6716 Scope and Epistemology Fall 2017 ASSIGNMENT 1: READ THIS CAREFULLY!!

Instructor: Dr. Laura Sjoberg Contact: (email) [email protected] (phone) 352.575.8603 (skype): laurasjoberg Office: 203 Anderson (hours):: 3pm-6pm Tuesday & appointment Class Time: 1145am-245pm Tuesday Class Location: Political Science Conference Room

COURSE DESCRIPTION This course surveys the big questions of epistemology in the study of politics, and the ways that those questions of epistemology impact the organization (sociology) of the discipline as well as its power structure (politics). It does so attempting to represent all of political science’s subdivisions (both the traditional American politics, comparative politics, , and theory subdivision and other divides like those between science and humanities, quantitative and qualitative, policy-relevant and not). You will note that, to many of these questions, there does not feel like there is a “right” answer – that is, both sides make compelling arguments, when in a vacuum and even when compared. W. B. Gallie suggested that there is a such thing as an “essentially contested concept” – one to which there is no easily reducible answer or description – instead, it is by nature always and everywhere subject to debate. I suggest that the notion of political science is an essentially contested concept – that there is no knowing what ‘it’ is, but instead just knowing the debates around what ‘it’ is. Yet we still must do (or perform) political science – so navigating the contestation is practically imperative. The practical part is why we start at, and focus on, epistemology (how we can know). If political science is (at least by large consensus) an enterprise in which knowledge is produced, then it is important to know what qualifies as knowledge and how one would produce it in order to become a producer of it. Most professors would tell you that, after surveying the available options and understanding the disciplinary contours, it is up to you to make a choice about ‘your’ epistemology. I take two issues with that. First, I think that ‘your’ epistemology (how you believe one can know) is deeply personal, and need not either be shared or translated into your work if you do not want it to be. The choice is what epistemological approach (or approaches) you use in your scholarly work, and how you justify those choices. Second, I believe those choices are not (and cannot be) independent of what you hope to accomplish with your research work – practical choices about navigating the enterprise of political science. I suggest these not only do but should weigh on your epistemological choices. As elsewhere in political science, it is important to have a deep understanding of even those perspectives to which you are diametrically opposed. In this spirit, this course asks you to work as hard to understand the approaches which make no sense to you as those that do. Accordingly, it presents each approach with a similar level of both gravity and depth, looking for not only respectful engagement but understanding.

1

GRADING

The grade will be divided into five parts: 1) Contribution (20%) 2) Short Papers (30%) 3) Reading Reactions (10%) 4) CV and Website (10%) 5) Elements of Practical Participation (10%) 6) Final Exam (20%)

The Grade Scale is: 94-100: A; 90-93: A-; 87-89: B+; 83-86: B; 80-82: B-; 77-79: C+; 73-76: C; 70- 72: C-; 67-69: D+; 63-67: D; 60-62: D-

The assigns the following grade points: A: 4.0, A-: 3.67, B+: 3.33, B: 3, B-: 2.67, C+: 2.33, C: 2.0; C-: 1.67, D+: 1.33, D: 1, D-: .67, E: 0, WF: 0, I: 0; NG: 0.

CONTRIBUTION You are expected to attend all class meetings, and to be prepared to discuss the readings in depth. Please note that a portion of your final grade relies on your participation and attendance. By “contribution,” I do not mean being the person who is most willing to talk in front of the class. Contribution grades are based on the quality of participation – students who offer engaging and critical perspectives on course readings which reflect that they have read them. Attendance will be checked, and preparedness will be expected. If for some reason you will be unprepared for class on a given day, be sure to email me beforehand. Sharing your thoughts aloud is a requirement as most things that one can do with a Political Science Ph.D. require some amount of speaking in front of people. Still, if you have a question or something to share that you prefer not to ask or share in front of the class, it is fine to email me about it.

SHORT PAPERS You will be asked to do three short papers over the course of the semester. Each will constitute 10 percent of your grade.

