Government 229
Scope and Methods in Political Science
Clyde Wilcox Spring, 2004
Department of Government 202-687-5273; fax=5858
Georgetown University wilcoxc@georgetown.edu
In most classes in political science and other fields, textbooks and professors make substantive claims. How can we know if these claims are correct? In this course, we will explore the way that we know what we know. We will begin by discussing the nature of social science, and what kinds of questions can be answered by empirical research. We will discuss theories, hypotheses, hypothesis testing, and the nature of evidence. Next, we will explore various non-quantitative ways of answering questions. Most of the class, however, will focus on statistical techniques to manipulate quantitative data to test hypotheses.
Although the course is designed primarily to help students in the department’s honors program do their thesis research, these research skills are useful for educators, lawyers, political activists, and business. Although I have many years of teaching experience and have done a lot of social science research, I have not taught this particular course before. This syllabus is therefore subject to revision. Student feedback throughout the term will be important in calibrating the level of presentations and exercises.
Students are expected to do the readings before each session, and to work through exercises in the Pollock book. There will be in-class exercises, especially later in the term, so attendance is important. While you are in class, turn off your cell phones, and do not use the terminals to check e-mail, browse the web, or IM with friends.
Please familiarize yourself with Georgetown’s policy on academic honesty. http://www.georgetown.edu/undergrad/bulletin/regulations6.html
Texts: The
following texts are required of all students, and are available at the campus
bookstore. 
Mannheim, Rich, and Willnat, Empirical Political Analysis
Pollock, An SPSS Companion to Political Analysis
Other reading assignments will be placed on reserve or handed out in class.
Grading:
Grades are based on the following:
Midterm Exam 20%
Final Exam 30%
Short paper 1 15%
Short paper 2 25%
Class participation and exercises 10%
The short papers are described at the end of the syllabus
Week Topic
Jan 18 Introduction: Values, Emperical Questions, and Evidence
Mannheim, Ch 1
Pollock Introduction,
Ch 1
Wilcox, Social Science
in Space and Time." in Gary Westphal (ed.) Space and Beyond: The Frontier
Theme in Science Fiction. Westport, CT:
Greenwood. 2000. 143-150.
Jan 25 Theories, Concepts, Hypotheses, and the Logic of Inquiry, Level of Measurement
Mannheim, Ch 2, 4, 9
Wilcox, 1986. "Fundamentalists
and Politics: An Analysis of the Impact of Differing Operational
Definitions." Journal of Politics 48: 1041-1051.
Schull, Steven A. and
James M. Vanderleeuw. 1987. “What do Key Votes Measure?” Legislative
Studies Quarterly 12: 573-58.
Feb 1 Experiments and Quasi-experimental design
Mannheim, Ch 5
Gerber and Green 2000.
“The Effects of Personal Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter
Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American
Political Science
Review 94: 653-664.
optional – Imai,
forthcoming. “Do Get-Out-the-Vote Calls Reduce Turnout? The Importance of Statistical
Methods in Field Experiments.”
http://www.princeton.edu/~Lo,aoresearcj/matching.html
Kuklinski, Riggle, Otatti,
Schwartz, and Wyer 1991. “The Cognitive and Affective Bases for Tolerance
Judgments.” American Journal of Political
Science 35: 1-27/
Feb 8 Survey research
Weisberg, Krosnick, and
Bowen, An Introduction to Survey Research and Data Analysis Ch 2-4
Mannheim, Ch 6, 7
Examine Presidential
Donor Survey, http://www.georgetown.edu/wilcox/gopsurvey.pdf
; http://www.georgetown.edu/wilcox/dempage.pdf
Examine the codebook
for the National Election Study, http://www.umich.edu/~nes/studypages/2004prepost/2004prepost.htm
Cook, Jelen, and
Wilcox, 1993 Measuring Abortion Attitudes: Methodological and Substantive
Lessons From the CBS/New York Times Surveys, Family
Planning
Perspectives 25: 118-121,
145. (can be accessed through EBSCO Academic Search Premier through Lauinger
online)
Feb 15 Descriptive Statistics
Pollock, Ch 1,2
Manheim, Ch 14
Grofman, Koetzle, and
McGann, 2002. “Congressional Leaders: 1965-96: A New Look at the Extremism vs.
Centrality Debate.” Legislative Studies
Quarterly
Jacobson, 1997. “The
Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections.” American
Journal of Political Science 31: 126-141.
