| POS 6736 Section 3293 Thursdays 3 pm to 6 pm, Matherly 051 and CBD 110B Fall 2009 |
martinez@ufl.edu (352) 273-2363 |
Office Hours: 211 Anderson Hall
Tuesday, 10:40 am - noon; 1:30 - 4:00 pm Thursday, 10:40 am - noon |
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"? Why didn't the polls in last year's national election call any of the members of this seminar? How do we analyze data, and what are good data to analyze? Are ethics as hard to define for political scientists as they are for political campaigners?
During the course of the semester, we will discuss these issues and
others. Our discussions, the readings, various written assignments,
computer assignments, the final
exam,
and the final 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 seminars,
help
you evaluate that research, 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.
My only assumption is that participants in the seminar are intelligent, motivated students beginning a Ph.D. program or an M.A. program (Public Affairs, Political Campaigning, or International Relations). For many students, this will be an entirely different kind of course. Many good undergraduate lecture courses and graduate seminars require you to become knowledgeable about a field, such as Political Behavior, Public Policy, 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
Readings and Resources
![]() |
|
The following is a tentative calendar, and dates on assignments are especially subject to revision.
Readings marked with an asterisk (*) are included in the Target Copy coursepack.
| Aug 27 | Is "Political Science" an Oxymoron?: An Introduction to Political Science Research Methods |
| Read: Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 1 * Hall, Melinda Gann. 1992. "Electoral-Politics and Strategic Voting in State Supreme Courts." Journal of Politics 54 (2, May): 427-446. 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? |
|
| Sept 3 | No class; American Political Science Association meetings |
| Sept 10 | Researchers as Theorists: Hypotheses, Concepts, and Variables |
| Read:
Johnson and Reynolds, Chapters 2 and 3 * Most, Benjamin A. 1990. "Getting started on political research." PS: Political Science & Politics 23 (4, December), 592-596. Be prepared to discuss: 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? What are the characteristics of good hypotheses? What is Hall's (1993) unit of analysis? Assignment Due (Sept 15): Find an existing dataset somewhere
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 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.Hamm, Keith E., Ronald D. Hedlund, and Nancy Martorano. 2006. "Measuring State Legislative Committee Power: Change and Chamber Differences in the 20th Century." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 6 (1, Spring): 88-111. 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, legislative committee power, 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 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. |
|
| 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. Choi, C., C. C. Turner, and C. Volden. 2002. "Means, Motive, and Opportunity - Politics, Community Needs, and Community Oriented Policing Services Grants." American Politics Research 30 (4, July): 423-455. 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 Choi et al. (2002), Stratmann and Baur (2002) and Drury et al. (2005) high in internal validity, external validity, neither, or both? |
|
| Oct 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. |
|
| Oct 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. 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 (Oct 22): 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 |
|
| Oct 22 | 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. Lupia, Arthur and Tasha S. Philpot. 2005. "Views from inside the Net: How Websites Affect Young Adults' Political Interest." Journal of Politics 67 (4, November): 1122-1142.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? | |
| Oct 29 |
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. Mowle, Thomas S. 2003. "Worldviews in Foreign Policy: Realism, Liberalism, and External Conflict." Political Psychology 24: 561-592. |
|
| Nov 5 |
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. * 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 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". |
|
| Nov 12 | 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 contemporary 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? | |
| Nov 19 | Almost Done Exam |
| Nov 26 | Researchers Being Thankful (Thanksgiving Holiday) |
Dec 3 |
Researchers
as Number Crunchers: Go for it! |
| Read: Johnson and Reynolds, Chapter 14 | |
| Dec 14 |
Research Papers Due |