Mi420
Concepts and Methods in Social Inquiry
Methodology Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science Reading List, 2nd Term 2003
Teacher responsible: Dr Paul Mitchell, Kings Chambers 308; [email protected]
Other Teachers: Dr Martin Bauer Prof George Gaskell Dr Mathew Mulford
10 Sessions: Lent term 2003
Wednesdays 14.00-16.00: Clement House, Room D1.
Abstract This course focuses on qualitative research design in the social sciences. It seeks to encourage a critical attitude towards the basic assumptions that might inform research projects in the political and social sciences. The broad aims are: to investigate the possibility that social scientific research can contribute to social progress; to heighten methodological awareness in postgraduate study; and to enable students to improve their dissertations. By the end of the course participants should have obtained a clearer understanding of some central issues that are basic to the idea of a social science.By achieving a solid grasp of important methodological debates, they should be able to employ appropriate criteria in assessing the scientific merits of scholarly literature in their area of study. Students will also be facilitated in their efforts to pursue their own research in an analytically rigorous manner. The course is in two parts. Part 1 ‘Research Design and Evaluation’ addresses broad conceptual and methodological issues in the social science, including descriptive and casual inference in qualitative research, hypothesis testing, the logic and strategies of comparative research and rational theory evaluation. Theory will be balanced with some prominent case studies of influential political science research. Part two ‘Techniques of Analysis’ shifts from broad conceptual matters to outline a partial ‘menu’ of some of the actual research techniques that have been used to great effect in the social sciences. Topics covered include: content analysis of texts and documents; social and political surveys and questionnaires; how to design, conduct and
1 analyse individual and group interviews; and, rational choice theory. There is also a stand-alone session on preparing an MSc dissertation.
Assessment
There will be a two-hour unseen written exam in the summer term.
Lecture Topics and Schedule
All lectures are on Wednesdays 14.00-16.00: Clement House, Room D1.
Week Date Topic Staff
Part 1 Research Design and Evaluation
1. 15 Jan The Science in Social Science Paul Mitchell
2. 22 Jan How to Write an MSc Dissertation George Gaskell, Paul Mitchell and Torun Dewan
3. 29 Jan Hypothesis Testing Matt Mulford
4. 5 Feb Comparative Methods 1 –the Nature of Comparison Paul Mitchell
5. 12 Feb Comparative Methods 2 – Case Selection Paul Mitchell
6. 19 Feb Problems of Rational Theory Evaluation Paul Mitchell
Part 2 Techniques of Analysis
7. 26 Feb Content Analysis of Text Martin Bauer
8. 5 March Quantitative Analysis – Social Surveys George Gaskell
9. 12 March Qualitative Analysis: Conducting Interviews George Gaskell
10. 19 March Rational Choice Theory Paul Mitchell
2 GENERAL READING
Gary King, Robert Keohane and Sidney Verba (1994), Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton UP. Hereafter referred to as KKV. (The first chapter of this book can be downloaded for free using Acrobat Reader for PDF files from Princeton UP’s web-site at http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/king. But you should also read chapters 2-6!).
B. Guy Peters (1998), Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods, Macmillan. (a very readable introduction to the methodology of comparative politics).
A.F. Chalmers (1999), What is this thing called Science?, Third Edition, Open UP (treatment by a rationalist philosopher).
Paul Pennings, Hans Keman and Jan Kleinnijenhuis (1999), DoingResearchinPolitical Science: An Introduction to Comparative Methods and Statistics,Sage
David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (eds) (1995), Theory and Methods in Political Science, Macmillan. (This is a very introductory undergraduate text that is not sufficient for this course. Nevertheless, genuine neophytes might take a look).
Elinor Scarborough and Eric Tanenbaum (eds, 1998). Research Strategies in the Social Sciences: A Guide to New Approaches. Oxford UP. (a guide to much more advanced mostly quantitative techniques).
