POLI-D-514 SEMINAR ON THEORY, METHODOLOGY

POLI-D-514 SEMINAR ON THEORY, METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SCIENCE 2016-2017 WEDNESDAY, 10.00-12.00, SALLE KANT (INSTITUT D ÉTUDES EUROPÉENNES) Seda GÜRKAN Institut de Sociologie, office S.11.224 Av. Jeanne 44, CP 124, 1050 Brussels SGurkan@ulb.ac.be Christian OLSSON Institut d études européennes, office R41.3.107 Av. Roosevelt, 39, CP 172/01, 1050 Brussels Christian.Olsson@ulb.ac.be CONTENT AND OBJECTIVES This seminar is designed for students who plan to undertake a major research project, in particular a doctoral thesis. It has two primary objectives: 1) to deepen the students critical thinking and personal reflections on the scientific process, theories and methods of empirical verification, based on the 'classic' authors of the discipline; 2) and to acquire the necessary research and communication skills in political science. By no means can this seminar replace regular discussions with PhD supervisors or the completion of the midterm paper (épreuve intermédiaire). In addition, participants are strongly encouraged to complement this seminar with a more technical course on the methodology of political science, such as STAT-307-D Methods for Investigation and Surveys, SOCA-D-403 Quantitative Analysis in the Social Sciences, POLI D-438 Methods of Field Investigation, COMM- B-501 Analysis of Political and Media discourses, DROI-C-643 Research Methodology in International Law, or one of the training courses offered by the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). PREREQUISITES Seminar participants must already have completed at least one course in the methodology of political science, such as POLI-D-405 Methodology of Political Science: Preparation for the Final Masters Thesis. Since the majority of participants have already finished a first master thesis, they are in principle already familiar with the basics of methodology as well as with notions such as "problematisation", "research question", "hypothesis", "induction", "operationalization" or "regression". Participants who feel that their mastery of basic methodology is lacking may consult the manuals listed in the last section of this document or attend the course POLI-D-522 Preparatory Seminar for the Final Research Paper. PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH This is a seminar, not a lecture course. Learning takes place mainly through interaction with peers, i.e. the other participants to the seminar, by means of classroom discussions and presentations, as well as through the lessons and critical assessments provided by peers. Participants will learn to both make constructive comments and to receive them. VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY (VU) The VU ( http://uv.ulb.ac.be/) will be used to access the compulsory in pdf format. To access the VU, it is necessary to have a user name and a password. If you are unable to access the VU, please contact the administrators directly at uv@admin.ulb.ac.be. 1

REQUIREMENTS 1. Do all weekly and participate actively in all class discussions. Success in the seminar depends on your mastery of the texts. It is neither useful nor advisable for participants who have not read, thought through and prepared comments on each of the to show up in class. During sessions that do not require, active participation (and not just a passive and mute presence) is expected. Deadline: in the schedule you can find which sessions require. Evaluation: Attendance to, and participation in, the seminar are absolute requirements. More than 5 absences lead to automatic failure in the seminar, without the possibility of recovery in the second session, even for a participant who meets all other requirements or is absent for professional reasons. During each class, the coordinators of the course will evaluate the quality of interventions of each participant (NOT the quantity). The evaluation criteria are: 1) the originality of comments, 2) the depth of reflections 3) the links established between the and the participants research projects 4) the regularity of interventions. The final evaluation will cover all interventions in the seminar. Before the end of the first term, a mid-term evaluation will be conducted in December during a private meeting with the coordinators. 2. Short commentaries on the : For the seminar sessions during which compulsory (texts) will be discussed, students are expected to draft a short commentary (minimum 500 words) on the topic of the week. This commentary on the texts and topic should clearly demonstrate student's academic standpoint vis-à-vis central arguments of the authors and main issues surrounding the topic. Students are expected to comment on the texts by making connections to their PhD project; to the theoretical or methodological tools they intend to use in their research and/or by addressing two or three "questions for class discussion" mentioned in the syllabus (for these questions see "Mandatory Readings"/"Questions to be discussed in class" for each week). Deadline: Written comments should be sent to the professors before the seminar session during which compulsory (texts) will be discussed. Evaluation: Grading will be done on a pass / fail basis (no grade will be awarded). 3. Provide a bibliography of 30-60 titles developed in conjunction with the PhD supervisor, which the participant will explore before handing in the midterm paper. Deadline: This bibliography should be sent by e-mail to both professors before the session of 23 November. Evaluation: Grading will be done on a pass / fail basis (no grade will be awarded). 4. Present a 2000 to 3000 words (4-5 pages) summary of your preliminary doctoral research project, outlining the topic, the research question, its contribution to political science and originality, the hypothesis, the theoretical framework, the state of the art and the methodological approach (not necessarily in that order). Deadline: This project should be sent to both coordinating professors before 7 December 2016. Oral presentations will take place on 14 and 15 December, during doctoral days/journées doctorales (10am-3pm, room to be confirmed). Evaluation: Grading will be done on a pass / fail basis (no grade will be awarded). 2

