DOCSLIB.ORG

Political Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Political Science Political Science Political Science College of Literature, Science, and the Arts The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedic Survey Copyright © 2015 by the Regents of the University of Michigan The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedic Survey was first published beginning in 1942. For its 2017 Bicentennial, the University undertook the most significant updating of the Encyclopedia since the original, focusing on academic units. Entries from all versions are compiled in the Bicentennial digital and print-on-demand edition. Contents 1. Political Science (1942) 1 Jesse S. Reeves 2. The Bureau of Government (1942) 12 Robert S. Ford 3. Political Science (1975) 16 Joseph E. Kallenbach 4. Political Science (2015) 20 [1] Political Science (1942) Jesse S. Reeves THE Department of Political Science was formally established at the University of Michigan in 1910. At the February meeting of that year, the Regents authorized Acting President Hutchins to make an investigation and report to the Board for appointment a professor of political science, “this chair to be regarded as part of the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts” (R.P., 1906-10, p. 660). At the April meeting, the election of a professor of political science was made upon Dr. Hutchins’ recommendation. Jesse Siddall Reeves (Amherst ’91, L.H.D. hon. ibid. ’26, Ph.D. Johns Hopkins ’94, LL.D. Williams ’33), then an assistant professor of political science at Dart- mouth College, was so chosen and entered upon his duties in September, 1910. Instruction in the field which has come to be set apart as the Department of Political Science seems to have been begun in 1860, when the Regents voted as follows: Resolved, That the resident Law Professor be required during the vacation of the Law Department to deliver before the Senior Class of the Academical Department a Course of Lectures on 2 Political Science Constitutional Law and History and that he receive therefore an additional salary of $500 per annum. (R.P., 1837-64, p. 907.) That this resolution was adopted in 1860 is significant. It was a time when the great American constitutional crisis impended, and the Regents recognized the duty of a state educational institution to inform its students on the constitutional system under which they were living. The resident professor of law was Thomas McIntyre Cooley, then just beginning his long and invaluable services to the University. It was fortunate that such a man could be called upon. It may be surmised that it was in these lectures, given to the senior class of the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts, that Judge Cooley began that exposition of the Constitution the influence of which came in time to extend far beyond the confines of the University in his classical works, Constitutional Law and Constitutional Limitations. The coming of the Civil War seriously reduced the attendance at the University. The students were in the field, engaged in maintaining the theory of the Constitution which they might have had from Cooley had they remained in college. The lectures seem to have continued until 1865, when, by action of the Board, Professor Cooley was “excused from his present duties connected with the Literary Department” (R.P., 1864-70, p. 80). When next the curriculum provided for instruction in the field of government, it was under the auspices of the Department of History, and there it remained, for the most part, until 1910. This was a natural arrangement at the time. Except at Columbia University, where a school of political science was founded in 1880 under Professor John W. Burgess, the study of political science was centered about the history of political institutions, and even at Columbia the influence of the historical school was strong. At Johns Hopkins, Professor Herbert B. Adams refused to make a distinction between history and political science. Upon the wall of his seminar room appeared in large letters the words of Freeman: “History is past politics and politics present history” — a half-truth which he took as his motto. The teaching of history at the University of Michigan, as Political Science (1942) 3 elsewhere, was largely political, and the meaning of institutions was sought in their origin and development. In 1868-69 Charles Kendall Adams (’61, A.M. ’62, LL.D. Harvard ’86) offered in the Department of History lecture courses entitled the Growth of Liberty in England and the History and Characteristics of the Constitution of the United States (see Part IV: Department of History). It was the abiding interest and activity of three men — President Angell, Thomas M. Cooley, and C. K. Adams, that led to the development here of studies in political science, although for a long time that generic term was not used. With the coming of President Angell (see Part I: Angell Administration), there was added to the curriculum Public International Law, a course available to the students of the Department of Law as well as to those in the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts. From 1872 until 1910, except when he was absent from the University as Minister to China and as Minister to Turkey, President Angell gave this course in international law, which was soon supplemented by another course, the History of Treaties. The development of the Department of History under Charles Kendall Adams provided for additional courses — Political Institutions, English and American Constitutional