DOCSLIB.ORG

Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research Cultural Anthropology, Law and Social Science, Political Science, and Sociology Programs National Science Foundation Supported Workshop Report prepared by: Michèle Lamont Harvard University Patricia White National Science Foundation Acknowledgements We wish to thank James Granato, former NSF Political Science Program Director, Joane Nagel, former NSF Sociology Program Director, Stuart Plattner, former NSF Cultural Anthropology Program Director, and Christopher Zorn, former NSF Law and Social Science Program Director, for their help in planning and participation in the workshop, Karen Duke and Michelle Jenkins, NSF Social and Political Sciences Cluster staff members, for their administrative and technical support, Lauren Rivera and Sabrina Pendergrass, graduate assistants for their work with Professor Lamont on workshop and report preparations at Harvard University, Joane Nagel and Kristin Luker, Professor of Sociology and Jurisprudence and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley for their thoughtful comments on the draft report, and the 23 workshop participants who took on the enormous task of representing their respective disciplines at the workshop through the submission and presentations of short papers prior to the workshop and comment and recommendations during and after the meeting. We also thank the 2007 graduate student cohort of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University and Camonia Long, Howard University graduate student, for their reactions to the report. Workshop Participants & Attendees Michèle Lamont, Harvard University, Jody Miller, University of Missouri, St. Louis Workshop Organizer Joane Nagel, University of Kansas Andrew Bennett, Georgetown University Beth Rubin, University of North Ted Bestor, Harvard University Carolina-Charlotte Kathleen Blee, University of Pittsburgh Gery Ryan, Rand Corporation Don Brenneis, University of California, Susan Silbey, Massachusetts Institute of Santa Cruz Technology John Bowen, Washington University in St. Louis Mario Small, University of Chicago John Comaroff, University of Chicago Kathleen Thelen, Northwestern University David Collier, University of California, Berkeley Lisa Wedeen, University of Chicago Colin Elman, Arizona State University Susan Weller, University of Texas Medical Wendy Espeland, Northwestern University Branch-Galveston Linda Garro, University ofofof California,California,California, Patricia White, (Sociology) National Science Los Angeles Foundation John Gerring, Boston University Alford Young, Jr., University of Michigan James Granato, University of Houston Christopher Zorn, University of South Carolina Wendy Griswold, Northwestern University Jennifer Hochschild, Harvard University Richard Lempert, National Science Foundation Felice Levine, American Education Research Association Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for 2 Systematic Qualitative Research Executive Summary On May 19-20, 2005, a workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research was held at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, Virginia. The workshop was co­ funded by a grant from four NSF Programs—Cultural Anthropology, Law and Social Science, Political Science, and Sociology—to Dr. Michèle Lamont, Harvard University. Professor Lamont was assisted in organizing the workshop by representatives from each discipline who coordinated group reports. The Cultural Anthropology group was co-chaired by Drs. Ted Bestor (Harvard) and Gery Ryan (RAND); Law and Social Science by Dr. John Bowen, (Washington University, in St. Louis); Political Science by Andrew Bennett (George Washington University); and Sociology by Dr. Kathleen Blee (University of Pittsburg). It is well recognized that each of the four disciplines have different research design and evaluation cultures as well as considerable variability in the emphasis on interpretation and explanation, commitment to constructivist and positivist epistemologies, and the degree of perceived consensus about the value and prominence of qualitative research methods. Within this multidisciplinary and multimethods context, twenty-four scholars from the four disciplines were charged to (1) articulate the standards used in their particular field to ensure rigor across the range of qualitative methodological approaches;1* (2) identify common criteria shared across the four disciplines for designing and evaluating research proposals and fostering multidisciplinary collaborations; and (3) develop an agenda for strengthening the tools, training, data, research design, and infrastructure for research using qualitative approaches. Prior to the workshop each participant prepared a short paper addressing the three topics (qualitative research standards, evaluation