9/12/2017. Short paper #1 due. Write 2500-4000 words about what you know about politics, how you came to know what you know, and how you know you know it. Make sure to document the warrants to your arguments, what (if anything) you see as ‘evidence,’ how you would confront claims to that you do not know what you claim to know or that you are wrong, and what degree of certainty you would give your knowledge. Paper due by midnight Eastern Daylight Time.

10/10/2017. Short paper #2 due. Write 2500-4000 words about how you intend to contribute to knowledge in Political Science in graduate school and beyond. Start with a brief explanation

2 (like you would describe in just a minute or two to a senior scholar), and then expand. Include your proposed research agenda, what will make it count as knowledge, how you will demonstrate that it does add knowledge, and how you will counter criticisms that it does not add knowledge. Paper is due by 3pm Eastern Daylight Time.

11/7/2017. Short Paper #3 Due. Mock up the epistemology and methods section of a dissertation prospectus. It can be your planned dissertation, or a random pretend dissertation. Make sure that your methods section states the philosophical and epistemological wagers that you plan to make, and how you plan to translate those into knowledge about your proposed research subject. If you do not know the specifics about some technique (e.g., narrative analysis, statistics, formal modelling), be as descriptive as possible about what you want to get out of the use of the methods you use in terms of the production of knowledge. Make your methods section between 1000 and 1500 words. Due by 1145am Eastern Standard Time.

READING REACTIONS You will be asked to write two two-page reading reaction papers on topics of your choice over the course of the weeks 2,3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. These reaction papers will be a place for you to, after briefly demonstrating an understanding of the reading, let me know what you think about it and pose either questions you would like answered or questions you think would be good for the discussion in the class. If you are going to do a reading reaction for any given week, it is due via email on the Monday preceding the Tuesday class. Please do not choose weeks 10 and 11 because you do not feel like doing it before that. Please choose weeks in which you have a genuine interest in the topic and/or the reading speaks to you.

CV AND WEBSITE So, you want to be a political scientist? You shall have a CV and a website. We’re going to work on them in this class. There are two due dates – the first draft of your CV and the second draft of your CV/first draft of your website.

First Draft of CV: by 6pm Eastern Daylight Time, 10/10/2017. Second Draft of CV and First Draft of Website: by 1145am Eastern Standard Time, 11/21/2017.

ELEMENTS OF PRACTICAL PARTICIPATION In Week 15 (11/28/2017), you will be asked to write two possible conference abstracts before class. These will constitute 5% of your grade. In Week 16 (12/5/2017), you will be asked to provide a brief plan for your first publishable idea. This will constitute 5% of your grade as well.

3 FINAL EXAMINATION The final examination is essay-based, and take-home. It will be distributed in class on December 5, and due one week later. It will consist of one essay question as practice for your future comprehensive examinations.. The answer should be between 2000 and 2500 words long. We will talk at length about what that means. This is sort of outdated, but still gives a good overview: http://polisci.ufl.edu/international-relations-exam-guide/. YOU MAY, SHOULD YOU BE SO BOLD, FORGO DOING THE FINAL EXAM TO TURN IN A DRAFT OF A DISSERTATION PROSPECTUS. There is no penalty for doing the final, and no reward for the dissertation prospectus. It will be graded as if you are a first year, first semester PhD student.

HONOR SYSTEM All students are expected to follow the Honor Code at the University of Florida. “We, the members of the University of Florida community, pledge to hold ourselves and our peers to the highest standards of honesty and integrity.” On all work submitted for credit by students at the University of Florida, the following pledge is either required or implied: “On my honor, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid in doing this assignment.” Any student found violating the Honor Code will be reported. Honor code violations include but are not limited to academic dishonesty, making a false or misleading statement for the purpose of procuring an academic advantage, prohibited collaboration, prohibited use of materials or resources, plagarism, the use of false information, sabotage, bribery, unauthorized recording, and purchase of a paper. If you’re not sure whether its cheating, it probably is, but feel free to come to my office hours and ask. You are allowed to have study groups, to have conversations, and to teach each other aspects of the reading that you missed, but you are not allowed to rely on another student’s knowledge of the reading, or an outside source, as a substitute for doing the reading.

