Maxwell School

 

 Institute for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research – June 17-28, 2013 -  Schedule and Reading List  

(Please click here to open a pdf version of the Schedule and Reading List

 

 There are three types of institute sessions: (1) Unified (whole institute) sessions; (2) research design discussion groups; and  (3) elective modules.

 The unified sessions are on the first Monday (6/17), the first Tuesday (6/18), and the first Friday (6/21). 

 The research design discussion groups will be held for two hours on most mornings of the institute. A separate schedule will be available. 

 There are 22 elective modules, of which participants will select eight; that is, they will choose one or the other of the modules that are offered concurrently as pairs (e.g., module 1 or module 2) or one of those offered as triples (e.g. modules 5, 6 and 7).  

      

   6/17

   Unified (whole institute) sessions on different approaches to qualitative analysis (U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5)

    

   6/18

    

   Unified (whole institute) sessions on process tracing and concepts (U6, U7, U8)

   6/19

   1) Typological Theory, Concepts, and Measurement

    

   or

   2) Discourse Analysis

   6/20

   3) Tools of Comparative Research I

    

   or

   4) Designing and Conducting Fieldwork I

   6/21

   5) Tools of Comparative Research II

    

   or

   6) Designing and Conducting Fieldwork II

   or

   7) Interpretive Methods for Archival Research

   6/24

   8) Strategies of Causal Inference

    

   or

   9) Historiography and Archival Research

   or

   10) Experimental Methods

   6/25

   11) Quantitative and Qualitative  I

    

   or

   12) Qualitative Data Management

   or

   13) Content Analysis I

   6/26

   14) Quantitative and Qualitative  II

    

   or

   15) Ethnography I

   or

   16) Content Analysis II 

   6/27

   17) Natural Experiments I

   or

   18) Ethnography II

   or

   19) QCA and Fuzzy Sets I

   6/28

   20) Natural Experiments II

   or

   21) Ethnography III

    

   or

   22) QCA and Fuzzy Sets II

 

 Choosing Which Modules to Take

 With a few exceptions, most of the 22 modules can be taken as stand-alone units.

 Modules with higher numbered suffixes (e.g. Content Analysis II) can only be taken with the first module in the sequence (e.g. Content Analysis I). [That is, while it is fine to take I and not II in a sequence, it is usually not possible to take II and not I.]

 There are several modules which follow in a natural sequence and/or lend themselves to being taken as a group. These sequences are:

 Module 8 (Strategies of Causal Inference), Modules 11 and 14 (Quantitative and Qualitative I and II), and Modules 17 and 20 (Natural Experiments I and II),

 Module 2 (Discourse Analysis), Module 7 (Interpretive Methods for Archival Research), and Modules 15, 18, and 21 (Ethnography I and II).

 Modules 3 and 5 (Tools of Comparative Research I and II), and Modules 19 and 22 (QCA and Fuzzy sets I and II).

 Modules 4 and 6 (Designing and Conducting Fieldwork I and II), Modules 15,  18, and 21 (Political Ethnography I, II and III), and Module 9 (Historiography and Archival Research.

  

 Manuscripts in Press or in Progress

 To the extent possible, IQMR uses the most up-to-date readings on the methods covered at the institute. One consequence is that we are often using manuscripts that are either in press or in progress. 

 Please note that the authors are allowing us to use these materials as a courtesy. As with all IQMR materials, they are made available for current attendees’ use only

 

 


   Monday, June 17 Module 0 Unified” (i.e. whole institute) sessions  


 

   U1 8:45am – 9:15am – Introduction and Logistics 

 

  Colin Elman, Syracuse University  

  •U1.1. David Collier and Colin Elman, “Qualitative and Multimethod Research: Organizations, Publications, and Reflection on Integration.” In Janet Box-Steffensemeir, Henry Brady, and David Collier, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (Oxford, 2008), pp. 779-795.

  •U1.2 James Mahoney, “After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research,” World Politics 62(1) (January 2010): 120-47. 

 

  U2 9:15am-10:30am Quantitative and Qualitative: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Headed. 

  David Collier, University of California, Berkeley 

  •U.2.1. Henry E. Brady and David Collier, Eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd Edn. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield).  

  •U.2.2.  David Collier and  Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright, “Outdated Views of Qualitative Methods: Time to Move On,” Political Analysis 18(4) (Autumn 2010): 506-513.

 Guide to the Readings:

 Examine carefully the Prefaces to the first and second editions of RSI (pp. xiii-xviii, you can skip the acknowledgements), and the Introduction to the second edition (pp. 1-10). 

 Look over Chapters 1 to 7 in Part I “A Debate on Methodology” (pp. 11-122), which summarize the debate over King, Keohne, and Verba’s Designing Social Inquiry. Chapters 8 and 9 (pp. 125-199) then present the Collier-Brady-Seawright proposals for moving forward from KKV.

 Examine Carefully Part II, “Causal Inference: Old Dilemmas, New Tools” (pp. 201-311), which points ahead to several topics covered in this year’s IQMR.

 The “Time to Move On” journal article presents a terse summary of the Freedman-Collier-Brady-Seawright position on the role of qualitative evidence in causal inference

 

 10:30am - 11:00 am Coffee Break

 

 U3 11:00am – 12:15pm Within Case and Small-N Comparisons  

 Andrew Bennett, Georgetown University  

 U.3.1. Alexander George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (The MIT Press, 2005), Preface and chapter 1.  

 Recommended:

 U.3.2. Gary Goertz and James Mahoney, “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research,” Political Analysis 2001, Vol. 14 issue 2, pp. 227-249 (note: this is the article-length version of the argument that Gary and Jim have now expanded into a book  that they will be using for their institute module.  Participants not taking that module may want to read this article, but those taking the module may find the article redundant).

 U.3.3. Henry Brady, “Causation and Explanation in Social Science,” chapter 10 in the Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Janet Box-Steffensmeir, Henry Brady, and David Collier, eds., Oxford University Press, 2009.

 

 12:15 - 2:15pm Lunch

   

 U4 2:15pm - 3:30pm The Interpretive Approach to Qualitative Research 

 Lisa Wedeen, University of Chicago  

  •U.4.1. Clifford Geertz, "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture" in The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973).

  •U.4.2. Clifford Geertz, "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight," in The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973).

  •U.4.3. Michel Foucault, "The body of the condemned," (Chapter 1) in Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage Books, 1995. (That's the second edition; the 1979 first edition is fine too). 

  •U.4.4. Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, "Interpretive Analytics," (Chapter 5). In Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983, second edition). 

 

 3:30pm – 4:00pm Coffee Break

 

  U5 4:00pm - 5:15pm Roundtable on “How Do We Bring All of this Together?” The Implications of Multiple Approaches to Qualitative and Multi-Method Research  

  Lisa Wedeen, Colin Elman, Andrew Bennett, David Collier, Lauren MacLean             

 

 

 

   Tuesday, June 18 Module 0 Unified” (i.e. whole institute) sessions

 

   8:45am - 10:15am U6 -Process Tracing

  Andrew Bennett, Georgetown University  

  This session outlines the logic and methods of within-case forms of analysis, particularly process tracing.  It addresses the epistemological underpinnings and practical methods of process tracing, illustrating these with examples from the work of Scott Sagan, Yuen Foong Khong, and Andrew Bennett.  Reading and discussion questions students should consider in advance of this session include: What is the relationship between process tracing and causal mechanisms?  What kinds of iterations between changes in a theory and process tracing evidence are defensible?  How does process tracing compensate for some of the weaknesses of qualitative methods that rely on comparison or covariation? How is process tracing different from analysis of covariation?  Does process tracing rely on a Bayesian logic, or can it be modeled as such? Must process tracing focus at the micro level and individuals, or can it be applied to macro level processes?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of the ways in which Sagan and Khong have used process tracing?

