EMPIRICAL THEORIES OF POLITICS
Professor Lawrence C. Dodd
University of Florida
Spring, 2001

Preliminary Overview

Part One: Introduction
Week One: Class Organization: January 9
Week Two:  Science, Theory and Political Inquiry:
Week Three: The Value and Varieties of Empirical Theory:

Part Two: Foundations of Empirical Theory
Week Four: Social Choice I:
Week Five: Social Structure I:
Week Six: Social Learning I:
Week Seven: Social Learning II:
Week Eight: Sociocultural Evolution I:

Part Three: Advanced Topics in Empirical Theory
Week Nine: Social Choice II:
Week Ten: Social Structure II:
Week Eleven: Social Learning III:
Week Twelve: Sociocultural Evolution II:
Week Thirteen-Fourteen: Individual Meetings with Students

Seminar Objectives

The purpose of this course is to introduce students to the relevance and role of empirical theory in political analysis. It seeks to do so in four ways. First, it provides an overview of  some basic attributes that characterize ‘good empirical theory’ and presents several contrasting theoretical traditions in political analysis. Second, it engages students in learning to think and argue in a manner that is both theoretical  -- that is, abstract, systematic and reasoned in nature – and empirical – that is, subject to probing, investigation and testing by empirical observation. Third, it guides students towards the construction of an empirical theory that will be useful in addressing a puzzle of immediate interest to them; in particular, it seeks to help students develop theoretical ideas and arguments relevant to their doctoral dissertations. Fourth, it seeks to alert students to the problems and pitfalls of various forms of theoretical thinking and to encourage them to think about the broader paradigmatic and philosophical implications of empirical theories.

The basic assumption of the course is that as we employ empirical theory in political inquiry, we increase our capacity to clarify, understand, explain, discuss intelligently and perhaps foresee the nature of political reality. Empirical theory is, then, first and foremost a way of thinking about the world that allows us to comprehend the world more fully and foresightfully than we would otherwise. Along the way, empirical theory provides, secondarily, a variety of perspectives, hypotheses and possibilities that we can test both through empirical research and through observation of predicted outcomes in the real world.. The purpose of empirical theory, however, is not to provide fodder for our razzle-dazzle statistical techniques, justifications for exotic field trips or rationales for required research projects,  but to provide ways of thinking about the world that allow us to see it and reason about it more self-consciously, completely, foresightfully and deeply than we would otherwise.

Much of the ‘test’ of empirical theory, thus, comes not in its utility in ‘research’ but in its sustained relevance to the real world as evidenced in a theory’s long term capacity to help society at-large discuss, make sense out of, address and foresee political phenomena. As scholars we seek to contribute plausible empirical theories to societal dialogue while probing and testing elements of our theories that are potentially susceptible to immediate disconfirmation; along the way, however, we realize that the most inventive and far-reaching theories (as with Darwin’s theory of evolution in biology) may involve some major empirical arguments and assumptions not susceptible to test through currently available data and methods. Our obligation, as empirical theorists, is thus three-fold: (1) to state our theories in ways that are subject, in principle, to eventual testing and disconfirmation through potential empirical observation (2) to pursue immediate test of those elements of our theories that are currently amenable to empirical observations, being as rigorous, resourceful and disciplined as we can be in this endeavor; and (3) also to engage in the broader theoretical dialogues of our discipline and society in a conscientious and constructive manner that seeks to clarify the applicability of our theories to broad puzzles while also evidencing a significant element of humility that reflects the limits of our capacity to ‘prove’ our theories.

Given this general understanding of the nature and role of empirical theory, in this course we attempt to understand how scholars generate empirical theories that address intriguing political puzzles, how they test and apply elements of their theories through empirical observation, and how they can best utilize empirical theories in broad conversations about politics. We will do so by examining four theoretical traditions:

(1)  social choice theories: arguments that emphasize the rational goal-oriented calculus of individuals in politics;
(2)  social structure theories: arguments that emphasize the role of social and economic conditions and processes in shaping the context and outcome of political action;
(3)  social learning and political psychological theories: arguments that center on the role that perceptions, attitudes and beliefs play in shaping individual and group capacities to make choices in specific contexts; and
(4)  socio-cultural evolution theories: arguments that highlight the collective processes by which goals, structures and beliefs are reshaped and transformed into new patterns across time.

