University of Florida

POS6716

Fall 2009

The Scope and Epistemologies of Political Science

Dr. Samuel Barkin

Office: 221 Anderson

Office Hours: Tuesday and Wedensday10am-noon, or by appointment

352-273-2399. barkin@polisci.ufl.edu

The goal of this seminar is to provide first-year Ph.D. students with a solid foundation for understanding political science as a discipline, and to introduce students to political science as a discipline of systematic inquiry. It reviews the history of the discipline, its major epistemological debates, and the breadth of political questions available for investigation. Epistemology is the study of theories of human knowledge, of how we know what we know. The perceived events of politics do not always mean what we initially think they mean –one of the truly daunting tasks of political analysis is “knowing” that we really know what we think we know.  Analysts have also realized that the process of knowing itself may be fraught with very real dilemmas.  These include, among others, the tension between knowing politics and doing politics.

 Much of the history of political science as an academic discipline has centered on a debate over how best to address and resolve these and related issues of political inquiry. 

The first part of this course deals with this historical development and with a general overview of what political science is like today, as a discipline and as a career.  The bulk of the course considers the epistemological debates and approaches that characterize modern political science.  Our central concerns here will be to clarify the different theories of knowledge that predominate among political scientists; to assess the strengths and weakness of the different approaches; to identify the reasons why political analysts may pursue different forms of inquiry; to understand the systematic implications that different theories of knowledge have for our scholarly agendas and investigatory processes; and to consider the possibilities for an interplay among and synthesis of the various epistemological perspectives in our actual conduct of inquiry. 

Student responsibilities:

Students will be assessed on the basis of attendance and participation in seminar, six written analyses of assigned readings, and a term paper reviewing the scope and epistemologies of political science research on a topic of their choosing.

The seminar should be viewed as an exchange of ideas among scholars. We will evaluate the concepts and arguments presented in the weekly readings, and the various relationships among the readings. Students are expected to critically assess the assigned readings, and everyone is expected to contribute to the discussion (note that I will often ask one or two students to start the discussion, and will call directly on students who do not participate voluntarily, so be prepared). Students are expected to attend all classes, having done all of the assigned readings in advance, and to submit at least two discussion questions generated by the readings every week (except weeks 6 and 14) by email at least three hours before the beginning of class. Thirty percent of the final course grade is based on class participation, including the emailed questions.

Six reaction papers on the assigned readings (due at the beginning of the relevant seminar session) are the basis for an additional thirty percent of the final grade (five percent each). The papers should be between 600 and 800 words in length, not including references (please include a word count). Each should be a critique the main ideas of a substantial component of the reading, discuss linkages or cleavages across the week’s readings, or use the reading as a point of departure to develop your own insights on the topic under consideration or to propose a new avenue for research (for this option, you discuss the feasibility of this new avenue. Do not include any summary of the readings assigned for the week – assume that your audience has just read the same words that you have. Papers should have a clear argument, and should be focused on the development of that argument. You do not have to write about all of the assigned reading for a week. Rather you should focus on a main theme or issue. You should realize, however, that if you focus on only one article or only one chapter what you sacrifice for breadth should be made up for in depth.

The final paper, constituting forty percent of the final grade, should be between 5,000 and 6,000 words in length, and should be an assessment of the scope and epistemological orientations of the core scholarly literature on a research topic in political science that interests you. The paper must demonstrate knowledge of how research under consideration has evolved over time and it must compare and contrast the findings of works from different epistemological and methodological orientations. A two-page research proposal is due October 6th. The research proposal should state the research question under consideration and provide a brief outline of the main topics in the literature that you expect to develop. You should include a bibliography of 12-15 scholarly works that will likely be discussed in the final paper. Later in the semester, I will provide more detailed guidelines for both parts of this assignment.