 

  •U.6.1 . Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (The MIT Press, 2005), (chapters 7)  

  •U.6.2.  Andrew Bennett, “Process Tracing: A Bayesian Approach,” in Janet Box-Steffensemeir, Henry Brady, and David Collier, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (Oxford, 2008)  702-721.

  •U.6.3. David Collier, “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44, No. 4 (October 2011): 823–30. 

  •U.6.4. Andrew Bennett and Jeff Checkel, Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best Practices; read pp. 27-40.

  Assess the following examples of process tracing by Scott Sagan and Kristin Bakke using the ten criteria that Bennett and Checkel lay out, and prepare to discuss your assessment:

  •U.6.5. Scott Sagan, The Limits of Safety, pp. 1-14, 45-52.

   •U.6.6. Kristin Bakke, “Copying and learning from outsiders?  Assessing diffusion from transnational insurgents in the Chechen Wars.”

   

  Recommended

  •U.6.7 . Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (The MIT Press, 2005), (chapter 10)  

  U.6.8. David Collier, “Teaching Process Tracing: Exercises and Examples.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44, No. 4 (October 2011). (Published online by PS to accompany “Understanding Process Tracing.”)

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

  10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

  12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.            

            

   2:00pm - 3:30pm U7 Contested Concepts

  David Collier, University of California, Berkeley

  •U.7.1. David Collier, “Essentially Contested Concepts: Debates and Applications.” Journal of Political Ideologies, October 2006, Vol. 11 No. 3: 211-246.

   •U.7.2. W. B. Gallie, “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. New Series, Vol. 56 (1955-1956), pp. 167-198.

 

 

   1. Further Readings:Selected Articleson Specific Concepts. Most of the following articles have abstracts, and you should look over the abstracts. Read one or a couple of articlesthat are especiallyrelevant to the topic of your research design. Do the articles help you rethink any issues that arise in your project?

 

   Anti‐System Parties. Capoccia, Giovanni. 2002. “Anti‐system Parties.”Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14(1), pp. 935.

 

   Citizen Participation. Day, Diane.1997. “Citizen Participation in the Planning Process: An Essentially Contested Concept?” Journal of Planning Literature, 11, pp. 421‐434

 

   Genocide. Straus, Scott.2001. “Contested Meaningsand Conflicting Imperatives: A Conceptual Analysis of Genocide. Journal of Genocide Research 3(3), pp. 349–375.

 

   Globalization. Strand, Jonathan R., et al. 2005. “The Essentially Contested Conceptof Globalization. Politics and Ethics Review,1(1), pp. 4559.

 

   Market. Eckehard,Rosenbaum F. 2000. “What is a Market?On the Methodology of a Contested Concept.” Review of Social Economy58(4), pp. 455‐482.

 

   Neoliberalism. Boas, Taylor, and Jordan GansMorse. 2009. Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to AntiLiberal Slogan. Studies in Comparative International Development, 44(2), pp. 137–161.

 

   Populism. Weyland, Kurt. 2001. “Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populismin the Study of Latin American Politics. Comparative Politics, 34(1), pp.122.

 

   Populism. Collier, R. B., 2001. “Populism.” In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Eds. Neil J. Smelser, Paul B. Baltes. Amsterdam: Elsevier

 

   Power. MacDonald, K.I. 1976. “Is ‘Power’ Essentially Contested. British Journal of Political Science, 6(3), pp. 380382.

 

   Terrorism. Weinberg, Leonard, A. Pedahzur, and S. HirschHoefler. 2004. The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism. Terrorismand Political Violence, 16(4), pp. 777794.

 

   1a. Conceptual Disagreement Influences Causal Inference. The following three articles raise the crucial issue of how different versions ofconcepts yield contrasting conclusions about causal inference.

 

   Democracy. Paxton, Pamela. 2000. “Women’s Suffragein the Measurement of Democracy: Problems of Operationalization. Studies in Comparative International Development, 35(3), pp.92‐111.

 

   Institutionalization. Levitsky, Steven. 1998. “Institutionalization and Peronism: The Concept, the Case and the Case for Unpacking the Concept. Party Politics, 4(1), pp.7792.

 

   Peasant/Peasant Revolution.Kurtz, MarcusJ. 2000. “Understanding Peasant Revolution: From

 

   concept to theory to case. Theory and Society,29(1), pp.93‐124.

 

   1b. Possiblynot all Concepts are Contested! Do these two authors make a convincing case?

 

   Law.Ehrenberg, KennethM. 2009. Law is Not (Best Considered) an Essentially Contested Concept.” Buffalo Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2005‐03.

 

   Security. Baldwin, David A. 1997. “The Concept of Security. Review of International Studies, 23, pp. 5‐26.

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

             

   4:00pm - 5:30pm  U8 Process Tracing II

 

   David Waldner, University of Virginia 

 

   U.8.1. David Waldner, “Process Tracing and Causal Mechanisms,”  in Harold Kincaid, Ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science (Oxford University Press), 65-84.

 

   U.8.2. David Waldner, “Process Tracing and Comparative Politics,” Forthcoming in Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel, Editors, Process Tracing in the Social Sciences: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, chapter 4.

 

       

 

 Wednesday, June 19 Module 1 Typological Theory, Concepts, and Measurement – David Collier and Andrew Bennett

 

8:45am - 10:15am  Typologies

David Collier, University of California, Berkeley 

   11.1.1. David Collier, Jody LaPorte and Jason Seawright, “Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytic Rigor,” Political Science Quarterly, 2012, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 217-232.  

1.11.1.2. Colin Elman, “Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics,” International Organization, Spring 2005, Vol. 59, pp. 293-326.

 

10:10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

10:10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.                      

 

2:00pm - 3:30pm Typological Theories

Andrew Bennett, Georgetown University  

1.2.1. Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, (The MIT Press, 2005), chapter 11  .

1.2.2. Colin Elman, “Explanatory Typologies and Property Space in Qualitative Studies of International Politics,” International Organization, Spring 2005, pp. 293-326. (also assigned as 1.1.2).

1.2.3. Excerpt from Andrew Bennett, “Causal mechanisms and typological theories in the study of civil conflict,” in Jeff Checkel, ed., Transnational Dynamics of Civil War, Columbia University Press, forthcoming 2012.

1.2.4. Edelstein, David, "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail," International Security Vol. 29 No. 1 (Summer 2004) pp. 49-56, 80-91.

Reading and discussion questions:  How might Edelstein cast his theory as a more complete typological theory - - that is, what variables might he add or re-conceptualize?  What are the costs and benefits of re-casting his theory in this way?  What are some alternative ways he might do case selection from among the population he has identified? What cases might you choose from Edelstein’s list to test and develop his theory?  What cases might provide most-similar case comparisons?  What cases are deviant or anomalous cases for Edelstein’s theory?  What cases according to Edelstein’s table are most and least similar to the US and coalition occupation of Iraq?  Of the cases most similar to the occupation of Iraq, how many succeeded?

 

3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

4:00pm - 5:30pm Concepts, Measurement, and Validation

David Collier , University of California, Berkeley 

1.3.1. Robert Adcock and David Collier, “Measurement Validity:  A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research,” American Political Science Review, September 2001, Vol. 95, No. 3 pp. 529-546.

1.3.2. Jason Seawright and David Collier, “Rival Strategies of Validation: Tools for Evaluating Measures of Democracy,” Forthcoming in Comparative Political Studies, January 2014, Vol. 47 No. 2.    

1.3.3. David Collier and Steven Levitsky, “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research,” World Politics, April 1997, Vol. 49 No. 3 pp. 430-451. Note: The article provided for IQMR is extensively revised vis-a-vis the World Politics version – with the goal of developing more fully the distinction between kind hierarchies and part-whole hierarchies.