Each of these four theoretical traditions covers an immense literature that scholars could spend a lifetime studying. The intent in examining these four traditions is not to engage students in a comprehensive effort to master each literature, but (1) to introduce them to some foundation concepts and arguments that illustrate the four distinct ways of theorizing about empirical political reality, and to consider how social scientists have built on such concepts and arguments in their research and theorizing; (2) to provide some overview bibliography and discussions that will help students critically assess each theoretical tradition and engage in the study of the individual theoretical traditions on their own; (3) to help students grasp the ‘logic’ of theorizing in the four different ways, so that students can engage in some initial efforts at theory-building and empirical research from each perspective; and (4) to help students combine the different forms of theorizing into broader empirical interpretations and  learn from the interplay of the different traditions.

The overarching logic of the course, in other words, is to engage the student in ‘doing empirical theory’ through the use and combination of four different ways of conceptualizing and analyzing political reality. Two explicit assumptions throughout the course are that one can learn to ‘do empirical theory’ by studying and critiquing foundations works and exemplars in the major traditions of empirical theory and that one can learn to appreciate and critically assess different theoretical traditions by explicitly comparing them to one another. ‘Doing theory’ involves making one’s assumptions about the world explicit, clearly identifying key causal principles that operate in one’s assumed world, developing a core thesis from one’s assumptions and causal principles that is reasoned and logical, and pursuing the argument in a systematic manner that addresses a specific puzzle in an intellectually compelling and empirical plausible manner. As we read different empirical theories, and examine critiques and discussions of theory, and as we try our hand at building on or emulating such theoretical efforts, we ourselves can ‘become theorists.’

An underlying assumption of the course is that the four different ways of analyzing politics examined in this course actually capture four different dimensions of politics: the foreground of political calculation and instrumental action; the background which structures the social pursuit of goals; the connective pattern of meaning (that is, the shared beliefs and collective ideas about politics and society) that permeate both the foreground and background so that political actors in the foreground can calculate and act in ways that relate to the background context; and the dynamic processes which influence the interaction of foreground, background and connective patterning in ways that systematically reshape reality across time.

A recurring theme of the course will be that the egregious misunderstandings and mispredictions of politics generally come in two ways. First, scholars may fail to be explicit and careful in their assumptions, causal arguments,  logic, empirical referents, and so forth, and thus engage in self-deceptive and faulty reasoning about the world. Thus much attention must be given to critical assessment of a theory as a reasoned body of empirical argument. However, it is critical that scholars not become so immersed in and entranced by the logic and empirical applicability of one tradition that they overlook the second major problem that can undermine political inquiry: the tendency towards theoretical myopia or intellectual narrowness. In other words, as scholars focus intensely on one dimension of politics, and one theoretical tradition, they may overlook interactive processes and conditions that occur across the dimensions of political life, and that require attentiveness to several theoretical traditions.

Breakthroughs in addressing particular puzzles about politics thus often come, it will be argued, as two or more theoretical perspectives are combined in ways that allow scholars to address a puzzle in a broad, comprehensive, interactive and reasoned manner. Throughout the course, therefore, we will not only look at works that illustrate particular perspectives but also will look at works that combine perspectives. An additional theme will be that a truly comprehensive understanding of politics requires that we see how foreground, background, patterned meaning and transformative processes are connected. Towards the end of the course we will consider whether an evolutionary perspective on politics might provide a way of connecting these four dimensions, generating a more comprehensive understanding, and facilitating broader perspectives on politics that lead to intellectual breakthroughs in our empirical analyses.

Course Organization

The organization of the course is as follows. It will open with introductory discussions of the nature, role and range of empirical theory in political inquiry. Part One will focus on Foundations of Empirical Theory, with a week devoted to an overview discussion of key introductory concepts and literature in each of the four areas of theorizing. Part One will attempt to give students a reasonable ‘feel’ for each form of theorizing, and a sense of how they – separately and in combination – relate to empirical inquiry in students’ primary areas of scholarly interest. Part Two will then focus on Advanced Topics in Empirical Theory, with students examining more highly developed and challenging concepts, literature and arguments in each theoretical tradition. Part Two thus will extend the students’ repertoire of concepts and arguments from the different traditions. Part Two will also raise the possibility that, as we move across these four traditions, and particularly as we construct ‘process’ theories that systematically entail all four traditions, we are moving towards an ‘evolutionary learning’ theory of politics that may draw on the strengths of each tradition while also generating a broadly encompassing paradigmatic theory that better addresses political phenomena than any of the separate theories can alone.