LATE ASSIGNMENTS I expect assignments to be on time. You will lose a letter grade if an assignment is late at all, and an additional letter grade for each 24 hours it is late. My default setting is to fail a student who has not finished the requirements for the course. Incompletes are for use in special circumstances only. Practical assignments to be used in class the day that they are due will not be accepted late.

DISABILITIES Any student requiring adaptations or accommodations because of any kind of disability (learning disability, attention deficit disorder, psychological, and physical, etc.) should contact the Disability Resource Center for information about their rights and responsibilities. I would also appreciate it if students requiring accommodation came to talk to me at my office hours as soon as possible, so that we can take appropriate steps to implement those accommodations and maximize the student’s learning. No accommodations will be applied retroactively, so let me know before an assignment or test that we will need to plan to deal with your disability.

4 COUNSELING The Counseling Center is located in P301 Peabody Hall. It is open Monday-Friday, 8:00AM- 5:00PM. To schedule an appointment, stop by the Counseling Center, or call 352.392.1575. On evenings and weekends, services are available through the Alachua County Crisis Center by calling 352.264.6789. Students may also call the clinician on-call at Student Mental Health at 352.392.1171.

CLASS DISRUPTIONS Cellular telephones will be on silent during the class period. Not vibrate, silent. Should your telephone ring during class, I will answer it. If you text during class, your phone will get to spend some quality time with me. Laptop computers are permitted in class for note-taking purposes only. If you are caught doing something other than class-related work on your laptop during class, you will not be allowed to have it open in class anymore. Professional and courteous demeanor is expected, both towards me as the professor and towards your fellow students.

REQUIRED READINGS Given the late nature of my choosing these readings, they will all be on Canvas, with the exception of the readings from Week 11, 10/31/2017. You must buy, rent, borrow, or otherwise acquire ONE AND ONLY ONE of these books of your choice:

1) Judith Butler, Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence London: Verso, 2006. 2) Christine Sylvester, ed. Art/Museums: International Relations Where We Least Expect It London: Routledge, 2015. 3) Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, Durham, NC: Press, 2004. 4) Himadeep Muppidi, The Politics of the Global, Minneapolis: Press, 2004. d 5) Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation Ann Arbor: The Press, 1981/1994.

That will be the only book you MUST buy. Nonetheless, if you have either a lot of resources or a particular interest recommend the purchase of many of these books, including but not limited to: 1) Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism London: Verso, 1983 2) Henry Brady and David Collier, eds. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010. 3) Elizabeth Dauphinee, The Politics of Exile London and New York: Routledge, 2013 4) Clifford Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books (1973) 5) Naeem Inayatullah, ed. Autobiographical IR: I, IR. New York and London: Routledge, 2011

5 6) Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations New York and London: Routledge, 2011. 7) Donald Kennedy, Academic Duty Cambridge and London: Press 8) Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sydney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994 9) Kristen Renwick Monroe, ed. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005 10) Rebecca B. Morton, Methods and Models: A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 11) David M. Ricci, The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984

COURSE SCHEDULE

Week 1: 8/22 – Course Introduction

Week 2: 8/29 – Political Science as Profession

Required Readings: 1) Greg Livadas, “Political Science Professor Sees Teaching as a Calling,” University News, RIT anthenaeum, 23 May 2017. 2) Robert Keohane, “Political Science as a Vocation,” PS: Political Science and Politics 42(2) (2009): 359-363. 3) David M. Ricci, The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984 (introduction and conclusion). 4) Donald Kennedy, Academic Duty Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, chapters 1 and 2, and then three other chapters of your choice where the titles speak to your reasons for getting involved in this enterprise. 5) Scott Jaschik, “’Ill-Equipped’ Political Science: Discipline Urged to Pay More Attention to Issues of Race and Inequality, and to Diversify,” Inside Higher Ed, 24 October 2011.