 

   Wednesday, June 19 Module 2 Discourse Analysis - Lisa Wedeen and Jennifer Pitts

 

   This module provides students with an introduction to three different modes of discourse analysis. Participants will learn to "read" texts while becoming familiar with contemporary thinking about interpretation, narrative, and social construction. In these three sessions we shall explore the following methods: Foucault’s “interpretive analytics”; Wittgenstein’s understanding of language as activity and its relevance to ordinary language-use analysis (including theories of “performativity”); and the techniques of the Cambridge school.

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Wittgenstein and Ordinary Language-Use Analysis

 

   Lisa Wedeen,

 

   This session introduces participants to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s thought and its relationship to ordinary language-use methods. We shall focus on several key ways in which Wittgensteinian-inspired methods can be used in ethnographic and analytical research. Among the questions we shall ask are: What is the “value added” of concentrating on language? Why is understanding language as an activity important? How can social scientists grapple with vexed issues of intention? What does “performative” mean, and how do political theories about language as performative differ from discussions of performance? How can social scientists uninterested in taking on new jargon use this kind of political theory to further their theoretical and empirical work?

 

   2.1.1. Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought, (University of California Press, 1972), chapter 8 “Justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus,” pp. 169-192.

 

   2.1.2. Lisa Wedeen, Peripheral Visions: Publics, Power, and Performance in Yemen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), Chapter 2, Chapter 3, and Conclusion  .

 

   2.1.3. Wittgenstein, The Philosophical Investigations (Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe), (Blackwell Publishers, 2001), Paragraphs 1-33; paragraph 154; pages 194-195

 

   10:15-10:45am  Coffee Break

 

   10:45am-12.30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions

 

   12: 30pm – 2:00pm pm Lunch

 

   2:00pm – 3:30pm Cambridge/Skinnerian Discourse Analysis

 

   Jennifer Pitts

 

   This session will consider the so-called linguistic turn in the history of political thought, through some key statements by Quentin Skinner, as well as attention to two sources on which he has drawn, Collingwood’s idea of questions and answers, and Austin’s arguments about intention. We will consider such questions as: How do we go about reconstructing the questions that a given thinker is asking? What does it mean (and is it possible) to recover or articulate the intentions of an author? How does this differ from seeking to establish the meaning of a text? Why is the recovery of contexts important for these tasks, how do we know which contexts to recover, and has the approach been too focused on intellectual contexts at the expense of other relevant contexts?

 

   2.2.1. Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2002), “Introduction: Seeing things their way,” 1-7; “Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas,” 57-89, “Interpretation and the Understanding of Speech Acts,” 103-127.

 

   2.2.2. Quentin Skinner, “The rise of, challenge to, and prospects for a Collingwoodian approach to the history of political thought,” in The history of political thought in national context, ed. Dario Castiglione and Iain Hampsher-Monk (2001), 175-88.

 

   Recommended

 

   2.2.3. Austin, J. L. (John Langshaw) Austin, How To Do Things With Words (Harvard University Press, 1962), pp. 94-120

 

   2.2.4. R. G. Collingwood, An autobiography (Oxford University Press, 1931, reprinted 1951), “Question and Answer,” pp. 27-43.

 

   2.2.5. David Scott, Conscripts of Modernity (Duke, 2004), “Prologue,” 1-22

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Foucauldian Discourse Analysis

 

   Lisa Wedeen

 

   This session introduces participants to the techniques of Foucauldian discourse analysis or “interpretive analytics.” Participants will learn how to conduct a discourse analysis, what the underlying assumptions of such an analysis are, and how these techniques can be used to advance political inquiry. The session will consider both the power and limitations of the method, the ways in which it differs from other modes of interpretation, and its advantages over content analysis.

 

   2.3.1. Michel Foucault, Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, edited, with an introduction by Donald F. Bouchard ; translated from the French by Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon (Cornell University Press, 1977),”Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” pp. 139-164.

 

   2.3.2. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, translated from the French by Robert Hurley, Vol. 1, pp. 1-35 and pp. 92-114.

 

   Recommended

 

   2.3.3. Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), Part Two.

 

   Thursday, June 20 Module 3 Tools for Comparative Research – James Mahoney and Gary Goertz

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Introduction to Set Theory and Logic for Social Scientists

 

   James Mahoney

 

   This session discusses key ideas from logic and set theory that underpin many qualitative methods.  Central attention is focused on ideas of necessary and sufficient conditions (and their derivatives).  The session also contrasts logic/set theory with statistics/probability theory.

 

   3.1.1. Gary Goertz and James Mahoney, “Mathematical Prelude: A Selective Introduction to Logic and Set Theory for Social Scientists,” chap. 2 in Goertz and Mahoney, A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences . (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2012), 16-38.  

 

     Recommended

 

   3.1.2. Gary Goertz, “The Substantive Importance of Necessary Condition Hypotheses,” Gary Goertz and Harvey Starr, eds., Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology, and Applications (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.                     

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm Two Cultures:  Contrasting Qualitative and Quantitative Research

 

   Gary Goertz

 

   This session contrasts an approach to qualitative and multimethod research based on the statistical paradigm with one based on within-case causal analysis and logic.

 

   3.2.1. Gary Goertz and James Mahoney, chapters 4-6, 8-9, and 15. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences  (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 51-83, 100-124, 192-204.  

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm  Social Science Concepts

 

   Gary Goertz

 

   This session provides basic guidelines for the construction and evaluation of concepts. In particular, it provides a framework for addressing complex concepts, which are typical in social science research.

 

   3.3.1. Goertz, Gary, Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), chaps. 1‐2.

 

   3.3.2. Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney, chapters 11 and 13 of A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences  (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 139-149, 161-173.  

 

   Thursday, June 20 Module 4 Designing and Conducting Fieldwork: Preparing and Operating in the Field – Diana Kapiszewski and Lauren MacLean

 

   Overall Module Note:  Each session of this module will be conducted with the understanding that session participants have carefully read all of the assigned readings.  We will not be lecturing on the readings but instead will be discussing concepts and ideas individually and in small and large groups, and practicing data-collection techniques. These discussions and activities will draw on the readings as well as our collective experiences in managing fieldwork’s diverse challenges. Please note that many of the readings are chapters from a book entitled Field Research in Political Science that we are co-authoring (together with Benjamin Read, UC Santa Cruz); we would be very interested in hearing your feedback on these pieces as we are currently revising the manuscript. 

 

   8:45am - 10:15am  Borders and Varieties of Fieldwork

 

   Diana Kapiszewski, University of California, Irvine and  Lauren M. MacLean, Indiana University

 

   In this session we discuss our conception of fieldwork as a process that begins with the identification of a research question and continues with analysis and theory development in and out of the field.  We consider various types of fieldwork and the different stages of a project at which it might occur, and address issues of ethics and power in the field.

 

   4.1.1. Kapiszewski, MacLean, and Read (hereafter KMR).  “Field Research in Political Science:  Disparate Practices, Contemporary Debates, and New Opportunities.”  Chapter 1 in Field Research in Political Science (hereafter FRPS).

 

   4.1.2. KMR.  “History and Diversity of Field Research Practices in the Discipline.”  Chapter 2 in FRPS.

 

   Recommended

 

   4.1.3. David Collier. 1999.  “Data, Field Work and Extracting New Ideas at Close Range.” APSA – CP Newsletter 10(1):  1-6. 

 

   4.1.4. David Collier, David A. Freedman, James D. Fearon, David D. Laitin, John Gerring, Gary Goertz.  2008.  “Symposium:  Case Selection, Case Studies, and Causal Inference.”   Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 6(2):  2-16.

 

   4.1.5. Soledad Loaeza, Randy Stevenson, and Devra C. Moehler.  2005.  Symposium:  Should Everyone Do Fieldwork?” APSA-CP 16(2) 2005:  8-18.