The two parts of the course divide into two distinct temporal periods, with Part One occurring prior to SPRING BREAK and Part Two coming after spring break.  Over SPRING BREAK students will write an initial paper presenting an empirical puzzle that intrigues them, a set of initial theoretical perspectives and arguments about the puzzle that they might pursue, some ideas about how to develop those arguments more fully and systematically, and some strategies for testing the arguments. Following Spring Break, students will make a short presentation of their paper to the class. During Part Two we will again look at each theoretical tradition, this time focused more extensively on innovations, problems and breakthroughs within and across the traditions, particularly as generated by the explicit addition of a social psychological perspective on politics; students will be encouraged to adjust and adapt their theoretical arguments in light of the discussion in Part Two. Toward the end of Part Two students will make a second set of presentations of their papers. Final papers, revised to incorporate class comments, will be due at the end of finals week.

This organizational design of the course, it must be stressed, only provides us an initial starting structure for the course, with the instructor reserving the right to alter the design as may prove necessary during the course. In particular, since the course is designed for advanced doctoral students, each of whom has special needs and concerns, to some extent the professor will subject the course, as well as the students, to a week by week ‘trial and error’ assessment of how the learning process is proceeding. If intervention and alteration in the course is needed, he will take it. Along the way, as the course proceeds, he will welcome student input, and will seek to shape assignments and course structure in ways that reflect student interests, insights and needs.  It is hoped that by the end of the course students will feel less ‘daunted’ by empirical theory, more assured of their own ability to engage in theorizing, and somewhat settled into general paths of theoretical exploration and discovery in their own selected areas of empirical analysis. A test of goal accomplishment will be the ability to complete the final paper in a way that presents an interesting theoretical argument about some puzzle central to the students’ interests and doctoral dissertation research areas and identifies a research strategy for probing the plausibility of the argument.

Most fundamentally, students entering the course must trust the professor to guide them through a process of learning to ‘do theory’ as best he can, however indirect and erratic that process may appear. I have learned to do theory by reading widely across disciplines so as to get a ‘feel’ for the theoretical process; by reading about theory and theorizing in the natural and biological sciences, as well as in the social sciences; by exploring in depth several contrasting theoretical traditions within the social sciences and political science; and by getting my feet wet through personal efforts at theorizing. The course will introduce students to the range of experiences and literatures that I have embraced in the hope that out of this process, and each in his or her own unique way, students will gain some leverage on the process of doing empirical theory. In the end, therefore, this course must be seen not as the ‘last word’ on empirical theory but simply as an opening probe, with each student responsible for moving beyond the course in response to his or her own reactions to and assessments of the course material. The long term test of this course comes in the extent to which students ‘become theorists’, each true to his or her own voice and vision of politics.

Course Summary:

What does it mean to think as a social choice theorist, a social structure theorist, a social learning theorist or a social evolution theorist? Can these ways of thinking be combined? Would the separate or combined ways of theorizing be useful to the student’s specific empirical questions or research puzzle? What sort of argument might the student make about an empirical puzzle if he or she were operating within each separate theoretical tradition? If one were to combine traditions? How might such arguments be explored and tested in an empirically compelling manner? If the student’s arguments prove empirically plausible, what implications might the arguments have for how we better understand politics in the future? These are the questions of this course.

Paper assignments and Grading Standards: I will assign short one to two page papers on a weekly basis throughout the course. These papers will be due to me and to all other students, by email, no later than 8am on the morning of the weekly seminar for which the papers are assigned. In addition, as the course proceeds, students will be assigned weekly class reports, as appears appropriate. Finally, each student is to prepare a class paper on a topic of his or her choice, subject, of course, to the approval by the professor. The purpose of the class paper will be to present an empirical theory designed to solve a puzzle about politics that interests the student and to identify a strategy for testing the puzzle that could be realistically pursued in a doctoral dissertation. These papers are to be developed in three stages: a first version due after spring break, a second version (shared with all class members) due towards the end of Part Two, and a final version due during Finals Week.

The class grade will be based on the following formula: forty per cent of the grade will reflect the quality of the short weekly papers and class presentations; twenty per cent will be based on the first draft of your class paper, as handed in after spring break; ten percent will be based on the second draft, as presented to the class towards the end of Part Two; and thirty per cent will be based on the final draft of the paper, as handed in during Finals Week. Quality of papers will be judged by their originality, creativity, organization, clarity, systematic development, stylistic/grammatical appropriateness, intellectual compellingness, empirical plausibility/testability, and human insight. Students will be encouraged/guided to clarify as early as possible in the course the empirical puzzle or special concern that they want to examine in their final paper and to write their weekly paper assignments with a special focus on that puzzle. Particular weight will be given to students’ ability to build compelling theoretical arguments in their weekly assignments and their success in designing a systematic argument in the final paper in ways that are both (1) intellectually valuable, interesting and persuasive and (2)clearly susceptible to empirical investigation that is realistic and manageable for a doctoral dissertation project.