Michael Laver (1997), Private Desires, Political Action: An Invitation to the Politics of Rational Choice, Sage. (an excellent introduction to, as the sub-title suggests, rational choice theory).
Additional political science resources:
Karen Cook and Margaret Levi (eds) (1990), The Limits to Rationality, University of Chicago Press.
Jon Elster and Aanund Hyllan (eds) (1986), Foundations of Social Choice Theory,Cambridge UP.
Ada Finifter (ed.) (1993), Political Science: The State of the Discipline 2, APSA.
Robert E. Goodin and Hans-D. Klingeman (eds) (1996), A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford UP.
Mark Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman (eds) (1997), Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure.
Robert Nozick (1993), The Nature of Rationality, Princeton UP.
Dankwart Rustow and Kenneth Paul (eds) (1991), Comparative Political Dynamics: Global Research Perspectives, HarperCollins.
Kenneth Shepsle and Mark Bonchek (1997), Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions W. W. Norton
3 In the reading guide on specific topics that follows, all books listed above will be referred to by author and year.
DETAILED READING WEEK-BY-WEEK
1. The Science in Social Science
Paul Mitchell (Methodology Institute / Government) 15 Jan.
Introduction What is scientific about good social science? Is there a useful distinction between quantitative and qualitative research, or between an inductive and a deductive logic of inquiry? The concepts of descriptive and explanatory inference, causality and uncertainty will be introduced. Remember, ‘the content is the method’. In other words, social science, indeed all science, depends primarily on its rules and methods, not on its ‘subject’ matter.
Key questions 1) ‘The only reliable method of making gains in knowledge and social progress is through scientific enquiry. Anything else is just chat.’ Discuss.
2) What are the characteristics of a good social scientific theory? Can you think of any well-known works in social science that meets these standards?
Essential reading
KKV (1994), ch. 1-2
Additional reading
KKV (1994), ch. 3. ‘Causality’ and ‘Casual Reasoning’ are difficult topics both in social scientific and philosophical accounts of established knowledge. There is no settled consensus. Ch 3 presents KKV’s counterfactual definition of causality. This is not an easy chapter but it is worth reading carefully. In general, KKV is an excellent text on scientific approaches to social inquiry. Note, however, that we do not present it as a bible or other sacred text. Many political scientists contest aspects of KKV’s book. For a sample see the next item on this reading guide.
American Political Science Review 89:2 (June 1995), 454-81. Five other political scientists review different parts of KKV’s book and then KKV respond.
Laver (1997) chs 1-2
Kenneth Shepsle and Mark Bonchek (1997), chs 1-2 (‘It Isn’t Rocket Science, but . . .’, and ‘Rationality: The Model of Choice’).
Jon Elster (1990), ‘When Rationality Fails’, and Geoffrey Brennan (comment on Elster above) ‘What Might Rationality Fail to Do?’, in Cook and Levi, ch. 1. Jon Elster’s chapter is a very interesting and provocative argument that ‘rational choice theory is first and foremost a normative theory and only secondarily an explanatory approach’ (p. 19).
4 Davis Lalman, Joe Oppenheimer and Piotr Swistak (1993), ‘Formal Rational Choice Theory: A Cumulative Science of Politics’, in Finifter (ed.), ch. 4
Alan Zuckerman (1997), ‘Reformulating Explanatory Standards and Advancing Theory in Comparative Politics’ in Lichbach and Zuckerman, pp. 277-310 (difficult).
David Sanders (1995), ‘Behavioural Analysis’ in Marsh and Stoker, ch.3
Robert Nozick (1993), The Nature of Rationality, Princeton UP
Michael Nicholson (1992), The Scientific Analysis of Social Behaviour,CambridgeUP
From the philosophical literature see also:
Chalmers (1999), ch. 4 (‘Deriving Theories from the Facts: Induction’)
Alasdair MacIntyre (1985), ‘The Character of Generalizations in Social Science and their Lack of Predictive Power’.
