Goal of the course

Why do we call our discipline "political science"? What kinds of research do political scientists do, and how do they communicate that knowledge to one another? How do we know what we think we know? How do we measure political phenomena? How would we know if a new public policy "worked"?  How do we analyze data, and what are good data to analyze? Are ethics as hard to define in "political science" as they are in "politics"?

During the course of the semester, we will discuss these issues and others. Our discussions, the readings, various assignments, the midterm and final exams, and the research paper will facilitate your becoming intelligent consumers of political science research, as well as help you become producers of your own research. The skills that you develop in the course will help you understand the literature that you read in substantive courses, help you distinguish between real research and meaningless rubbish, enable you to better understand the assumptions behind each research design, introduce you to data management using a popular statistical package, help you find published research and data archives on topics that interest you, and familiarize you with some of the techniques used in individual and aggregate level analysis.

For many students, this will be an entirely different kind of course. Many good undergraduate lecture courses require you to become knowledgeable about a field, such as Comparative Politics, Political Behavior, Public Policy, American Politics, or International Relations. In this course, we are not focused on a particular field, but are more interested in understanding the methods that political scientists in all fields use to understand and build knowledge. Of course, new things can be both exciting and frightening. Any trepidation that you may have is best overcome by "feeling the fear, and doing it anyway." The excitement will come with the realization that this knowledge is empowering, in that it will enable you to find, read, and understand research on your own. You will also begin to produce this kind of research, which will give you a product of your own labors.

Requirements

In order to meet these goals, participants in the seminar will be required to

• Attend and participate. Every person should come to class prepared to comment on the assigned readings, and help others to understand the concepts presented in the readings and assignments. Research is not a spectator sport, so you should expect me to ask for your contributions on a regular basis. Some time in class will be devoted to lecture, but your participation in this course is expected to be that of an "active learner".  Multiple absences seriously jeopardize the prospect for successful completion of the course.   
  
  
• Write occasional assignments (30% cumulative).  Some assignments are short essays, and others are exercises using data.  All completed assignments must represent each participant's own and sole work, unless otherwise directed.  Some assignments will be submitted hardcopy in class, but most will be submitted online via E-Learning.
  
  
• Complete a Midterm Examination (20%).  tentatively , Tuesday, October 20, 8:30 am - 10:25 am in CBD 110B
  
  
• Complete a Final Examination (25%).  Tuesday, December 15, 12:30 pm - 2:30 pm
  
  
• Write a Research Paper (25%). Each participant will be required to submit a research paper.  Papers will be judged on readability, the appropriateness of the research question, the suitability of the design for that question, the interpretation of the analysis, and (if appropriate) the feasibility of extending the analysis in an Honors Thesis. Guidelines for the paper are posted here.  Due December 8. 
  
  

Johnson, Janet Buttolph and H. T. Reynolds with Jason D. Mycoff.  2008.  Political Science Research Methods.  Sixth Edition.  CQ Press. ISBN: 978-0-87289-442-6 You will also be required to access numerous journal articles, which are generally available electronically through access to the UF Library website. If you prefer reading (and paying for) hardcopy, an optional coursepack should be available at Target Copy (1412 W University Ave.) by the first day of class.  You will also learn some basic data analysis using SPSS, which is available for your use in the CIRCA labs around campus. You may also purchase a copy of SPSS for use on your home computer, using either of the following licenses. Four year license / CD-ROM - SPSS 16.0 Student Version for Windows. Prentice-Hall. ISBN: 0136053491 6 month or 12 month  licenses for downloadable software (Windows or Mac) are available from e-academy listserv -  Registered students in the class are enrolled on the class listserv.  Messages from the listserv are sent to students' Gatorlink email addresses (eg., youhoo@ufl.edu), and students should check that email regularly.     E-Learning - I will also post some materials, assignments, assignment inboxes, and grades on the class E-Learning site. Log in at http://lss.at.ufl.edu