History, and Comparative European Government. During Angell’s absence as Minister to China in 1880 and 1881, International Law was given by Herbert Tuttle, who was designated Lecturer in International Law. Tuttle had been a student under Angell at Vermont, and this was his first academic appointment. With Angell’s return, Tuttle gave lectures in history at the University of Michigan for another year, when he was called to Cornell University by Andrew D. White. There he had a brilliant career as a professor of modern history, until his death in 1894. During Angell’s absence in China, there was organized a School of Political Science within the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts, with Charles Kendall Adams as Dean in charge. As announced in the University Calendar, “the aim of the School is to afford exceptional opportunities for students interested in public questions to specialize in History, Political Economy, International Law, and kindred subjects under guidance of their instructors.” The students were required to 4 Political Science complete two years in the University before being eligible for admission to the School. The work of the School of Political Science was organized within the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts, but was not limited to the undergraduate years. Although the Graduate School was not organized until 1892 and graduate studies were then integrated within the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts, the plan of the School of Political Science extended through to the doctorate of philosophy: Besides the regular examinations at the close of the semesters, every candidate for a degree was required to present and defend a thesis before a Committee of the Faculty, as well as to pass a satisfactory examination in three branches of study, a major and two minors. The student who met all the requirements would be recommended for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. (Hinsdale, p. 85.) The curriculum of the School of Political Science brought together the courses offered by Adams in American, British, and Continental European governments, Cooley’s Taxation and the Growth of Cities, and Angell’s International Law and Diplomacy, to which were added courses in political economy, social science, sanitary science, and forestry administration. Cooley added to the curriculum in 1883-84 a course on comparative administrative law, with special reference to local government. It is probable that the example set by Columbia University in organizing a school of political science was in the minds of Cooley, Frieze, and Adams when they undertook to organize the School of Political Science at the University of Michigan, although it was an awkward arrangement. A School of Political Science, with a dean, established within the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts, gave rise to many difficulties of administration and control, especially as the teaching personnel of the School continued to give instruction in various fields outside of the School of Political Science. Notwithstanding the administrative difficulties, an increasing number of literary students was enrolled in the School, and the curriculum, with minor changes, continued to be announced annually through 1887-88. The University Calendar for 1888-89 noted: “It has been Political Science (1942) 5 found unnecessary to retain an independent School of Political Science, under the form of organization described in calendars of previous years,” and afterward the announcement of the curriculum of the School of Political Science disappeared from the Calendar. There is no record that the School was ever formally abolished by action of the Regents. There were, however, in addition to the administrative difficulties, other reasons for the discontinuance of the School of Political Science. Charles Kendall Adams resigned to accept the presidency of Cornell in 1885 and was succeeded as Dean by Thomas McIntyre Cooley (LL.D. ’73, LL.D. Harvard ’86). The latter, however, was soon to interrupt his University activities in order to become chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission upon its establishment in 1887. Apparently there were no men upon the faculty who were disposed to undertake the burden of carrying on the School. In addition, the so-called university system, which was first announced in the Calendar for 1882-83, provided a method by which specialized instruction in the field of political science could be carried on without the special organization of a school.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phd in Political Science Comprehensive Examination Guidebook
    Department of Political Science __________________________________________________________ PhD in Political Science Comprehensive Examination Guidebook Contents Pages 2-3: Examination Overview and General Directions Pages 4-10: Reading Lists Page 4- Methodology Page 5- American Government Page 6- Comparative Politics Page 7- International Relations Page 9- Public Policy Page 11-13: Sample Questions for Written Examination Page 11- Methodology Page 12- American Government Page 12- Comparative Politics Page 12- International Relations Page 13- Public Policy EXAMINATION OVERVIEW AND GENERAL DIRECTIONS Doctoral students sit For the comprehensive examination at the conclusion of all required coursework, or during their last semester of coursework. Students will ideally take their exams during the fifth semester in the program, but no later than their sixth semester. Advanced