5. Provide two critical and constructive comments of 500 to 1000 words (1-2 pages) on a peer s research project. Deadline: To be sent by e-mail to the peer, with both coordinating professors in cc. A hard copy is to be handed in prior to the session of 14 December 2016. Evaluation (graded on a 20-point scale): The evaluation criteria are: 1) the constructive character of comments and suggestions; 2) the clarity and precision of the comments and suggestions; 3) the justification given for comments and suggestions; 4) the contribution of knowledge and references that were not already in the research project. 6. Deliver one lesson of 10 minutes in length each semester (See the themes in the section below). For each lesson, participants must give an overview of the question, formulate original hypotheses and illustrate them drawing on empirical illustrations and concrete examples taken from the literature. Lessons must be delivered as participants would like to receive them: concrete, wellstructured, concise, stimulating, engaging, clear, illustrated, animated, practical, informative, etc. The aim is to develop your teaching skills, to familiarise yourself with the basics of the discipline, to prepare the discussions of texts, and to receive feed-back from peers. Deadline: for the oral presentation of the lesson: see the planned date of each entry. Evaluation: A grade (on a 20-point scale) will be awarded for each lesson given. Corrective feedback will be provided both by the other participants and the coordinating professors. The evaluation criteria are: 1) conformity with the title of the lesson; 2) the clarity of the material, the structure of the presentation, the ability to summarize and the attention to pedagogy; 3) the level of analysis; 4) practical applications, examples, and specific references to the major works/authors in the literature; 5) time management. 7. Provide a summary for each lesson. This summary must bring out the outline of the session and present an annotated bibliography. It should also include issues/questions for further discussion in class and cover key terms and concepts necessary for understanding the lesson. Tables and graphs are welcome but not required. Deadline: A draft version must be sent by email to the coordinating professors at least one week before the session so that they have enough time to send you comments or suggestions for improvement. Upon approval of the coordinating professors, a final version will be handed out to the students during the session (make sure you bring enough copies). Should you not send the draft version at least one week before the session, there will not be enough time to send you any comments. Evaluation: A grade on a 20-point scale will be awarded for each draft version sent by e-mail to the coordinators. The evaluation criteria are: 1) conformity with the title of the lesson; 2) the clarity of the material, the structure of the presentation, the ability to summarize and the attention to pedagogy; 3) practical applications and examples; 4) bibliographical references. 8. Submit a draft chapter of 6000 to 7000 words (12-14 pages) for the book project which will provide a critical assessment of the state of the political science discipline. The best entries submitted during the 2016-2017 academic year will be selected for this project. Content of the book project: The aim of the project is to examine the state of the discipline of political science and its sub-disciplines from different angles. More specifically, the project, by compiling critical reviews of several recently published masterpieces in the discipline, will shed light on recent epistemological, ontological, theoretical and methodological debates, and topical issues addressed by contemporary scholars. Participants contributions will seek to answer main research 3

questions that will guide the ensemble of chapter entries: How are we expanding or changing the borders of political science theoretically, methodologically and/or thematically? Draft chapters: The entries should be in the form of a critical review of three recently (in the last ten years) published books related to the participants area of interest. These books/authors should have left their mark on the discipline and/or initiate a new debate in their field. In these draft chapters, contributors are expected to: 1) summarise in a clear, concise and well-structured manner main arguments and findings of selected publications; 2) make connections between these three selected publications by comparing and contrasting their arguments, subjects of study, approaches, methods, and theoretical frameworks used by the authors taking into account the broader context of disciplinary debate; 3) critically assess the added-value, originality and weaknesses of these books with respect to the broader literature; 4) seek to answer main theme of the project by discussing how, in what specific ways these contemporary masterpieces (or disciplinary/sub-disciplinary leaders) advance the borders of political science discipline. Participants are free to choose the texts but they should validate their selection with the coordinating professors by 1 st February 2017 with a short (250-300 words) explanation justifying their choice. Deadline: 1 st February 2017 for selection of three books for review and 10 May 2017 for final submission of draft chapters by sending them by e-mail to both coordinating professors. Evaluation: (on a 20-point grading-scale): the evaluation criteria are: 1) ability to summarise and synthesise; 2) depth of analysis and mastery of the related literature; 3) association and contribution to the existing literature; 4) scientific rigor; 5) formal presentation. INFORMAL EVALUATION For greater transparency, participants should note that, in addition to the formal evaluation of this seminar, the coordinating-professors are in regular contact with other faculty members in the department and sit in various committees and commissions on the recruitment, renewal and awarding of doctoral fellowships at the ULB, the FNRS and elsewhere. WORKS HANDED IN BEHIND TIME AND SECOND SESSION It is not possible to submit work behind schedule. Any delay, even of one day, will be considered as being handed in during the second session. It is possible to submit the bibliography, research project and the book chapter during the second session. However, attendance, mandatory, critical commentary, and the PRAC-TICE training cannot be evaluated in the second session. A participant who wishes to spread out the requirements of the seminar over two years should declare so as quickly as possible to the professors coordinating this seminar. 4