Throughout the course assignments, students should remember that the key to empirical theory is its parsimony, comprehensibility, reasoned quality and empirical applicability. Our search is not for obtuseness, arcane complexity, or showy and discursive coverage of a vast and dense literature, but for clarity, for compelling simplicity, for the identification of a core truth that synthesizes apparent complexity into a comprehensible reality, and for a truth that speaks to and makes sense out of empirically observable reality. In so far as you wish to make a complex argument, do so by combining simple concepts and a parsimonious  theory into a broader set of inter-linked theories. There is no better exemplar of complex yet parsimonious empirical theory than the work of Charles Darwin on biological evolution. Students thus are encouraged throughout the course to read Origin of Species, guided in this endeavor by Mayr’s book, One Long Argument, and to be attentive to the theory of biological evolution as an example of how a complex and seemingly inexplicable reality can be subjected to parsimonious empirical explanation through systematic theorizing. Students are also encouraged, during this course and afterwards, to read widely in the history and philosophy of science, seeking thereby to better appreciate the nature of scientific inquiry and the role of empirical theory in it.

Required Reading:
As to required reading, the books listed below are for sale in Goering’s Bookstore for use during the course. Other books and articles will be placed on reserve or made available by xeroxing.

 Books at Goerings Bookstore:

Graham Allison, Essence of Decision
Agryis and Schoen, Organizational Learning II
Brian Barry, Sociologists, Economists and Democracy
Donald Green and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice
William Riker, The Art of Political Manipulation
William Riker, Liberalism Against Populism
Brian Skyrms, Evolution of the Social Contract
Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone
Charles Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons
David Mayhew, America’s Congress
George Tsebeis, Nested Games
Karl Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing
Karl Weick, Sensemaking
Michael Laver, Private Desires, Political Action
Bryan Jones, Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics

Week One: Class Organization

Week Two: Introduction: Science, Theory and Political Inquiry

 I. Required Reading: Overview Issues:

Leslie Thiele, Thinking Politics, Chapter One: “Theory and Vision”
Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry, Chapters 7, 8: “Models” and “Theories”
Karl Deutsch, The Nerves of Government, Chapters 1-5
Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Chapters 1,2
Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, Chapter 8
Evelyn Fox Keller, Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology, “Preface” and Part One, “Language and Science”
Ernst Mayr, “Epilogue: Towards a Science of Science” in The Growth of Biological Thought
Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature, Chapter 3, ”Multiple Versions of Reality”
Robert E. Goodin, “Institutions and Their Design,” in Goodin, ed., The Theory of Institutional Design

Week Three: The Value and Varieties of Empirical Theory: Why Do Empirical Theory? Why Know About Different Theories?

Review: Goodin, “Institutions and Their Design.”
Bateson, “Multiple Versions of Reality.”

 Read:

1.  Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis:
Allison and Zelikow, The Essence of Decision: All
Breslauer and Tetlock, Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy, Chapter 20 by Steven Weber, “Interactive Learning In U.S.-Soviet Arms Control.”

2.  Explaining the Republican Revolution:
Dodd, “Re-Envisioning Congress: Theoretical Perspectives on Congressional Change” in Congress Reconsidered, 7th edition.

3.  Explaining Democratization
Dahl, Polyarchy: all

Week Four: Social Choice Theory I

NOTE: The purpose of the reading this week is to introduce you to the nature of rational choice theory, to some of the major foundation themes and works in rational choice theory, to the utility of rational choice theory in empirical research, and to some critical assessments of rational choice theory. To facilitate our discussion, each student will be assigned to prepare a one to two page email assignment on one of the core parts, to be shared with all class members.