Recommended Readings: 1) The rest of Donald Kennedy’s Academic Duty 2) Robert Vitalis, White World Order, Black Power Politics Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015. 3) Daniel Malinak, Ryan Powers, and Barbara F. Walter, “The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations,” International Organization 67(4) (2013): 889-922.

6 Week 3: 9/5 – What Makes a Political Scientist?

Required Readings: 1) Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism London: Verso, 1983 (Chapters 2 and 3). 2) Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sydney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994, sections 1.1, 1.3, and 2.1. 3) Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, “The Graduate Student Experience: ‘Hegemony’ or Balance in Methdological Training,” in Kristen Renwick Monroe, ed. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005, ch.30, p.374-402. 4) Leslie Anderson, “Graduate Education in a Pluralist Context: The Metaphor of a Toolbox,” in Kristen Renwick Monroe, ed. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. ch.31, 403-420. 5) Dvora Yanow, “In the House of ‘Science,’ There Are Many Rooms: Perestroika and the ‘Science Studies’ Turn,” in Kristen Renwick Monroe, ed. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005, ch.14, 200- 217. 6) Dorian T. Warren, “Will the Real Perestroikniks Please Stand Up? Race and Methodological Reform in the Study of Politics,” in Kristen Renwick Monroe, ed. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005, ch.15, p.218-229. 7) Johanna K. P. Greeson, From PhD to Professor: Advice for Landing Your First Academic Position,” The Muse. 8) Judith Halberstam, The Queer Art of Failure Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011, introduction, 1-26.

Recommended Readings: 1) The Transition from Graduate Student to Assistant Professor: https://career.berkeley.edu/PhDs/PhDtransition. 2) David Sternberg, How to Complete and Survive a Doctoral Dissertation London: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1981.

Week 4: 9/12 - No Class (Dr. Sjoberg will be at the European International Studies Association, where she is a section program chair)

Short paper #1 due. Write 2500-4000 words about what you know about politics, how you came to know what you know, and how you know you know it. Make sure to document the warrants to your arguments, what (if anything) you see as ‘evidence,’ how you would confront claims to that you do not know what you claim to know or that you are wrong, and what degree of certainty you would give your knowledge. Paper due by midnight Eastern Daylight Time, 9/12/2017.

7 Week 5: 9/19 – Stories of the Evolution of Knowledge

Required Readings: 1) Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chicago, IL: Press, 1962 (preferably the 2012 Fourth Edition with introduction by Ian Hacking). (whole book). 2) Carl Hempel, The Philosophy of Natural Sciences Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966, chapter 4, 33-46. 3) Elizabeth Dauphinee, The Politics of Exile London and New York: Routledge, 2013 (whole book).

Recommended Readings: 1) Naeem Inayatullah, ed. Autobiographical IR: I, IR. New York and London: Routledge, 2011.

Week 6: 9/26 - The Need for Ontology: What ‘Is’ Influences What Can Be Known

Required Readings: 1) Carl Hempel, The Philosophy of Natural Sciences Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966, ch.5, p.47-70. 2) Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966 (whole book). 3) Slavoj Zizek, Welcome to the Desert of the Real London: Verso, 2002, introduction, chapter 1, chapter 3. 4) Karen Barad, “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter,” Signs 28(3) (2003): 801-831. 5) Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations New York and London: Routledge, 2011, ch.2, p.24-40. 6) Sandra Harding, “Introduction: Standpoint Theory as a Site of Political, Philosophic, and Scientific Debate,” in Sandra Harding, ed. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader, New York: Psychology Press, 2004, p.1-16.