Calendar of the different sessions for 2016-2017 academic year PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SEMINAR STARTS ON THE 26 TH OF OCTOBER DATE THEME ASSIGNMENT Wed. 26 Oct. Introduction, presentation and choice of lessons Wed. 2 Nov. No class Wed. 9 Nov. Discussion of texts: History and historiography of political science(s): one, many or no discipline? Readings and short Wed. 16 Nov. Discussion of texts: The Positivist tradition: regularities in political science as objective or illusion? Readings and short Wed. 23 Nov. Lessons: Writing political science Bibliography Wed. 30 Nov. Discussion of texts: The assumption of rationality in explaining political behaviour: a myth or reality? Readings and short Wed. 7 Dec. Lessons: The assumption of rationality Research project summary Wed. 14 Dec. Discussion of the research projects (10:00-15:00, Room TBC) Two commentaries on research projects Wed. 15 Dec. Discussion of the research projects (10:00-15:00, Room TBC) Wed. 1 Feb. Assessment and individual meetings with the professors Selection of three books for review Wed. 8 Feb. Discussion of texts: Grasping social reality: explaining, interpreting, describing, evaluating or predicting? Readings and short Wed. 15 Feb. Discussion of texts: Case studies and comparative method Readings and short Wed. 22 Feb. Lessons: Case studies and comparison Wed. 1 Mar. Discussion of texts: Causality and causal mechanisms Readings and short Wed. 8 Mar. Wed. 15 Mar. Lessons: Causality Discussion of texts: The unit of analysis in political science: organizations, institutions, relations, processes, practices Readings and short Wed. 22 Mar. Discussion of texts: Theories in political science why and what? Readings and short Wed. 29 Mar. Lessons: Theoretical perspectives I 3 Apr.-14 Apr. Spring Break Wed. 19 Apr. Lessons: Theoretical perspectives II Wed. 26 Apr. Lessons: Qualitative and quantitative methods Wed. 3 May Discussion of texts: Connecting qualitative and quantitative methods Readings and short Wed. 10 May Lessons: Connecting qualitative and quantitative methods Chapter submission for Wed. 17 May Closing session: Discussion of texts: Political Science in 2016 and politics the book project Readings and short 5

MANDATORY READINGS Several texts are available for each of the ten sessions devoted to the discussion of. For some classes there will be compulsory that all participants must read, for others you are required to choose 4 or 5 texts from the list. All texts are available on the VU in PDF-format. In addition to the compulsory, there is an extensive recommended reading list for some sessions. Although, you are not expected to read all these articles, this extra list provides bibliography that may be useful depending on your particular interests and what you have read before. Participants shall read the texts keeping in mind the questions mentioned below. These will be the topics to be discussed in class. Also participants should reflect on the main concepts, perspectives, paradigms guiding each session, and be prepared to comment on the relevance of these to their own PhD work. 9 November 2016: History and historiography of political science(s): one, many or no discipline? Almond, Gabriel (1988) Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science, PS: Political Science and Politics, 21 (4): 828 42. Blondiaux, Loic (1997) «Les tournants historiques de la science politique américaine», Politix, vol. 10(40), 1997 : 7-38. Hoffmann, Stanley (1957). Tendances de la science politique aux États-Unis Revue française de science politique, 4: 913-932. Schmidt, Brian C. (2002) On the History and Historiography of International Relations in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, E. Simmons, Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage: 3-28. The scientific discourse on political phenomena: since when and to what extent can one speak of a specifically scientific discourse on politics/ the political? To what extent is it a science? Development of paradigms: What are the main trends in the evolution of political science since the 1950s? Does it have a specific object of analysis? Break/continuity: Are we really progressing, or are we constantly asking the same questions formulated differently at different moments in time or in different disciplines of the social sciences? Is change in the discipline gradual or abrupt, continuous or discontinuous? Unity/diversity: given the diversity in disciplinary origins of contemporary political science and its practices, is it justified to talk of political sciences (in plural), or even of multiple sciences of the political (including political sociology, political anthropology, political psychology etc.)? If we agree to talk of political sciences as a discipline, what are the sub-fields of the discipline and how can their borders be drawn? Political science/politics: How does political science define its specific objects of inquiry and what is at stake in such a definition? To what extent is it possible to say that the question of the definition of the political by political science is itself a highly political or at least politicised question? Is the history of political science in itself political? Recent trends: What have the dominant trends been in the discipline during the last decade? The epistemology of the discipline: What is the purpose of a historiography of political science? How can the increasing interest over the last decade in the study of the evolution of political science journals, the development of political science in different countries and the ways in which it is institutionalised be explained? In other words, why has the output of political scientists become an object of study in itself? What is the purpose of this reflexive exercise, and whose interest does it serve? 6