criteria, and agenda of future opportunities and needs). During the workshop, breakout sessions were held where each disciplinary group was asked to discuss and list the field’s major qualitative research standards. These lists were then shared with the full workshop. Two categories of qualitative research standards were identified—(1) “shared” or key standards relevant to all four disciplines; and (2) standards judged essential by two or three disciplines. Participants also provided recommendations for improving qualitative research, training and infrastructures and identified promising areas of research in the four disciplines that would benefit from study using qualitative research approaches. The workshop report is organized into four sections: Qualitative Research Design and Methods; Standards for Qualitative Research across Disciplines (in Anthropology, Law and Social Science, Political Science and Sociology); Recommendations for Producing Top Notch Qualitative Research; and Promising New Research Areas and Topics. Written commentary prepared by workshop participants is included in the Appendix. What follows is a brief summary of each. 1*Methodological approaches include ethnography, historical and comparative analysis, textual and discourse analysis, focus groups, archival and oral history, observational studies, interpretation of images and cultural materials, and unstructured and semi-structured interviews. 3 Executive Summary Qualitative Research Design and Methods Workshop participants discussed the strengths of qualitative methods, standards qualitative research shares with quantitative research, and standards that are unique only to qualitative research. The major strength of qualitative research was judged to be the rich range of methodological tools available to study meaning, social processes, and group variations. The sample sizes and strategies of qualitative and quantitative approaches to research were contrasted. Qualitative research stresses in-depth contextualization, usually with small sample size. Qualitative research sampling techniques, while nonrandom, are usually attentive to demographic and theoretical dimensions. The combination of small and in-depth samples chosen for theoretical relevancy allows qualitative research findings a degree of significance or generalizability beyond individuals or single cases and provide opportunities to demonstrate rigor in all phases of a qualitative research project. “Shared” Criteria for Designing and Evaluating Qualitative Research Across Disciplines Workshop participants agreed that the four disciplines shared several standards for designing and evaluating high quality qualitative research. All value projects that: • Situate the research in appropriate literature; that is, the study should build upon existing knowledge • Clearly articulate the connection between theory and data • Describe and explain case selection; why particular sites, participants, events, or cases are chosen • Pay attention to alternative explanations and negative cases • Operationalize constructs and describe expected findings • Provide clear and detailed descriptions of both data collection and anticipated data analysis techniques: specify what counts as data, how the researcher will go about obtaining data and analyzing it • Describe the intellectual, social, and political significance of the research • Discuss generalizability or significance beyond the specific cases selected • Specify the limitations of the research and anticipate potential reviewer objections • Discuss the preparation of the researcher for the proposed project in terms of: o Cultural fluency o Language skill o Appropriate methodological/technical training o Knowledge of particular research context Recommendations for Producing Top Notch Qualitative Research Participants established that qualitative research could be enhanced by increased investments in education, training, and infrastructure. For example, NSF could enhance qualitative research through increased funding for students and scholars as well as publicizing its commitment to supporting high quality qualitative proposals. Support for pre-dissertation support, small pilot study grants for faculty, and student training opportunities through professional associations would likely be most effective. Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for 4 Systematic Qualitative Research Promising New Research Areas and Topics Each disciplinary working group articulated new and exciting research areas that would benefit immensely from qualitative research or are taking advantage of qualitative research approaches, and in the process opening up new avenues of understanding. Social and cultural anthropological studies of responses
Recommended publications
  • Weatherhead Center for International Affairs

