Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences:

Transcription

1 Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences: Benjamin Smith 002 Anderson ext. 272 Office Hours: W 1 3 pm or by appointment Course Goals The central goal of this seminar is to enable students to construct, and to critique, methodologically sophisticated comparative historical research projects, broadly defined, in the social sciences. To do so, we will explore the techniques, uses, strengths, and limitations of historical causal, comparative and case study methods, while emphasizing the relationships among these methods, alternative methods, and contemporary debates in the philosophy of science. The research examples used to illustrate methodological issues will be drawn from examples in American, comparative and international politics, sociology, and economics. The seminar will begin with a focus on the philosophy of science, theory construction, theory testing, causality, and causal inference: the nuts and bolts of social science. With this epistemological grounding, we will then explore core issues in comparative research design, including methods of structured and focused comparisons of cases, case selection and possible problems of bias, process tracing, the use of counterfactual analysis, and timing sensitive and path dependent analysis. Third, we will look at the assumptions, comparative strengths and weaknesses, and proper domain of comparative historical methods and alternative approaches, particularly statistical methods and formal modeling. Two or three special sessions, depending on class enrollment, will be devoted to student presentations of their research designs and constructive critiques of these designs by fellow seminar participants. Presumably, many students will choose to present a research design proposal for their dissertation, although students could also present a research design for an article or book chapter or the article or book chapter itself. Individual projects will take shape in consultation with me. Requirements Mastery of assigned readings and active participation in seminar discussions (30%). We will be tackling some of the toughest methodological and theoretical issues related to historical social science; coming to each session having read each of the assigned readings and prepared to address debates, lingering questions, fundamental problems, etc. within them is crucial. Let me be very clear: participation in class discussions accounts for 30% of the course grade and is not a give away. One could earn perfect scores on all other assignments and still receive a grade of 70 (C) by not participating in seminar discussions.

2 Two short essays critiquing the assigned readings for two separate weeks (30%). Each student will be required to write two word critiques of the assigned readings for any two weeks. These critiques can focus on one or several of the readings for the week, or on one or a few cross cutting themes. They need not address all of the readings or discussion questions for a week. Research Design or Seminar Paper and Presentation (40%). Students will be required to submit copies of a research design paper to all seminar participants one week in advance of presenting it in the seminar. Each student will present their design in the seminar for a constructive discussion by fellow participants, with a short introduction from the student and/or advance reading questions suggesting issues or methodological dilemmas upon which participants should focus. Research designs should address the following tasks: 1) specification of the research problem, question and research objectives, in relation to the current stage of development and research needs of the relevant research program, related literatures, and alternative explanations; 2) specification of the independent and dependent variables (this will depend on the topic at hand); 3) selection of a historical case or cases that are appropriate in light of the first two tasks, and justification of why these cases were selected and others were not; 4) consideration of how variance in the variables can best be described for testing and/or refining existing theories; 5) specification of the data requirements, including both process tracing data and measurements of the independent and dependent variables for the main hypotheses of interest, including alternative explanations. There is no minimum length limit, though most papers will probably be around 7,000 words and should be shorter than 9,000 words. Follow up memo on refinement of the research design. While students are not expected to revise fully and resubmit their research designs by the end of the course, they will be required to submit a memo of about 1500 words on the modifications they think are necessary, and the dilemmas that are still unresolved, in light of the critique they received in the seminar. Grading 30% mastery of the readings as evident through participation in class discussions 30% short essays 40% written research design, presentation of research design, and follow up memo. Required Books Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton University Press, 1994). Paul Pierson, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis (Princeton UP, 2004).

3 Daniel Little, Microfoundations, Method, and Causation, (Transaction, 1998). Steve Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (Cornell, 1997). James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 2003). Henry Brady and David Collier, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (Rowman and Littlefield, 2004). 1. January 13. Course Introduction Course Outline and Readings 2. January 20. Introduction to the Historical Causal Worldview Pierson, Politics in Time, Introduction and Conclusion. Charles Ragin and David Zaret, ʺTheory and Method in Comparative Research: Two Strategies,ʺ in Social Forces, Vol. 61, No. 3 (March 1983), pp Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methodology for Students of Political Science, Chapters 3 6. Charles Ragin and Howard Becker, ʺIntroductionʺ to Ragin and Becker, What is a Case? (Cambridge, 1995), pp Rudra Sil, The Division of Labor in Social Science Research: Unified Methodology or Organic Solidarity, Polity Vol. 32, no. 4 (Summer, 2000) pp Terrence McDonald, What We Talk About When We Talk About History: The Conversations of History and Sociology, in McDonald, I) Philosophy of Science and Epistemological Issues 3. January 27. Empiricism and Knowledge David Hume, An Enquiry into Human Understanding, sections enquiry.html Carl Hempel, The Function of General Laws in History, in Martin and McIntyre, Readings in