16 November 2016: The Positivist tradition: regularities in political science as objective or illusion? Compulsory : Johnson, James (2006) «Consequences of Positivism: A Pragmatic Assessment», Comparative Political Studies, 39, 2: 224-252. Kincaid, Harold (1994) Defending Laws in the Social Sciences, in Martin, Michael and Lee McIntyre (eds), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, MIT Press, 1994: 111-130. Patomäki, Heikki and Wight, Colin. (2000) After Post-Positivism? The Promises of Critical Realism, International Studies Quarterly, 44, 2: 213-237. Tilly, Charles and Robert E. Goodin (2006) Introduction - It depends in Ch. Tilly & R. Goodin (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 3-32. Additional Reading (Optional): Almond, Gabriel A. and Genco, Stephen J. (1977). Clouds, Clocks and the Study of Politics, World Politics, 29(4): 489-522. Dahl, Robert A., «The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest», in Eulau, Heinz, Behavioralism in Political Science, NY: Atherton, 1969, Chap. 3: 68-92. Lin, Ann Chih (1998) Bridging Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Qualitative Methods, Policy Studies Journal, 26(1): 162-180. Smith, Steve (1995) «Self-Images of a Discipline: a Genealogy of International Relations Theory» in K. Booth and S. Smith, International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press: 1-37. Riley, Dylan (2007) The paradox of positivism, Social Science History, 31(1): 115-126. Thomas, George (2005) «The Qualitative Foundations of Political Science Methodology», Perspective on Politics, 3(4): 855-866. On general laws and their applications in political science: How can the concept of laws be defined? Have any unquestionable laws (or laws following the so-called covering-law model ) been uncovered or identified in political science? Is the historicisation of political objects, their historical contextualization and inscription, contrary to the idea of trans-historical laws? Can laws be contextual and historical rather than a-temporal? Please provide a few examples. Is the identification of regularities the ultimate objective of political science? Is this debate still topical in the discipline? Who is interested in it and why? Who rejects it and for what reason? Political science and the parallel with the natural sciences: Will the answer to the question of laws vary with the level of analysis considered (in relation for example to the micro-, meso- or macro-levels)? From the point of view of epistemology, how does political science compare to history, physics, biology or economy? Is the epistemology of the natural sciences any less questionable or any more unified than the ones of political science? Your choices: is the complexity of political realities enough a reason to abandon the quest for regularities? In how far can political sciences draw inspiration from the natural sciences or hard sciences in its quest for objectivity and scientific legitimacy? Under what conditions can a theory be said to be true and to reflect reality as it is. 30 November 2016: The assumption of rationality in explaining political behaviour: a myth or reality? Compulsory : Follesdal, Dagfinn (1994) The Status of Rationality Assumptions in Interpretation and in the Explanation of Action, in Martin, Michael and Lee McIntyre (eds), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, Cambridge, MIT Press: 299-310. 7

Lukes, Steven (1994) Some Problems about Rationality, in Martin, Michael and Lee McIntyre (eds), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, Cambridge, MIT Press: 285-298. MacDonald, Paul K. (2003) Useful Fiction or Miracle Maker: The Competing Epistemological Foundations of Rational Choice Theory, The American Political Science Review, 97 (4): 551-565. Green, Donald P. and Ian Shapiro (1995) Choix rationnels et politique: pourquoi en savons-nous toujours aussi peu?, Revue française de science politique, 1: 96-130. Additional Reading (Optional) - Green, Donald P. and Ian Shapiro (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science, Yale University, US. - Elster, Jon (1994). The Nature and Scope of Rational Choice Explanation, in Martin, Michael and Lee McIntyre (eds), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, Cambridge, MIT Press: 311-322. - Fearon, James D. (1995) Rationalist Explanations of War, International Organization, 49 (3): 379-414. - Kahler, Miles (1998) Rationality in International Relations, International Organization, 52 (4): 919-941. - Kirshner, Jonathan D. (2000) "Rationalist explanations for war?", Security Studies, 10 (1): 143-150. (A good critique of Fearon s Article). - List, Christian and Kai Spiekermann (2013) Methodological Individualism and Holism in Political Science: A Reconciliation, American Political Science Review, 107 (4): 629-643. - Martin, Lisa L. (1999) The Contributions of Rational Choice: A Defense of Pluralism, International Security, 24 (2): 74-83. - Morris, Fiorina P. (1995) Rational choice, empirical contributions, and the scientific enterprise, Critical Review 9, (1-2): 85-94. - Moe, T. (1979) On the scientific status of rational models, American Journal of Political Science, 23 (1): 215-243. - Shepsle, Kenneth A. (1989) Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1: 131-147. - Walt, Stephen M. (1999) Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies, International Security, 23 (4): 5-48. What is rationality? What are the criteria for qualifying a political outcome, preference, choice or action as rational? In this regard, can we talk about universal criteria for measuring rationality or rationality is context-dependent? Are there alternative standards for measuring rationality? Shall one talk of a single rationality or multiple rationalities? What are the theoretical, epistemological, ontological and methodological implications of rational choice theory? Rational choice theory: How and why has the paradigm of rational choice (in the sense of rational choice theory) become dominant? Is it still dominant in political science? What are the limitations of explanations drawing on the rationality assumption? Did these limitations lead to a reinterpretation of rationality? Can the question of rationality be ignored in political science and could there, alternatively, be something like an assumption of irrationality? Does the rational choice theory only apply to individuals rather than to groups or organizations given that, at the aggregate level, multiple individual rational choices can produce irrational or at least non-rational outcomes? Your choices: If you do not apply the rational choice theory in your research, please justify your move by referring to an alternative approach of rationality or by explaining how (and why) you can do away with the assumption of rationality. If you apply the rational choice theory in your research, be prepared to explain how you study rationality and to defend your choice in relation to your research question as well as alternative theoretical explanations. 8