Entry students are strongly encouraged to take their exams during their Fourth semester, but no later than their FiFth semester. The comprehensive examination is a written exam based on the literature and research in the relevant Field of study and on the student’s completed coursework in that field. Petitioning to Sit for the Examination Your First step is to petition to participate in the examination. Use the Department’s graduate petition form and include the following information: 1) general statement of intent to sit For a comprehensive examination, 2) proposed primary and secondary Fields areas (see below), and 3) a list or table listing all graduate courses completed along with the Faculty instructor For the course and the grade earned This petition should be completed early in the registration period For when the student plans to sit For the exam.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Crisis Results in Task Force
    New Greek on the block Musical alumni Clash off the Titans A new fraternity, Tau Epsilon Phi, has been colo­ University of Miami alumni play in the Greater Mi­ Baseball giants Miami Hurricanes and Texas nized on campus. ami Community Concert Band. Longhorns wage war at Mark Light Stadium this News — page 3 Accent — page 6 weekend. Sports — page 8 Volume 65, Number 37 University of Miami Friday, February 26, 1988 Safety crisis results in task force By CAREN BURMEISTER Six UM police officers attended the public safety Contributing Editor Officers, students ask administration to improve security forumWednesday. Officer Ed Hudak said he doesn't feel safe with the current staff level. "Two officers Dr. William Butler, vice president for student Frechette, director of Public Safety; Pat Whitely, appoints one police officer for every 880 residents. He on campus doesn't cut it," he said. affairs, agreed to appoint a task force to resolve the assistant director of Residence Halls; and Pat Haden, said at minimum UM should maintain that proportion Several students requested Butler to appoint a UM current public safety crisis discussed by University of director of the crime prevention program. because crime is a more significant problem in officer to the new Public Safety Committee Miami students at forums Tuesday and Wednesday. Butler said the University is trying to strike a America. Although Butler didn't agree with the idea, he said he The committee is designed "to address the issues balance between maintaining the current open T.J. Mannix, a sophomore communication major, would consider it.
    [Show full text]
  • Arend Lijphart and the 'New Institutionalism'
    CSD Center for the Study of Democracy An Organized Research Unit University of California, Irvine www.democ.uci.edu March and Olsen (1984: 734) characterize a new institutionalist approach to politics that "emphasizes relative autonomy of political institutions, possibilities for inefficiency in history, and the importance of symbolic action to an understanding of politics." Among the other points they assert to be characteristic of this "new institutionalism" are the recognition that processes may be as important as outcomes (or even more important), and the recognition that preferences are not fixed and exogenous but may change as a function of political learning in a given institutional and historical context. However, in my view, there are three key problems with the March and Olsen synthesis. First, in looking for a common ground of belief among those who use the label "new institutionalism" for their work, March and Olsen are seeking to impose a unity of perspective on a set of figures who actually have little in common. March and Olsen (1984) lump together apples, oranges, and artichokes: neo-Marxists, symbolic interactionists, and learning theorists, all under their new institutionalist umbrella. They recognize that the ideas they ascribe to the new institutionalists are "not all mutually consistent. Indeed some of them seem mutually inconsistent" (March and Olsen, 1984: 738), but they slough over this paradox for the sake of typological neatness. Second, March and Olsen (1984) completely neglect another set of figures, those
    [Show full text]
  • Coming in the NEXT ISSUE
    Association News contributors to the international scientific DBASSE can be accessed at http://sites. community. Nearly 500 members of the nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/index. Coming NAS have won Nobel Prizes” (See http:// htm. Presiding over DBASSE presently nasonline.org/about-nas/mission). is political scientist Kenneth Prewitt. in the For the past century and a half, mem- Scholars who are not NAS members also NEXT bers have investigated and responded to regularly participate as members of NAS questions posed by our national leaders committees, and we urge all political sci- ISSUE as a form of service to the nation without entists to give serious consideration to financial recompense. As Ralph Cicerone, these requests. A preview of some of the articles in the president of the NAS, never fails to relate The discussion at this year’s meeting April 2014 issue: to new members at the annual installation of NAS-member political scientists at ceremony, while our advice is often solic- the APSA convention centered on how to SYMPOSIUM ited—its first report to the Lincoln admin- effectively transmit the best social science US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION istration addressed whether our country knowledge to the government through FORECASTING should adopt the metric system, and sent the NRC. One issue facing the NRC in Michael Lewis-Beck and back a consensus “yes” answer—this ad- general and the DBASSE in particular Mary Stegmaier, guest editors vice is not always followed. Scientific is that by charter the NAS is not permit- FEATURES objectivity is the goal of the Academy, not ted to solicit contracts from government political advocacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Tech Education Extends Beyond Classroom
