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/
(suggested by Kate Bedford)
ADDITIONAL
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/martinez/simplestats.htm
with some additions by me):
Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1995. Facing up to the American Dream: Race, Class,
and the Soul of the Nation.
Hood, M.V. and
G.W. Neeley. 2000. Packin' in the hood?: Examining assumptions of concealed-handgun research. Social
Science Quarterly 81 (2, June): 523-537
Mann, Thomas and
Raymond Wolfinger. 1980. "Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections." American Political Science Review 74 (3,
September): 617-632.
CHI-SQUARE:
Atkins,
Bennett, Stephen Earl, and David Resnick. 1990. "The Implications of Nonvoting for
Democracy in the
Licklider, Roy.
1995. “The Consequences of
Negotiated Settlements in Civil Wars, 1945-1993.” American
Political Science Review 89 (3, September): 681-690.
DIFFERENCE OF MEANS TEST:
Matland, Richard E. 1994.
"Putting Scandinavian Equality to the Test - an Experimental
Evaluation of Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates in a Sample of
Norwegian Voters." British Journal of Political Science
24: 273-292
Wood, Sandra L,
Linda
STANDARD DEVIATIONS:
Beck, Paul
Allen. 1996. Party Politics in
CORRELATIONS:
Hokenmaier, Karl G. 1998. "Social Security vs.
Educational
Segal, Jeffrey
A. and Albert D. Cover. 1989.
"Ideological Values and the Votes of
BIVARIATE REGRESSIONS:
Dougherty, Keith L. 1999. "Public Goods and Private Interests: An
explanation for state compliance with federal requisitions, 1775-1789," in
Jac Heckelman et. al. (eds.) Public Choice Interpretations of American Economic History.
Hurwitz, Jon and
Mark Peffley. 1997. "Public Perceptions
of Race and Crime: The Role of Racial
Stereotypes." American Journal of Political Science 41
(2, April): 375-401.
Gibson, James L. 2002. “Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation: Judging
the Fairness of Amnesty in
9/22: PAPER #1: Create a large-N
research design which would help test your hypothesis. Focus on (a) a statement of the theoretical
problem, (b) why a large-N study would be useful in confronting this issue, (c)
identification of independent, dependent, and control variables, including
those you considered but rejected, (d) hypothesis to be tested, (e) operationalization of the variables, (f) identification or
creation of appropriate data, (g) what level of data is this likely to be, (h)
what analysis techniques might be appropriate and inappropriate, (i) what resources would you need to carry out this work,
and (j) the impact of whether the hypothesis is confirmed or disproven on the argument within the discipline.
ALTERNATIVE RESEARCH STRATEGIES, PART II (SPRING)
Roy Licklider, licklide@rci.rutgers.edu, 212
865-8301
ADDITIONAL BOOK FOR PURCHASE:
Kenneth Shepsle and Mark Bonchek,
Analyzing Politics: Rationality,
Behavior, and
Institutions
(paperback, Douglass Bookstore)
American Political Science Association, A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science
SMALL-N ANALYSIS (CASE STUDIES)
1/23: Jack Levy, “Quantitative Methods in International Relations” in
Michael Brecher and Frank P. Harvey, Millenial Reflections on International Studies,
pp. 432-454 and Evaluating Methodology in
International Studies
Guide to Methodology for Students of Political Science, chapter 2
Andrew Bennett and Alexander
George, “Research Design Tasks in Case Study Methods,” paper for MacArthur Foundation Workshop on Case Study Methods,
Elisabeth Wood, “An Insurgent Path
to Democracy: Popular Mobilization, Economic Interests, and Regime Transition
in
Michael Ross, “How Does Natural
Resource Wealth Influence Civil Wars?
Evidence from Thirteen Case Studies,” http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/ross/HowDoesNat.pdf
OPTIONAL
EXTRA
Gary
King, Robert Keohane and Sidney Verba,
Designing Social Inquiry, pp 208-230 James Fearon,
"Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science," World
Politics, 43 (January, 1991), pp. 169-195
James
Mahoney. “Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macrocausal
Analysis,” American Journal of Sociology,
104 (January 1999), pp. 1154-1196
James
Mahoney, “Strategies of Causal Inference in Small-N Analysis,” Sociological Methods and Research, 28, 4
(May 2000), pp. 387-424
Harry
Eckstein, "Case Study and Theory in Policy Science" in Fred
Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, Handbook of Political Science, Volume 7, Strategies of Inquiry, pp. 79-137
Alexander
L. George and Timothy J. McKeown, "Case Studies
and Theories of Organizational Decision Making" and William H. Riker,
"Comments on
"Case
Studies and Theories of Organization Decision Making," pp. 21-63 in
Advances in Information Processing in
Organizations: A Research Annual
David
Collier, “The Comparative Method,” pp. 105-119 in Ada
Finifter (ed), Political Science: The State of the Discipline II
Reasoning
in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases,"
Social Forces, 70 (December, 1991), 307-320
Charles
Ragin, The Comparative Method,
especially chapter 3
D.