Aug 25 - Sept 1	Read: Johnson and Reynolds, Chapters 1 and 2 * Hall, Melinda Gann. 1992. "Electoral-Politics and Strategic Voting in State Supreme Courts." Journal of Politics 54 (2, May):  427-446. * Most, Benjamin A. 1990. "Getting started on political research." PS: Political Science & Politics 23 (4, December), 592-596. How to access journal articles Use a UF connection (a campus networked computer or Gatorlink), or if you are using a non-UF connection (such as DSL, cable, or Billy Bob's Marvelous Internet Dialup, click on "log in now" at the top of the Library's journal page. (see http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/journals.html ) Hardcopy access Bound copies of most journals should be available in  Library West. On Thursday, Aug 27, be prepared to discuss: (1) Describe Hall's article, outlining its component parts. What is Hall's main "theory"?   Does she have a "theory", in the sense that term is used by Johnson and Reynolds (Chapter 2) ? (2) What are Hall's hypotheses? How does she test them?  On Tuesday, Sept 1, be prepared to discuss (3) If Most were advising Hall on where to go next in her research on electoral motivations for judicial behavior, what directions would be scientifically fruitful?
Sept 3	No class; American Political Science Association meetings
Sept 8 - 10	Researchers as Theorists:  Hypotheses, Concepts, and Variables
	Read:  Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 3 Be prepared to discuss:  What are the characteristics of good hypotheses?  What is Hall's (1993) unit of analysis? Assignment Due (Sept 15): Find an existing dataset somewhere     in the ICPSR archive (www.icpsr.umich.edu)     American National Election Study (www.electionstudies.org)     Quality of Government Institute data (http://www.qog.pol.gu.se/)     or a publicly available dataset you have found in the readings Propose two hypotheses that you could test with that dataset.  For each hypothesis, tell me 1.  The dataset that you are proposing to use 2.  The unit of analysis 3.  The independent variable(s) 4.  The dependent variable(s)
Sept 15 - 17	Researchers as Counters: Measurement
	Read:  Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 4 * Delli Carpini, Michael X. and Scott Keeter. 1993. "Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First." American Journal of Political Science 37 (4, November): 1179-1206. * Bollen, Kenneth. 1993. "Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measures." American Journal of Political Science 37: 1207-1230. Be prepared to discuss:  What are the principal desirable characteristics of social science measures?  What is the differences between those characteristics? What measurement issues are important in developing good measures of political knowledge and liberal democracy?   Do Hall's measures have desirable characteristics?  How do you know, or how could you know? Assignment Due (Sept 22): Construct a measure of political knowledge using data from the 2004 American National Election Study. Present appropriate univariate statistics (either frequencies or descriptives) to describe the distribution of this measure.
Sept 22 - 24	Researchers as manipulators: Experiments
	Read: Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 5 (pp. 122 - 147) * Kinder, Donald R., and Thomas R. Palfrey. 1993. "On Behalf of an Experimental Political Science." In Experimental Foundations of Political Science. Eds. Donald R. Kinder, and Thomas R. Palfrey. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. pp. 1-39.  [This chapter is on electronic reserve.] * Majeski, Stephen J. and Shane Fricks.  1995.  "Conflict and Cooperation in International Relations."  Journal of Conflict Resolution 39 (4, December): 622-645. * Black, Dan A. , Jeffrey A.  Smith, Mark C.  Berger, and Brett J. Noel. 2003. "Is the Threat of Reemployment Services More Effective Than the Services Themselves? Evidence from Random Assignment in the UI System." American Economic Review 93 (4, November): 1313-1327. * King, David C. and Richard E. Matland. 2003. "Sex and the Grand Old Party - an Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Candidate Sex on Support for a Republican Candidate." American Politics Research 31 (6, November): 595-612. Be prepared to discuss: What are the essential characteristics of an experiment, and what are the basic strengths and weaknesses of an experimental research design as compared to non-experimental designs? Evaluate those strengths and weaknesses with respect to the assigned articles. How is the independent variable manipulated, and how is the dependent variable measured?  Is Hall (1992) an experiment?  Why or why not? Assignment (Sept 29) - Use the King - Matland dataset to replicate their key findings.