1.  Introduction to Rational Choice Analysis
Michael Laver, Private Desires, Political Action, Chaps 1,2,8 ***
Downs, “The Origins of An Economic Theory of Democracy” in Bernard
Grofman, ed., Information, Participation and Choice*
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, Preface, Chap 1, 2***
Fiorina, “Rational Choice, Empirical Contributions, and the Scientific Enterprise” in Critical Review, Vol 9, # 1-2, Winter-Spring, 1995**

2.  The Dilemma of Collective Action
Laver, Private Desires, Chapters 2 and 3***
Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, Introduction and Chapters 1,2,6***
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies, Chapter 5***
Norman Frohlich, Joe Oppenheimer and Oran Young, Political Leadership and Collective Goods (survey if possible)*

3. Voting and The Logic of Party Competition
Laver, Private Desires, Chapter 4, 5***
Fiorina, Retrospective Voting in American National Elections, Preface and Chaps. 1,9,10***
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies, Chapter 7***

4. The Theory of Political Coalitions
Laver, Private Desires, Chapter 7***
Riker, The Theory of Political Coalitions, Chapters 1,2,3*
Dodd, Coalitions in Parliamentary Government, Chaps 1,2,7,8,10,11*

***=must read closely
  **=read for general illustration and argument
    *=read for background or advanced explanation

Email Assignments: To be emailed to all class participants by the morning of class:
1.    What is the general defining nature of Rational Choice theory in terms of the type of core arguments it makes, particularly as seen in the foundation works?:___Ryan_____
2.    What is the Collective Action dilemma , its empirical plausibility and research applicability?___Napp______
3.  Why is it rational to vote, how can a voter cast a rational vote, and what is the relevance of Fiorina’s ‘retrospective voting model to these issues?___Jacob____
4.    What is the Downsian Logic of Party Competition, its empirical plausibility and    research applicability?___Bill______
5.    What is Riker’s minimum winning coalition, its empirical plausibility and research applicability?___David______
6.    What are, and how convincing are, the general issues confronting the foundation themes of rational choice analysis, from the perspective of Green and Shapiro, particularly with respect to empirical plausibility and research applicability?___Kevin______

Week Five: Social Structure I

1.  Introduction to Social Structure
C.  Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination, Chs. 1,7, and Appendix***
Edward G. Carmines and Robert Huckfeldt, “Political Behavior: An Overview,”  in Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingermann, A New Handbook of Political Science***
Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man, Chapter 1, 2,3***
Robert Huckfeldt and Paul Allen Beck, “Contexts, Intermediaries, and Political Behavior,” in The Dynamics of American Politics***

2.  Why Collective Popular Governance?: The Origins of Democracy
Hobbes, The Leviathan, review; and/or G. Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,”*
Madison, Federalist #10; (if possible, review Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory)***
Dahl, Polyarchy: Review Chs 1-7, 9*
Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy Preface, Chs 1, 7***

3.  Voting and the Logic of Contestation
a.  Class, Status and Party

Weber, “Class, Status and Party” in Gerth and Mills, From Max Weber, Ch 7.*
Lipset, Political Man, Chs 6,7,8,9***
Stonecash, Class and Party in American Politics, Preface, 1,2,3, 5,6**
Adam Przeworski and John Sprague, Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism*

b.  Race and Ethnicity, Caste, and Politics amidst Exclusion:

Rodney Hero, “Two-Tiered Pluralism” in Dodd and Jillson, New Perspectives on American Politics***
V.  O. Key, Southern Politics in State and Nation, Chs 1, 2,3,5,7,8,11,12,14, and any other chapters that attract you.***

4.  Who Wins?
a.  The Power Elite vs the Power of Institutions

C.  Wright Mills, The Power Elite, Chs. 1, 2, 11, 12, 15***
Theda Skocpol, “The Origins of Social Policy in the United States,” in Dodd and Jillson, Dynamics of American  Politics.***
Dahl, Who Governs? Chs.1, 2-7, 24-28*

b.  Sectionalism and Geopolitical Competition

Richard Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, Chs. 1,2,8,9***

c.  Limits on Elite Power: The Capacity to Rebel

Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolution, Chs 1,2,4,7***

2.  What is the significance of social structure for the emergence of electoral democracy as a form of collective
governance?____Jacob____

3. What has been the effect of class structure on party development, the constraints on this effect, and conditions that help solidify it?____Ryan____

4.What has been the effect of race/ethnicity on American politics, particularly the South; what forms of politics have emerged in the face of race/ethnicity; and what has shaped the various characteristic of these different forms of politics?____Kevin____

5. What is the significance of a socially-based power structure for who wins and loses in politics, and how might  institutions shape and constrain this effect?____David____

6. Comparing Bensel and Skocpol (Revolutions), how do sectional and statist concerns generate political change, and to what effect?____Bill____
 

Week Six: Social Learning I

1.  Learning the Modern World: the State and Nationalism
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, Chs 1-6,9***
Hendriuk Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors, Preface, Chs 1, 8,9*** (the rest is recommended)
Note: Read the two books for an understanding of the implications for learning and politics, not for historical details

