Department of Political Science McGill University Winter Political Science 611 Qualitative Analysis

Department of Political Science McGill University Winter 2015 Political Science 611 Qualitative Analysis Professor Erik Martinez Kuhonta Leacock Building, Rm. 425 Tel: 514-398-4400 ext. 00416 Email: erik.kuhonta@mcgill.ca Office Hours: Tuesday 2:30-4:00pm Course Description: This seminar introduces graduate students to the vast literature on qualitative methodology. Its goal is to enable students to become more aware of the importance of methodology within the discipline and in their own work. Through intensive reading of the relevant literature, several essays and fieldwork exercises, and a final proposal, students should become critical consumers and producers of the qualitative methods canon. The development of qualitative methods as a distinct literature in political science has only crystallized in the past ten years. These years have seen the creation of the Consortium on Qualitative Research Methods and its yearly institute now held at Syracuse University. Within the American Political Science Association, the section on qualitative methods, now renamed the section on qualitative and multi-method research, has become one of the most dynamic. This course builds on these foundations and seeks to engage students within the context of this body of research. A course on qualitative methods can be taught in myriad different ways. My approach is to emphasize the analytical aspects of the qualitative methods canon with the larger goal of interrogating what social science means, how it can be best practiced, and what different techniques and tools imply about social science ontology. This requires that we have some foundations in the philosophy of science, in debates about causation, and in the analysis and meaning of concepts. Beyond these foundations, a key aspect of qualitative methods has always been a concern with research that focuses on one or several cases or countries. Hence, qualitative methods must include the study of ethnography, case studies, and comparative analysis. We will look at these methods in depth. Finally, it is crucial that students not just be consumers of this literature but also practitioners. To that effect, this course requires that students actively practice and engage these methods through a number of writing exercises that are described below. These writing exercises provide the stepping stones to writing an academic proposal the final requirement of this course. Ultimately, this seminar should help students: (1) become self-conscious about methodology and the analytical implications, advantages, and disadvantages of each method; (2) write and conduct research with rigor, logic, and creativity; (3) gain a head start on developing a Ph.D. dissertation or Master s thesis/research essay proposal; (4) become more aware of the nature of the political science profession and how methodology 1

is a core aspect of the profession; and (5) be able to articulate and defend their work assertively and forcefully in professional settings on the basis of methodological rigor and awareness. Course Requirements: 1. This is a reading-intensive seminar. As befits a graduate seminar, readings in this course are heavy. Students are required to do the readings beforehand and come to class ready to discuss, compare, and critique the readings. I strongly encourage you to take notes when reading and to write your assessments and critiques of the readings before the seminar meeting. By writing as you read, you will retain information much more effectively. 2. Pro-active participation. This seminar will be successful to the extent that students participate actively, critically, and constructively. Participation hinges on consistent reading of the materials. The way to gain the most from this seminar is to participate pro-actively through oral discussion, intensive reading, and through the writing exercises. 3. Five papers. Four analytical papers of 4 double-spaced pages in length and 12-point font. Do not exceed the 4-page limit. One paper (Paper #3 on interviews) of 2 double-spaced pages in length. These papers have very different purposes; you must follow carefully the instructions below. a. All papers must be posted on mycourses no later than 4:00pm on the Monday before the Tuesday seminar. Seminar members should read all the papers of their fellow classmates and be prepared to discuss them. I may also call on students to discuss their specific papers. b. Two papers should be response papers that provide a critical analysis of the week s readings. These are designated as papers #1 and #5. Paper #1 should be written for Week 2, Week 3, or Week 4. Paper #5 should be written for Week 9, Week 10, or Week 11. In other words, for both of these two papers you have some choice of when to write them. These papers are standard graduate seminar essays that are meant to critique and build on the literature. For these essays, you should think of contrasts and similarities between the readings, issues you find problematic, or questions you think can be deepened further. Your paper should then develop one main thesis based on your analysis of the readings. It should in effect be a response to an issue that you find interesting, provocative, or compelling. It is not necessary to analyze all the readings in the paper. What is more important is that you focus on one overarching central argument that builds on and critiques several readings. Remember: a weak paper provides a list of scattered thoughts and lacks a central argument; a strong paper advances one thesis statement in a systematic, logical, forceful, and analytical manner. c. Paper #2 is a specific essay on ethnography or participant observation. For this paper you will be required to do some fieldwork observation of social or political life in Montreal, either by attending a public meeting, observing a particular activity or community for several days, or any other form of research that requires some intensive observation of social life. This paper should not just relay what happened, but should provide some analytical structure to the ethnography. For instance, what is the context of the meeting or community? What is the social composition of the community or 2