Michael Shafer, Deadly Paradigms: The Failure of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy, chapters 1, 4-5, and 7-10
Arend Lijphart, “The Puzzle of Indian
Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation,” American Political Science Review, 90
(June 1996), pp. 258-268
Roy Licklider, "The Power of Oil: The
1/30: PAPER #2:
Create a research design using the case study approach which would help
resolve the arguments on the same problem as you used in paper #1. Focus on (a)
case selection, including what cases you considered and rejected and why, (b)
what aspects of the case(s) would your analysis focus on, (c) how would you
carry out process tracing (specify at least one causal process you would look
for), (d) what resources would you need to carry out this work, and (e) how
would the final product help resolve the as to which explanation is the more
plausible.
FORMAL THEORY
2/6: Robert
Jervis, "Models and Cases in the Study of International Conflict" in Robert
Rothstein,
The Evolution of Theory in International
Relations, pp. 61-81
Analyzing Politics, chapters 1-4, 6, 8-9, and either 10 (last name A-K) or 14
(last name L-Z)
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, “Making
Security Studies Relevant to Policy Makers,” National Security Studies Quarterly, III (Autumn,
1997), pp. 89-96
James D.
Fearon, “Ethnic War as a Commitment Problem,” paper
presented at the American Political Science Association, September, 1993.
OPTIONAL
EXTRA
Stephen M. Walt, “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies” and
Lisa L. Martin, “The Contributions of Rational Choice: A Defense of Pluralism,”
International Security, 23, 4 (Spring
1999) pp. 5-48 and 24, 2 (Fall 1999), pp. 74-83
Charles
A. Lave and James G. March, An Introduction to
Models in the Social Sciences
Scott
Gates and Brian D. Humes, Games, Information, and Politics
Barry
Weingast, "The Fundamental Political and
Economic Puzzles of Ethnic and
Regional Violence," paper for
Peter
Ordeshook, Game
Theory and Political Theory
Avanish Dixit and Barry Nalebuff, Thinking
Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics and Everyday Life
2/13: PAPER
#3: Assume that the large-N study you outlined in paper #1 has been completed
and has produced the correlation you predicted.
State at least three different explanations of this result (presumably one will be
the theory you are testing, while your original alternative explanation should
now be excluded). Convert each into a formal model. Sketch out a research strategy to persuade a sceptical audience which of these three explanations is the
best explanation for your large-N results.
VALUES IN RESEARCH
2/20: Guide to Methodology for Students of
Political Science, chapter 6
A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political
Science, entire
James
N. Rosenau, The Dramas of
Political Life, first edition, pp. 252-281
Roy
Licklider, "The Ethics of Research of the
Private Nuclear Strategists," paper for
Inter-University
Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, 1975
The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking,
chapter 6
Glenn
Paige, "On Values and Science: The
Korean Decision Reconsidered,"
American Political Science Review, 71 (December, 1977), 1603-1609
Norbert
Kerr, letter from FRCRP project, Department of Psychology,
Diana Baumrind, "Research Using Intentional Deception: Ethical Issues Revisited,"
American
Psychologist, 40 (February, 1985), 165-174
Charlotte
Allen, “Spies Like Us: When Sociologists Deceive Their Subjects,” LinguaFranca, 7
(November, 1997), pp. 30-39
Christopher
Shea, “Don’t Talk To The
Humans: The Crackdown on Social Science Research,” LinguaFranca, 10 (September
2000), pp. 26-34
OPTIONAL EXTRA
Irving
Louis Horowitz, The Rise & Fall of
Project Camelot, Preface and pp. 3-17, 27-44, and 267-312 (Horowitz, Silvert,
Pool, Galtung)
Johan
Galtung, "A Structural Theory of
Imperialism," Journal of Peace
Research, 8 (1971),
81-117