Political Science Scope and Methods Devin Caughey and Rich Nielsen MIT j 17.850 j Fall 2019 j Th 9:00{11:00 j E53-438 http://stellar.mit.edu/S/course/17/fa19/17.850 Contact Information Devin Caughey Rich Nielsen Email: [email protected] [email protected] Office: E53-463 E53-455 Office Hours: Th 11{12 or by appt. Th 3{4 or by appt. (sign up on my door) (sign up on my door) Course Description This course provides a graduate-level introduction to and overview of approaches to polit- ical science research. It does not delve deeply into normative political theory or statistics and data analysis (both of which are covered in depth by other courses), but it addresses al- most all other aspects of the research process. Moreover, aside from being broadly positivist in orientation, the course is otherwise ecumenical with respect to method and subfield. The course covers philosophy of science, the generation of theories and research questions, con- ceptualization, measurement, causation, research designs (quantitative and qualitative), mixing methods, and professional ethics. The capstone of the course is an original research proposal, a preliminary version of which students (if eligible) may submit as an NSF re- search proposal (at least 8 students have won since 2014). In addition to this assignment, the main requirement of this course is that students thoroughly read the texts assigned each week and come to seminar prepared to discuss them with their peers. Expectations • Please treat each other with respect, listen attentively when others are speak- ing, and avoid personal attacks. Everyone should feel comfortable expressing their opinions, political or otherwise, as long as they do so in an appropriate manner. 1 • Laptops, phones, and other electronic devices should be turned off and put away during class unless we ask you to take them out. This requirement may seem old-fashioned, but we believe the best way to foster discussion and mutual engagement. If you need electronics, please come talk to us outside of class. • We do not tolerate plagiarism. Never take credit for words or ideas that are not your own, and always give your readers enough information to evaluate the source and quality of your evidence. Self-plagiarism (reusing material you have written in another context) is also prohibited without prior permission from the instructors. For more information on academic integrity, consult http://integrity.mit.edu/. Goals • Learn the methodological canon of political science. How do we think we know what we think we know? Where has the field been and where is it going? How do you evaluate others' research? How do you design successful research yourself? • Produce a professional-grade research proposal. • Write well. Your research will be better and more influential if you can express yourself well. We expect clear, active prose. Avoid jargon and passive voice where possible. These resources might help: Verlyn Klinkenborg. 2013. Several Short Sentences About Writing. New York: Vintage Helen Sword. 2012. Stylish Academic Writing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press John Van Maanen. 2011. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press William Germano. 2014. From Dissertation to Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Joan Bolker. 1998. Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day: A Guide to Starting, Revising, and Finishing Your Doctoral Thesis. New York: Holt Steven Pinker. 2014. The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writ- ing in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin • Win grants and fellowships to support your research. 2 Grades You should worry more about learning the material than about your grade, but we are required to give grades. Graduate school grades tend to be higher that what you may be used to. An A+/A means \excellent/good" and a B+/B/B− means \adequate/fair/poor." If we give you a C or lower, we need to talk. Assignments (see schedule for due dates): • 5% One- to three-paragraph description of proposed research. • 0% Introduction and theory section of research proposal. This assignment is un- graded, unless you don't turn it in, in which case it's worth −10%. Our goal is to give you feedback that helps with the grant proposal and final assignment. • 25% Grant proposal. Write this proposal to the length required by the funding agency, but hopefully around 2{4 pages, 800 to 1600 words). Select a grant or fellowship such as the NSF GRFP competition and write a proposal in the required style. If you select a fellowship other than the NSF GRFP, please clear it with us ahead of time and submit information about the fellowship's required style with your assignment. Students who have submitted proposals in the past have been very competitive. • 0% Draft of grant proposal (optional). If you turn in a draft we'll give you feedback. • 50% Research design assignment. Approximately 15 to 22 pages (5000 to 7000 words). Ideally, this should read like the first two thirds of a research article, up to (but not including) the point where you would present the findings. • 15% Class participation and mastery of the material. Read the required material and be prepared to discuss it. For those of you less comfortable with seminar participa- tion, now is the time to practice. Aim to speak up at least three times per session. To avoid dominating the discussion, let others speak if you've spoken recently. • 5% Complete COUHES training. Books for Purchase John Gerring. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press Zolt´anDienes. 2008. Understanding Psychology as a Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Statistical Inference. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Sci- entific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 3 Semester Overview 1 September 5: Becoming a Political Scientist 2 September 12: Philosophy of Science ! Complete MIT COUHES training before the start of class........... 3 September 19: Theory ! One- to three-paragraph description of proposed research topic due...... 4 September 26: Appraisal 5 October 3: Conceptualization and Description 6 October 10: Measurement ! Introduction and theory section of research proposal due............ 7 October 17: Causation and Causal Arguments ! Draft of grant proposal due (optional)...................... 8 October 24: Quantitative Analysis I|Experiments ! NSF proposal due (official application deadline: 5pm).............. 9 October 31: Quantitative Analysis II|Confounders, Colliders, Mecha- nisms, and Instruments 10 November 7: Qualitative Analysis I|The Methods Wars 11 November 14: Qualitative Analysis II|Case Studies and Process Trac- ing 12 November 21: Qualitative Analysis III|Fieldwork and Interpretation November 28: NO CLASS (Thanksgiving) 13 December 5: Mixing Methods (Or Not) December 12: NO CLASS ! Research design assignment due.......................... 4 Course Schedule 1 September 5: Becoming a Political Scientist What does it mean to study politics scientifically (as well as ethically)? What are some examples of good work and successful careers in political science? What skills and traits should a political scientist develop? What does a grant proposal look like? Required Readings (144 pages) Textbook PDF John Gerring. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, xix{xxiii (Preface) and 1{23 (ch. 1: \A Unified Framework") Exemplars PDF Kenneth J. Arrow, Robert O. Keohane, and Simon A. Levin. 2012. \Eli- nor Ostrom: An Uncommon Woman for the Commons." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (33): 13135{13136 PDF David R. Mayhew. 2015. \Robert A. Dahl: Questions, Concepts, Proving It." Journal of Political Power 8 (2): 175{187 Ethics Gary King and Melissa Sands. 2015. \How Human Subjects Research Rules Mislead You and Your University, and What to Do About It." August 15. https://gking. harvard.edu/files/gking/files/irb_politics_paper_1.pdf Jesse Singal. 2015. \The Case of the Amazing Gay-Marriage Data: How a Gradu- ate Student Reluctantly Uncovered a Huge Scientific Fraud." New York Magazine, May 29. http : / / nymag . com / scienceofus / 2015 / 05 / how - a - grad - student - uncovered-a-huge-fraud.html Workflow and Reproducibility PDF Allan Dafoe. 2014. \Science Deserves Better: The Imperative to Share Com- plete Replication Files." PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (1): 60{66 PDF Tim B¨utheand Alan M. Jacobs, eds. 2015. \Symposium: Transparency in Qualitative and Multi-Method Research." Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13 5 (1). https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/moynihan/cqrm/Qualitative_Methods_ Newsletters/Table_of_Contents_13_1/, 2{8 (Introduction), 52{64 (Conclusion) Kieran Healy. 2018. \The Plain Person's Guide to Plain Text Social Science." April 28. http://plain-text.co (SKIM) Examples of NSF GRFP proposals PDF Blair Read (successful proposal) PDF Mina Pollmann (successful proposal) PDF Anonymous 1 (unsuccessful proposal) PDF Anonymous 2 (unsuccessful proposal) 2 September 12: Philosophy of Science ! Complete MIT COUHES training before the start of class What are the philosophical underpinnings of science? How does science work in practice? What, if any, are the differences between the natural and social sciences? Required Readings (154 pages) Overview of Philosophy of Science PDF Dienes, Understanding Psychology, 1{32 (ch. 1: \Karl Popper and Demarca- tion") and 33{54 (ch. 2: \Kuhn and Lakatos: Paradigms and Programmes") Classic Perspectives on Philosophy of Science PDF Karl Popper. 1976. \Some Fundamental Problems in the Logic of Scientific Discovery." In Can Theories Be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis, edited by Sandra G. Harding, 89{112. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel. Originally published in 1935 PDF Imre Lakatos. 1976. \Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." In Can Theories Be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis, edited by Sandra G. Harding, 205{259. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel. Originally published in 1970 PDF Paul K.