Required reading:

We will read all or large parts of the following books. They have all been ordered for purchase through the University’s book ordering system, except for the two APSA publications, which are available directly from APSA. When there is more than one edition of a book is available, you should feel free to use any edition. They have also (except for the APSA publications) been placed on reserve in the UF library.


 -Benedict Anderson, 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

-APSA Committee on Publications, 2006. APSA Style Manual for Political Science. Washington, DC: APSA.

-Robert Axelrod, 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

-Bent Flyvberg. 2001. Making Social Science Matter. New York: Cambridge University Press.

-Charles F. Gattone, 2006. The Social Scientist as Public Intellectual: Critical Reflections in a Changing World. Lanham, MD: Rowmand and Littlefield.

-Donald Green and Ian Shapiro, 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

-Carl Hempel, 1966. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

-Robert Jervis, 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

-Thomas Kuhn,1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

-Rebecca B. Morton, 1999. Methods and Models: A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

-Jonathan Moses and Torbjorn Knutsen, 2007. Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

-Mancur Olson, 1971. Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

-Robert Putnam, 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

-Stephen Yoder, ed., 2008. Publishing Political Science: The APSA Guide to Writing and Publishing. Washington, DC: APSA.

A majority of the remaining readings are available electronically through the UF library website. The remainder (as indicated) are available on reserve at the library.

Course Schedule:

Week 1 (8/25): Introduction (no readings)

Week 2 (9/8): Why Study Politics Systematically?

-Auguste Comte, 1998 (1819). Separation of Opinions from Aspirations. In Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 6-8. [reserve]

-Karl Popper, 1985 (1960). Knowledge Without Authority. In David Miller, ed., Popper Selections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 46-57. [reserve]

-Dwight Waldo, 1975. Political Science: Tradition, Discipline, Profession, Science, Enterprise. In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, eds. Political Science Scope and Theory. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, pp. 1-127. [reserve]

-John S. Dryzek and Stephen T. Leonard, 1988. History and Discipline in Political Science. American Political Science Review 82(4), pp. 1245-1260.

-Alan Lightman, 2003. A Sense of the Mysterious, Daedalus, Fall 2003, pp. 5‐21.

Week 3 (9/15): Activism and Inquiry, Observation and Measurement


 -Donald Hanson, 1979. The Education of Citizens:  Reflections on the State of Political Science. Polity 11, pp. 457-477.

-Max Weber, 1948 (1918). Science as a Vocation. In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge, pp. 129-156.

-Charles F. Gattone, 2006. The Social Scientist as Public Intellectual: Critical Reflections in a Changing World. Lanham, MD: Rowmand and Littlefield.

-Jonathan Moses and Torbjorn Knutsen, 2007. Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Week 4 (9/22): A Brief History of the Discipline

-William H. Riker, 1982. The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science. American Political Science Review 76(4), pp. 753-66.

-John Gunnell, 1988. American Political Science, Liberalism, and the Invention of Political Theory. American Political Science Review 82, pp. 71-87.

-James Farr, et al., 1990. Can Political Science History be Neutral? American Political Science Review 84(2), pp. 587-607.

-Michael Parenti, 2006. Patricians, Professionals, and Political Science. American Political Science Review 100(4), pp. 499-505.

-Ido Oren, 2004. The Enduring Relationship between the American (National Security) State and the State of the Discipline. PS: Political Science and Politics 37(1), pp. 51-5.

-Andrew Bennett and G. John Ikenberry, 2006. The Review’s Evolving Relevance for U.S. Foreign Policy 1906-2006. American Political Science Review 100(4), pp. 651-8.

Week 5 (9/29): Politics and the Philosophy of Science

-Carl Hempel, 1966. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

-Thomas Kuhn,1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

-Imre Lakatos, 1970. Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.  In Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91-196.

-Gabriel Almond and Stephen Genco, 1977. Clouds, Clocks, and the Study of Politics. World Politics 29, pp. 489-522.

-Kim Quaile Hill, 2004. Myths about Physical Sciences and their Implications for Teaching Political Science. PS: Political Science and Politics 37 (3), pp. 467-71.

