GVPT 700—Fall 2006                                                                                           Dr. Morris

W 12:30-3:15                                                                                                         Tydings 3140B, ph.# 5-8633

Office hours: 10-11:00 MW and by appointment                                            imorris@gvpt.umd.edu

 

 

Syllabus for Scope and Methods of Political Science[1]

 

Course Purpose and Description:

 

This course is an introduction to empirical political science.  While we will discuss the scope of the field (both substantively and theoretically) broadly understood, our focus will be on empirically-oriented research.  We will discuss the philosophy of science, the logic of scientific inquiry and the manner in which this logic manifests itself in political science.  We will also discuss various topics related to theory development, research design, and the methods commonly used to do empirical political science.  It is obviously impossible to cover any of these issues completely.  For example, one could spend an entire career, and some scholars do, examining certain aspects of the philosophy of science or the logic of inquiry or the nature of theory development.  Remember, this is an introduction.

 

The course objectives are straightforward.  At the end of the course, each student should be able to:

1.        Define “science” and “social science” and discuss the extent to which science and social science are distinct from other intellectual endeavors. 

2.        Define “political science” and describe its scope and those of the conventional fields within political science.

3.        Describe and evaluate distinct philosophical perspectives towards the logic of scientific inquiry.

4.        Identify and describe the components of social scientific research and develop an effective research design. 

5.        Describe prominent empirical methodologies for analyzing politics and be able to discuss the costs and benefits of each methodology.

6.        Discuss the nature of theory generation and the primary theoretical traditions in political science.

7.        Demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between “politics” and “political science”.

To develop the knowledge and competencies required to satisfy these objectives, it will be very important for you to prepare carefully for class and to participate fully in class activities.  You will also need to spend time thinking about the issues we raise in class.  Discussing these issues with your colleagues will also aid in your understanding.

 

Course Requirements:  The course includes four graded components:  an original research design, a set of short assignments, class participation, and your final exam.  Your final grade will be based on your performance on these components.  The weights of the various graded components for the determination of your final grade are as follows: 

 

Research design                                                                   30%

Short assignments                                                               20%

Class participation                                                               20%

Final exam                                                                              30%

 

Grades are based on a 10-point scale, unless I deem a curve necessary.  I expect assignments to be submitted on time.  I do not—as a general rule—give Incompletes. 

 

Required Texts:

 

1.        King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (ISBN 0-691-03471-0)

2.        Brady, Henry R. and David Collier, eds. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Rowman & Littlefield.

3.        Feyerabend, Paul. 1993. Against Method. 3rd edition. London: Verso. (ISBN 0-86091-646-4)

4.        Mills, C. Wright. 2000. The Sociological Imagination. 40th Anniversary edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (ISBN 0-19-513373-0)

5.        Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (ISBN 0-226-45808-3)

6.        Burnham, Peter, Karin Gilland, Wyn Grant, and Zig Layton-Henry. 2004. Research Methods in Politics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. (ISBN 0-33396254-0)

7.        Geertz, Clifford. 2000. Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (ISBN 0-691-08956-6)

8.        Miller, David, ed. 1985. Popper Selections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (ISBN 0-691-02031-0)

9.        Lichbach, Mark I. 2003. Is Rational Choice Theory All of Social Science?. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. (ISBN 0-472-06819-9)

10.     Morris, Irwin L., Joe Oppenheimer and Karol Soltan. 2004. Politics from Anarchy to Democracy: Rational Choice in Political Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (ISBN 0-8047-4584-6)

 

Accommodations for Students with Disabilities:  Any student who, because of a disabling condition, may require some special arrangements in order to meet course requirements should contact me as soon as possible to make necessary accommodations.  I am more than willing to make the necessary accommodations. Please contact me by September 14, 2005 so that we can discuss these accommodations.  A written request for accommodation is required.  If you have questions or concerns regarding University of Maryland disability documentation, you may wish to contact Disability Support Services at 314-7682. 