8 February 2017: Grasping social reality? Explaining, interpreting, describing, evaluating or predicting? Compulsory : - Bevir, Mark and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2010), Interpretive Theory, In D. Marsh and G. Stoker, eds., Theory and Methods in Political Science. London: Palgrave, 131-152. - Farr, James (1985) Situational Analysis: Explanation in Political Science, The Journal of Politics, 47(4): 1085-1107. - Gerring, John (2012) Mere Description, British Journal of Political Science, 42(4): 721-746. - Gerring, John and Yesnowitz, Joshua (2006) A Normative Turn in Political Science? Polity, 38(1): 101-133. - Tilly, Charles (2001) Mechanisms in Political Processes, Annual Review of Political Science, n 4: 21-41. The aims and objectives of political science: what is the objective of political science with regards to its empirical objects and how can it be attained? Is the description of political realities a legitimate scientific practice or are descriptions necessarily unanalytical and unreflective? Explanation vs interpretation? What difference is there between explaining and interpreting? To what extent are the two ways of approaching political realities compatible or contradictory? Are explanatory approaches the only ones allowing to ask why-questions or can interpretive approaches also do so? Axiological neutrality: To what extent can facts and value-judgments be distinguished from one another? Do interpretive approaches necessarily discard the principle of axiological neutrality? Are explanations always value-neutral? Is axiological neutrality a realistic or even a desirable objective? Variety of approaches: What different types of descriptions, explanations, interpretations and/ or normative/ prescriptive/ predictive approaches can be encountered in political science? How are they related? 15 February 2017: Case studies and comparative method Compulsory : Bennett, Andrew and Colin Elman (2007) Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield, Comparative Political Studies, 40 (2): 170-195. Geddes, Barbara (2003). Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press, Chapter 3, How the Cases you Choose Affect the Answers You Get, 89-129. Gerring, John (2004) What is a Case Study and What is it Good For?, American Political Science Review, 98 (2): 341-354. Lijphart, Arend (1971) Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method, The American Political Science Review, 65 (3): 682-693. Sartori, Giovanni (1994) Bien comparer, mal comparer, Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée, 1 (1): 19-36. Additional Reading (Optional) - Adcock, Robert and David Collier (2001) Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research., American Political Science Review, 95 (3): 529-547. - Bennett, Andrew and Colin Elman (2006), Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods, Annual Review of Political Science, 9: 455-476. 9

- Collier, David and James Mahoney (1996), Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research, World Politics, 49 (1): 56-91. - E. Genne DeFelice (1986), Causal Inference and Comparative Methods Comparative Political Studies, 19: 415-437. - Gerring, John (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practice. Cambridge University Press. George A. L. and A. Bennett (2005), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MIT Press. - Gerring, John (2010). Case Selection for Case Study Analysis: Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques, in Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., Brady H.E. and Collier, D., The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford University Press, 645-684. - Lieberson S. (1991), Small N s and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases, Social Forces, 70: 307-20. - Lustick, Ian S., (1996) History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias, American Political Science Review, 90 (3): 605-618. - McKeown, Timothy (1999) Case Studies and the Statistical Worldview, International Organization, 53 (1): 161-190. - Rose, Richard (1991) Comparing Forms of Comparative Analysis, Comparative Political Studies, 39 (3): 446-462. - Sartori, Giovanni (1970) Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics, The American Political Science Review, 4: 1033-1053. - Yin, Robert (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London, Sage Publications. Case studies: What is the scientific status of case study method in political science? How can you generalize from a single case? Does a case study really deserve to be called a comparative method? You can t prove anything with a case study do you agree with this statement? What are the advantages and disadvantages of case-study research? Will the question have to be answered in different ways depending on whether one considers the micro or macro levels? Comparison: 1. Why do we compare? According to some (H.D. Lasswell, Almond, E. Durkheim, C. Ragin, Swanson), comparative method is the scientific method and thinking without comparison is unthinkable (Swanson 1971). Others argue that the comparative method is one of the scientific methods [ ] of establishing general empirical propositions (Lijphart 1971: 682). What do you think? Why do we use comparative method? Is it possible to be scientific without comparing? Does research in political science always has a comparative dimension? 2. What do we compare? What does it mean comparable cases? Any concept which can travel across time, situations, or societies (Sartori 1970) can be classified as comparable? Can everything be compared or are certain things incomparable or incommensurable? In the latter case, how can one distinguish comparable from incomparable phenomena? 3. How do we compare? What are the different types of comparisons? How to translate selected cases that are carriers of information into variables? What are the pitfalls to be avoided in case selection when engaging in comparative research? What is the trade-off between many cases/few variables and a few cases/many variables? If you use comparative method in your research, please explain and justify the type of comparison you use in your project. 4. The relationship between comparative politics and comparative method: Is comparative politics a distinct subfield of political science? 1 March 2017: Causality and causal mechanisms Compulsory : Bennett, Andrew (2013), Causal Mechanisms and Typological Theories in the Study of Civil Conflict, in J.T. Checkel (ed), Transnational Dynamics of Civil War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 205-230. 10