meeting you observed? What broader implications can you derive from your observations? How do your observations help us understand social or political life? Use the relevant literature for the week on ethnography to help frame your paper and engage at an analytical level some of the arguments from the readings. You should plan ahead for this paper, which is due in Week 5, in order to give yourself enough time to conduct the ethnography. d. Paper #3 is a specific essay on unstructured interviews. For this paper you will be required to conduct several interviews with particular sectors in society with the goal of answering the following question: What is the key to success in your specific profession? You should interview two individuals from one of the following sectors: (1) private industry; (2) academia; (3) the NGO sector; or (4) government. In your essay you must address most of the questions listed below in a way that makes the paper substantively engaging and methodologically insightful. You should also engage with the readings for Week 6 when writing your essay. Prepare ahead of time to schedule the interviews before Week 6. Questions to address in your essay: How easy or difficult was access? How did you manage the flow of the interview? Did you add questions as you went along or did you follow closely your questionnaire? Did the interview veer away from the main theme, and if so, how did you respond? Was the respondent forthcoming when you asked questions? If not, how did you adjust? Did the interviews you conducted differ in substance or comfort level? Why? Most importantly, did you collect the information that you wanted and what was the most successful aspect of the interview? Attach your questionnaire to the essay. This paper should only be 2 pages in length, not including questionnaire. e. Paper #4 is a specific essay on case study research. For this paper you will be required to assess Robert Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). This book is one of the most important case studies in comparative politics. Questions to address in your essay: Did you learn new empirical facts from the case study and/or theoretical insights? Did the case study lead to knowledge accumulation or was it more focused on the empirical materials? How would you assess this balance between theory and empirics? Above all, why does this case study matter? When writing this essay, be sure to engage the relevant literature from Weeks 7 and 8. 4. One proposal of 10-12 double-spaced pages in length (12-point font). a. This is a preliminary exercise in drafting a dissertation or Master s thesis/research paper proposal and should be exploited as an opportunity to get a head start on one s research agenda in graduate school. This exercise will also be helpful in terms of applying for competitive fellowships and grants. b. In the proposal, you should use the materials and ideas discussed throughout the seminar to frame your paper. Use only the materials that are relevant to your particular research question. You will also need to do extensive literature review on a substantive topic. This exercise requires that you develop your ideas systematically and in a concise and focused manner; therefore, you are required to stick to the 12-page limit. Papers that exceed the limit will be penalized. I will provide guidelines and reference materials 3

on how to structure an effective and convincing proposal. All students are required to meet with me during office hours to discuss their proposal. c. The proposal is due by 5:00pm on Tuesday April 20 via email: ekuhonta@gmail.com. 5. Presentation of the proposal in the last two seminar meetings. The presentation should last 10 minutes with 15 minutes for discussion. All seminar participants should circulate via email a 2-page précis of the proposal one day before the final meeting. Students should read the précis and come to the seminar ready to critique each presentation. The point of the presentation is above all to gain feedback on one s work. The more questions we have from the floor, the more constructive the session will be. Grade Distribution: 1. Short papers 50% 2. Proposal and presentation of proposal 40% 3. Class participation 10% Note: This is a rough approximation of the grade distribution. Grades can also be rounded up or down based on class effort (or lack thereof) and improvement throughout the semester. Statement on Academic Integrity: McGill University values academic integrity. Therefore, all students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism, and other academic offences under the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures (see www.mcgill.ca/integrity for more information). 4

Books to Purchase: All of the required books have been ordered at Paragraphe Books at 2220 McGill College Avenue. In addition to these books, one course pack will be available for purchase at the McGill Bookstore. The course pack will include only book chapters not journal articles. All journal articles that are downloadable from McGill s database will be posted on mycourses. The books and the course pack will be placed on reserve in the library for a three-hour loan. Henry E. Brady and David Collier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010, 2 nd ed.). Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005) John Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, 2 nd ed.) Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts: A User s Guide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005) Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996) James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Michael Martin and Lee McIntyre, eds., Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994) Robert Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985) Arthur Stinchcombe, Constructing Social Theories (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Recommended [also available at Paragraphe Books] Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methodology for Students of Political Science (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997) For Reference and Consultation [only on reserve; two-day loan] Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) 5