Recommended Readings: 1) Slavoj Zizek, Welcome to the Desert of the Real London: Verso, 2002. 2) Judith Butler, Gender Trouble London and New York: Routledge, 1991. 3) Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations New York and London: Routledge, 2011. 4) Sandra Harding, ed. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader, New York: Psychology Press, 2004.

8 Week 7: 10/3 - What is Epistemology?

Required Readings: 1) Edmund L. Gettier, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, Analysis 23:6 (June 1963), pp. 121-123. 2) Goldman, “A Causal Theory of Knowing,” Journal of Philosophy 64 (1967): 357-372. 3) Karl Popper, “Science as Falsification,” from Conjectures and Refutations London: Routledge (1963), p.33-39. 4) Clifford Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books (1973) chapter 1 and chapter 8. 5) Gayatri. Chakravorty Spivak "Can the subaltern speak." In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, (1988): 271-313. 6) Sandra Harding, Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, , and Epistemologies Bloomington, IN: University of Illinois Press (1998), chapters 1 and 8. 7) Karin Knorr Cetina, 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 1-25, 46-78 (Ch. 1 and 3).

Recommended Readings:

1) Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations London: Routledge (1963) 2) Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures New York: Basic Books (1973) 3) Sandra Harding, Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies Bloomington, IN: University of Illinois Press (1998).

Week 8: 10/10 Short paper #2 due. Write 2500-4000 words about how you intend to contribute to knowledge in Political Science in graduate school and beyond. Start with a brief explanation (like you would describe in just a minute or two to a senior scholar), and then expand. Include your proposed research agenda, what will make it count as knowledge, how you will demonstrate that it does add knowledge, and how you will counter criticisms that it does not add knowledge. Paper is due by 3pm Eastern Daylight Time, 10/10/2017. It can be sent by email.

Rough Draft of CV due. Rough draft is Due by 6pm Eastern Daylight Time, 10/10/2017. It can be sent by email.

Instead of meeting in class on 10/10/2017, we will have a class potluck, at Dr. Sjoberg’s place. It will start at 6pm. We will eat, socialize, workshop CVs, and talk about career trajectories of faculty members in Political Science. Topics include surviving graduate School, getting experience, being the CV you want to be.

9 Week 9: 10/17 – Translating Scientific Positivism to the Production of Knowledge

Required Readings: 1) Carl Hempel, The Philosophy of Natural Sciences Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966, chs 2 and 3, p.3-33. 2) Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sydney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994, sections 2.2, 2.6, 3.1. 3) Rebecca B. Morton, Methods and Models: A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, chs. 1, 2, and 4, p.3-74, 101-141. 4) Philip A Schrodt, “Seven Deadly Sins of Contemporary Quantitative Political Analysis,” Journal of Peace Research, 51(2) (2014): 287-300. 5) Data Access and Research Transparency: https://www.dartstatement.org/. 6) One of the following: a. Alexander Downes, “Desparate Times, Desparate Measures: The Causes of Civilian Victimization in War,” International Security 30(4) (2006): 152-195. b. James Fearon and David Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War,” American Political Science Review 97(1) (2003): 75-90. c. Jacob Montgomery and Brendan Nyhan, “The Effects of Congressional Staff Networks in the US House of Representatives,” Journal of Politics 79(3) (2017): 745-761. d. Steve Craig and Michael A. Maggiotto, “Measuring Political Efficacy,” Political Methodology 8(3) (1982): 85-109.

Recommended Readings: 1) The rest of the articles from #6 on the required readings 2) Jonathon W. Moses and Torbjorn L. Knutsen, Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research London: Palgrave, 2007.

