August 23 -
August 28 | 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.
Bound copies of
most journals should be available in Library West.
On Tuesday, Aug 28, 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?
(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?
|
| August 30 | No class; American Political Science Association meetings |
| September 4 - 6 | Researchers as Readers: Literature
Review |
Read:
Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 3
Knopf, Jeffrey W. 2006. "Doing a Literature Review." PS-Political
Science & Politics 39 (1, January): 127-132.
Assignment Due (Sept 11) - Write a short literature review that reviews one of the following optional
journal articles, 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.
Optional journal articles:
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.
Boettcher,
William A., III, and Michael D. Cobb. 2009. "'Don't Let Them Die in
Vain' Casualty Frames and Public Tolerance for Escalating Commitment in
Iraq." Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 (5, October): 677-697.
|
| September 11 - 13 | Researchers as Theorists: Hypotheses,
Concepts, and Variables |
Read:
Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 4
Kirkpatrick and Kidd, Chapters 1-4.
Be prepared to discuss: What are the
characteristics of good hypotheses? What is Hall's (1993) unit of
analysis?
Assignment Due (Sept 18): 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) |
| September 18 - 20 | Researchers
as Counters: Measurement |
Read:
Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 5
* 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. * Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. "Measuring Issue Salience." American Journal of Political Science 44 (1, January): 66-83.
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 27): 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. |
September 25 - 27
|
Researchers
as manipulators: Experiments
|
Read: Johnson and
Reynolds,
Chapter 6 (pp. 165 - 193)
Kirkpatrick and Kidd, Chapter 5.
* 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.
*
Michelbach, Philip A., John T. Scott, Richard E. Matland, and Brian H.
Bornstein. 2003. "Doing Rawls justice: An experimental study of income
distribution norms." American Journal of Political Science 47 (3, July): 523-539.
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) -
|
October 2 - 4
|
Researchers
drawing inferences: Observational Designs
|
Read: Johnson and
Reynolds,
Chapter 6 (pp. 194 - 221)
* 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 high in
internal validity, external
validity, neither, or both?
|
| October 9 |
Midterm Exam |
| October 11 | Go over Midterm Exam |
October 16 - 18
|
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? Assignment Due October 23- 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://meetingdocs.alachuacounty.us/meetings/ 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 23 - 25 | Researchers as Misers: Sampling |
Read: Johnson and
Reynolds,
Chapter 7
Kirkpatrick and Kidd, Chapters 7-8
* Reiter, Dan and Curtis Meek. 1999. "Determinants of Military
Strategy, 1903-1994: A Quantitative Empirical Test." International Studies Quarterly 43
(2, June): 363-387.
*
Cohen, Nissim, and Tamar Arieli. 2011. "Field research in conflict
environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling." Journal of Peace Research 48 (4):423-435. 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? |
October 30 - November 1
|
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? |
November 6 - 8
|
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. * Berry, Jeffrey M. 2002. "Validity and
Reliability Issues in
Elite Interviewing." PS: Political
Science & Politics 35 (4, December): 679-682.
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 November 8 (paper submission)-
Print the survey.
(You'll need the Acrobat
Reader, if you don't already have
it.)
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.
|
| November 13 - 20 | Researchers
as Number Crunchers: Go for it! |
Read: Johnson and Reynolds, Chapters 11 and 12
Kirkpatrick and Kidd, Chapters 9
Browse: Introduction to the ICPSR
Survey Documentation Online http://sda.berkeley.edu:7502/
|
| November 22 | Researchers Being Thankful (Thanksgiving Holiday) |
November 27 - 29
|
Researchers
as Number Crunchers: Go for it!
|
Read: Johnson and Reynolds, Chapters 13 and 14 Kirkpatrick and Kidd, Chapters 10-11 |
December 4
|
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.
Hatemi, Peter K., and Rose McDermott. 2011. "The Normative Implications of Biological Research." PS-Political Science & Politics 44 (2, April):325-329.
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?
|
December 4
|
Research Papers Due
|
December 10, 15:30 pm - 7:30 pm
|
Final Exam
|