    Weatherhead Center for International Affairs

    WEATHERHEAD CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS H A R V A R D U N I V E R S I T Y two2004-2005 thousand four – two thousand five ANNUAL REPORTS two2005-2006 thousand five – two thousand six 1737 Cambridge Street • Cambridge, MA 02138 www.wcfia.harvard.edu TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 PEOPLE Visiting Committee 4 Executive Committee 4 Administration 6 RESEARCH ACTIVITIES Small Grants for Faculty Research Projects 8 Medium Grants for Faculty Research Projects 9 Large Grants for Faculty Research Projects 9 Large Grants for Faculty Research Semester Leaves 9 Distinguished Lecture Series 11 Weatherhead Initiative in International Affairs 12 CONFERENCES 13 RESEARCH SEMINARS Challenges of the Twenty-First Century 34 Communist and Postcommunist Countries 35 Comparative Politics Research Workshop 36 Comparative Politics Seminar 39 Director’s Faculty Seminar 39 Economic Growth and Development 40 Harvard-MIT Joint Seminar on Political Development 41 Herbert C. Kelman Seminar on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution 42 International Business 43 International Economics 45 International History 48 Middle East 49 Political Violence and Civil War 51 Science and Society 51 South Asia 52 Transatlantic Relations 53 U.S. Foreign Policy 54 RESEARCH PROGRAMS Canada Program 56 Fellows Program 58 Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies 65 John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies 74 Justice, Welfare, and Economics 80 Nonviolent Sanctions and Cultural Survival 82 Religion, Political Economy, and Society 84 Student Programs 85 Transnational Studies Initiative 95 U.S.-Japan Relations 96 PUBLICATIONS 104 ANNUAL REPORTS 2004–2005 / 2005–2006 - 1 - INTRODUCTION In August 2005, the Weatherhead Center moved In another first, the faculty research semester to the new Center for Government and leaves that the Center awarded in spring 2005 International Studies (CGIS) complex.
  • Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars PS Decline to Review Their Peers’ Work

    Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars PS Decline to Review Their Peers’ Work

    AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars PS Decline to Review Their Peers’ Work | Marijke Breuning, Jeremy Backstrom, Jeremy Brannon, Benjamin Isaak Gross, Announcing Science & Politics Political Michael Widmeier Why, and How, to Bridge the “Gap” Before Tenure: Peer-Reviewed Research May Not Be the Only Strategic Move as a Graduate Student or Young Scholar Mariano E. Bertucci Partisan Politics and Congressional Election Prospects: Political Science & Politics Evidence from the Iowa Electronic Markets Depression PSOCTOBER 2015, VOLUME 48, NUMBER 4 Joyce E. Berg, Christopher E. Peneny, and Thomas A. Rietz dep1 dep2 dep3 dep4 dep5 dep6 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 Bayesian Analysis Trace Histogram −.002 500 −.004 400 −.006 300 −.008 200 100 −.01 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 Iteration number −.01 −.008 −.006 −.004 −.002 Autocorrelation Density 0.80 500 all 0.60 1−half 400 2−half 0.40 300 0.20 200 0.00 100 0 10 20 30 40 0 Lag −.01 −.008 −.006 −.004 −.002 Here are some of the new features: » Bayesian analysis » IRT (item response theory) » Multilevel models for survey data » Panel-data survival models » Markov-switching models » SEM: survey data, Satorra–Bentler, survival models » Regression models for fractional data » Censored Poisson regression » Endogenous treatment effects » Unicode stata.com/psp-14 Stata is a registered trademark of StataCorp LP, 4905 Lakeway Drive, College Station, TX 77845, USA. OCTOBER 2015 Cambridge Journals Online For further information about this journal please go to the journal website at: journals.cambridge.org/psc APSA Task Force Reports AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION Let’s Be Heard! How to Better Communicate Political Science’s Public Value The APSA task force reports seek John H.
  • A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research

    A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research

    Advance Access publication June 13, 2006 Political Analysis (2006) 14:227–249 doi:10.1093/pan/mpj017 A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research James Mahoney Departments of Political Science and Sociology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-1006 e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author) Gary Goertz Department of Political Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 e-mail: [email protected] The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to expla- nation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive ‘‘cross-cultural’’ communica- tion in political science. Introduction Comparisons of the quantitative and qualitative research traditions sometimes call to mind religious metaphors. In his commentary for this issue, for example, Beck (2006) likens the traditions to the worship of alternative gods. Schrodt (2006), inspired by Brady’s (2004b, 53) prior casting of the controversy in terms of theology versus homiletics, is more explicit: ‘‘while this debate is not in any sense about religion, its dynamics are best understood as though it were about religion. We have always known that, it just needed to be said.’’ We prefer to think of the two traditions as alternative cultures.
  • The Social Construction of Social Capital and the Politics of Language