King Gary, Robert O. Koehane and Sidney Verba (1994). Designing Social Inquiry, Princeton, Princeton University Press, Chapters 3: 75-114. Gerring, John (2007), The Mechanismic Worldview: Thinking inside the Box, British Journal of Political Science, 38 (1): 161-179. Gerring, John (2010), Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But., Comparative Political Studies, 41 (11): 1499-1526. Lebow, Richard Ned (2010). Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations, Princeton, Princeton University Press, Chapter 1, Making sense of the world: 3-28. Additional Reading (Optional) - Bennett, Andrew (2010), Process Tracing: A Bayesian Perspective, in Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., Brady H.E. and Collier, D., The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford University Press, 702-721. - Blatter and Blume (2008), In Search of Co-variance, Causal Mechanisms or Congruence? Towards a Plural Understanding of Case Studies, Swiss Political Science Review, 14, 2: 315-356. - Brady, Henry E. (2008), Causation and Explanation in Social Science, in Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., Brady H.E. and Collier, D., The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford University Press, 217-270. - Brady, Henry E. and David Collier (2010). Rethinking Social Inquiry, Part II: Causal Inference: Old Dilemmas, New Tools, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, NY, 201-311. - Checkel J. (2008), Tracing Causal Mechanisms, International Studies Review, 8 (2): 362-370. - Collier D. (2011), Understanding Process Tracing, Political Science and Politics, 44 (4): 823-830. - Dessler, David (1991), Beyond Correlations: Toward a Causal Theory of War, International Studies Quarterly, 3 (35): 337-355. - Fearon, James D. (1991), Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science, World Politics, 43 (2). - Gerring, John (2012), Social Science Methodology: A United Framework, Cambridge University Press, Part III: Causation, 195-358. - Gerring, John (2005), Causation: A Unified Framework for the Social Sciences, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17 (2), 163-198. - Hedström P. and P. Ylikoski (2010), Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences, The Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 49-67. - Mahoney J. (2001), Beyond Correlational Analysis: Recent Innovations in Theory and Method, Sociological Forum, 16 (3): 575-593. What it means to say that X causes Y? Does causality refer to a regular association or to a mechanism? What are the ontological and methodological implications of these different understandings of causality? What is the nature of causality we study in experimental research compared with standard quantitative methods? If you suspect that X,W or Z might be the cause of Y, then what would be the best strategy to study causality? (e.g. would qualitative or statistical data best address the issue?) What are the challenges social scientists face when they seek to establish causation? How to overcome these challenges? Please think about specific causal questions and explanations your research project deals with, or that are addressed in the literature you are familiar with. What kind of causal relationship is established? How do you (or how does the author) construct a causal argument? Which strategies of causal inference are used? 15 March 2017: The unit of analysis in political science: organizations, institutions, relations, processes, practices Please select and read 4 texts among the following ones: - Berman, Sheri (2001) Ideas, Norms and Culture in Political Analysis, Comparative Politics, 33(2) (Jan.): 231-250. 11