WEEK 1 (Tuesday, January 13): What Are Qualitative Methods? *The first meeting will be a substantive meeting, rather than just an organizational meeting. Please do the following before the first day of class: (1) Read the materials assigned below. (2) Come to class prepared to answer the following questions: What is your likely research topic for your Ph.D. dissertation or Master s thesis/essay? Why did you choose this topic? What is the main question of your research topic? What methods do you envision using? Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (1994), 3-33. Henry Brady, David Collier, and Jason Seawright, Refocusing the Discussion of Methodology, in Brady and Collier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry (2010), 15-31. John Gerring, Social Science Methodology (2001), 1-22. David A. Freedman, On Types of Scientific Enquiry: The Role of Qualitative Reasoning, in Brady and Collier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry (2010), 221-236. Fritz Matchlup, Are the Social Sciences Really Inferior? in Martin and McIntyre, eds., Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science (1994), 5-19. Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007). Ian Shapiro, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, eds., Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Ian Shapiro, The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005) James Mahoney and Gary Goertz, A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and QualitativeResearch, Political Analysis 14:3 (Summer 2006): 227-249. Gerardo L. Munck, Ten Fallacies about Qualitative Methodology, Qualitative Methods 3, 1 (2004): 2-5. WEEK 2 (Tuesday, January 20): Metatheory, Theory, Laws, and Hypotheses *Paper #1 due in Week 2, Week 3, or Week 4* Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1996). Read in entirety; a classic. Karl Popper, Normal Science and its Dangers, in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 51-58. Arthur Stinchcombe, Constructing Social Theories (1968), 1-56. Carl G. Hempel, The Function of General Laws in History, in Martin and McIntyre, eds., Readings in the Philosophy of Social Sciences (1994), 43-53. F.A. Hayek, The Theory of Complex Phenomena, in Martin and McIntyre, eds., Readings in the Philosophy of Social Sciences (1994), 55-70. Lee McIntyre, Complexity and Social Scientific Laws, in Martin and McIntyre, eds., Readings in the Philosophy of Social Sciences (1994), 131-143. Charles Taylor, Interpretation and the Sciences of Man, in Martin and McIntyre, eds., Readings in the Philosophy of Social Sciences (1993), 181-211. 6

Isaiah Berlin (edited by Henry Hardy), Concepts and Categories (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978). Fred R. Dallmayr and Thomas A. McCarthy, eds., Understanding and Social Inquiry (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977). Paul Rabinow and William M. Sullivan, eds., Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Peter Finch, The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958). Lynn McDonald, The Early Origins of the Social Sciences (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen s University Press, 1993). Jonathan Marks, Why I Am Not A Scientist: Anthropology and Modern Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009). WEEK 3 (Tuesday, January 27): Causation, Causal Mechanisms, Explanation, and Inference *Paper #1 due in Week 2, Week 3, or Week 4* Henry E. Brady, What is Causality, in Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 217-270. Alexander George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (2005), 206-232. Peter Hedstrom and Richard Swedberg, Social Mechanisms, ACTA Sociologica 39, 3 (1996): 281-308. King, Keohane, Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (1994), 76-91. David Collier, Henry Brady, and Jason Seawright, Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward An Alternative View of Methodology, in Brady and Collier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry (2010), 161-199. Nathaniel Beck, Is Causal-Process Observation an Oxymoron? Political Analysis 14, 3 (2006): 347-352. Jon Elster, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Jon Elster, Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Wesley Salmon, Causality and Explanation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 68-78. Elliott Sober and David Papineau, Casual Factors, Causal Inference, Causal Explanation, The Aristotelian Society Supplementary Vol. 60 (1986), 97-136. Charles Tilly, Mechanisms in Political Processes, Annual Review of Political Science 4 (2001): 21-41. WEEK 4 (Tuesday, February 3): Concept Formation, Measurement, and Typology *Paper #1 due in Week 2, Week 3, or Week 4* 7