 

   4.1.6. Elisabeth Wood. 2006.  “The Ethical Challenges of Field Research in Conflict Zones.” Qualitative Sociology 29(3):  307-41.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm Preparing for Fieldwork

 

   Diana Kapiszewski, University of California, Irvine and Lauren M. MacLean, Indiana University

 

   This session addresses pre-dissertation and other background research, logistical preparations for fieldwork, securing funding, networking to obtain contacts and interviews, negotiating institutional affiliation, and developing a data-collection plan.

 

   4.2.1.  KMR.  “Preparing for Fieldwork.”  Chapter 3 in FRPS.

 

   4.2.2. Christopher B. Barrett and Jeffrey W. Cason. 2010. “Identifying a Site and Funding Source.” Chapter 2 in Overseas Research II: A Practical Guide. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

   Recommended

 

   4.2.3. Christopher B. Barrett and Jeffrey W. Cason.  2010.  “Predeparture Preparations.”  Chapter 3 in Overseas Research II: A Practical Guide. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

 

    

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Operating in the Field:  Collecting Data, Managing People

 

   Diana Kapiszewski, University of California, Irvine and Lauren M. MacLean, Indiana University

 

   This session considers the challenges of managing data and people in the field.  We introduce a range of interactive and non-interactive data-collection techniques, and consider the trade-offs among them and how they can be combined.  We discuss hiring and working with RAs and broader issues of cooperation and managing relationships in the field.  Finally, we consider in greater depth several non-interactive forms of data-collection.

 

   4.3.1. KMR.  “Operating in the Field: Managing Your Life, Research, and People.”  Chapter 4 in FRPS.

 

   4.3.2. Lee Ann Fuji. 2013. “Working with Interpreters.”  In Layna Mosley, ed., Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca:  Cornell University Press.

 

   Recommended

 

   4.3.3. Melani Cammett.  2013.  “Positionality and Sensitive Topics:  Matched Proxy Interviewing as a Research Strategy.”  In Layna Mosley, ed., Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca:  Cornell University Press.

 

   4.3.4. Sheila Carapico, Janine A. Clark, Amaney Jamal, David Romano, Jilian Schwedler, and Mark Tessler.  2006.  “The Methodologies of Field Research in the Middle East.”  PS:  Political Science and Politics XXXIX (3).

 

   4.3.5. Elisabeth Wood.  2007.  “Field Methods.”  In Charles Boix and Susan Stokes (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics.  New York:  Oxford.

 

   Friday, June 21 Unified (whole institute) sessions on publishing and funding

 

   10:30am - 12.15pm U9 Getting Publishing (unified session)

 

   John Ishiyama, Editor, American Political Science Review

 

   On the writing and preparing:

 

   U.10.1. Stephen K. Donovan, How to Alienate Your Editor: A Practical Guide for Established Authors. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 36 (4): 238-242. Read pp. 240-242, 2005.

 

   U.10.2. Stephen K. Donovan, Putting Editors to Trouble (or People of That Sort). Journal of Scholarly Publishing 41 (1): 103-109, 2009.

 

   U.10.3. James A. Stimson, Professional Writing in Political Science: A Highly Opinionated Essay. Paper, University of North Carolina. Retrieved from: www.unc.edu/_jstimson/Writing.pdf [Skip portions that are not relevant for you.]

 

   On rejection:

 

   U.10.4. Stephen K. Donovan, The Importance of Resubmitting Rejected Papers. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 38 (3): 151-155, 2007.

 

   U.10.5. Gregory Weeks, Facing Failure: The Use (and Abuse) of Rejection in Political Science. PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (4): 876-882, 2006.

 

   Also Recommended

 

   U.10.6. For reflections of a previous editor: Dina A. Zinnes, “Reflections of a Past Editor,” PS: Political Science and Politics 18 (3): 607-612, 1985.

 

   U.10.7. Data (the quantitative kind): Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Dena Levy, “Correlates of Publication Success: Some AJPS Results,” PS: Political Science and Politics 26 (3): 558-561, 1993.

 

   12: 50pm - 2:15pm  Lunch.                     

 

   Friday, June 21 Module 5 Tools for Comparative Research II – James Mahoney and Gary Goertz

 

   8:30am - 10:00am Causal Sequences and Process Tracing

 

   James Mahoney

 

   This session provides a framework, based on set theory, for analyzing causal sequences.  The framework offers new tools for assessing the relative importance of causes located at different points in a historical sequence.  The session also considers how these same tools are used in process tracing tests.

 

   5.1.1.  James Mahoney, Erin Kimball, and Kendra Koivu, “The Logic of Historical Explanation in the Social Sciences,” Comparative Political Studies 42:1 (January 2009), pp. 114-146.

 

   5.1.2.  James Mahoney, “The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences,”  Sociological Methods and Research (2012) 41(4) 570-597.

 

   10:00am - 10:30am Coffee Break.

 

   10:30am - 12.15pm U9 Getting Publishing (unified session)

 

   John Ishiyama, Editor, American Political Science Review

 

   See reading list on preceding pages

 

   12: 15pm - 2:15pm  Lunch.

 

   2:15pm - 3:45pm Comparative-Historical Analysis

 

   James Mahoney

 

   This session considers substantive work in the field of comparative-historical analysis.  Using examples from my own research, the session explores the way in which comparative-historical analysis assesses existing theory, develops new theory, explains general patterns, and identifies causes specific to particular cases.  The session also examines applications of path-dependent analysis.

 

   5.2.1.  James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis: Achievements and Agendas,” in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 3-38.

 

   Recommended: 

 

   5.2.2. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

 

   3:45pm - 4:15pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:15pm - 5:45pm  Case Selection and Multimethod Research Designs

 

   Gary Goertz

 

   This session offers practical considerations for selecting certain specific cases for intensive analysis. The session develops guidelines and rules for choosing cases that will allow qualitative researchers to achieve maximum leverage for causal inference.

 

   5.3.1. Gary Goertz, “Statistical Multimethod and Case Selection,” “Case Studies, Causal Mechanisms, and Selecting Cases: Part I,” and “Case Studies, Causal Mechanisms, and Selecting Cases, Part II: Necessary Conditions,” Manuscripts 2013.

 

   Recommended: 

 

   5.3.2. Gary Goertz and James Mahoney,Case Selection and Hypothesis Testing” chap. 14  in Goertz and Mahoney, A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting the Qualitative and Quantitative Research Paradigms (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 177-191.  

 

   5.3.3. James Mahoney and Gary Goertz, “The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Qualitative Research,” American Political Science Review 98:4 (November 2004), pp. 653‐670.

 

   5.3.4. Evan Lieberman, “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research,” American Political Science Review 99:3 (2005), pp. 435-52.

 

   5.3.5 Daniel Ziblatt, “Shaping Democratic Practice and the Causes of Electoral Fraud: The Case of Nineteenth-Century Germany, American Political Science Review 103(1) (February 2009)

 

   5.3.6  Steven R. Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, “Beyond Patronage: Violent Struggle, Ruling Party Cohesion, and Authoritarian Durability,” Perspectives on Politics 10(4) (December 2012)

 

   Friday, June 21 Module 6 Designing and Conducting Fieldwork: Collecting and Analyzing Data – Diana Kapiszewski and Lauren MacLean

 

   Overall Module Note:  Each session of this module will be conducted with the understanding that session participants have carefully read all of the assigned readings.  We will not be lecturing on the readings but instead will be discussing concepts and ideas individually and in small and large groups, and practicing data-collection techniques. These discussions and activities will draw on the readings as well as our collective experiences in managing fieldwork’s diverse challenges. Please note that many of the readings are chapters from a book entitled Field Research in Political Science that we are co-authoring (together with Benjamin Read, UC Santa Cruz); we would be very interested in hearing your feedback on these pieces as we are currently revising the manuscript.