-John S. Dryzek, 2006. Revolutions Without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Science. American Political Science Review 100(4), pp. 487-92.

Week 6 (10/6): Rites of Passage: The Careers of UF Faculty

-Daniel Drezner, 1998. So You Want To Get a Tenure-Track Job… PS: Political Science and Politics 31(3), pp. 609-614.

-Other readings TBA

Week 7 (10/13): Deductive and Formal Approaches

-Mancur Olson, 1971. Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

-Anthony Downs, 1957. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65, pp. 135-150.

-James Fearon, 1995. Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization 49, pp. 379-414.

-Rebecca B.Morton, 1999. Methods and Models: A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Week 8 (10/20): The Behavioural Approach

-Donald Green and Ian Shapiro, 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

-Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, 1963. An Approach to Political Culture. In The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 1-44.

-Daniel Jones, Stuart Bremer, and J. David Singer, 1996. Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15, pp. 163-213.

-Ross E. Burkhart and Michael S. Lewis-Beck, 1994. Comparative Democracy: The Economic Development Thesis. American Political Science Review 88 (4), pp. 903-910.

-John R. Alford, Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing, 2005. Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted? American Political Science Review 99 (2), pp. 153-168.

Week 9 (10/27): Experimentation and Psychology

-Donald R. Kinder and Thomas R. Palfrey, 1993. On Behalf of an Experimental Political Science. In Kinder and Palfrey, eds., Experimental Foundations of Political Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 1-42.

-Robert Axelrod, 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

-Herbert A. Simon, 1985. Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science. American Political Science Review 79(2), pp. 293-305.

-Rose McDermott, 2004. Prospect Theory in Political Science: Gains and Losses from the First Decade. Political Psychology 25, pp. 289-312.

-Leslie Paul Thiele, 1999. Evolutionary Narratives and Ecological Ethics. Political Theory 27, pp. 6-38.

Week 10 (11/3): Interpretation and Description

-Clifford Geertz, 1973.  Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, chapter 1, pp. 3-30.

-Joel D. Schwartz, 1984. Participant and Multisubjective Understanding: An Interpretivist Approach to the Study of Political Participation. Journal of Politics 46(4), pp. 1117-41.

-James March and Johan Olson, 1984. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review 78, pp. 734-749.

-Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, 2007. Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis of Leading Journals. Comparative Political Studies 40(1), pp. 5-31.

-Mahoney, James, 2007. Debating the State of Comparative Politics: Views From Qualitative Research. Comparative Political Studies 40(1), pp. 32-38.

-Erik Wibbels, 2007. No Method to the Comparative Politics Madness. Comparative Political Studies 40(1), pp. 39-44.

-Ido Oren, 1995. The Subjectivity of the “Democratic” Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of Imperial Germany. International Security 20, pp. 147-184.

Week 11 (11/10): Social Construction and Critical Theory

-Alexander Wendt, 1992. Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46, pp. 391-425.

-Benedict Anderson, 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

-Jürgen Habermas, 1979. Legitimation Crisis. In Communication and the Evolution of Society Boston: Beacon Press, pp. 178-206.

-Paul R. Brass, 2000. Foucault Steals Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science 3, pp. 305-30.

Week 12 (11/17): Pluralism and Multi-method Research

-Robert Jervis, 2002. Theories of War in an Era of Leading-Power Peace. American Political Science Review 96, pp. 1-14.

-Robert Putnam, 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Week 13 (12/1): Linking Political Science Back to Politics

-Bent Flyvberg. 2001. Making Social Science Matter. New York: Cambridge University Press.

-Robert Jervis, 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Week 14 (12/8): Writing Political Science

-APSA Committee on Publications, 2006. APSA Style Manual for Political Science. Washington, DC: APSA.

-Stephen Yoder, ed., 2008. Publishing Political Science: The APSA Guide to Writing and Publishing. Washington, DC: APSA.