Giovanni Sartori, Concept Misinformation in Comparative Politics, American Political Science Review 64, 4 (December 1970): 1033-1053. Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts: A User s Guide (2006), 1-127 (chaps.1-4). John Gerring, Social Science Methodology (2001), 107-193 (chaps.5-7). David Collier and James Mahon, Conceptual Stretching Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis, American Political Science Review 87, 4 (December 1993): 845-855. David Collier and Steven Levitsky, Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research, World Politics 49, 3 (April 1997): 430-451. David Collier and Robert Adcock, Democracy and Dichotomies, Annual Review of Political Science 2 (1999): 537-565. George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Robert Adcock and David Collier, Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research, American Political Science Review 95, 3 (September 2001): 529-546. Munck, Gerardo L., and Jay Verkuilen, Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies 35, 1 (2002): 5-34. Adam Przeworkski and Henry Teune, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (Krieger, 1970). WEEK 5 (Tuesday, February 10): Ethnography *Paper #2 due* James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (1985). Read in entirety except for chap.3. Clifford Geertz, Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture, in Martin and McIntyre, eds., Readings in the Philosophy of Social Sciences (1993), 213-231. Clifford Geertz, Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight, Daedalus 101 (1972): 1-37. Martyn Hammersley and Paul Atkinson, Ethnography: Principles in Practice (London: Routledge, 1995, 2 nd ed.), 54-123. Edward Schatz, What Kind(s) of Ethnography does Political Science Need? in Schatz, ed., Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 303-318. Richard Fenno, Jr., Observation, Context, and Sequence in the Study of Politics, American Political Science Review 80, 1 (March 1986): 3-15. John Gaventa, Power and Powerlessness in an Appalachian Valley (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980). Jessica Allina-Pisano, How to Tell an Axe Murderer: An Essay on Ethnography, Truth, and Lies, in Schatz, ed., Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 53-73. Paul Rabinow, Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco (Berkeley: University of California 8

Press, 1977). John Borneman and Abdellah Hammoudi, eds., Being There: The Fieldwork Encounter and the Making of Truth (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009). Benjamin Read, Lauren M. MacLean, and Melani Cammett, Symposium: Field Research How Rich? How Thick? How Participatory? Qualitative Methods 4, 2 (Fall 2006): 9-18. Robert Emerson, Rachel Fretz and Linda Shaw. Processing Fieldnotes: Coding and Memoing. In Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 142-168. Christopher Barrett and Jeffrey W. Cason. Knowing When to Go Home, in Overseas Research: A Practical Guide (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997). Elisabeth Wood, Field Methods, in Charles Boix and Susan Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Evan Lieberman, Marc Howard and Julia Lynch, in Symposium: Field Research, Qualitative Methods (Spring 2004): 9-18. David Collier, Data, Field Work and Extracting New Ideas at Close Range, APSA CP Newsletter (Winter 1999): 1-6. Howard Becker, Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Research While You re Doing It (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). WEEK 6 (Tuesday, February 17): Doing Interviews *Paper #3 due* Myron Weiner, Political Interviewing, in Robert E. Ward, Studying Politics Abroad (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1964), 102-133. Beth Leech et al. Symposium: Interview Methods in Political Science, PS: Political Science and Politics (December 2002): 663-688. P. Ewick and S. Silbey, Narrating Social Structure: Stories of Resistance to Legal Authority, American Journal of Sociology 108, 6 (2003): 1328-1372. Norman K. Denzin, The Sociological Interview, in idem., The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), 112-133. H. Rubin and I. Rubin, Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995). WEEK 7 (Tuesday, February 24): Case Studies George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (2005), 3-124 (chaps. 1-6). Donald Campbell, Degrees of Freedom and the Case Study, Comparative Political Studies 8, 2 (July 1975): 178-193. David Collier, Jason Seawright, and Gerardo Munck, The Quest for Standards: King, Keohane, and Verba s Designing Social Inquiry, in Brady and Collier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry (2010), 33-63. Charles C. Ragin, "Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable- 9