 

   8:30am - 10:00am Interactive Forms of Data Collection

 

   Diana Kapiszewski, University of California, Irvine and

 

   Lauren M. MacLean, Indiana University

 

   This session considers the challenges inherent in carrying out, and analytic upsides and downsides of, a series of interactive forms of data collection:  participant observation, ethnography, surveys, and experiments. 

 

   6.1.1. Kapiszewski, MacLean, and Read (hereafter KMR).  “Site-Intensive Methods: Participant Observation and Ethnography in Political Science Research.”  Chapter 7 in Field Research in Political Science (hereafter FRPS).  

 

                                                                                                                                            

 

   6.1.2. KMR.  “Surveys in the Context of Field Research.”  Chapter 8 in FRPS.               

 

   6.1.3. KMR.  “Experiments in the Field.”  Chapter 9 in FRPS.

 

   Recommended

 

   6.1.4 Williams, Brackette F.  1996.  “Skinfolk, Not Kinfolk: Comparative Reflections on the Identity of Participant Observation in Two Field Situations.”  Chapter 3 in Diane Wolf, ed., Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork.  Boulder, CO:  Westview Press.

 

   6.1.5. Pader, Ellen. 2006. “Seeing with an Ethnographic Sensibility: Explorations Beneath the Surface of Public Policies.” Chapter 8 in Interpretation and Method:  Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn.  ME Sharpe.

 

   6.1.6. Schaeffer, Nora Cate and Stanley Presser. 2003.  “The Science of Asking Questions.” Annual Review of Sociology 29: 65-88.

 

   6.1.7. Paluck, Elizabeth Levy.  2010.  “The Promising Integration of Qualitative Methods and Field Experiments.”  ANNALS, AAPSS, 628:  59-71.

 

   6.1.8. Kubik, Jan. 2009. “Ethnography of Politics: Foundations, Applications, Prospects.” In Edward Schatz, ed., Political Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

   6.1.9. Brady, Henry E. 2000. “Contributions of Survey Research to Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 33:1 (March) 47-7.

 

   6.1.10. Sudman, Seymour and Norman M. Bradburn.  1982.  Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

 

   10:00am - 10:30am Coffee Break.

 

   10:30am - 12.15pm U9 Getting Publishing (unified session)

 

   John Ishiyama, Editor, American Political Science Review

 

   See reading list on preceding pages

 

   12: 15pm - 2:15pm  Lunch.

 

   2:15pm - 3:45pm Interviewing

 

   Diana Kapiszewski, University of California, Irvine and Lauren M. MacLean, Indiana University

 

   This session addresses interactive data-collection techniques that involve interviews of various sorts:  one-on-one elite and non-elite interviewing, oral histories, and focus groups.

 

   6.2.1. KMR.  “Interviewing in the Field: In-Depth Interviews, Focus Groups, and Oral Histories.”  Chapter 6 in FRPS. 

 

   6.2.2. Erik Bleich and Robert Pekkanen.  2013.  “How to Report Interview Data.”  Chapter 4 in In Layna Mosley, ed., Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca:  Cornell University Press.

 

   6.2.3. Joe Soss.  2006.  “Talking Our Way to Meaningful Explanations: A Practice-Centered View of Interviewing for Interpretive Research.” Chapter 6 in Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, eds. Interpretation and Method:  Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn.  ME Sharpe.

 

   Recommended

 

   6.2.4. Beth Leech and Kenneth Goldstein.  2002.  “Symposium: Interview Methods in Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35(4): 663-672.

 

   6.2.5. Susan E. Short, Ellen Perecman, and Sara R. Curran.  2006.  “Focus Groups.”  Chapter 5 in Ellen Perecman and Sara Curran, eds. A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays & Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

   6.2.6. Herbert Rubin and Irene Rubin.  2005.  Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Chapters 6-9.

 

   6.2.7. Oisin Tansey.  2007.  “Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-Probability Sampling.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40(4):  765-772.

 

   3:45pm - 4:15pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:15pm - 5:45pm Analyzing Data, Assessing Progress, Thinking Theoretically

 

   Diana Kapiszewski, University of California, Irvine and

 

   Lauren M. MacLean, Indiana University

 

   This session considers data organization, storing, and sharing; thinking analytically and beginning to analyze data while in the field, and different data analysis options; assessing progress; and beginning to write in the field and presenting initial findings to different audiences.

 

   6.3.1. KMR.  “Analyzing, Writing, and Retooling in the Field.”  Chapter 10 in FRPS.

 

   6.3.2. KMR.  “The Future of Field Research in Political Science.”  Chapter 11 in FRPS.

 

   6.3.3. Robert Emerson, Rachel Fretz and Linda Shaw. 1995.  “Processing Fieldnotes: Coding and Memoing.” Chapter 6 in Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.

 

   Recommended

 

   6.3.4. Gilbert Shapiro and John Markoff.  1997.  “A Matter of Definition.”  Chapter 1 in Carl Roberts, ed. Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

 

   6.3.5. Rose McDermott et al.  2010.  “Symposium, Data Collection and Collaboration.”  PS: Political Science and Politics 43(1):  15-58.

 

   Friday, June 21 Module 7 Interpretive Methods for Archival Research – Manu Goswami and Daragh Grant

 

   This module introduces participants to the challenges of working with materials drawn from different social, cultural, and historical settings, and explores creative interpretive strategies for addressing these challenges. Participants will be introduced to the basics of the historical method, and will be encouraged to think about how a careful attention to questions of temporality and periodization can shape and reveal new avenues in their empirical research. All three sessions will be attentive to the problem of analyzing historical materials from the standpoint of the present. Shifting meanings over time, and transformations in the criteria for judgment, present particular problems for historical researchers. Participants will be challenged to think about the problems posed by the use of familiar concepts like “culture” and “identity” against the background of processes of historical change that destabilize both the content and the contours of such concepts. Finally, in light of these challenges, participants will be invited to think through the strategies available for working in a partial archive, with attention to the virtues and pitfalls of creatively thinking about historical source materials.

 

   8:30am - 10:00am History as social science

 

   Manu Goswami, New York University and Daragh Grant, University of Chicago

 

   This session introduces participants to the historical method, highlighting the fruitful possibilities for conversation between political scientists and professional historians. We shall pay particular attention to questions of temporality, pointing to the pitfalls of common approaches to historical comparison employed by social scientists and suggesting the advantages of an “eventful” reading of processes of historical change.

 

   7.1.1. William H. Sewell Jr. “History, Theory, and Social Science.” In William H. Sewell Jr., Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation, 1-21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.  

 

   7.1.2. William H. Sewell Jr. “Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology.” In William H. Sewell Jr., Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation, 81-123. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.  

 

   7.1.3. William H. Sewell Jr. “Historical Events as Transformations of Structures: Inventing Revolution at the Bastille.” In William H. Sewell Jr., Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation, 225-270. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.  

 

   Recommended

 

   7.1.4. David Landes and Charles Tilly, eds. History as Social Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971.

 

   7.1.5. Jacques Revel. “History and the Social Sciences.” In Theodore M. Porter and Dorothy Ross, eds., The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 7: The Modern Social Sciences, 391-404. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

 

   7.1.6. Charles Tilly. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984.

 

   7.1.7. Reinhart Koselleck. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.

 

   10:00am - 10:30am Coffee Break.

 

   10:30am - 12.15pm U9 Getting Publishing (unified session)

 

   John Ishiyama, Editor, American Political Science Review

 

   See reading list on preceding pages

 

   12: 15pm - 2:15pm  Lunch.