Constructing scales
Manheim, Ch 8
Pollock, Ch 4
Abramson and Finifter,
1981. “On the Meaning of Political Trust: New Evidence from Items Introduced
in 1978.” American Journal of Political
Science 25: 297-307.
Cook, Jelen, and
Wilcox, 1993. “State Political Cultures and Attitudes Toward Abortion.” Political
Research Quarterly 46: 771-781.
Feb 22 Cross-tabulation and Difference of Means
Manheim, Ch 15
Pollock, Ch 3-5
Wilcox, “The Timing of
Strategic Decisions: Candidacy Decisions in 1982 and 1984.” Legislative
Studies Quarterly 12: 565-572.
Norris and Inglehart,
“Women as Political Leaders Worldwide: Cultural Barriers and Opportunities.” in
Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox (eds.) Women in
Elected Office: (2nd
edition).
Mar 1 Control variables
Manheim, Ch 13
Pollock, Ch 5
Cook and Wilcox, Feminism
and the Gender Gap: A Second Look.” Journal of Politics 53: 1111-1122
Kritzer, Herbert, and
Eubank. 1979. “Presidential Coatails Revisited: Partnership and Incumbency
Effects.” American Journal of Political Science
23: 615-626.
March 8 Spring Break
Have a Good Time
But Get Out Alive
March 15 Midterm Exam
March 22 Correlation and Bivariate Regression
Manheim, Ch 15
Pollock, Ch 7, 8
Lewis-Beck and Rice, 1983.
“Localism in Presidential Elections: Home State Advantage.” American
Journal of Political Science 27: 548-556.
Lewis-Beck and Rice,
1982. “Presidential Popularity and Presidential Vote.” Public Opinion
Quarterly 46: 534-537.
March 29 Multiple Regression
Manheim, Ch 15
Pollock, Ch 8
Jacobson, 1999. “The
Effect of the AFL-CIO’s Voter Education Campaigns on 1996 House Elections”. Journal
of Politics 61: 185-94.
Powell, 1986. “American
Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective.” American Political Science
Review 80: 17-43.
April 5 Complications with Regression (dummy variables, interactions, non-linear terms)
Manheim, Ch 15
Kaufmann and Petrocik,
1999. “The Changing Politics of American Men: Understanding the Sources of the
Gender Gap.” American Journal of Political
Science 43: 864-887,
Hibbing and Brandes, 1983. “State Population and
the Electoral Success of U.S. Senators.” American Journal of Political
Science 27: 808-819.
Bauer and Hibbing. 1989. “Which Incumbents Lose in House Elections?” American Journal of
Political Science 33: 262-271.
April 12 Consultation on papers
April 19 Gathering non-quantitative evidence: observation, participant observation, in-depth interviews, focus groups
Mannheim, Ch 18, 19, 20
Carol Maxwell, Pro-Life
Activism in America, Ch 1, 8
Handout – Focus Group
guidelines
Pamela Conover, Ivor
Crewe, and Donald Searling. 1991. “The Nature of Citizenship in the
United States and Great Britain: Empirical Comments on
Theoretical
Themes.” Journal of Politics 53: 800-832.
April 26 Conclusion
Short paper 1: Due on March 22
Using either the GSS or NES datasets that come with the Pollock book, write a short paper that does the following
a.) Propose a model of three variables, from any of the four datasets that accompany the Pollock book. Consult the class handout to help you think about these relationships. It is possible that the relationship between two variables is spurious, caused by a third variable. It is possible that the relationship is causal, that one variable causes a second which then causes a third. It is possible that the relationship is conditional – that there is a relationship between two variables only for certain cases. Perhaps the true relationship between two variables is suppressed by a third.
b.) Test your model using crosstabulation and/or differences of means. Use appropriate measures of association. What do you conclude about your original model? Is it supported or not? What ways doe the data suggest that you should modify your original model? What additional variables should you control for to really understand the relationships between the independent and dependent variables?
c.) Include tables in your paper.
Short paper 2: Due on April 26 at classtime.
Using either the state or cross-national datasets that came with the Pollock book:
a.) add a variable to the dataset that you will use as either an independent or dependent variable.
b.) suggest a relationship between this new variable and one other variable, and test this with bivariate regression.
c.) now consider other factors that you should control. Specify and test a multivariate model. The model may include dummy variables, interaction terms, non-linear terms, etc.
d.) discuss your results. What parts of your model are confirmed? What other variables might you ideally like to include that are not in the dataset?