2.  Beliefs, Culture, and Socialization
Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture Chs. 1, 2, 3, 6-12*** (read through all assigned chapters, skimming)
Richard Dawson, Political Socialization***

3.  Beliefs, Networks and Democratization and Governance
Barry Wellman, “Structural Analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance,” in Wellamn and Berkowistz, eds., Social Structures: a Network Approach***
Tilly, Roads from the Past to the Future, Chs 1, 9***
Hugh Heclo, “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment” in Anthony King, The New American Political System.**
Patricia Woods, Dissertation, Chapter One, and 2000 APSA Paper*

4.  Reasoning, Crisis and Electoral Learning
Sniderman, et. al., Reasoning and Choice, Chs. 1, 9***
George Marcus and Michael MacKuen, “Anxiety, Enthusaism, and the Vote: Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns, APSR, Sept 1993.**
Anderson and Dodd, Learning Democracy, Chs 1,4***

5.  Beliefs, Culture and the Logic of Politics
Almond and Verba, Civic Culture, 4,5,12***
Russell Hanson, “Liberalism and the Course of American Social Welfare Policy,” in Dodd and Jillson, Dynamics.***

6.  Towards Theories of Learning: A Sensemaking Perspective
Weick, Sensemaking, all***
Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Ch 5.**

1.  In what ways do processes of political learning play a role in broad historical developments of political structure, and what kinds of factors influence such historical learning?______Ryan_____
2.  What is political socialization, its importance for understanding politics, and the various types of agents and circumstances that shape it?____Napp____
3.  What is the role of social networks in social learning and political action, and how might social network analysis be relevant to understanding political change, particularly broad changes in popular democratic participation, government policy-making and/or judicial activism?____Kevin_____
4.  In what ways are election campaigns moments of reasoning and learning, how might election campaigns induce ‘new’ earning, and what is the relevance of such experiences for understanding political change?____Bill____
5.  What kinds of differences in political behavior flow from different societal belief structures and cultures, and why?____David___
6.  What is the nature of sensemaking as a form of social learning, what kinds of sensemaking processes are there, and what might be the relevance of the different types of sensemaking to politics – particularly, say, to behavioral differences among amateur and professional politicians, for example?____Jacob____

Week Seven: Social Learning II: Social Networks, Social Norms and Social Capital

I. Review:
Putnam, Making Democracy Work.

II. Read:
Putnam, Bowling Alone: all
Barry, Sociologists, Economists and Democracy: all

1.  What does Putnam see as the trends in civic engagement and social capital in the United States, and how convincing it he, particularly with respect to religion, volunteerism and philanthropy?: Napp
2.  What does Putnam see as the trends in civic engagement and social capital in the United States, and how convincing is he, particularly with respect to the workplace, informal social connections, and the net?: David
3.  Why has the nature of social capital changed, according to Putnam, and how compelling and complete is his argument? Bill
4.  What does Putnam argue is the significance of the changes in social capital, and how convincing is he? Ryan
5.  What is to be done, according to Putnam? Do you agree? Jacob
6.  How well does Putnam address the issues of understanding and studying democracy that Brian Barry raised thirty years ago? Kevin

Week Eight: Sociocultural Evolution II: Foundations of Evolutionary Thinking

1.  The Idea of Evolutionary Change: A Darwinian Perspective
Ernst Mayr, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought: read Chs 4,8,9.***
Note:  the first three chapters strongly recommended

2.  Thinking about Politics and Society in Evolutionary Terms: A Simple Introduction
Charles Tilly, Roads from the Past to the Future, 2,3,13**
Karl Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing: Review Chs 1-5, particularly Chapter Five***

3.  Thinking about Politics and Society in Evolutionary Terms: Some Advanced Ideas
Brian Skyrms, Evolution of the Social Contract, Preface, Chs. 1,2,3*** Attempt to read Chapters 4,5, Postscript

4.  Downsian Choice, Social Structure, and Party-System Evolution
James, Confronting the Downsian Dilemma, Chs 1 and 5***

a.  How and why does Charles Tilly maintain that we should study politics and society scientifically?___Ryan___
b.  What is the origin of justice in the social world, according to Skyrms, Chapter One, and what does the Darwinian Veil
 of Ignorance have to do with it?___Bill___
c.  What is modular rationality, why is it important, and what does evolutionary thinking tell us about its prevalence in the
 social world (Chapter 2 of Skyrms)?___Jacob___
d.  How could an evolutionist like Skyrms (Ch. 3) explain the existence of mutual aid, and what is the significance of his kind of analysis for collective action problems?____Kevin____
e.  What is the essential, simple contribution of Chapters 4,5 and Postscript of Skyrms to social analysis?____David___
f.  How and why did the conservative agrarian Democratic party of the 19th century become the liberal urban Democratic party of the 20th century, according to Scott James, and what is the relevance of his argument for an evolutionary understanding of politics?___Napp___