 

   2:15pm - 3:45pm: History and Culture: Approaches to continuity and transformation

 

   Daragh Grant, University of Chicago

 

   Through a reading of the debate between Marshall Sahlins and Gananath Obeyesekere over the reception of Captain Cook by the people of Hawaii in 1779, this session examines how scholars wrestle with the problem of identifying historical transformations whilst remaining sensitive to the interplay of structure and event. Focusing on an instance of cultural change gives participants the opportunity to think about how meanings shift across time and to consider how the context of shifting meanings might affect the way in which one reads archival materials that are themselves produced during or after turbulent times. We will ask: how do processes of cultural change, affect the judgments those of us in the present can make about what was meant by those writing in the past?

 

   7.2.1. Marshall Sahlins. “Structure and History.” In Marshall Sahlins, Islands of History, 136-56. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

 

   7.2.2. Gananath Obeyesekere. “The Thesis of the Apotheosis.” In Gananath Obeyesekere, The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European mythmaking in the Pacific, 49-73. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

 

   7.2.3. William H. Sewell Jr. “A Theory of the Event: Marshall Sahlins’s ‘Possible Theory of History.’” In William H. Sewell Jr., Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation, 197-224. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.  

 

   Recommended

 

   7.2.4. David Scott. “Culture in Political Theory.” Political Theory 31, no. 1 (February 2003): 92-115.

 

   7.2.5. William H. Sewell Jr. “The Concept(s) of Culture.” In William H. Sewell Jr., Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation, 152-174. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.  

 

   7.2.6. Lisa Wedeen. “Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science.” American Political Science Review 96, no. 4 (December 2002): 713-728.

 

   3:45pm - 4:15pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:15pm - 5:45pm Questions of Evidence

 

   Manu Goswami, New York University

 

   At the core of historical research are questions of evidence, of both the power of the archive and the archive of power. This section explores key debates and controversies that have shaped the considerable theoretically informed literature on the shifting coordinates of historical evidence. It aims to provide an introduction to the range of issues and approaches (anthropological, structuralist, microhistorical, and postcolonial) that surround epistemological debates about the status and production of history.

 

   7.3.1. Dipesh Chakrabarty. “The Idea of Provincializing Europe.” In Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, 3-26. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

 

   7.3.2. Carlo Ginzburg. “Checking the Evidence: The Judge and the Historian.” In James Chandler, Harry Harootunian and Arnold Davidson, eds., Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion across the Disciplines, 290-303. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

 

   7.3.3. Joan W. Scott. “Evidence of Experience.” In James Chandler, Harry Harootunian and Arnold Davidson, eds., Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion across the Disciplines, 363-387. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

 

   7.3.4. Michel-Rolph Trouillot. “Preface.” In Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, xvii-xix. Boston: Beacon Press 1995.

 

   7.3.5. Michel-Rolph Trouillot. “The Power in the Story.” In Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, 1-31. Boston: Beacon Press 1995.

 

   7.3.6. Michel-Rolph Trouillot. “An Unthinkable History.” In Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, 70-107. Boston: Beacon Press 1995.

 

   Recommended

 

   7.3.7. Walter Benjamin. “Theses on the Philosophy of History.” In Walter Benjamin, Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, 253-64. New York: Schocken Books, [1950] 2007.

 

   7.3.8. Ranajit Guha. “The Prose of Counter Insurgency.” In Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Spivak, eds., Selected Subaltern Studies, 45-86. New York: Oxford University Press 1988.

 

   7.3.9. Reinhart Koselleck. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.

 

   Monday, June 24 Module 8 Strategies of Causal Inference, John Gerring and Adam Glynn

 

   Causal inference is the goal of most social science research. Recent years have seen a prodigious amount of work devoted to the meaning of causality and to methods of causal inference. Our intention is to introduce this topic in a way that is relatively (though of course not entirely) comprehensive, paying special attention to the role of causal graphs (Judea Pearl et al.) as a unifying framework. In the final session, we present a typology of research designs that features “noncovariational” approaches (approaches that do not rely solely on X/Y covariation and conditioning on confounders) for reaching causal inference.

 

   To purchase:

 

   Gerring, John. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework, 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  [Do not purchase the first edition, which is quite different.]

 

   Morgan, Stephen L.; Christopher Winship. 2007. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

    

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Causal Arguments and Research Designs: A Nontechnical Account

 

   John Gerring and Adam Glynn

 

   8.1.1. John Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework, 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Skim chs 2-4, noting tables 2.1, 3.1, & 4.1, which summarize the argument of those chapters. Read carefully chs 8-10.   

 

   Background

 

   8.1.2. Henry E. Brady, “Models of Causal Inference: Going Beyond the Neyman-Rubin-Holland Model,” 2003.

 

   8.1.3. James Heckman, “The Scientific Model of Causality.” Sociological Methodology 35,2005,  1-97.

 

   8.1.4. James Heckman, “Econometric Causality.” International Statistical Review 76:1, 2008, 1-27.

 

   8.1.5. Margaret Marini and  Burton Singer, “Causality in the Social Sciences.” In Clifford Clogg (ed), Sociological Methodology 18, 1988, 347-409.

 

   8.1.6.  Donald Rubin, “Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes: Design, Modeling, Decisions.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 100, 2005, 322-31.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm Potential Outcomes and Causal Graphs

 

   John Gerring and Adam Glynn

 

   8.2.1. Stephen L. Morgan and Christopher Winship. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. [Read chs 1-3; skim other chapters according to interest.]  

 

   Background

 

   8.2.2. Judea Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. [Chapters 1, 3, and others according to interest.]

 

   8.2.3. Miguel Hernan and James Robins. [Forthcoming] Causal Inference. Chapman & Hall. [Chapters 1-3, 6-7.]  [   www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/miguel-hernan/causal-inference-book/]

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Using Causal Graphs to Discover and Explicate Research Designs

 

   John Gerring and Adam Glynn

 

   8.3.1. John Gerring. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework, 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Ch 11.  

 

   OR

 

   8.3.2. Adam N. Glynn and  John Gerring.    Strategies of Research Design with Confounding: A Graphical Description. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Government, Harvard University, 2013.

 

   Recommended:

 

   8.3.3. Stephen L. Morgan and Christopher Winship. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chs 6-8.  

 

   8.3.4. Judea Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge, 2009.

 

   Monday, June 24 Module 9 Historiography, Interviews, and Archival Research - Francis Gavin, James Goldgeier, and Andrew Moravcsik

 

   Textual and Interview Research with Primary Sources: What Do You Need to Know, How Do You Know Where to Look, and How Do you Get What you Need?

 

   In this module, we will discuss how political scientists decide they need to use primary textual records of policy-making—archives, interviews, and published primary sources—in their research. This includes how one prepares for, structures, conducts, and manages the information flow from archival visits, interviews or structured examination of published materials. We focus on practical research skills scholars can use, and judgments they must make in everyday research.

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Selecting and Preparing Various Types of Secondary, Primary, and Interview Research

 

   This session highlights the practical trade-offs between different types of textual and interview research and the ways in which one must prepare for them.  It focuses on issues to think about before you start your research.

 

   9.1.1. Fred I. Greenstein and Richard H. Immerman, "What Did Eisenhower Tell Kennedy About Indochina? The Politics of Misperception," Journal of American History, v. 79, no. 2 (September 1992).

 

   9.1.2. Cameron Thies, "A Pragmatic Guide to Qualitative Historical Analysis in the Study of International Relations," International Studies Perspectives 3(4) (November 2002) 351-372.

 

   9.1.3. Ian Lustick, "History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias," American Political Science Review (September 1996): 605-618.

 

   9.1.4. Marc Trachtenberg, Marc, The Craft of International History, Appendix I and Appendix II, available at:

 

      http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/methbk/AppendixI.html

 

      http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/methbk/AppendixII.html

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm Structuring Your Data Collection: Making Sure You Can Find What You Need…and You can Find it Again When You Need It

 

This session will address concerns that arise during your research.  We will talk about different types of repositories, briefly explain how to use the Freedom of Information Act, and strategies for maximizing the output of interviews. We will discuss hands-on electronic strategies for structuring, organizing, and storing your oral and documentary data so that you can easily and systematically access it as you move to the analysis and writing phase of your project.  The process of structuring your data begins before you leave for the archives, and informs how you conduct your research in the archives and your analysis of documents when you get home. 