    The Social Construction of Social Capital and the Politics of Language

    POLITICSSMITH and & KULYNYCH SOCIETY It May Be Social, but Why Is It Capital? The Social Construction of Social Capital and the Politics of Language STEPHEN SAMUEL SMITH JESSICA KULYNYCH Although the referents of the term social capital merit sustained inquiry, the term impedes understanding because of the historical association of the word capital with economic discourse. As a result of this association, applying the term social capital to civic engagement blurs crucial analytic distinctions. Moreover, there are important ideological consequences to considering things such as bowling leagues to be a form of capital and urging citizens to become social capitalists. The term social capacity, the authors argue, provides the same heuristic benefits as the term social capital without extending illusory promises of theoretical parsimony with the financial/human/social capital trinity. The word Capital had been part of legal and business terminology long before economists found employment for it. With the Roman jurists and their successors, it denoted the “prin- cipal” of a loan as distinguished from interest and other accessory claims of the lender....Thus the concept was essentially monetary, meaning either actual money, or claims to money, or some goods evaluated in money. Also, though not quite definite, its meaning was perfectly unequivocal, and there was no doubt about what was meant in every Both authors contributed equally to the writing of this article; our names are listed in random order. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1999 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA. Smith’s work on the article is part of a larger project on urban edu- cation in Charlotte, North Carolina, that is funded by grants from the Spencer Foundation, the Parker Foundation, and the Winthrop University Research Council.
  • Pdf; Last Accessed August 10, 2012

    Pdf; Last Accessed August 10, 2012

    Notes Chapter 1 1. There are, of course, many “Americas.” Here, I use the word “America” interchangeably with the “United States.” I also use the words “work” and “labor” interchangeably throughout this book. This is a self-conscious decision in spite of the distinction Hannah Arendt draws between work and labor. See Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1998). 2. To be sure, the occurrence of the word “dream” in these speeches may or may not refer to the American Dream as such. Yet, a close reading of the texts yields the conclusion that it most often does. These speeches are available at the University of California, Santa Barbara’s “American Presidency Project” website. Available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/; last accessed August 5, 2012. The numbers cited here reflect the follow- ing methodological considerations: (a) I have only taken into account the first of a series of six State of the Union addresses by Richard Nixon (1973); (b) I have excluded Reagan’s (1981), Bush’s (1989), Clinton’s (1993), Bush’s (2001), and Obama’s (2009) addresses before joint sessions of Congress because these were not technically State of the Union mes- sages; and (c) the word “undreamed” has been counted as an occurrence of the word “dream.” 3. See, especially, figure 2.1. More generally, see chapters 3 and 6. 4. Jennifer L. Hochschild, Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of the Nation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), xvii. 5. National League of Cities, “The American Dream in 2004: A Sur- vey of the American People” (Washington D.C., 2004).
  • Research Design Skopje 6-7 November 2008

    Research Design Skopje 6-7 November 2008

    Research Design Skopje 6-7 November 2008 Daniel Bochsler and Lucas Leemann Center for Comparative and International Studies, University of Zurich [email protected]; [email protected] Introduction The goal of this workshop session is to review the current literature on issues of research design in social sciences and to allow the participants to improve on their skills in designing research. The workshop starts off with a short review of some basic principles of scientific research, before turning to two of the main goals of scientific work, namely descriptive and causal inferences. In a second part different research designs are discussed, relying on the basic distinction between experimental and quasi-experimental work. Given that despite the important forays in experimental studies in the social sciences (see Druckman, Green, Kuklinski and Lupia, 2006) quasi- experimental designs will be discussed in more detail. Special emphasis will be put on the dangers to our inferences in such quasi-experimental designs. The third part will consist of a discussion of a few chosen research designs to highlight their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, based on the participants own experience, in a short training session they will have to sketch possible research designs for chosen research questions. Plan, readings and literature Most of the literature on which this workshop will rely comes from King, Keohane and Verba (1994), a book that, from a very specific perspective, highlights the similarities between quantitative and qualitative approaches. Needless to say, this book has attracted a series of critiques (e.g., Caporaso, 1995; Collier, 1995; Rogowski, 1995; Tarrow, 1995; Brady and Collier, 2004).
  • American Political Science Review

