Y570: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF POLITICS ----- FALL 1997, Meets Wednesday, 1:25-3:20 PM, Woodburn 204

Michael McGinnis

Woodburn Hall 356, 855-0647, e-mail: mcginnis, Office Hours: Tues., Wed., 9:00-10:30 AM and by appointment

Course Description

Anyone looking for pristine purity is bound to be disappointed with the discipline of political science. Not only does it include a multitude of substantive areas, regional specialities, and theoretical approaches, but it also covers a wide variety of epistemological perspectives and methodological orientations. This seminar will introduce students to the wide array of methods of political science research. We shall focus first on the nature of research designs and then examine a variety of different methods of inquiry, including experimentation, formal methods, case studies, and comparative methods, demonstrating the kinds of knowledge they give rise to as well as their intrinsic strengths and weaknesses.

Each approach to political science research has associated with it a variety of technical details and operational guidelines. In some areas (such as survey research or formal modeling) rules of evidence and evaluative criteria can be defined explicitly in terms of statistical criteria or rigorous standards of mathematical proof. In other areas of political science (such as case studies and many comparative studies), criteria for evaluating good research are more implicit and difficult to specify. Yet, all forms of political science research must deal with similar concerns about the reliability of one's empirical observations and the validity of inferences drawn from empirical analyses. In this course, we introduce students to these general concerns common to all forms of empirical political science, by examining the ways these common questions take different forms in different types of research approaches. In our readings, we will examine both general evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of various research methodologies as well as specific examples of successful research adopting these different methodologies.

However, methodological questions cannot be examined in isolation from more basic epistemological foundations. Throughout the seminar, we will explore diverse ways of approaching the study of politics. Each of these ways of studying politics or modes of investigation makes certain assumptions about what politics is or ought to be, and on the basis of those assumptions each attempts to show how, and with what methods or techniques, we can arrive at more or less certain knowledge of political phenomena. However, the fundamental assumptions that underline alternative epistemologies are radically different. As a result, their conception of what constitutes scientific knowledge of politics, and the means by which it can be acquired, are also very different. Thus, some political scientists argue that we ought to emulate the rigorous procedures and standards of the natural sciences in order to discover the basic laws of politics. Others claim that politics as well as the social sciences generally are unique and require a fundamentally different mode of investigation. Political science should attempt to neither establish law-like propositions nor represent political knowledge with abstract, deductive theoretical structures. Instead, political inquiry should result in the interpretation of political phenomena. A third position holds that theoretical neutrality is impossible in the study of political affairs, and that, moreover, it would give rise, would it be possible, to worthless findings or at least to findings of questionable value. According to this position, political science must be critical. As in the case of the physician, positive knowledge can help the political scientist, but disinterested knowledge and the accumulation thereof cannot be the main goals. It is only a means toward that goal.

It is not easy to say who, if anyone, is right in this dispute over the nature of political inquiry. Indeed, it seems likely that no definitive resolution of these matters will be forthcoming. Yet no practicing political scientist can afford to neglect the issues raised by this dispute; for, like it or not, they are inextricably bound up with the conduct of inquiry. They are, in other words, unavoidable, and for that reason ought to be addressed in a forthright manner.

This seminar, then, will examine different epistemological perspectives and methodological approaches used in the study of political phenomena so as to introduce young scholars to some key issues they will confront during the course of their research. The rationales underlying these perspectives and methods will be identified, criticisms of the rationales will be raised, and responses to these criticisms will be suggested. In the end, we hope everyone will be able to appreciate the strengths as well as limitations of these various modes of political inquiry.

Schedule of Topics: Y570

Week 1: September 3 Introduction to Course

Week 2: September 10 Basic Principles of Theory

Lave, Charles A., and James G. March. 1975. "An Introduction to Speculation" and "The Evaluation of Speculations." In An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences, chapters 2-3: 8-84. New York: Harper & Row.

Week 3: September 17 Theoretical Puzzles and Their (Partial) Resolution

Zinnes, Dina A. 1980. "Three Puzzles in Search of a Researcher: Presidential Address." International Studies Quarterly 24(3) (Sept.): 315-42.

Williams, John T., and Michael D. McGinnis. 1988. "Sophisticated Reaction in the U.S.-Soviet Arms Race: Evidence of Rational Expectations." American Journal of Political Science 32(4) (Nov.): 968-95.

Week 4: September 24 Basic Issues of Measurement

Shively, W. Phillips. 1990. "The Importance of Dimensional Thinking" and "Problems of Measurement: Accuracy." In The Craft of Political Research, chapters 3-4: 30-60. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Shively, W. Phillips, ed. 1984. Readings from The Research Process in Political Science:

Editor's Introduction

Sullivan, John L., George E. Markus, Stanley Feldman, and James E. Pierson. "The Sources of Political Tolerance: A Multivariate Analysis." [APSR reprint]

Sullivan, John L. "On Students and Serendipity in Social Research."

Week 5: October 1 Research Design: A First Cut

Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghlin-Mifflin. [entire book, skim later sections]

Campbell, Donald T., and H. Laurence Ross. 1968. "The Connecticut Crackdown on Speeding." Law and Society, 33-53.

Wood, B. Dan, and Richard W. Waterman. 1991. "The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy." American Political Science Review 85(3) (Sept.): 801-28.

Week 6: October 8 Experimentation

Kinder, Donald R. and Thomas R. Palfrey, eds. 1993 "On Behalf of an Experimental Political Science." In Experimental Foundations of Political Science, 1-39. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ostrom, Elinor, James Walker, and Roy Gardner. 1992. "Covenants with and without a Sword: Self-Governance is Possible." American Political Science Review 86(2) (Jun.): 404-17.