    ACADEMICS 259 Tech Academics . Broadening Horizon 260 / Academics Academics / 261 Georgia Tech Education Extends Beyond Classroom To Georgia Tech Students: One of the great things about the 1988 Blueprint, or any yearbook, is that it chron- icles more or less the entire range of activities that make up the life of a stu- dent. Three very important things about Georgia Tech are apparent in browsing through the Blueprint — things that we often lose sight of in our day-to-day ex- istence. First, Georgia Tech is not only difficult and demanding, but Georgia Tech is fun! "Work hard, play hard" is the dominant philosophy here, and the play is as important as the work. Second, a great deal of education at Georgia Tech never makes it on the transcript, never sees the inside of a classroom, and never satisfies a degree requirement. It takes place in the context of student organizations and activities, in fraternities, sororities, and dormitories, on the athletic field or in just kicking ideas around over coffee or some other beverage. Third, Georgia Tech is made up of some pretty decent people — people you will be happy to count as friends for the rest of your lives. It is this broader perspective on what constitutes the real Georgia Tech experience that the Blueprint helps provide. The experiences chronicled in the 1988 Blueprint comprise the foundations upon which success in the later life is built. Take advantage of what Georgia Tech provides — in non-academic as well as academic areas. You will join the ranks of thousands of distinguished Georgia Tech alumni sooner than you think.
    [Show full text]
  • American Political Science Review Vol
    Vol.72 June 1978 No. 2 THE CONFERENCE BOARD INC. LIBRARY . JUL 191978 ^ „ 845 THIRD AVENUE ' I ^\\XX NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022 Ml 1%^ https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms American Political Science Review , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at 27 Sep 2021 at 13:02:49 , on 170.106.202.8 . IP address: Published Quarteriy by https://www.cambridge.org/core The American Political Science Association -£ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400155819 Downloaded from SEPTEMBER is closer than you think... Adopt these fine texts now . Lineberry AMERICAN PUBLIC POLICY What Government Does and What Difference It Mates This introductory public policy text focuses on the twin themes of policy .', „" analysis and the application of policy to key political issues. Using a two-part -' format, the book first discusses theories and methods of domestic policy * ' , analysis and then covers application of these techniques in four areas: cities, ' crime, inequality, and the management of scarcity. 296 pages; $7.95/paper. January 1978. ISBN 0-06-044013-9. https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Lineberry & Sharkansky URBAN POLITICS AND PUBLIC POLICY Third Edition The new Third Edition features an even stronger policy approach, with new treatments of the political economy and sociology of cities and retains the extensive treatment of mass politics and elite decision making. Recent issues and data have been incorporated as well as discussions of urban fiscal crises, the sun-belt cities, public services, growth and decay as policy problems, and inequality. 416 pages; $1O.95/paper. February 1978. ISBN 0-06-044029-5.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology, and Space of the Congress, First Session on S
    ED 332 694 IR 015 072 T:TLE High Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of theOrmittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.One Hundred Second Congress, First Session on S 272 To Provide for a Coordinated Federal Research Program To Ensure Continued United States Leadership in High-Performance Comput.ng. :NST:TUT:CN Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. REPCRT NC Senate-Hrg-102-23 PUB DATE 5 Mar 91 NCTE 114p.; For reports on the High Performance Computing Acts of 1989 and 1990 and a report on this bill, see ED 328 244, IR 014 867, and IR 015 071. FRCM Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, f.0 A.0 , 20402. PUB '"177 Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090) NY 116 viewpoints (Cpinion/Position Papers, Zssays, etc.) EDRS PR:CZ MF01/PC05 Plus Postage. DESCRIFTORS *Computer Networks; Computers; Computer Software Development; Electronic Mail; Federal Legislation: Hearings; Higher Education; Information Technology; Microcomputers; National Programs; *Researoh and Development; Technological Advancement IDENTIF:ERS Congress 102nd; *Fiber Optics; High Performance Computing; National Research and Education Network; *Supercomputers ABSTRACT This hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space focuses on S. 272, the High-Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991, a bill that provides for a coordinated federal research and development program to ensure continued U.S. leadership in this area. Performance computing is defined as representing the leading edge of technological advancement in computing. This report includes the text of S.