Hollis (1994), ch. 3 (‘Positive science: the empiricist way’)
5 2. How to Write an MSc Dissertation
George Gaskell and Paul Mitchell 29 Jan
Dunleavy, P. (1987). Studying for a Degree in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Chapter 5. Basingstoke: Pergamon.
3. Hypothesis Testing
Matt Mulford (Methodology Institute / Management) 22 Jan.
Bowling alone: a case study of hypothesis testing.
Introduction
Achen, C. H. (1986) The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bickman, L. & Rog, D. (Eds.) (1998) Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods.
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lewis-Beck, M. S. (ed.) (1993) Experimental Design and Methods (International Handbooks of Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Volume 3). London: Sage.
Putnam, R. D. Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America, PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(4) pp. 664-683.
4. Comparative Methods 1 –the Nature of Comparison
Paul Mitchell (Methodology Institute / Government) 5 Feb.
Introduction Why compare? What is meaningfully comparable? And what should not be compared? This session will examine the importance of comparison and outline the logic of comparative inquiry. A range of common errors will be observed including parochialism, misclassification, degreeism and conceptual stretching. Note that many published academics break the rules of good comparative inquiry on an almost daily basis! But that is not a recommendation! Small-N- Large N problems and strategies for ‘solving’ them will be considered.
6 Think of a comparative study that you would like to design? What would you compare and how?
Essential reading
1) Peters (1998), chs.1-2
2) Richard Rose (1991), ‘Comparing Forms of Comparative Analysis’ [Off-print] from Political Studies, 39, 446-62
Additional reading
Dogan and Pelassy (1990), part 1 (‘The Compass of the Comparativist’) and if possible part 2.
David Collier (1993), ‘The Comparative Method’, [Off-print] from Finifter (ed.).
Hans Keman (1999), ‘Part 1: Comparative Methodology’, chs 1-3 of Pennings, Keman and Kleinnijenhuis, pp. 1-72
Arend Lijphart (1971), ‘Comparative Politics and Comparative Method’, American Political Science Review, 65:3, 682-98
KKV (1994), ch 6
Lichbach and Zuckerman (eds) (1997), contains several useful essays.
Keith Dowding and Richard Kimber (1987), ‘Political Stability and the Science of Comparative Politics’, European Journal of Political Research 15:1, 103-22.
Tom Mackie and David Marsh (1995), ‘The Comparative Method’ in Marsh and Stoker, ch. 9
Gene D. DeFelice (1980), ‘Comparison Misconceived: Common Nonsense in Comparative Politics’, Comparative Politics, 13, 119-26
David Collier and James Mahon (1993), ‘”Conceptual Stretching” Revisited: Alternative Views of Categories in Comparative Analysis’, American Political Science Review
Giovanni Sartori (1991), ‘Comparing and Miscomparing’, Journal of Theoretical Politics,85:3, 243-57
Stefano Bartolini (1993), ‘On Time and Comparative Research’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 5, 131-67.
Charles Ragin (1987), The Comparative Method, University of California Press
Mattei Dogan and Ali Kazancigal (eds) (1994), Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strategies, Substance, Oxford: Blackwell.
Many interpretive (anti-naturalist) social scientists are very sceptical about the very idea of a science of comparative politics. See the relevant reading from topic 2 especially
7 Alasdair MacIntyre (1971), ‘Is a Science of Comparative Politics Possible?’ from Against the Self-Images of the Age, London: Duckworth. Reprinted in Peter Laslett, W. G. Runciman and Quentin Skinner (eds.) Philosophy, Politics and Society, Fourth Series, Oxford: Blackwell, 1972 and in Alan Ryan (ed.), The Philosophy of Social Explanation, Oxford: OUP, 1974.