Week 10: 10/24 - Translating Epistemological Skepticism to the Production of Knowledge

Required Readings: 1) Kristen Renwick Monroe, ed. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005, part 2, chapters 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16, p.66-199, 230-240. 2) One of the following groups: a. R. Charli Carpenter, “’Women, Children, and Other Vulnerable Groups’: Gender, Strategic Frames, and the Protection of Civilians as a Transnational Issue,” International Studies Quarterly 49(2) (2005): 295-334 and Laura Sjoberg, “The Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle: Why Gender Analysis Needs .” International Studies Quarterly 50(4): 889-910. b. Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett, “Normative and Structural Causes of the Democratic Peace, 1946-1986,” American Political Science Review 87(3) (1993): 624-638; Sebastian Rosato, “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,”

10 American Political Science Review 97(4) (2003): 585-602; Christopher Hobson, “Towards a Critical Theory of the Democratic Peace,” Review of International Studies 37(4) (2011): 1903-1922. c. John Hogstrom,. “Does the Choice of Democracy Measure Matter?” Government and Opposition 48 (2013):202-21; Daniel C. Bach, “Patrimonialism and Neopatrimonialism: Comparative Trajectories and Readings.” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 49 (3) (2011):275-94; Anne Pitcher, Mary H. Moran, and Michael Johnston. “Rethinking Patrimonialism and Neopatrimonialism in Africa,” African Studies Review 52 (1 (2009):125-56. d. Kathleen Dolan, “Gender Stereotypes, Candidate Evaluations, and Voting for Women Candidates: What Really Matters?” Political Research Quarterly 67(1) (2014): 96-107; Stephen C. Craig and Pauline S. Rippere. “He Said, She Said: The Impact of Candidate Gender in Negative Campaigns,” Politics & Gender 12(2) (2016): 391-414; Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, Martin Doelzal, and Wolfgang C. Muller, “Gender Differences in Negative Campaigning: The Impact of Party Environments,” Politics and Gender 13(1) (2017): 81-106. e. J. Samuel Barkin and Laura Sjoberg, eds. Interpretive Quantification Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2017.

Recommended Readings: 1) The rest of the articles from #2 on the required readings 2) Henry Brady and David Collier, eds. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010. 3) J. Samuel Barkin and Laura Sjoberg, “Calculating Critique: Thinking Outside of the Methods Matching Game,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43(3) (2015): 852-871.

Week 11: 10/31 – Translating Epistemological Radicalism to the Production of Knowledge

Required Readings: (Choose one) 1) Judith Butler, Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence London: Verso, 2006. 2) Christine Sylvester, ed. Art/Museums: International Relations Where We Least Expect It London: Routledge, 2015. 3) Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004. 4) Himadeep Muppidi, The Politics of the Global, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004. d 5) Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1981/1994.

Recommended Readings: The other books on the required readings list.

11 Week 12: 11/7 Short Paper #3 Due. Mock up the epistemology and methods section of a dissertation prospectus. It can be your planned dissertation, or a random pretend dissertation. Make sure that your methods section states the philosophical and epistemological wagers that you plan to make, and how you plan to translate those into knowledge about your proposed research subject. If you do not know the specifics about some technique (e.g., narrative analysis, statistics, formal modelling), be as descriptive as possible about what you want to get out of the use of the methods you use in terms of the production of knowledge. Make your methods section between 1000 and 1500 words. Due by 1145am Eastern Standard Time.

Required Readings: 1) At least two of the five “how to write a prospectus” short readings on our CANVAS site. 2) At least three of the many dissertation prospectuses on our CANVAS site.

Recommended Readings: The rest from #1 and #2 of the required readings.

Week 13: 11/14 – How Do I Become a Political Scientist? Research Procedures, Research Ethics, Packaging

Required Readings: 1) National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research [The Belmont Report]. (https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html) 2) National Science Foundation. n.d. “Interpreting the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects for Behavioral and Social Science Research.” Available at: www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/hsfaqs.jsp 3) Robert Hauck, ed. 2008. “Symposium: Protecting Human Research Participants, IRBs, and Political Science Redux.” PS: Political Science and Politics 41(3): 475-512. 4) University of Oxford Plagiarism explanation, summary, and guidelines: https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism?wssl=1 5) Jesse Singal, “The Case of the Amazing Gay-Marriage Data: How a Graduate Student Reluctantly Uncovered a Huge Scientific Fraud,” New York Magazine 29 May 2015, http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/how-a-grad-student-uncovered-a-huge- fraud.html.