Week Nine: Social Choice Theory II

1.  The Meaning of Social Choice Theory
William H. Riker, “Political Theory and the Art of Heresthetics” in Ada Finifter, Political Science: The State of the Discipline, 1983***
Riker, The Art of Political Manipulation, Preface and Conclusion***
Riker, Liberalism vs. Populism:
    a. read Analytical Table of Contents, Chaps 1-5;**
    b. read closely pages xi-xii. 1-39, 59-64, 111-113, 115-6, 136***
Shepsle and Bonchek, Analyzing Politics, Chaps 4,6*

2.  Strategic Voting
Riker, The Art of Political Manipulation, Chaps 7,8,9,11,5,4***
Riker, Liberalism vs. Populism, Chap 6**

3.  Agenda Control
Art, Chaps 3,7,12***
Liberalism vs. Populism, Chap 7**

4.  Manipulation of dimensions
Art, 1,2,5,6,10,4***
Liberalism vs Populism, Chaps 8,9**

5.    Conclusions, Critiques, Applications and Extensions
Liberalism vs Populism, Chap 10***
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies, Chapter 8**
Jeffrey Friedman, “Economic Approaches to Politics,” in Critical Review, Vol 9, #1-2, Winter/Spring, 1995; pages 1-24; also see the other critiques and discussions in this volume.*
Tsebelis, Nested Games, Chaps 1,2**

1.  What is the conflict between liberalism and populism, why does it matter, and  how can it be addressed or  resolved?____Jacob___
2.  What is the General Possibility Theorem, why does it exist, and why does it matter?____Kevin______
3.  What is the nature and significance of strategic voting, and what are its implications for empirical theory and research?___Bill______
4.  What is the nature and significance of agenda control, and what are its implications  for empirical theory and research?___Ryan______
5.  What is the nature and significance of dimension manipulation, and what are its implications for empirical theory and research?__Napp___
6.  The “Political Theory and the Art of Heresthetics” Riker discusses some areas that experience equilibria, in contrast to others that do not. What differentiates the former from the latter, in your opinion? What are the implications of your answers for empirical theory and research?__David___
 

Week Ten: Social Structure II:

1.  Institutional Structures as Equilibrium Mechanisms
Shepsle, “Institutional Equilibrium and Equilibrium Institutions,” in Weisberg, Political Science: the Science of Politics***

2.  Socio-political Structures as Nested Games
Tsebelis, Nested Games: all***

3.  Social and Political Structures as Empirical Puzzles to Decipher
Tilly, Big Structures: all**
Skocpol, Ganz and Munson, “A Nation of Organizers: The Institutional Origins of Civi Voluntarism in the United States,” APSR, September 2000, 94, #3: 527-46.*

4.  Socio-political Structures as Causal Networks
John F. Padgett and Christopher Ansell, “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434,” American Journal of Sociology, 98 (May 1993): 1259-1319.***
Mark Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited,” Sociological Theory (1983), 201-33; or Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 1973 76, pp 1360-80.**

5.  Socio-political structures as Independent Variables
Kiser and Hechter, “The Role of General Theory in Comparative-Historical Sociology, American Journal of Sociology 97
Number 1 (July 1991): 1-30*
Hanson, “Liberalism and the Course of American Social Welfare Policy” in The Dynamics of American Politics.REVIEW

6.  Social Choice, Social Structure and Social History: Analytic Narratives
Robert Bates, et al, Analytic Narratives: Read Introduction and Weingast, “Political Stability and Civil War: Institutions,     Commitment, and American Democracy.” In addition, read the Exchange in the “Book Reviews Section” of the September 2000 APSR between Jon Elster and Bates, et. al., pages 685-702.***