8 5. Comparative Methods 2: Case Studies, Selection Bias, and the Comparison of Cases and Nations
Paul Mitchell (Methodology Institute / Government) 12 Feb
In principle anything could be compared with anything. In practice some comparisons are likely to be better than others, in the sense of producing meaningful non-obvious findings. Time permitting this session will focus on three or four aspects/problems in comparative studies: 1. Compare what? The need to segment before comparing. The choice of countries: which countries?; how many countries or cases? Most common choices: binary comparisons; comparing ‘similar’ counties; comparing ‘contrasting’ countries; asynchronic comparisions. 2. Does a Case Study really deserve to be called a ‘comparative’ method? 3. Problems of Selection Bias. Especially in qualitative (small n) research, the decision as to which cases, observations or countries to include is often crucial, indeed may even determine, the results that we get. 4. Problems of Endogeneity. This is the problem of ambiguous directions of causality. In other words, since most political research is not genuinely experimental (as in a laboratory), we usually cannot manipulate or alter our ‘independent’ (explanatory) variables. Our inability to do this leads to the problem of endogeneity, that is, that the values of our explanatory variables are sometimes a consequence, rather than the cause of, our dependent variable.
Key questions
1) ‘You can’t prove anything with a case-study.’ Examine the advantages and the disadvantages of case-study research.
2) How can we best ensure that our results are not merely an artefact of the cases that we chose?
Essential reading
1) Peters (1998), chs 3-4; 6-7
2) Barbara Geddes (1990), ‘How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics’, in James Stimson (ed.), Political Analysis 2, University of Michigan Press
Additional readings
Many of the readings for the previous comparative methods session remain relevant. In addition see:
KKV (1994), chs 4-5.
Dogan and Pelassy (1990), parts 3-4 . Peters (1998), chs 5, 8-10.
9 David Collier and James Mahoney (1996), ‘Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research’, World Politics 49, 56-91.
David Collier (1995), ‘Translating Quantitative Methods for Qualitative Researchers: The Case of Selection Bias’, American Political Science Review, 89:2, 461-66.
Ian Lustick (1996), ‘History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias’, American Political Science Review, 90:3, 605-18.
Michael Coppedge (1999), ‘Thinkening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics’, Comparative Politics 31:4, 465-76.
David Collier and Steven Levitsky (1997), ‘Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research’, World Politics 49, 430-51.
Giesele De Meur and Dirk Berg-Schlosser (1994), ‘Comparing Political Systems: Establishing Similarities and Dissimilarities’, European Journal of Political Research 26, 193-219.
Giesele De Meur and Dirk Berg-Schlosser (1996), ‘Conditions of Authoritarianism, Fascism and Democracy in Interwar Europe: Systematic Matching and Contrasting Cases for “Small N” Analyses’, Comparative Political Studies 29, 193-219.
Harry Eckstein (975), ‘Case Study and Theory in Political Science’, in Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby (eds), Handbook of Political Science vol.7. Reading, MA: Addison Wellsley.
David Collier and J. Mahon (1993), ‘Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis’, American Political Science Review 87, 845-55.
James D. Fearon (1991), ‘Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science’, World Politics, 43, 169-95.
Alan Zuckerman (1997), ‘Reformulating explanatory standards and advancing theory in comparative politcs’, in Lichbach and Zuckerman (eds), pp. 277-310.
See also the symposium entitled:
‘Controversy in the Discipline: Area Studies and Comparative Politics’ (Robert Bates, Chalmers Johnson and Ian Lustick), Political Science and Politics, 30:2 (June 1997), 166-79.
10 6. Problems of Rational Theory Evaluation: Example -The Case of Lijphart and Consociational Theory in Comparative Politics.
Paul Mitchell (Methodology Institute / Government) 19 Feb.
Introduction How do we evaluate the theoretical and empirical ‘success’ of any major theory in the social world? How should we do so? We will consider these questions by examining one leading theory in social science: consociationalism as a tool for regulating serious ethno-national conflicts. Consociationalism has undoubtedly been one of the more influential research programmes in the last 30 years of political research. While several others helped develop consociational theory, Lijphart has clearly been its most notable proponent and champion. For the sake of clarity we will therefore focus on Lijphart’s version(s) of consociational theory. Please note, however, that while some knowledge of the content of the theory is necessary, the focus of this session will be on the trajectory of the research programme rather than the detailed substance of the theory. In other words, we want to ask why has the theory been so ‘successful’ and ‘influential’? Of course this leads directly to the question of what constitutes the success of a research programme? Imre Lakatos’s methodological propositions may aid us in this task.