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm – 5:30pm  Historical Research: Using What You Find

 

   This session focuses on analyzing your data after you gather it.  In addition to discussing the uses of historical research for building theoretical arguments, we will discuss how different scholars can read documents differently, and also how documents can be used in thinking about counterfactuals.  We will also introduce participants to the emerging debate about practical research standards for transparency and replicability of qualitative work: active citations, data archiving, etc.

 

   9.3.1. Andrew Moravcsik, “Active Citation: A Precondition for Replicable Qualitative Research,” PS 43, 1 (2010): 29-35.

 

   9.3.2. Colin Elman, Diana Kapiszewski, and Lorena Vinuela.  “Qualitative Data Archiving: Rewards and Challenges,” PS 43, 1 (2010): 23-27.

 

   Monday, June 24 Module 10 Experiments, Rose McDermott

 

   This module will provide an overview of how to conduct and evaluate laboratory and field experiments.

 

   8:45am - 10:15am   Experimental Methods

 

   Rose McDermott

 

   
This session will provide an overview of experimental methods.  A description of the method as well as relative advantages and disadvantages will be covered.  Topics include: internal and external validity, deception and incentives.  The emphasis will be on conveying practical knowledge about how to conduct an experiment.

 

   10.1.1. James Druckman,  Donald Green, and James Kuklinski and Arthur Lupia. 2006. “The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science,” American Political Science Review, 100(4): 627-635.

 

   10.1.2. J. H. Kuklinski, P.M. Sniderman, K. Knight, T. Piazza, P. E. Tetlock, G. R. Lawrence, and B. Mellers, B., “Racial prejudice and attitudes toward affirmative action,” American Journal of Political Science, (1997) 402-419.

 

   10.1. 3. Jason Barabas and Jennifer Jerit,  “Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?” American Political Science Review (2010) 104(2): 226-242.    http://jjerit.com/images/BarabasJerit_APSR_2010.pdf 

 

   10.1.4. Rose McDermott, “Experimental methodology in political science,” Political Analysis, (2002) 10(4), 325-342.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm   Field Experiments in Comparative Politics and International Relations

 

   Rose McDermott

 

   This session will cover the applicability and utility of field experiments for investigating topics of interest in international relations and comparative politics in particular.  The relative merits and limitations compared to laboratory experiments will be covered.    The logistics of conducting such experiments will be discussed as well.

 

   10.2.1. Daniel N. Posner, “The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas Are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi.” American Political Science Review, (2004) 98(4): 529-545.    http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3vm7m0xm 

 

   10.2.2. Macartan Humphreys and Jeremy Weinstein, “Field Experiments and the Political Economy of Development.” Annual Review of Political Science, (2009) 12: 367-378.    http://www.columbia.edu/~mh2245/papers1/HW_ARPS09.pdf 

 

   10.2.3. James Habyarimana, “Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision?”  American Political Science Review, 101(4), 2007, p.709-726

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm   Conducting your own experiment

 

   Rose McDermott

 

   
This session will provide a practical opportunity for participants to try to design their own experiments.  If participants do not have their own designs, we will start with a problem and walk through a demonstration of how to go from an idea to a testable experimental research design.

 

   Tuesday, June 25 Module 11 Quantitative and Qualitative I: Challenges of Medium-N Analysis, Jason Seawright, Kevin Clarke, and David Collier

 

   The three lectures in this module explore alternative methods for medium-N analysis – i.e. studies focused on roughly 10 to 70 cases. The past two decades have seen major advances in the qualitative analysis of small numbers of cases; and when the N exceeds approximately 70 it becomes appropriate to apply quantitative methods, thereby drawing on a rich body of statistical theory that builds on a century of innovation and refinement. By contrast, scholars have a relatively sparse toolbox for conducting medium-N analyses. This deficit is unfortunate, given that (a) many substantive questions are most productively addressed with medium-N data sets; (b) focusing on an intermediate number of cases can yield findings of substantial generality, while still being anchored in strong case knowledge. Developing and refining tools for medium-N analysis can therefore productively expand opportunities for valuable research.

 

   The lectures will focus on four promising tools for analyzing a medium N. Note that some of substantive examples included below have a considerable amount of technical notation. However, in all cases readers can focus on the “substance,” noting along the way the kind of data arrays that are used with each technique.

 

   [Please note that although there are two books to purchase for this module, both are inexpensive Sage ‘green books.’ They can also be accessed online as ebooks, via the Syracuse University library.]

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Introduction to Medium-N Analysis, and Novel Sampling Strategies.

 

   Jason Seawright, Kevin Clarke, and David Collier

 

   
Overview of Novel Sampling Strategies. Innovative sampling strategies can open the possibility of combining the leverage of a medium N with close case knowledge. The analyst begins with a substantial number of cases, selects a limited number for small-N analysis, and then – given the sampling criteria employed – has a basis for generalizing the small-N findings back to the original data set.

 

   11.1.1. Jason Seawright, “Aligning Quantitative Case Selection Procedures with Case-Study Analytic Goals,”  Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, 2013.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm  Non-Parametric Methods and Exploratory Data Analysis

 

   Jason Seawright, Kevin Clarke, and David Collier

 

   Overview of Non-Parametric Methods. To sidestep the functional-form assumptions built into parametric models (such as regression analysis), we explore the contribution to medium-N work of nonparametric modeling. One advantage of these techniques is that, in the absence of the functional-form assumptions, they can more readily reveal complex (including non-linear) relationships that in any case can more readily be recovered with a medium-N. These tools are highly conducive to display and interpretation via graphical methods, again a key advantage with an intermediate N – given the leverage that can derive from locating specific cases in data displays.

 

   11.2.1. Jean D.  Gibbons, Nonparametric Statistics: An Introduction (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993).   (and available as electronic book at Syracuse University library)

 

   Optional Readings: Two Examples

 

   11.2.2. António Alfonso, Ludger Schuknecht and Vito Tanzi. 2005. “Public Sector Efficiency: An International Comparison.” Public Choice (June 2005) 123 (3/4): 321-347.

 

11.2.3. Gurleen Popli, Ashok Parikh and Richard Palmer-Jones. 2005. “Are the 2000 Poverty Estimates for India a Myth, Artefact or Real?” Economic and Political Weekly 40, No. 43, (October 2005). 22-28, pp. 4619-4624.

 

   Overview of Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA). Similar in principle to nonparametric techniques, Tukey’s exploratory data analysis –widely known, but much too little used – offers a broad array of tools for evaluating data, including graphical techniques (such as box plots, histograms, and multidimensional scaling), as well as quantitative tools (such as ordination). It can provide information both on single variables and on relationships among variables. The primary objectives of EDA are to (a) help researchers select appropriate causal hypotheses, and (b) point to appropriate tools for testing these hypotheses. This technique is highly promising for achieving the goals of medium-N analyses.

 

   11.2.4. Frederick Hartwig and Brian E. Dearing, Exploratory Data Analysis (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1979).   (and available as electronic book at Syracuse University library)

 

   Optional Reading: An Example

 

   11.2.5. Ismael Sanz and Francisco J. Velázquez, “Evolution and Convergence of the Government Expenditure Composition in the OECD Countries.” Public Choice (April 2004) 119(1/2): 61-72.