    [Show full text]
  • American Public Policy Syllabus
    V. American Public Policy Prof. William Lowry William Lowry is a Professor of Political Science at Washington University. He received his PhD in Political Science from Stanford University in 1988. He studies American politics, environmental policy, and natural resource issues. He is the author of five books as well as numerous articles. Description This course considers basic aspects of public policy, mostly but not entirely in the American context. We will discuss prominent theories of policymaking, major stages of the policy process, review some classic works, discuss recent contributions, and focus our substantive discussions on an ongoing research project largely of your choosing. The purpose of the class is to provide a broad overview of the American policy process and to facilitate empirical application of major theories. Requirements The class will be conducted as a seminar. We should all be able to learn from each other. As such, attendance and participation in discussion is essential. We will all have to keep up on the reading in order to contribute. Besides participation, your major requirement is the research project. Different parts of the paper will be turned in at various points during the semester with the final paper due 4/21. Grades will be based on participation and this research project. Reading Theories of the Policy Process 2nd ed. by Sabatier; Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies by Kingdon Implementation by Pressman and Wildavsky Introduction Paul Sabatier. 2007. Theories of the Policy Process. Chapter 1. Overview of Policy Theory Garrett Hardin. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons in Science Elinor Ostrom. 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • GOVT 2305: American Politics Field Seminar Fall 2016
    GOVT 2305: American Politics Field Seminar Fall 2016 Instructors: Dan Carpenter: Office hours are on Thursdays, 1-4, CAPS Conference Room Jon Rogowski: Office hours are Tuesdays, 3-4, CGIS 420 Wednesdays 2-4pm Location: Knafel 401 The purpose of this course is to introduce doctoral students to the major themes and some of the best scholarship in the political science literature on American Politics. The readings for 2305 typically form the core of students’ subsequent reading lists for major or minor prelims in American. Still, there is much in the study of American politics that is not represented here, indeed that political scientists have failed to take up. Along the way, we will want to identify what we take to be some of the most important but neglected questions. What issues should motivate the next generation of research in this field? What theoretical and methodological approaches might be appropriate to studying them? The most important requirement of the course is that you read the assigned readings for each week carefully and critically. The syllabus contains *starred* readings that are mandatory, and a large set of additional reading if you want to go deeper into a given topic or set of related arguments. This syllabus can therefore serve as a guide for future readings, and you can also discuss these readings with your advisors if you plan on taking the American Prelim. The starred readings will serve as the primary focus of our weekly discussions, though we will rarely be able to talk about them all in the time allotted.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion, Rational Choice and the New Institutionalism: Rational Choice As a Critical Theory of the Link Between Public Opinion and Public Policy
    Public Opinion, Rational Choice and the New Institutionalism: Rational Choice as a Critical Theory of the Link Between Public Opinion and Public Policy Derry O’Connor Université Laval Paper Prepared for Workshop No. 6: “Public Opinion, Polling, and Public Policy”, Canadian Political Science Association Conference, Winnipeg, June 3-5, 2004. (May 14, 2004 Version) Abstract Studies on the nature of public opinion and its impact on public policy, while borrowing from Rational Choice’s methodological individualism and rational actor assumptions, often fail to take into account the wider implications of rational choice theorizing for the Opinion-Policy Nexus. In this paper we use Rational Choice Theory to criticize the mass society approach to Public Opinion and Policy. Particularly important, but often overlooked by Public Opinion scholars, are Public Choice findings on rational ignorance, the spatial theory of preferences, Intransitivity, Heresthetics, and Collective Action Problems. These theories suggest the vulnerability of mass-opinion, a positivist construct, to elite rhetorical manipulation. Riker’s conclusion in favour of Liberalism over Populism, paralleled in the debate over the need for elite leadership of the public versus democratic responsiveness to polls, suggests that Public Opinion scholars might also reconsider the validity of mass opinion polls as the dominant construct of public opinion. Also within the Rational Choice framework, the findings of Neo-Institutionalism may suggest the applicability of some alternative forms of public input into the policy process. Résumé Bien qu’elles empruntent à la perspective du choix rationnel l’individualisme méthodologique et les prémisses de rationalité de l’acteur, les études sur la nature de l’opinion publique et son impact sur les politiques publiques ne tiennent pas toujours compte des implications plus larges reliées à l’utilisation de la perspective du choix rationnel eu égard aux liens entre les politiques et l’opinion de masse.