Oriented Research," Comparative Social Research 16 (1997): 27-42. Barbara Geddes, Paradigms and Sandcastles (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003). WEEK 8 (Tuesday, March 10): Case Selection *Paper #4 due* Barbara Geddes, How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics, Political Analysis 2, 1 (1990): 131-150. David Collier and James Mahoney, Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research, World Politics 49, 1 (October 1996): 56-91. David Collier, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright, Critiques, Responses, and Trade- Offs: Drawing Together the Debate, in Brady and Collier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry (2010), 125-159. Ronald Rogowski, How Inference in the Social (but not the Physical) Sciences Neglects Theoretical Anomaly, in Brady and Collier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry (2010), 89-97. Gerardo L. Munck, Tools for Qualitative Research, in Brady and Collier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry (2004 edition), 105-121. Bernard Ebbinghaus, When Less is More: Selection Problems in Large-N and Small-N Cross-National Comparisons, International Sociology 20, 2 (2005): 133-152. WEEK 9 (Tuesday, March 17): The Comparative Method and Comparative- Historical Analysis *Paper #5 due in Week 9, Week 10, or Week 11* Arend Lijphart, Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method, American Political Science Review 65, 3 (1971): 682-693. Edgar Kiser and Michael Hechter, The Role of General Theory in Comparative- Historical Sociology, American Journal of Sociology 97, 1 (1991): 1-30. Stanley Lieberson, Small N s and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases, Social Forces 70, 2 (1991): 307-320. George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (2005), 151-179. Ian S. Lustick, History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias, American Political Science Review 90, 3 (1996): 605-618. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Comparative Historical Analysis: Achievements and Agendas, in Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative- Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (2003), 3-38. James Mahoney, Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis, 10

in Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative-Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (2003), 337-372. Recommended comparative analysis: Charles C. Ragin, The ComparativeMethod: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Can one or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains? in Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative-Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (2003), 305-336. Caroline B. Brettell, Fieldwork in the Archives: Methods and Sources in Historical Anthropology, in H. Russell Bernard, ed., Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology (Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press), 513-546. Ivan Vallier, ed., Comparative Methods in Sociology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971). Giovanni Sartori, Comparing and Miscomparing, Journal of Theoretical Politics 3, 3 (1991): 243-257. Charles Tilly, Means and Ends of Comparison in Macrosociology, Comparative Social Research 16 (1997): 43-53. Gerardo L. Munck, Research Designs Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (Oxford: Elsevier, 2004),1-11. Charles C. Ragin, Fuzzy-Set Social Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). Recommended comparative-historical or just historical analysis: E.H. Carr, What Is History? (New York: Random House, 1961). Guenther Roth and Wolfgang Schluchter, Max Weber s Vision of History: Ethics and Methods (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979). Philip Abrams, Historical Sociology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982). Charles Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984). David Collier, The Comparative Method, in Ada Finifter, ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline II (Washington, D.C.: APSA, 1993), 105-119. Theda Skocpol and Margaret Somers, The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry, Comparative Studies in Society and History 22, 2 (1980): 174-197. David Collier, Comparative Historical Analysis: Where Do We Stand? APSA-CP: Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics 9 (Winter 1998): 1-2, 4-5. WEEK 10 (Tuesday, March 24): Temporality, Critical Junctures, and Path Dependence *Paper #5 due in Week 9, Week 10, or Week 11* Ruth Berins Collier and David Collier, Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 27-39. Paul Pierson, Path Dependence, Increasing Returns, and the Study of Politics, American Political Science Review 94, 2 (2000): 251-267. Paul Pierson, Politics in Time (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 54-78. 11

James Mahoney, Path Dependence in Historical Sociology, Theory and Society 29, 4 (2000): 507-548. Kathleen Thelen, How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative-Historical Analysis, in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative- Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (2003), 208-240. Ira Katznelson, Periodization and Preferences: Reflections on Purposive Action in Comparative Historical Social Science, in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative-Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (2003), 270-301. Giovanni Capoccia and R. Daniel Kelemen, The Study of Critical Junctures, World Politics 59 (April 2007): 341-369. Ronald Aminzade, Historical Sociology and Time, Sociological Methods and Research 20, 4 (1992): 456-480. Andrew Bennett and Colin Elman. Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependency, Political Analysis 14 (2006): 250-267. Jack A Goldstone, Initial Conditions, General Laws, Path Dependence, and Explanation in Historical Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 104, 3 (1998): 829-845. Kathleen Thelen, Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics, Annual Review of Political Science 2 (1999): 369-404. WEEK 11 (Tuesday, March 31): Counterfactuals *Paper #5 due in Week 9, Week 10, or Week 11* James D. Fearon, Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science, World Politics 43, 2 (January 1991): 169-195. Richard Ned Lebow, Contingency, Catalysts, and International System Change, Political Science Quarterly 115, 4 (2000): 591-616. Philip E. Tetlock and Aaron Belkin, Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives, in Tetlock and Belkin, eds., Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 3-37. Edgar Kiser and Margaret Levi, Using Counterfactuals in Historical Analysis: Theories of Revolution, in Philip E. Tetlock and Aaron Belkin, eds., Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 187-207. Richard Ned Lebow, Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010). WEEK 12 (Tuesday, April 6): Class Proposal Presentations WEEK 13 (Tuesday, April 13 MAKE-UP CLASS): Class Proposal Presentations 12