Key questions
1) ‘Consociationalism: a logic of accommodation so indispensable in divided societies that it is continually re-invented by politicians, whatever its theoretical shortcomings.’ Discuss.
2) ‘Consociationalism is essentially a “falsified” theory.’ Is this the case? If so, is it the efforts of consociational theorists that best explain its continuing influence?
Essential reading
1). M. C. P. M. van Schendelen (1984), ‘The views of Arend Lijphart and Collected Criticisms’, special issue of Acta Politica, 19-55.
2) Arend Lijphart (1985), ‘Consociational Theory and its Critics’ in his Power-Sharing in South Africa, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, ch.4, pp. 83-117 3) Ian Lustick (1997), ‘Lijphart, Lakatos, and Consociationalism’, World Politics, 50, 88- 117
Lakatos and the Idea of a Research Programme
Consider Popper’s and in this context especially Lakatos’s ideas on the falsification of research programmes. If you are brave you could tackle the difficult primary text from Lakatos (see below).
However, the key primary source for Lakatos’s philosophy of science is extremely difficult:
Imre Lakatos (1970), ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’ in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge UP, also available as ch. 1 of the first volume of Lakatos’s collected papers: Imre Lakatos (1978), Philosophical Papers Volume 1, John Worrall and Gregory Currie (eds), Cambridge UP.
11 For most of us it will be easier to get to grips with Lakatos’ central ideas by reading this good and accessible book:
Brendan Larvor (1998), Lakatos: An Introduction, Routledge. See also, Chalmers (1999), chs 5-7 and especially 9
Additional readings on consociational theory
Brian Barry (1975), ‘The Consociational Model and its Dangers’, European Journal of Political Research, 1. Also in Brian Barry (1991) Democracy and Power: Essays in Political Theory 1,OxfordUP.
Adriano Pappalardo (1981), ‘The Conditions for Consociational Democracy: A Logical and Empirical Critique, European Journal of Political Research, 9, 365-90.
Eric Nordlinger (1972), Conflict Regulation in Divided Societies, Occasional Papers in International Affairs, Harvard University.
Jurg Steiner (1981), ‘Review Article: The Consociational Theory and Beyond’, Comparative Politics, 13, 339-54 (see also Lijphart’s reply to Steiner in same issue, 355-60).
Arend Lijphart (1968), ‘Typologies of Democratic Systems’, Comparative Political Studies, 3-44.
Arend Lijphart (1977), Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration,YaleUP.
Arend Lijphart (1996), ‘The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation’, American Political Science Review, 90:2, 258-268.
Nils Butenschon (1985), ‘Conflict Management in Plural Societies: The Consociational Democracy Formula’, Scandinavian Political Studies,8.
Sue Halpern (1986), ‘The Disorderly Universe of Consociationalism’, West European Politics, 9:2.
Arend Lijphart (1984), ‘Time Politics of Accommodation: Reflections - Fifteen Years Later’, Acta Politica, 19, 9-17.
Donald Horowitz (1985), Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Berkeley: University of California Press, especially ch. 14.
Matthijs Bogaards (1998), ‘The Favourable Factors for Consociational Democracy: A Review’, European Journal for Political Research, 33, 475-96.
Arend Lijphart (1995), ‘Self-Determination versus Pre-Determination of Ethnic Minorities in Power-Sharing Systems’ in Will Kymlicka (ed.) The Rights of Minority Cultures, Oxford UP.
Herman Bakvis (1984), ‘Towards a Political Economy of Consociationalism: A Commentary on Marxist Views of Pillarization’, Comparative Politics, 16.