    [Show full text]
  • MINUTES of the MEETING of the BOARD of REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY SYSTEM of GEORGIA HELD at 270 Washington St., S.W
    MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA HELD AT 270 Washington St., S.W. Atlanta, Georgia March 7 and 8, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia met on Tuesday, March 7 and Wednesday, March 8, 2000 in the Board Room, room 7007, 270 Washington St., S.W., seventh floor. The Chair of the Board, Regent Kenneth W. Cannestra, called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 7. Present on Tuesday, in addition to Chair Cannestra, were Vice Chair J. Tom Coleman, Jr. and Regents Thomas F. Allgood, Sr., Juanita P. Baranco, Connie Cater, Joe Frank Harris, George M. D. (John) Hunt III, Edgar L. Jenkins, Elridge W. McMillan, Martin W. NeSmith, Glenn S. White, Joel O. Wooten, and James D. Yancey. Chair Cannestra noted that the Regents would be visiting the Capitol that afternoon because the Senate Higher Education Committee would be holding a hearing to confirm Regents Allgood, Cater, Harris, NeSmith, Wooten, and Yancey. ATTENDANCE REPORT The attendance report was read on Tuesday, March 7 by Secretary Gail S. Weber, who announced that Regents Hilton H. Howell, Jr., Charles H. Jones, and Donald M. Leebern, Jr. had asked for and been given permission to be absent on that day. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion properly made and duly seconded, the minutes of the Board of Regents meeting held on February 8 and 9, 2000 were unanimously approved as distributed. PRESENTATION: JOINT INITIATIVE BETWEEN SOUTHERN REGIONAL EDUCATION BOARD AND UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA: “WAYS IN” Chair Cannestra called upon President Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • POLS-Y657 Comparative Political Behavior
    POLS-Y657 Comparative Political Behavior Course Overview This seminar provides an introduction to some of the major themes in political behavior, including partisanship, elections, political attitudes, information, ideology, participation, and the role of the mass media in shaping the public’s political beliefs and orientations. We will consider how well our theories explain political outcomes in both democracies and autocracies. Instructor Jason Wu Woodburn Hall 323 [email protected] Office Hours: By Appointment Requirements and Grading Students are expected to regularly attend class, actively contribute to class discussions, and com- plete the reading assignments. In addition, each student will be assigned the task of introducing and briefly critiquing one of the readings each class. In these overviews, students should highlight the question, theory, research design, results, and implications of their reading as well as note any major flaws. For the writing component of this course, students will be required to write either a research paper or a research design/proposal. If it is a paper, it should be part of a project that is ultimately publishable, although you do not need to complete all parts of the project for this class. The paper should either be an original research paper or show substantial progress from previous work. If you are interested in co-authoring a paper with another student, please discuss that option with me in advance. If students select the design option, they should submit a research proposal which identifies an important research question, surveys the relevant literature, identify a potential contribution, present a theoretical argument, and propose a design for testing that argument (which would ideally entail collecting original data).
    [Show full text]