    American Political Science Review

    AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW AMERICAN https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000060 . POLITICAL SCIENCE https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms REVIEW , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at 08 Oct 2021 at 13:45:36 , on May 2018, Volume 112, Issue 2 112, Volume May 2018, University of Athens . May 2018 Volume 112, Issue 2 Cambridge Core For further information about this journal https://www.cambridge.org/core ISSN: 0003-0554 please go to the journal website at: cambridge.org/apsr Downloaded from 00030554_112-2.indd 1 21/03/18 7:36 AM LEAD EDITOR Jennifer Gandhi Andreas Schedler Thomas König Emory University Centro de Investigación y Docencia University of Mannheim, Germany Claudine Gay Económicas, Mexico Harvard University Frank Schimmelfennig ASSOCIATE EDITORS John Gerring ETH Zürich, Switzerland Kenneth Benoit University of Texas, Austin Carsten Q. Schneider London School of Economics Sona N. Golder Central European University, and Political Science Pennsylvania State University Budapest, Hungary Thomas Bräuninger Ruth W. Grant Sanjay Seth University of Mannheim Duke University Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Sabine Carey Julia Gray Carl K. Y. Shaw University of Mannheim University of Pennsylvania Academia Sinica, Taiwan Leigh Jenco Mary Alice Haddad Betsy Sinclair London School of Economics Wesleyan University Washington University in St. Louis and Political Science Peter A. Hall Beth A. Simmons Benjamin Lauderdale Harvard University University of Pennsylvania London School of Economics Mary Hawkesworth Dan Slater and Political Science Rutgers University University of Chicago Ingo Rohlfi ng Gretchen Helmke Rune Slothuus University of Cologne University of Rochester Aarhus University, Denmark D.
  • "A Sea Change in Political Methodology." in Rethinking Social

    "A Sea Change in Political Methodology." in Rethinking Social

    Introduction to Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2 edn., Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, ed. (Rowman and Littlefield, 2010). A Sea Change in Political Methodology David Collier, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright We begin with rival claims about the ''science'' in social science. In our view, juxtaposing these claims brings into focus a sea change in political science methodology. King, Keohane, and Verba's (KKV) 1994 book, Designing Social Inquiry, proposes a bold methodological agenda for researchers who work in the qualitative tradition. The book's subtitle directly summarizes the agenda: ''scientific inference in qualitative research'' (italics added). To its credit, the book is explicit in its definition of science. It draws on what we and many others have viewed as a ''quantitative template,'' which serves as the foun- dation for the desired scientific form of qualitative methods. In KKV's view, standard research procedures of qualitative analysis are routinely problem- atic, and ideas drawn from conventional quantitative methods are offered as guideposts to help qualitative researchers be scientific. 1. For our own work, we share Freedman's view of plurality in scientific methods, and we recognize social versus natural science as partially different enterprises. Yet the two can and should strive for careful formulation of hypotheses, intersubjec- tive agreement on the facts being analyzed, precise use of data, and good research design. With this big-tent understanding of science, we are happy to be included in the tent. 2. As explained above in the preface, in the second edition we use the abbreviation KKV to refer to the book, rather than DSI, as in the first edition.
  • Introduction to the Second Edition

    Introduction to the Second Edition

    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title A Sea of Change in Political Methodology? Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8gq6g191 Journal Qualitative and Multi-Method Research, 9(1) Authors Collier, David Brady, Henry E Seawright, Jason Publication Date 2011-04-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Qualitative and Multi-Method Research. Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section. 9, No. 1 (Spring 2011, forthcoming). A Sea Change in Political Methodology1 David Collier University of California, Berkeley [email protected] Henry E. Brady University of California, Berkeley [email protected] Jason Seawright Northwestern University [email protected] Shifting debates on what constitutes “science” reveal competing claims about methodology.2 Of course, in its origin the term “science” means “knowledge,” and researchers obviously hold a wide spectrum of positions on how to produce viable knowledge. Within this spectrum, we compare two alternative meanings of science, advanced by scholars who seek to legitimate sharply contrasting views of qualitative methods. This comparison points to a sea change in political science methodology.3 1 This article draws on the Introductions to Parts I and II of Brady and Collier, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edn. (Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010). 2 Morgan (1996) provides a broad overview of rival views of science, encompassing the natural,
  • Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, Sidney Verba Designing Social Inquiry

    Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, Sidney Verba Designing Social Inquiry

    Designing Social Inquiry Designing Social Inquiry SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Gary King Robert O. Keohane Sidney Verba PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Copyright 1994 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In The United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, Chichester, West Sussex All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data King, Gary. Designing social inquiry : scientific inference in qualitiative research / Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, Sidney Verba. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-691-03470-2 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 0-691-03471-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Social sciences—Methodology. 2. Social sciences— Research. 3. Inference I. Keohane, Robert Owen. II. Verba, Sidney. III. Title. H61.K5437 1994 93-39283 300′.72—dc20 CIP This book has been composed in Adobe Palatino Princeton University Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources Printed in the United States of America 109876543 Third printing, with corrections and expanded index, 1995 Contents Preface ix 1 The Science in Social Science 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.1.1 Two Styles of Research, One Logic of Inference 3 1.1.2 Defining Scientific Research in Social Sciences 7 1.1.3 Science and Complexity 9 1.2 Major Components of Research Design 12 1.2.1 Improving Research Questions
  • Is American Multilateralism in Decline?

    Is American Multilateralism in Decline?

    Articles Is American Multilateralism in Decline? Is American Multilateralism in Decline? By G. John Ikenberry American foreign policy appears to have taken a sharp unilateral turn. A half century of U.S. leadership in constructing an inter- national order organized around multilateral institutions, rule-based agreements, and alliance partnerships seems to be giving way to an assertive unilateralism. But how deeply rooted is this unilateral turn? Is it an inevitable feature of America’s rising global power position? This article argues that the United States is not doomed to shed its multilateral orientation. Unipolar power pro- vides new opportunities for the United States to act unilaterally, but the incentives are actually quite complex and cross-cutting; and these incentives arguably make multilateralism more rather than less desirable for Washington in many policy areas. merican foreign policy appears to have taken a sharp unilat- After eight years during which foreign policy success was largely meas- eral turn. A half century of U.S. leadership in constructing ured by the number of treaties the president could sign and the num- Aan international order around multilateral institutions, rule- ber of summits he could attend, we now have an administration will- based agreements, and alliance partnerships seems to be giving way ing to assert American freedom of action and the primacy of to a new assertive—even defiant—unilateralism. Over the last sev- American national interests. Rather than contain power within a vast web of constraining international agreements, the new unilateralism eral years, the Bush administration has signaled a deep skepticism seeks to strengthen American power and unashamedly deploy it on of multilateralism in a remarkable sequence of rejections of pend- behalf of self-defined global ends.3 ing international agreements and treaties, including the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, the Rome Statute of the Inter- Indeed, Richard Holbrooke, former U.S.
  • Affecting the World: Political Science Education and Relevance

    Affecting the World: Political Science Education and Relevance

    Affecting the World: Political Science Education and Relevance by Matthew Stein Abstract: Since the establishment of the American Political Science Association (APSA), American political scientists have sought to bridge the gap between scholarly research and political action. Frank Goodnow, the first president of APSA argued in 1904 that the study of politics can, or plausibly must speak to the political world. Over 100 years later, former APSA president Jennifer Hochschild echoes this sentiment by arguing that increased relevance is one cause for optimism in a politically pessimistic time. Christina Greer recently followed this line of thought by arguing in APSA’s 2018 Election Reflection Series that political scientists ought to focus on informing the public on relevant topics. Political scientists continue to debate how we can best achieve relevance. However, one approach to becoming relevant which is often overlooked is a turn to focusing on classroom education. My argument counters the tendency to treat our educational responsibilities as a non-factor with regards to becoming a more relevant discipline. Although the desire to become more relevant is noble, success will require that we view teaching as a gateway to, rather than an obstacle to becoming relevant. Undergraduates who major in political science work in the very fields we wish to discuss and impact including government, law, and non-profit organizations. Therefore, if we wish to be a relevant field, political science academics ought to primarily focus on student education. Political Science and the 115 Year Pursuit of Relevance For at least the past 115 years – since the formation of the American Political Science Association (APSA) – political scientists have stated a desire for the field to be relevant.