Recommended Readings: 1) The University of Florida Institutional Review Board Website: http://irb.ufl.edu/ 2) National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships Website: https://www.nsfgrfp.org/ 3) ACLS Dissertation Fellowships Website: https://www.acls.org/programs/dcf/ 4) The US Fulbright Program Website: https://us.fulbrightonline.org/.

12 Week 14: 11/21 – How Do I Become a Political Scientist? Conference Attendance, Presentation, and Networking

Required Assignments: 1) Second Draft of CV due. First Draft of Website Due. Both by 1145am Eastern Daylight Time. 2) Read at least three of the readings on how to write abstracts from our CANVAS site. 3) Read at least ten of the conference abstracts posted on our CANVAS site. Score them on a 1-10 (1 being bad, 10 being good) scale. 4) Write two potential conference abstracts. Bring them to class to share. 5) Identify the major conferences in your field by asking faculty members and senior graduate students. Bring a list to class.

Required Reading:

Week 15: 11/28 – How Do I Become a Political Scientist? Writing to Get Published, Now

Required Reading and Assignments: 1) Read my powerpoint on CANVAS that I usually present at conferences on publication panels. Identify the step that looks the most scary, or the most difficult, for you. You will be asked to share it in class. 2) Choose an article you think is good in the last year’s issues in a major generalist journal in political science (e.g., American Political Science Review, Journal of Politics, New Political Science) or major subfield journal (e.g., International Studies Quarterly, Comparative Politics, Political Theory). Take notes about what you think makes it a good article. 3) Read at least three of the articles on CANVAS about academic journal publishing. 4) Find the meaning of these words: peer review, exclusive review, double-blind, impact factor, turnaround time, Managing Editor, remit, advance contract, and copyright. This can be done in groups. 5) Amy Atchison and Jonathan Bull. "Will open access get me cited? An analysis of the efficacy of open access publishing in political science." PS: Political Science & Politics 48.1 (2015): 129-137. 6) Helen Williams, et al. "Gender and journal authorship: An assessment of articles published by women in three top British political science and international relations journals." European Political Science 14 (2015): 116-130. 7) Sheri Wallace and Marcus Allen, “Survey of African American Portrayal in Introductory Textbooks in American Government/Politics: A Report of the APSA Standing Committee on the Status of Blacks in the Profession,” PS: Political Science and Politics (2008): 153-60.

Recommended Reading: 1) Stephen Yoder, ed. Publishing in Political Science; APSA Guide to Writing and Publishing. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, 2008.

13

Week 16: 12/5 – Dealing with Pitfalls

Required Readings: 1) Robert J. Sternberg, “Self-Sabotage in the Academic Career: 15 Ways Faculty Members Harm Their Futures, Often Without Knowing It,” Chronicle of Higher Education 29 April 2013: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Self-Sabotage-in-the- Academic/138875. 2) Scott Jaschik, “Sharing the Failures: A Princeton Professor Publishes CV of Programs that Rejected Him, Journals that Said No, and Grant Applications that Were Nixed,” Inside Higher Ed 2 May 2016: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/02/professors-failure-cv-prompts- discussion-what-constitutes-academic-success 3) “I Wish We Could Talk More Openly About Mental Health in Academia,” (Anonymous), The Guardian, 3 March 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/higher- education-network/2017/mar/03/mental-health-academia-off-sick 4) Robin Wilson, “Why Are Associate Professors Some of the Unhappiest People in Academe?” Chronicle of Higher Education 3 June 2012: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Are-Associate-Professors/132071 5) Abby Jackson, “’Professors in Poverty’ Tells of Professors on Welfare,” Business Insider 29 October 2015: http://www.businessinsider.com/many-adjunct-professors- require-welfare-to-supplement-their-low-wages-2015-10.

14