4 the Philosophy of Social Science, Van Evera, Chapter 1. Milton Friedman, The Methodology of Positive Economics, in Daniel Hausman, ed., The Philosophy of Economics, pp Terry Moe, On the Scientific Status of Rational Choice Theory, American Journal of Political Science, 23 (1979): February 3. Evaluating Theories: Positivist and Scientific Realist Approaches and Their Critics Imre Lakatos, ʺFalsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs,ʺ in Lakatos and Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, 1970) pp , Keohane, King, and Verba (hereafter KKV), Designing Social Inquiry, Chapter 1, section 3.5. Peter Hedstrom and Richard Swedberg, Social Mechanisms: an Introduction, in Hedstrom and Swedberg eds. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory (Cambridge, 1998) Paul Rabinow and William Sullivan, Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look, introduction, pp. 1 30, and chapter by Charles Taylor, ʺInterpretation and the Sciences of Man,ʺ pp February 10. Causality, Explanation, and Causal Inference Margaret Marini and Burton Singer, ʺCausality in the Social Sciences,ʺ in Clifford Clogg, ed., Sociological methodology 1988 (American Sociological Association) pp David Waldner, Inferences and Explanations at the K/T Boundary and Beyond, available at: 20KT%20Boundary.pdf Robert Jervis, Complexity and the Analysis of Political and Social Life, Political Science Quarterly Winter 1997/98, pp Evan Lieberman, Causal Inference in Historical Institutional Analysis: A Specification of Periodization Strategies. Comparative Political Studies. (November 2001), 34,9: Alan Zuckerman, Reformulating Explanatory Standards and Advancing Theory in Comparative Politics, in Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman, eds., Comparative

5 Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure (Cambridge, 1997) pp II) Case Study Methods 6. February 17. Designs for Single and Comparative Case Studies David Collier, ʺThe Comparative Method,ʺ in Ada Finifter, ed., Political Science: the State of the Discipline II (Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association, 1993), pp Andrew Bennett and Alexander George, ʺResearch Design Tasks,ʺ available at: Van Evera, Guide to Methodology, pp Theodore Meckstroth, ʺʹMost Different Systemsʹ and ʹMost Similar Systems:ʹ A Study in the Logic of Comparative Inquiry,ʺ Comparative Political Studies July 1975, pp February 24. Case Selection and Selection Bias Designing Social Inquiry pp Brady and Collier, Chapter 6. David Collier and James Mahoney, ʺInsights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research,ʺ World Politics vol. 49, no. 1 (October, 1996) pp Barbara Geddes, ʺHow the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics,ʺ Political Analysis vol. 2 (1990). Van Evera, Guide to Methodology, pp March 3. Process Tracing and Counterfactual Analysis Ian Lustick, ʺHistory, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias,ʺ APSR September 1996, pp David Waldner, State Building and Late Development (Cornell, 1998) pp Philip Tetlock and Aaron Belkin, eds., Counterfactual Thought Experiments, chapters 1, 12. Richard Ned Lebow, What s So Different About a Counterfactual?, World Politics July 1999:

6 Adam Przeworski, contribution to The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics: A Symposium, World Politics October 1995 pp Bennett and George, Process Tracing in Case Study Research, available at: 9. March 10. Path Dependence, Timing, and Sequence Paul Pierson, Politics in Time, Chapters 1 and 2. James Mahoney, Path Dependence in Historical Sociology, Theory and Society 29: Douglas North, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance (Cambridge 1991), Chapters William H. Sewell, Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology, in McDonald, pp W. Brian Arthur, Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Chapter 6: Urban Systems and Historical Path Dependence. Some recommended readings: Mahoney, James, The Legacies of Liberalism (Johns Hopkins, 2001) (CP) Pierson, Paul, Dismantling the Welfare State (Cambridge, 1994) (AG) 10. March 24. Case Studies and ʺMacro Comparisonʺ in Comparative Politics Ira Katznelson, ʺStructure and Configuration in Comparative Politics,ʺ in Mark Lichbach, and Alan Zuckerman, eds., Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure (Cambridge, 1997) pp David Collier, ʺComparative Historical Analysis: Where Do We Stand?ʺ APSA CP Newsletter, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer, 1998) pp James Mahoney, ʺNominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macro Causal Analysis,ʺ American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104, No.3 (January 1999). 11. March 31. Macro Comparisons continued. Chapters 2, 4, 5, 8 in Mahoney and Rueschemeyer.

7 Recommended Readings: III) Case Studies and Alternative Methods: Comparative Advantages and Complementarities 12. April 7. Statistics and Formal Modeling: Contrasts and Complementarities with Case Studies KKV, Designing Social Inquiry, sections 2.6 and 3.3. Henry Brady and David Collier, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Chapters Gerardo Munck, ʺCanons of Research Design in Qualitative Analysis,ʺ Studies in Comparative International Development, Fall April 14. Complementary, Nested, Integrated Methods etc. Michael Coppedge, Explaining Democratic Deterioration in Venezuela Using Nested Induction, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, Evan Lieberman, Nested Analysis, APSR, Smith, Hard Times in the Land of Plenty, Chapters 6 and 7. Vaughn McKim and Stephen Turner, eds., Causality in Crisis? Statistical Methods and the Search for Causal Knowledge in the Social Sciences (University of Notre Dame, 1997) pp April 21. Critiques and Justifications of Comparative Historical and Case Study Methods KKV, Designing Social Inquiry, sections 2.2, 4.1, and Chapter 6. Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, Chapter 1. Review Symposium of KKV in American Political Science Review vol. 89 no. 2 (June, 1995) pp Stanley Lieberson, ʺMore on the Uneasy Case for Using Mill Type Methods in Small N Comparative Studies,ʺ Social Forces June 1994, pp April 28. Critiques and Justifications Continued. (?)

8 John Goldthorpe, ʺCurrent Issues in Comparative Macrosociology;ʺ Dietrich Reuschemeyer and John Stephens, ʺComparing Historical Sequences A Powerful Tool for Causal Analysis;ʺ Jack Goldstone, ʺMethodological Issues in Comparative Macrosociology;ʺ and John Goldthorpe, ʺA Response to the Commentaries,ʺ all in Comparative Social Research Vol 16 (1997) pp. 1 26, 55 72, , and , respectively. Timothy McKeown, ʺCase Studies and the Statistical World View,ʺ in Brady and Collier (chapter 9).