1.  In what sense are political institutions also ‘equilibrium institutions,’ and why is this important? What are the implications for empirical theory? In what sense might the internet be, or be used as, an equilibrium institution? ____David____
2.  What does Tsebelis mean by “Nested Games,” what is the general relevance of this concept to empirical theories of politics, and how in particular might it be relevant to transnational party system creation?____Ryan____
3.  How and why is it important to study big structures and large processes, and sometimes make huge comparisons, and how does such an approach specific empirical puzzles and build useful empirical theories? How might it help in understanding such things as differential party success in local, state and national elections?___Bill___
4.  How does the idea of ‘social networks,’ as amplified by Padgett and by Granovetter, aid empirical theorists in visualizing, clarifying, analyzing and explaining politics? How might this relate to the study of judicial politics?____Kevin____
5.  In what sense are different social settings/structures/cultures independent variables or ‘dummy variables’ and how might this aid in theory construction and empirical puzzle-solving?How might such a perspective, as seen in Hanson, help explain the rise of political amateurs in some settings and not others?____Jacob____
6.  How does the strategy of “the Analytic Narrative” help social choice analysts address the interplay of choice, structure and process, as seen for example in Weingast’s essay, and what are the pluses, minuses and controversies surrounding the Analytic Narrative approach? How could the study of the Christian Right and the modern Congress benefit from an Analytic Narrative perspective?____Napp___

Week Eleven: Social Learning III:

a.  Learning as Re-focusing:
Bryan D. Jones, Reconceiving Decision-making...: all***

b.  Learning as Revisualizing
Dodd, “Political Learning and Political Change,” in The Dynamics of American Politics.**
Mark Schlesinger and Richard Lau, “The Meaning and Measure of Policy Metaphors,” APSR, September 2000.**

c.  Learning as Second-Order or Deuero-Learning
Argyris and Schon, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective: all**
 Review Allison, Essence of Decision, particularly the third model

d.  Learning as Identity Construction
Glen Elder, Jr., “The Life Course Paradigm: Social Change and Individual Development.” In Phyllis Moen, et.al.,Examining Lives In Context***
Melvin Kohn, “Social Structure and Personality Through Time and Space”, in Moen*
Duane Alwin, “Taking Time Seriously: Studying Social Change, Social Structure and Human Lives.” In Moen*
Glen Elder, Children of the Great Depression, Chapter 10*

e.  Learning as Iterative and Diffused Innovation
Hugh Heclo, Modern Social Policies in Britain and Sweden, Chs 1,2,6***

Email Assignments:
a.  What, according to Bryan Jones, is the paradox of temporal political choice, and its significance?___Jacob___
b.  What, according to Jones, is the paradox of issue evolution, and its significance?___Kevin____
c.  What, according to Dodd, are the role of metacrises and metalogue in political change?
d.  What is the difference between single loop and double loop learning, and why is this difference important for organizations?___David___
e.  In what ways are identifies shaped by collective experience, and what is the significance of this process for empirical theories of politics?___Bill___
f.   What is Heclo’s broad argument about the coming of social policies in Britain and Sweden, as seen in Chapters 1,2,6, and what added perspective on social change and empirical theory does he provide? ___Ryan____

Week Twelve: Sociocultural Evolution II

 Reading:

Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Chapters 5-9***
Mayhew, America’s Congress: Actions in the Public Sphere: all***
Riker, Liberalism vs Populism, Chapters 9, 10**
Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution, Chapters 1 and 8: also recommended is their article, “On the Structure and Sequence of Issue Evolution,” APSR 80 (1986): 902-21.**
Tilly, Roads from the Past to the Future, Chapter 3*
Jonathan Bendor, “Bounded Rationality in Political Science,” manuscript, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral    Sciences, October 7, 1999.**
Review: John Padgett and Christopher Ansell, “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434,” American Journal of
Sociology, 1993.
Orren and Skowronek, “Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes for a ‘New Institutionalism,” in Dodd and Jillson, eds.,
Dynamics of American Politics.**
Hugh Heclo, “Ideas, Institutions, and Interests,” in Dynamics***

1.  What does Weick mean by enactment, selection and retention, and how do these activities compose a theory of sociocultural evolution?___Jacob___
2.  What is Mayhew’s overall contribution in America’s Congress and how might Weick’s theory of sociocultural evolution inform and expand on Mayhew’s contribution? What implications does Mayhew have for Weick?____Napp____
3.  How would you restate the Padgett/Ansell analysis in Weick’s terms, and what insights would such a restatement have for a broader theory of political evolution? ____Kevin____
4.  What is issue evolution, as seen in Carmines and Stimson, and how might it contribute to sociocultural  evolution?____Bill____
5.  What is bounded rationality, and how might it contribution to political adaptability and evolution?____David
6.  What is the evolutionary narrative, referred to by Heclo, in what ways can political scientists contribute to its analysis, and in particular what are the implications of the ‘new institutionalism’ articulated by Orren and Skowronek for political evolution?____Ryan___