Sept 29 - Oct 1	Researchers drawing inferences: Correlational Designs
	Read: Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 5 (pp. 147 - 181) * Drury, A. Cooper, Richard Stuart Olson, and Douglas A. Van Belle. 2005. "The Politics of Humanitarian Aid: US Foreign Disaster Assistance, 1964-1995." Journal of Politics 67 (2, May): 454-473. * Stratmann, Thomas and Martin Baur. 2002. "Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag: How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ across Electoral Systems." American Journal of Political Science 46 (3, July): 506-514. Be prepared to discuss: What are the basic strengths and weaknesses of a quasi-experimental research design and a case-study design as compared to an experimental design?  Are Stratmann and Baur (2002) and Drury et al. (2005) high in internal validity, external validity, neither, or both?
Oct 6 - 8	Researchers as Readers:  Literature Review
	Read:  Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 6 Knopf, Jeffrey W. 2006. "Doing a Literature Review." PS-Political Science & Politics 39 (1, January): 127-132. Assignment Due (Oct 13)  - Pick one article that we have read in class thus far.* Write a short literature review that reviews that journal article, a journal article which was cited by the selected article, and a journal article that cited the selected article.  Your review should explain whether the ideas and methods represented in the three (or more) articles are cumulative, and if so, how the ideas (or methods) from later articles were developed from ideas in earlier articles.  Your review should close with your thoughts on avenues for future research in the subfield.  I expect good papers will be five to seven pages. * You may use a required reading or an optional reading. If you are writing a thesis and none of the required or optional articles are related to your thesis, another option is available to you. You can tell me your thesis topic, and I will add one article to the optional list that is related to your thesis topic (my choice), and you may use that article as the "selected article" your literature review.  If you elect this option, email me your thesis topic no later than October 7.
Oct 13 - 15	Researchers as lurkers and intruders:  Observation
	Read: Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 8 * Mazie, Steven V. and Patricia J. Woods.  2003.  "Prayer, Contentious Politics, and the Women of the Wall: The Benefits of Collaboration in Participant Observation at Intense, Multifocal Events."  Field Methods 15 (1, February): 25 - 50. * Fenno, Richard F., Jr. 1977.  "U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration." American Political Science Review 71 (3, September):  883-917. Be prepared to discuss:  Are there any advantages or disadvantages to participant observation techniques to gather data?  Do these strategies pose any threats to the internal validity of the research design? Revised Assignment Due Date (Oct 27):  Observe a public meeting. This can be any meeting of a legislature, legislative committee, commission, local board, or any other public agency that you have the right to attend by virtue of your citizenship. Examples of acceptable meetings are the Florida House of Representatives, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Boynton Beach City Commision, or the Alachua County Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee. You may, but are not required to, observe a public meeting in your hometown over spring break.The Sunday Gainesville Sun usually lists upcoming public meetings in the City of Gainesville and Alachua County. Examples of unacceptable meetings are Student Government, its committees, other student or UF groups, or neighborhood property owners association meetings. This website lists public meetings in the City of Gainesville: http://www.cityofgainesville.org/GOVERNMENT/ClerkOfTheCommission/NoticeofMeetings/tabid/372/Default.aspx This website lists public meetings in Alachua County:  http://www.co.alachua.fl.us/government/bocc/calendar/meetings.aspx Write a short essay which (a) describes the setting of the meeting, (b) describes your observation role (using a role as defined by one of the readings), and (c) discusses whether the behavior of the meeting's participants varies by some  independent variable or variables (eg.: gender, issue type, time).  Does your observation of this case tend to confirm a pre-existing theoretical expectation, infirm a pre-existing theoretical expectation, and/or help build theory by induction?
October 20	Midterm Exam in CBD 100
October 22	Review Midterm
Oct 27 - 29	Researchers as Misers: Sampling