- Bueger, Christian (2014) Pathways to Practice: Praxiography and International Politics, European Political Science Review, 6(3), January: 383-406. - Cohen, Samy (1998) «Chapitre 3. Décision, pouvoir et rationalité dans l'analyse de la politique étrangère» in M- C Smouts (éd) Les nouvelles relations internationales : pratiques et théories, Paris : Presses de Science Po, 75-102. - DiMaggio, Paul J. and Powell, Walter W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited. Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2): 140-160. - Dunne, Tim (2005) System, State and Society: Does it all Hang Together?, Millenium, vol. 34(1): 157-170. - Robinson, Edward Heath (2010) An Ontological Analysis of States: Organizations vs Legal Persons, Applied Ontology n 5: 109-125. - Winner, Langdon (1980) Do Artifacts have Politics?, Daedalus, 109(1), 1980:121-136. - Wodak, Ruth (2012) Language, Power, Identity, Language Teaching, 45(2) April: 215-233. The basic units focused upon in political analyses: What realities or basic entities are we looking at in political science? What are the fundamental units and concepts in terms of which we think in political science? Is it the state, the political system, the field of politics, political society, political parties, political behavior, the human as zoon politicon? What does political mean in this context? What other units of analysis are frequently used in political science? Are they different from the units analyzed in other social sciences? In other words is political science as a discipline distinguishable from other disciplines in its focus on specific empirical units (or entities) or not? Is there a smallest denominator common to all social sciences? Is ultimately the individual and his/ her choices the smallest unit of any social science or are there good reasons to de-construct the theoretical figure of the individual itself (into motivations, feelings, practices, bodies, rationalities, emotions )? What is the biggest unit of analytical interest to political science? The ontologic status of units of analysis: to what extent do these entities really exist out there? To what extent are scientific concepts intellectual constructs cutting distinct unities out of, and perhaps from, the continua and heterogeneities of social reality? In the latter case, do these units have a heuristic function or do they also correspond to something that exists independently from the researcher using them? Choosing units of analysis: Is the choice of relevant units only a matter of ontological choices or does it also depend on the research questions, the hypotheses, the theoretical framework? Why are some units more or less frequently used? What concepts such as mentalities or national character - have been popular at one point in time but are now totally outdated? Which ones are popular in some places but not in others? Why? 22 March 2017: Theories in political science: Why and what? Please select and read 4 texts: Gunnel, John. G (1995) Realizing Theory: The Philosophy of Science Revisited, The Journal of Politics, 57(4): 923-940. Hayek, F.A. (1994) The Theory of Complex Phenomena, in Martin, Michael and Lee McIntyre (eds), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, Cambridge: MIT Press: 55-70. Moore, Will H. (2001) Evaluating Theory in Political Science and Observing the Political World: Ontology, Truth and Science ; Unpublished papers; http://whmoore.net/research/research-papers/ (downloaded in September 2015). Oakeshot, Michael (2004), Chapter 27: What is Political Theory in What is History? And other Essays, Imprint Academic: 391-402. Thies, Cameron G. (2004) Are Two Theories Better than One? A Constructivist Model of the Neo-Realist- Neoliberal Debate, International Political Science Review, 25(2): 159-183. Additional Reading (Optional): Fisher, John R. (2010) Systems Theory and Structural Functionalism in John T. Ishiyama and M. Breuning, 21 st Century Political Science. A Reference Handbook, Vol.1, London: Sage: 71-79 12

Kauppi, Niilo (2003) Elements for a Structural Constructivist Theory of Politics and of European Integration, Centre for European Studies (Harvard University), Working Paper Series n 104. Makarychev, Andrey and Morozov, Viatcheslav (2013) Is Non-Western Theory Possible? The Idea of Multipolarity and the Trap of Epistemological Relativism in Russian IR, International Studies Review 15, 328 350 Powell, Walter and Bromley, Patricia (2015) New Institutionalism in the Analysis of Complex Organizations in: James D. Wright (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition.Vol 16. Oxford: Elsevier: 764-769. Wendt, Alexander (1987), The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory, International Organization, 41(3): 335-370. What is a theory? How general has a claim to be in order to be qualified as such? Are all theories abstract? Are all theories generalizable? What is the link between theorization, conceptualization, abstraction and generalization? How useful or (in)dispensable are theories in political science? Can one analyze political realities without resorting to theories? Why are theories required in the study of political phenomena? Is the resort to theories specific to academia, research and / or science or are there theories in other fields of practice as well? Is one allowed to develop one s own theoretical framework in a PhD dissertation? The purpose of theories in political science: what is the function of theory in the research process? Is it to show or tell the truth, to modelize a certain reality, to highlight one particular feature of it, to tell how things should be, will be, could be? What distinguishes a good theory? Do theories give access to the truth of reality or do they on the contrary stand between us and reality? One or many theories? What difference is there between theories in political sciences and political theory? On what basis can one choose the theory most suitable for one s research object? Can one combine different theories in one theory? Can one choose different theories for different research objects in the same work? Under what conditions can this be done? On what basis can one compare the relevance of different theories for a same research-object? What different types of theories are there? What distinguishes different theoretical schools? What links are there between theory on the one hand, epistemology, ontology and methodology on the other? 3 May 2017: Connecting qualitative and quantitative methods Compulsory : Levy, Jack S. (2007) Qualitative Methods and Cross-Methods Dialogue in Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, 40 (2): 196-214. Lieberman, Evan S. (2005), Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research, American Political Science Review, 99 (3): 435-452. Mahoney, James, (2007), Qualitative methodology and comparative politics, Comparative Political Studies, 40(2): 122-144. Rohlfing, Ingo (2008), What You See and What You Get: Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research, Comparative Political Studies, 41 (11): 1492-1514. Additional Reading (Optional) - Bennett, Andrew and Colin Elman, Qualitative Methods. The View from the Subfield, Comparative Political Studies, 40, 2, 111-121. - Fearon, James D. and David D. Laitin (2010). Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Box- Steffensmeier, J.M., Brady H.E. and Collier, D., The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford University Press, 756-776. - Mahoney, James et_goertz, Gary (2006) A Tale of Two Cultures : Contrasting Quantitative and Qalitative Research, Political Analysis, 14, 227-249. 13