 

Academic Integrity:  The University of Maryland, College Park has a nationally recognized Code of Academic Integrity, administered by the Student Honor Council.  This Code sets standards for academic integrity at Maryland for all undergraduate and graduate students.  As a student you are responsible for upholding these standards for this course.  It is very important for you to be aware of the consequences of cheating, fabrication, facilitation, and plagiarism. For more information on the Code of Academic Integrity or the Student Honor Council, please visit http://www.shc.umd.edu.  To further exhibit your commitment to academic integrity, remember to sign the Honor Pledge on all examinations and assignments: "I pledge on my honor that I have not given or received any unauthorized assistance on this examination (assignment)."

 

Religious Observances:  I will make every reasonable effort to accommodate students’ requests to make up tests or other assignments missed due to attendance of religious observances.  It is, however, your responsibility to inform me, in advance, of expected absences.  This is particularly true if the observance of a religious holiday will result in your missing the final exam.

 

General Course Outline:  Students are expected to have the readings listed for each class completed prior to class.  Readings may be modified as necessary.

 

8/30 – Political Science: Disciplinary Scope and History

--Lowi, Theodore. 1992. “The State in Political Science: How We Become What We Study.” American Political Science Review 86 (1): 1-7.

--Monroe, Kristen, et al. (1990).  “The Nature of Contemporary Political Science: A Roundtable Discussion.”  PS: Political Science and Politics XXIII (1): 34-43

--“Symposium: Shaking Things Up? Thoughts about the Future of Political Science.” 2002. PS: Political Science and Politics XXXV (2): 181-206.

--Grant, J. Tobin. 2005. “What Divides Us? The Image and Organization of Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics XXXVIII (3): 379-386.

--Introduction and Chapter 1 in Burnham, et al.

--Cohen, David B. 2002. “Surviving the Ph.D.: Hints for navigating the Sometimes Stormy Seas of Graduate Education in Political Science. PS: Political Science and Politics.

 

9/6 – Rationalism and “Knowing”

--Chapters 1-3, 7, and 8 in Miller

 

9/13 – Popper and Critical Rationalism

--Chapters 9-13 in Miller

 

9/20 – Kuhn: A Critique of Popper’s Critical Rationalism?

--Kuhn, entire

--Geertz, Chapter 7

 

9/27 – Feyerabend: A Critique of “Science”

--Feyerabend, entire

--Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs.” In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, eds. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (On reserve)

 

10/4 – The Logic of Social Scientific Inquiry

--Chapters 1-3 in King, Keohane, and Verba

--Chapters 3, 5 and 6 in Burnham, et al.

 

10/11 – The Logic of Social Scientific Inquiry, Part II

--Chapters 4-6 in King, Keohane, and Verba

--Chapters 5-6 in Burnham, et al.

 

10/18 – The Logic of Social Scientific Inquiry, Part III

--Introduction and Chapters 1-6 in Brady and Collier

--“Symposium on Rethinking Social Inquiry.” 2006. Political Analysis. 14(3): 332-368.

--Gerring, J. 2005. “A Unified Framework for the Social Sciences.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 17(2): 163-198.

 

10/25 – Theory-Building in Political Science

--Lichbach, entire

 

11/1 – Theory-Building in Political Science (continued)

Rational Choice perspectives

--Morris, Oppenheimer, and Soltan. From Anarchy to Democracy.

 

11/8 – Theory-Building in Political Science (continued)

Culturalist perspectives

--Elkins, David and Simeon, Richard 1979.  “A Cause of Its Effect, or What Does Political Culture Explain?”  Comparative Politics 11 (1): 127-43.

--Eckstein, Harry. 1988.  “A Culturalist Theory of Political Change.”  American Political Science Review 82 (3): 789-804.

--Inglehart, Ronald. 1988.  “The Renaissance of Political Culture.”  American Political Science Review 82 (4): 1203-30.

--Wildavsky, Aaron. 1987.  “Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions.”  American Political Science Review 81 (1): 3-21.

--Laitin, David and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1988.  “Political Culture and Political Preferences.”  American Political Science Review 82 (2): 589-96.

--Muller, Edward N. and Mitchell A. Seligson. 1994. “Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of Causal Relationships.” American Political Science Review 88 (3): 635-652.

--Seligson, Mitchell A. 2002. “The Renaissance of Political Culture or the Renaissance of the Ecological Fallacy?” Comparative Politics (April): 273-292.

--Johnson, James. 2003. “Conceptual Problems as Obstacles to Progress in Political Science—Four Decades of Political Culture Research.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(1): 87-115.