Week 7: October 15 Case Studies

Fenno, Richard. 1978. "Appendix-Notes on Method: Participant Observation." In Home Style: House Members in Their Districts, 249-55, 256, 274-95. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Side." In The Interpretation of Cultures, 3-30. New York: Basic Books.

Week 8: October 22 Comparative Analysis

Lijhart, Arend. 1971. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method." American Political Science Review 65: 682-93.

Skocpol, Theda. 1976. "France, Russia, China: A Structural Analysis of Social Revolutions." Comparative Studies in Society and History 18(2): 175-210.

Week 9: October 29 Cross-National Research

Jackman, Robert W. 1985. "Cross-National Statistical Research and the Study of Comparative Politics." American Journal of Political Science 29(1) (Feb.): 161-82.

Lange, Peter, and Geoffrey Garrett. 1985. "The Politics of Growth: Strategic Interaction and Economic Performance in the Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1974-1980." Journal of Politics 47: 792-827.

Weeks 10 and 11: November 5 and 12 Research Design: A Second Cut

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

[entire book]

Week 12: November 19 Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of Political Participation

Schwartz, Joel D. 1984. "Participation and Multisubjective Understanding: An Interpretivist Approach to the Study of Political Participation." Journal of Politics 26: 1,117-41.

Zaller, John and Stanley Feldman. 1992. "A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences." American Journal of Political Science 36(3) (Aug.): 579-616.

Week 13: No Class -- Thanksgiving Break

Week 14: December 3 Philosophy and Practice of Social Science

Diesing, Paul. 1991. How Does Social Science Work?: Reflections on Practice. Pittsburgh, Penn.: University of Pittsburgh Press. [entire book]

Week 15: December 10 A Case Study of Social Science in Action

Brush, Stephen G. 1996. "Dynamics of Theory Change in the Social Science: Relative Deprivation and Collective Violence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40:4 (December 1996), 523-545. [NOT IN COURSE READERS]

NOTE: In the first forty minutes or so students will complete course evaluations.


Student Responsibilities and Paper Assignments

The structure of the course is a seminar. This places a substantial burden on students to come to the sessions prepared to talk. Each student should come prepared to offer a summary of the most important arguments supporting (1) the strengths and advantages of the research approach covered in that week's readings and (2) the weaknesses and disadvantages of that same research approach. Students should also be prepared to make specific connections to aspects of the example of research covered in that week's readings. This course necessarily covers a very diverse range of material, but a special effort has been made to keep the magnitude of the reading assignments as minimal as possible. As a consequence, students are expected to read these assignments carefully and to come to class prepared to discuss them in some detail.

All participants are expected to take an active role in seminar discussions. Grading in the course will be based on general seminar participation and two written assignments. The grade for this seminar will be based on the following distribution:

Weekly Memos: Learning how to get to the heart of an argument and to express oneself clearly and succinctly are important survival skills for the academic line of work. To develop this skill, each student should write a short memo of two or three pages in duration that either summarizes important aspects of the readings they have done and/or raises puzzling questions they have about these readings and their implications for research in political science. These memos need to be turned in no later than Wednesday morning at 9:00 AM (please turn them in earlier if possible).

In your first memo (due before the second week's session) you should address the following questions, after you have completed reading the two chapters of Lave and March.

In your memos for subsequent weeks, you should discuss how the approaches covered in that week's readings could be applied to your topic of interest. Other memo topics include any observations that you would like to make on that week's readings, as well as any questions you would like us to discuss during class. You should expect to be able to discuss any matter you raise in your memo. Try to pick important questions, since we only have a limited amount of time for discussion, and also because you will be evaluated on the quality of your class participation.


First paper: The assignment for this paper is to describe an interesting speculation about political actions and outcomes that you would like to pursue as a research topic at some future date. Write a short essay of around five pages that includes the following:

(1) Describe the speculation, why you think it is interesting, and why it is an important speculation for the study of political science;

(2) Demonstrate how you have evaluated this speculation in light of reading Lave and March. What are some of the alternative speculations that you would need to think hard about if you were to undertake research on this speculation?

(3) What are the concepts and variables that you would need to identify in order to conduct research about this speculation and the most important alternative explanations?

(4) Provide an initial sketch of a research design that could be used to examine a hypothesis related to this speculation. What are the threats to validity involved in this particular type of research design? What steps would you begin to think about in coping with these threats to validity?

Second paper: The assignment for this paper is to write a prospectus outlining the basic research design for a major piece of political research. Your research question should be concerned about the relationship between two or more political, social, or economic phenomena. What does the relevant literature suggest about the relationship(s)? How does your investigation contribute (or add) to the existing literature? How do you plan to go about systematically examining the proposed relationship(s)? This paper must describe (in much more detail than the first paper) the particular hypotheses, research methods, operationalizations, and ways of coping with threats to validity that you would use in implementing this research project.

Textbooks: The folllowing books should be available at the IMU and TIS bookstores:

Campbell, Donald, and Julian Stanley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghlin-Mifflin.

Diesing, Paul. 1991. How Does Social Science Work?: Reflections on Practice. Pittsburgh, Penn.: University of Pittsburgh Press.

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

A few copies of the Y570 Course Packet is available at the IMU Bookstore with (nearly) all the other required readings. More copies will be made available if necessary, but many of you may want to obtain copies from students who took this course before. This year's reader is identical to the readers for Fall 1996 and 1995 and it is very similar to the Fall 1994 version. (TIS has a few copies left of the 1994 version.) A copy of one of these readers will also be put on reserve in the Political Science Research Collection, Woodburn 200. Copies of books should also be available there and in the Reserve Room of the Main Library.