	Read: Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 7 * Reiter, Dan and Curtis Meek. 1999. "Determinants of Military Strategy, 1903-1994: A Quantitative Empirical Test." International Studies Quarterly 43 (2, June):  363-387.  * Schneider, Mark, John Scholz, Mark Lubell, Denisa Mindruta, and Matthew Edwardsen. "Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program." American Journal of Political Science 47: 143-158. Be prepared to discuss:  When should researchers avoid sampling?  Why do researchers have to sample?  What kinds of samples are used in  the assigned articles for this week?  Why were these samples chosen?  Were these samples appropriate?  For each sample, what is the theoretical population?
Nov 3 - 5	Researchers as diggers: Content Analysis and Aggregate Data
	Read:  Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 9 * Crichlow, Scott. 2002. "Legislators' Personality Traits and Congressional Support for Free Trade." Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (5, October): 693-711. * Damore, David F. 2002. "Candidate Strategy and the Decision to Go Negative." Political Research Quarterly 55 (3, September): 669-685. Be prepared to discuss:  What kinds of research designs are employed in this week's readings?  Where did the researchers dig up their data, and are the data and measures appropriate for the questions posed in the articles?  Are these research stronger in internal validity or external validity, and why?
Nov 10 -12	Researchers as Scavengers: Secondary Analysis
	Read:  Browse:  Introduction to the ICPSR Survey Documentation Online  http://sda.berkeley.edu:7502/
Nov 17 - 19	Researchers as interrogators: Survey Analysis
	Read: Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 10 * Javeline, Debra. 1999. "Response Effects in Polite Cultures: A Test of Acquiesence in Kazakhstan." Public Opinion Quarterly 63: 1-28. * Duff, Brain, Michael J. Hanmer, Won-ho Park, and Ismael K. White. 2007. "Good Excuses: Understanding Who Votes with an Improved Turnout Question." Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (1, Spring): 67-90. Be prepared to discuss: What are the challenges in constructing survey instruments posed by the readings?  What strategies do the authors propose to address those challenges?  Do these strategies aim to improve validity, reliability, sampling, or what? Assignment Due -  Print the survey. (You'll need the Acrobat Reader, if you don't already have it.)  The survey is available on E-Learning under "Handouts", then "Surveyinstrument". Pick a person to interview by phone (this can be a sample of convenience), and interview the person using this questionnaire.  Record the forced choice responses by circling the number of the response.  Record the open-ended responses by filling in the blank, or by verbatim transcript of the respondent's answers. Be sure to record the start time, the end time, and the respondent's first name in the appropriate places on the questionnaire.
Nov 24	Researchers as pests: Elite and Specialized interviewing
	Read:  Berry, Jeffrey M. 2002. "Validity and Reliability Issues in Elite Interviewing." PS: Political Science & Politics 35 (4, December): 679-682. * Kingdon, John W. 1973.  Congressmen's Voting Decisions.  Introduction and Appendices A through D.  (This title is lost in Marston Library, but this chapter is available on electronic reserve.)  Be prepared to discuss: What are the challenges in surveys of elites posed by the readings?  How are those challenges different than those in surveying the mass public?   What strategies do the authors propose to address those challenges?  Do these strategies aim to improve validity, reliability, sampling, or what?
Nov 26	Researchers Being Thankful (Thanksgiving Holiday)
Dec 1 - 3	Researchers as Number Crunchers:  Go for it!
	Read:  Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 14
Dec 8	Researchers as Demons?: Ethics in Social Scientific Research
	Read: Milgram, Stanley. 1965. "Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority."  Human Relations 18 (1, February):  57-76. Greenberg, David and Mark Shroder. 2004.  The Digest of Social Experiments.  Washington: The Urban Institute Press.   "Introduction - Are Experiments Ethical?" (p. 8)  Belmont Report. 1979. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Be prepared to discuss:  Did Milgram violate APSA standards of ethics in their research?  If so, which ones?  If not, should our standards be revised to prohibit that kind of research?  (Okay, be normative for once!)  Are control groups victimized in experiments that evaluate social programs?
Dec 8	Research Papers Due
Dec 15, 12:30 pm - 2:30 pm	Final Exam