12 Hans Van Mierlo (1986), ‘Depillarisation and the Decline of Consociationalism in the Netherlands’, West European Politics,9.
Jan-Erik Lane and Svante Ersson (2000), chpt 10 (‘Westminster versus Consensus Democracy – a tenable distinction?) and chpt 11 (‘Konkordanzdemokratie and corporatism’) in their book The New Institutional Politics: Performance and Outcomes. London: Routledge.
Application to Northern Ireland
Paul Mitchell (1999), ‘Futures’ in Paul Mitchell and Rick Wilford (eds), Politics in Northern Ireland, Westview Press (reviews the prospects for consociationalism in NI at some length).
Brendan O’Leary (1999), ‘The British-Irish Agreement of 1998: Results and Prospects’. Paper presented at Notre Dame in December 1999. (Downloadable at http://www.nd.edu/~kellogg/cd/oleary.pdf).
Arend Lijphart (1975), ‘The Northern Ireland Problem: Cases, Theories and Solutions’, British Journal of Political Science,5.
Brian Barry (1975), ‘The Consociational Model and its Dangers’, European Journal of Political Research,1.
Brendan O’Leary (1989), ‘The Limits to Coercive Consociationalism in Northern Ireland’, Political Studies, 37:4, 452-68.
Paul Mitchell (1991), ‘Conflict Regulation and Party Competition in Northern Ireland’, European Journal of Political Research, 20, 67-92 (applies Nordlinger’s conflict regulation theory to NI).
Paul Mitchell (1995), ‘Party Competition in an Ethnic Dual Party System’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 18:4, pp. 773-796 (examines connection between consociationalism, party competition and political elites).
Rick Wilford (1992), ‘Inverting Consociationalism? Policy, Pluralism and the Post-Modern’, in Brigid Hadfield (ed.), Northern Ireland: Politics and the Constitution,OpenUP.
Brendan O’Leary et al. (1993), Northern Ireland: Sharing Authority, London: Institute of Public Policy Research.
Rick Wilford (ed, 2000). Aspects of the Belfast Agreement. Oxford UP.
13 7. Content Analysis of Documents
Martin W Bauer (Methodology Institute / Social Psychology) 26 Feb.
Introduction Content analysis constructs indicators of public opinion from published materials. As a method it is a hybrid, bridging the two worlds of qualitative and quantitative research. There is no quantification without qualification. The lecture will cover a short history of content analysis; sampling methods; choice of units of analysis; construction of a coding frame; reliable coding processes, computerised content analysis, and some examples.
Essential reading
Bauer MW (2000), ‘Classical content analysis: a review’, in: MW Bauer & G Gaskell (eds) Qualitative researching with text, image and sound, London, Sage, 131-151.
Woolley J T (2000), ‘Using media-based data in studies of politics’, American Journal of Political Science, 44, 156-173.
Additional readings
Althaus S L, J A Edy, P F Phalen (2001), ‘Using substitutes for full-text new stories in content analysis: which text is best?’, American Journal of Political Science, 45, 3, 707-724.
Krippendorff, K (1980). Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London, Sage.
Janowitz M (1976), ‘Content analysis and the study of socio-political change’, Journal of Communication, 26, 4, 10-21.
Lindkvist, K (1981), ‘Approaches to textual analysis’, in: Rosengren, K E (ed) Advances in content analysis, London, Sage, 23-41.
Markoff J, G Shapiro, S R Weitman (1974), ‘Toward the integration of content analysis and general methodology’, in: Heise D R (ed) Sociological Methodology 1975, San Fraciscio, Jossey-Bass, 1-
Neumann W R (1989), ‘Parallel content analysis: old paradigms and new proposals’, Public Communication and Behavior, vol 2, 205-289
Weber, R P (1985) Basic Content Analysis, Beverly Hills, Sage.
14 8. Quantitative Analysis: the Social Survey
George Gaskell (Methodology Institute / Social Psychology) 5 March.