FURTHER REFERENCES General: Andrew Abbott, Methods of Diversity: Heuristics for the Social Sciences (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004) C. Wright Mills, On Intellectual Craftsmanship, in idem., The Sociological Imagination (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959). Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating, eds., Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash, Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, 2008). Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing, 2010, 12 th ed.). Floyd J. Fowler, Jr., Survey Research Methods (Los Angeles: Sage, 2009, 4 th ed.) Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams, The Craft of Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995). W. Phillips Shively, The Craft of Political Research (Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall, 1998, 4 th ed.). Glenn Firebaugh, Seven Rules for Social Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). Kenneth R. Hoover, The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking (New York: St. Martin s Press, 1976). H. Russell Bernard, ed., Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press, 2002). Richard J. Light and David B. Pillemer, Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984). Social Theory/Sociology of Knowledge: Charles E. Lindblom, Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). Lisa Anderson, Pursuing Truth, Exercising Power: Social Science and Public Policy in the 21 st Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003). Emile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (New York: Free Press, 1982). James E. Curtis and John W. Petras, eds., The Sociology of Knowledge: A Reader (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970). Bent Flyvbjerg, Making Social Science Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001). Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Usable Theory: Analytic Tools for Social and Political Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009). Craig Parsons, How to Map Arguments in Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, eds., Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists and the Study of International Relations (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001). Rational Choice and Game Theory: Thomas C. Shelling, Micromotives and Macrobehavior (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978). Robert H. Bates, Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Barry R. 13

Weingast, Analytical Narratives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998). Jon Elster, Rational Choice History, American Political Science Review 94 (2000): 685-695. Daniel P. Carpenter, What is the Marginal Value of Analytic Narratives? Social Science History 24, 4 (2000): 653-668. William James Booth, Patrick James, Hudson Meadwell, eds., Politics and Rationality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Hudson Meadwell and Axel van den Berg, eds., The Social Sciences and Rationality: Promise, Limits, and Problems (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2004). Donald Green and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). Mixed Methods: Amy R. Poteete, Marco A. Janssen, and Elinor Ostrom, Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010). Andrew Bennett et al., Symposium: Multi-Method Work, Dispatches from the Front Lines, Qualitative Methods 5, 1 (2007): 9-27. Evan Lieberman, Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research, American Political Science Review 99, 3 (2005):435-52. Rose McDermott Experimental Methods in Political Science, Annual Review of Political Science 5 (2002): 31-61. Michael Coppedge, Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large-N and Small in Comparative Politics, Comparative Politics 31, 4 (1999): 465-476. Herbert M. Krtizer, The Data Puzzle: The Nature of Interpretation in Quantitative Research, American Journal of Political Science 40, 1 (1996): 1-32. David Laitin. Hegemony and Culture: Politics and Religious Change among the Yoruba (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986). Edward Schatz, Methods are not Tools: Ethnography and the Limits of Multiple- Methods Research, International Political Science Association Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper No. 12 (2007). Donald Green and Alan S. Gerber, Reclaiming the Experimental Tradition in Political Science, in Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner, eds., Political Science: The State of The Discipline (New York, W.W. Norton and Co., 2002). John Gerring and Rose McDermott, Experiments and Observations: Towards a Unified Framework of Research Design, American Journal of Political Science 51, 3 (2007): 688-701. History of Specific Disciplines [incomplete]: David H. Price, Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War (Durham: Duke University Press, 2008). Robert Vitalis, The Noble American Science of Imperial Relations and its Laws of Race Development, Comparative Studies in Society and History 52, 4 (2010): 909-938 Disciplines and Area Studies: Erik Martinez Kuhonta, Dan Slater, and Tuong Vu, eds., Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008). 14

Other Resources: Qualitative and Multi-Method Research Newsletter of APSA available here: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/moynihan/cqrm/newsletters/ International Political Science Association working papers website here: http://www.ipsa.org/news/news/ipsa-rc01-concepts-methods-cm-working-papers 15