- Maxwell, Joseph (2010) «Using Numbers in Qualitative Research», Qualitative Inqury, 16, 6, 475-482. Sale, Joanna and al. (2002) «Revisiting the Quantitative and Qualitative Debate : Implications for mixed Methods research», Quality & Quantity, 36: 43 53. (In the following articles the book by King, Keohane & Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, is discussed) - Laitin, David, D. (1995) Review: Disciplining Political Science, The American Political Science Review, 89, 2, 454-456. - Caporaso, James, A. (1995) Review: Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide, The American Political Science Review, 89, 2, 457-460. - Collier, David (1995) Review: Translating Quantitative Methods for Qualitative Research: The Case Selection Bias, The American Political Science Review, 89, 2, 461-466. - Rogowski, Ronald (1995) Review: The Role of Theory and Anomaly in Social-Scientific Inference, The American Political Science Review, 89, 2, 467-470. - Tarrow, Sidney (1995) Review: Bridging Qualitative and Quantitative Divide in Political Science, The American Political Science Review, 89, 2, 471-474. - King, Gary, Keohane, Robert. O., Verba, Sidney (1995) Review: The importance of Research Design in Political Science, The American Political Science Review, 89, 2, 475-481. Linking the quantitative/qualitative traditions: Is the connection of methodological agendas (qualitative/quantitative) desirable/plausible or should these two branches of methodology develop as parallel yet separate tracks? In this regard, is the opposition between qualitative and quantitative artificial? Is it only a distinction between two types of methodologies or are they based on divergent or even incompatible ontologies, epistemologies and theories? What are the misperceptions that quantitativists sustain about qualitative analysis, and vice versa? Are quantitative results more accurate than qualitative ones? Do the different methods have to be evaluated according to the same criteria? Do they share common standards for defining what good research is? Or do they have completely different standards for evidence, inference and different standards for determining what constitutes scientific rigor? Strengths and limitations of bridging qualitative/quantitative methods: If you are in favour of integrating these two methods, what should be the objective of integrating them? If you are against linking qualitative and quantitative methods, justify your position. How to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods? Can and do the principles of quantitative research have to be transposed in qualitative research? Can we triangulate qualitative and quantitative results? How can qualitative research support quantitative research and vice versa? Your choice: Justify your methodological choice. 17 May 2017: Closing session: Political Science in 2017 and politics Compulsory : Jentleson, Bruce W. and Ratner, Ely (2011). Bridging the Beltway-Ivory Tower Gap, International Studies Review, 13: 6-11. Nye, Joseph, Jr. (2008). International Relations: The Relevance of Theory to Practice in Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal, The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press. Parks, Bradley and Stern, Alena (2014). In-and-Outers and Moonlighters: An Evaluation of the Impact of Policy- Making Exposure in IR Scholarship, International Studies Perspectives: 1-21. Smith, Steve (2008). Six Wishes for a More Relevant Discipline of International Relations, in Christian Reus- Smit and Duncan Snidal, The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press. Trent, John E. (2011). Should Political Science Be More Relevant? An Empirical and Critical Analysis of the 14

Discipline, European Political Science, 10 (2): 191-209 Additional Reading (Optional) - Aron, Raymond (1955) «Réflexions sur la politique et la science politique française, Revue française de science politique, 1: 5-20. - Coman, Ramona et Morin, Jean-Frédéric (2014). Towards a More Eclectic, Pluralist and Cosmopolitan Political Science (forthcoming). - Eisfeld, Rainer (2011). How Political Science Might Regain Relevance and Obtain an Audience: A Manifesto for the 21 st Century, European Political Science, 10: 220-225. - Farmer, Rick (2010) «How to Influence Government Policy with Your Research: Tips from Practicing Political Scientists in Government, PS, 717-719. - Flinders, Matthew and John, Peter (2013). The Future of Political Science, Political Studies Review, 11(2): 222-227. - Grimsson, Olafur Ragnar (2012) Keynote lecture: can political science keep up with the twenty-first century?, European Political Science, 11, 271-277. - Lowi, Theodore (1992) «The State in Political Science: How We Become What We Study», The American Political Science Review, 86, 1, 1-7. - Savigny, Heather (2013) «The (political) idea of university: political science and neoliberalism in english higher education», European Political Science, 1-8. - Stark, Andrew (2002) «Why political scientists aren't public Intellectuals», PSonline, 577-579. - Voutat, Bernard (2001) «La science politique ou le contournement de l objet», Espace Temps, 76-77, 6-15. - Wilson, Ernst J. (2007) «Is There Really a Scholar-Practitioner Gap? An Institutional Analysis», PSonline, 147-151. - Wylie, Alison, Reasoning about Ourselves: Feminist Methodology in the Social Sciences, in Martin, Michael and Lee McIntyre (eds), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1994, p. 611-623. The relevance of political science discipline: Do you think that political science is more and more detached from politics, policymakers, public and citizens? Does political science influence politics? Should political science influence politics? How and following which criteria can political scientists increase the social relevance of their work? Conversely, how can policy makers better communicate with political science? Why do decision-makers often ask from political scientists to engage in forecasting and what should the position of political scientist be in this regard? The state of the discipline in 21 st century: How would you assess the development of political science in the 21 st century in terms of its methodologies, approaches, theories, research techniques and information sources? Normativity: Is political science normative? Is political science inevitably normative or can the ideal of axiological neutrality be achieved? Can the latter ideal been withheld in spite of the discipline s irreducible normativity? Is it possible to accept the normativity of political science without transforming it into a prescriptive discipline? 15