Introduction The social survey/questionnaire is probably one of the most widely used data collection instruments in social research. In an increasingly data dependent society, surveys are used in a variety of contexts to provide indicators of, for example, political participation, social capital and citizenship, political attitudes, expenditure patterns, transport use, public understanding of science, and in academic research to develop and test theory. This session outlines the key issues in the design of questionnaires and surveys.
Reading
Converse, P. (1964), ‘The nature of belief systems in mass publics’,. in D. Apter (ed). Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press
Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The total design method. Wiley.
Fishbein, M. (1967). Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement.Wiley.
Gaskell, G, Wright, D and O'Muircheartaigh, C. (1995), ‘Context effects in the measurement of attitudes: A comparison of the consistency and framing explanations’, British Journal of Social Psychology 34, 383-393.
Gaskell, G, O'Muircheartaigh, C and Wright, D (1994), ‘Survey questions about the frequency of vaguely defined events: The effects of response alternatives’, Public Opinion Quarterly 58, 241-254.
Gaskell, G., Wright, D, and O'Muircheartaigh, C. (2000), ‘Telescoping of landmark events: implications for survey research’, Public Opinion Quarterly 64, 77-89.
Hoinville, G. & Associates (1978). Survey research practice. Heinemann.
Iyengar, S. (1987). News that matters: Television and American public opinion.
Krosnick, J. and Berent, M. (1993), ‘Comparison of party identification and policy preferences. The impact of survey question format’, American Journal of Political Science, 37:3, 941-964.
Loftus, E.F. et al (1985), ‘Cognitive psychology meets the national survey’, American Psychologist 40, 175-180.
O'Muircheartaigh, C., Gaskell, G. and Wright, D. (1993), ‘Intensifiers in Behavioral Frequency Questions’, Public Opinion Quarterly 57:4., pp. 552-565.
Oppenheim, A.N. (1992). Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. London: Pinter.
Price, V. (1992). Public opinion. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Schwarz, N. (1994), ‘Judgment in a social context: Biases, shortcomings and the logic of
15 conversation’, in M. Zanna (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.26, 123-161.
Sudman, S. and Bradburn, N. (1982). Asking Questions. Josey Bass.
Zaller, J. R, (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge.
9. Qualitative Analysis: Conducting Interviews
George Gaskell (Methodology Institute / Social Psychology) 12 March
Introduction The objective of qualitative research is a fine grained understanding, a ‘thick description’ of the beliefs, attitudes and values, and the motivations and behaviours of people in particular social contexts. It aims to understand how people construct and understand their social world, their paramount reality. This session outlines approaches to qualitative inquiry, with an emphasis on how to design, conduct and analyse individual and group interviews.
Reading
Becker, H and Geer, B. (1957), ‘Participant observation and interviewing: a comparison’, Human Organisation, 16, 3, 28-32.
Flick, U. (1998) An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage
Gaskell, G. (2000), ‘Individual and group interviewing’, in M.W.Bauer and G.Gaskell, (eds). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. London: Sage.
Jovchelovitch, S. and Bauer, M.W. (2000), ‘Narrative interviewing’, in M.W.Bauer and G.Gaskell, (eds). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. London: Sage.
Merton, R. and Kendall, P. (1946), ‘The focussed interview’, American Journal of Sociology,1, 541-557.
Morgan, D.L. (ed) (1993). Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the state of the art.Newbury Park: Sage.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994), ‘Grounded theory methodology: an overview’, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
16 10. Rational Choice Theory
Paul Mitchell (Methodology Institute / Government) 19 March.