--Mead, L. M. 2004. “State Political Culture and Welfare Reform.” Policy Studies Journal. 32:271-296.

--Gray, M. M., M. C. Kittilson, and W. Sandholtz. “Women and Globalization: A Study of 180 Countries, 1975-2000.” International Organization. 60:293-333.

 

11/15 – Theory-Building in Political Science (continued)

Structuralist perspectives

--Nettl, J. P. 1968.  “The State as a Conceptual Variable.”  World Politics 20 (2): 559-91.

--Almond, Gabriel A. 1988.  “The Return to the State.”  American Political Science Review 82 (3): 853-874. (also see the rejoinders)

--Cammack, Paul. 1989.  “Review Article: Bringing the State Back In?”  British Journal of Political Science 19 (2): 261-90.

--King, Desmond S. and Rogers M. Smith. 2005. “Racial Orders in American Political Development.” American Political Science Review. 99:75-92.

--Immergut, E. M. 1998. “The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism.” Politics & Society. 26:5-34.

--Lieberman, Robert C. 2002. “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change.” American Political Science Review. 96:697-712.

 

11/22 – Qualitative Analysis

--Chapters 3, 9-10 in Burnham, et al.

--Chapters 7-9 in Brady and Collier

--Conover, Pamela Johnston, Donald D. Searing, and Ivor Crewe. 2004. “The Elusive Ideal of Equal Citizenship: Political Theory and Political Psychology in the United States and Great Britain.” Journal of Politics 66(4): 1036-1068. 

--Graham, Allison. 1969. “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” American Political Science Review 63:689-718.

--Bendor, Jonathan and Thomas H. Hammond. 1993. “Rethinking Allison’s Models.” American Political Science Review. 86:301-322.

--Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review. 65:682-693.

--Bűthe, Tim. 2002. “Taking Temporality Seriously: Modeling History and the Use of Narratives as Evidence.” American Political Science Review. 96:481-494.

--Chapters V and VI in Geertz

 

11/29 – Quantitative Analysis

                --Chapter 7 and 8 in Burnham, et al.

--Chapters 10-13 in Brady and Collier

--Kritzer, Herbert M. 1996. “The Data Puzzle: The Nature of Interpretation in Quantitative Research.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 1-32.

--Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 2000. “The Effects of Personal Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 653-664.

--Gibson, James L. and Amanda Gouws. 1999. “Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Attributions of Blame and the Struggle over Apartheid.” American Political Science Review 93 (3): 501-518.

--Skocpol, Theda, Marshall Ganz, and Ziad Munson. 2000. “A Nation of Organizers: The Institutional Origins of Civic Volunteerism in the United States.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 527-546.

 

12/6 – Doing Social Science: Thoughts from the Field

--Mills, entire

--Chapters 10 and 11 in Burnham, et al.

 

12/19 (Tuesday) – Final Exam – 8:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m.

 

 

 

Short Assignments

 

Below is a list of the short assignments with their due dates.  You will need to submit three of the following assignments for grading.  I will accept emailed assignments.  Assignments are limited to two single-spaced pages.  They are due at the beginning of class on the day indicated.  If you have general questions or questions about one or more of the specific assignments, please don’t hesitate to contact me. 

 

1.        The title of the September 20st lecture is “Kuhn: A Critique of Popper’s Critical Rationalism?”  Is Kuhn’s argument in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions consistent with Popper’s critical rationalism?  Why or why not?  (Due: 9/27/06).

2.        Briefly describe the research you are planning to propose in your research design.  Using the categories indicated on pp. 16-17 of Designing Social Inquiry, describe the way in which your research will contribute to one or more existing literatures. (Due: 10/18/06).

3.        Whose perspective is more consistent with scientific progress, King, Keohane and Verba’s or Brady and Collier’s?  Explain your response.  (Due: 10/25/06).

4.        Is rational choice theory all of political science?  Explain your response.  (Due: 11/8/06).

5.        Describe the extent to which the research you plan to propose will be based on structuralist, culturalist, and/or rational choice theory and justify your choice.  (Due 11/22/06)

6.        State an empirically-testable hypothesis and implement a quantitative evaluation of that hypothesis.  Report your results.  (Due: 12/6/06).

 


[1] I reserve the right to modify the syllabus as changes become necessary.