Introduction
Rational choice theory has clearly been one of the key methodological developments in the last 40 years of political science. Premised on methodological individualism, it borrows from economic reasoning and attempts to construct parsimonious models of political behaviour that generate non-obvious insights. It aims to move the study of politics from the descriptive and judgmental to the analytic and explanatory. Important Note: there is often initial confusion about the meaning of the word ‘rational’ in this context. It is important to realise that rational choice theorists are using the word in a technical rather than its popular every-day sense. It has nothing to do with value judgements concerning whether one’s goals are good, bad or downright evil. It is possible to pursue ‘evil’ goals in a rational manner. Rational choice theory treats preferences as ‘primitive’, or exogenous to the model. The aim is to analyse goal- seeking, or ‘instrumentally rational’, behaviour and to highlight and hopefully resolve collective action and coordination problems. Among the things we want to discover are the conditions under which cooperation can flourish. In contrast to an empirical (or inductive) research design, rational choice theory is essentially deductive. In other words it logically deduces findings from an a priori set of assumptions. This has implications for theory evaluation since a rational choice theory cannot solely be judged by its empirical or predictive success.
Key questions 1) William Riker (one of the founding fathers of rational choice theory) attempts to account for the great disparity between, on the one hand, the rapid development of the ‘natural’ sciences, and, on the other hand, the rather slow progress of the social sciences. His answer is that the social sciences generally, microeconomics excepted, have not been based on rational choice models. His contention is that if they had been, progress would have been much more rapid. Do you agree?
2) Evaluate the methods employed by rational choice theorists. What is a rational choice approach?
Essential reading
1). Laver (1997), chs 1-2
3) Shepsle and Bonchek (1997), ch. 10 (‘Public Goods, Externalities, and the Commons’)
3) Michael Taylor (1990), ‘Cooperation and Rationality: Notes on the Collective Action Problem and its Solutions’, and Michael Hechter (comment on Taylor) ‘On the Inadequacy of Game Theory for the Solution of Real-World Collective Action Problems’, ch. 6 in Cook and Levi (1990).
Additional readings
17 Shepsle and Bonchek (1997), ch. 8 (‘Cooperation’) and ch. 9 (‘Collective Action’).
Laver (1997), chs 3 and 8
Russell Hardin (1990), ‘The Social Evolution of Cooperation’ in Cook and Levi, ch. 10.
William H. Riker (1990), ‘Political Science and Rational Choice’, in James Alt and Kenneth Shepsle (eds), Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, Cambridge UP, pp. 163-81.
Margaret Levi (1997), ‘A Model, a Method and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis’, in Lichbach and Zuckerman, pp. 19-41.
Hugh Ward (1995), ‘Rational Choice Theory’, in Marsh and Stoker.
Davis Lalman, Joe Oppenheimer and Piotr Swistak (1993), ‘Formal Rational Choice Theory: A Cumulative Science of Politics’in Finifter . Terry Moe (1979), ‘On the Scientific Status of Rational Choice Theory’, American Journal of Political Science, 23, 215-43.
Nozick (1993), ch. 5.
Donald Green and Ian Shapiro (1994), Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science,YaleUP.
Jeffrey Friedman (ed.) (1996), The Rational Choice Controversy: Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered,YaleUP.
Ian Budge (1993), ‘Rational Choice as Comparative Theory: Beyond Economic Self Interest’, in Hans Keman (ed) Comparative Politics. Amserdam: VU Press.
Michael Nicholson (1992), Rationality and the Analysis of International Conflict,Cambridge UP.
Michael Laver (1997), Playing Politics: The Nightmare Continues,OxfordUP.
Robert Axelrod (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation,BasicBooks.
Brian Barry (1978), Sociologists, Economists and Democracy, Second Edition, University of Chicago Press / Collier Macmillan.
Peter Ordeshook (1992), A Political Theory Primer, Routledge.
Robert Gibbons (1992), A Primer in Game Theory, Prentice Hall/ Princeton UP.
You will find that rational choice theory is discussed in a number of the textbooks on the philosophy of social science. See for example
Hollis (1994), ch. 6 Smith (1998), pp. 155-160, 177-178 Bohman (1991), ch. 2 especially pp. 67-76, ch. 5, especially pp. 197-204, Jon Elster (1994), ‘The Nature and Scope of Rational Choice Explanation’ in Martin and McIntyre, 311-322.
18