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Classification and Regression Trees, and Review of Process Tracing

 

   Jason Seawright, Kevin Clarke, and David Collier

 

   
Overview of Classification and Regression Trees (CART)
. These “classification algorithms” are well suited to medium-N data, because they: (a) provide valuable transparency that allows the analysts to readily mobilize case knowledge, while at the same time benefitting from highly systematized analytic procedures; (b) can readily accommodate both categorical and continuous data and do not require data transformations that can lead to a counter-productive loss of information; and (c) are not unduly influenced – in contrast to some other classificatory algorithms – by the higher levels of error routinely found in social science data.

 

   11.3.1. Jonathan P. Kastellec, “The Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions and Legal Rules with Classifications Trees,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2010) 7(2): 202-230. Note: This article contains an excellent, brief introduction to classification trees.

 

   11.3.2. Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, Theodore W. Ruger and Pauline T. Kim, “Competing Approaches to Predicting Supreme Court Decision Making.” Perspectives on Politics (December 2004) 2(4): 761-767.

 

   Review of Process Tracing. These four promising tools for medium-N analysis make only weak contributions to causal inference if not used in conjunction with tests that more directly evaluate causal mechanisms and processes. This unit therefore also includes a brief review of process-tracing methods discussed in the first week of the Institute.

 

   11.3.3. David Collier, “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science and Politics (October 2011) 44(4): 823–30. (also assigned as U-6-3)

 

   11.3.4. Tasha Fairfield. “Going Where the Money Is: Strategies for Taxing Economic Elites in Unequal Democracies.” World Development, forthcoming.

 

   11.3.5. Christina Sandra Lengfelder, “Why Triangular Cooperation? Germany and the emerging powers.” Instituto de Ciencia Política, Universidad Católica de Chile, 2013.

 

   Tuesday, June 25 Module 12 Qualitative Data Management, Louise Corti and Diana Kapiszewski

 

   In this module, we discuss how political scientists can benefit from sharing their data assets.  Data sharing is fast becoming a requirement for research supported by public funding and can lead to enhanced citation and collaboration. Effectively managing data throughout the research lifecycle is a professional skill that helps scholars to plan and manage large-scale research projects. This skill also facilitates thinking creatively, and critically, about re-using existing data sources. We introduce the perceived barriers to data sharing and demonstrate, with practical tasks, how they can often be overcome with appropriate strategies and techniques.

 

   Note:  For this module, it is useful to have a real data collection in mind.  Those participants who don't yet have their own complete data collection should download and familiarize themselves with this public use dataset:

 

   Health and Social Consequences of the Foot and Mouth Disease Epidemic in North Cumbria, 2001-2003. (   http://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/?sn=5407&type=Data%20catalogue ). 

 

   In order to download these data, please register with the UK Data Service for free at:    http://ukdataservice.ac.uk/get-data/how-to-access/registration.aspx .  We recommend you do this as soon as possible as it can take up to a week for your account to be fully established.

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Managing, Sharing and Recycling Your Data

 

   Louise Corti and Diana Kapiszewski

 

   In this session we introduce the notion of the ‘data lifecycle’ in which research data have a longer lifespan than the research project that created them. We look at the strategies and techniques required to give data a longer life, and discuss a range of skills that you can use in your own fieldwork and beyond. We explore reasons for sharing data and not sharing data.

 

   12.1.1. Van den Eynden, Corti, L, Bishop, L and Woollard, M (2011) Managing and Sharing Data; best practice for researchers, UK Data Archive, University of Essex. ISBN 1-904059-78-3.

 

   12.1.2.  Corti, L. and Thompson, P. (2012) 'Secondary analysis of archive data' in J. Goodwin (ed.) SAGE: Secondary Data Analysis London: Sage Publications Ltd.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm Informed Consent and Data Sharing in Action

 

   Louise Corti and Diana Kapiszewski

 

   In this session we focus on the role of informed consent with data sharing in mind.  We consider how the consent process might need to be adapted to enable data sharing at the end of a project.   We also look at appropriate strategies for anonymising qualitative data aiming to preserve original content while minimizing disclosure risk, where confidentiality has been promised.

 

   12.2.1. Bailey, C., Baxter, J, Mort, M. and Convery, I. (2006) ‘Community Experiences of the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease Epidemic in North Cumbria: An Archiving Story’ Methodological Innovations Online,  (2006) 1(2) 83-94.

 

   12.2.2.  Bishop, L. (2009) 'Ethical Sharing and Re-Use of Qualitative Data', Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44(3).

 

   12.2.3. Clark, A. (2006) ‘Anonymising Research Data’, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, Working Paper 7/06.

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Preparing for Sharing: Data and the Research Lifecycle

 

   Louise Corti and Diana Kapiszewski

 

   
In this session we focus on how anticipating data sharing affects the planning and design of research projects. We identify trigger points in the research lifecycle at which data sharing considerations come into play, using examples of real research projects to establish which protocols might be needed at key stages. Finally, we look at the role of ‘documenting’ data, providing background and contextual information to help the re-user make sense of the data. 

 

   12.3.1 UK Data Archive (2011) Planning for Sharing: Getting started.

 

   (http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/create-manage/planning-for-sharing/getting-started)

 

   12.3.2. MIT Libraries (2013) ‘Writing an NSF Data Management Plan.

 

   12.3.3 Corti, L. (2006) 'Editorial', 1(2) Methodological Innovations Online [Special Issue: Defining context for qualitative data], pp.1-9. doi: 10.4256/mio.2006.0007

 

   12.3.4 Bishop, L. (2006) 'A Proposal for Archiving Context for Secondary Analysis', 1(2) Methodological Innovations Online [Special Issue: Defining context for qualitative data], pp.10-20. doi: 10.4256/mio.2006.0008

 

   Tuesday, June 25 Module 13 Content Analysis I, Will Lowe and Sven Oliver Proksch

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Categories and Content Analysis

 

   Will Lowe and Sven-Oliver Proksch, University of Mannheim 

 

   In the first session we investigate dictionary-based content analysis in old and new style.  We will focus on identifying the assumptions of these widely used measurement models, learning how to use their results effectively in subsequent analyses, validating them, and maybe even correcting them. Finally, we’ll consider the mechanics of getting other people to do the content analysis for us.

 

   13.1.1. M. Laver, J. Garry, Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3) (2000):619–634.

 

   13.1.2. K. Benoit, D. Conway, M. Laver, and S. Mikhaylov, Crowd-sourced data coding for the social sciences: massive non-expert coding of political texts, Working Paper (2012).

 

   Optional

 

   13.1.3. J. Bara, A. Weale, and A. Biquelet, Analysing parliamentary debate with computer assistance. Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4) (2007):577-605.

 

   13.1.4. D. Hopkins and G. King, G. A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science, American Journal of Political Science, 54(1) (2010): 229-247 Appendix

 

   13.1.5. K. Krippendorf, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage, 1980.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12:30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.                      

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm Practical I: Dictionary-based Content Analysis

 

   Will Lowe and Sven-Oliver Proksch, University of Mannheim 

 

   We present open source text analysis tools for dictionary-based content analysis and replicate several studies using various text sources e.g. parliamentary speeches, media reports. Participants should bring a laptop on which they are able to install software.

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Topics and Classification

 

   Will Lowe and Sven-Oliver Proksch, University of Mannheim 

 

   Classification methods automate the assignment of texts to categories in a content typology without the need to construct a dictionary.  Topic models move one step further by simultaneously assigning texts to categories and estimating the content typology itself.  This session considers applications of both approaches and considers their advantages and limitations for social scientific research.

 

   13.3.1. J. Grimmer and B. Stewart, Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts, Political Analysis (2013)

 

   Optional

 

   13.3.2. W. McIntosh, M. Evans, J. Lin, and C. Cates, Recounting the courts? applying automated content analysis to enhance empirical legal research. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4) (2007):1041– 1057.

 

   13.3.3.  D. Hillard, S. J.  Purpura, and S. Wilkerson, Computer assisted topic classification for mixed methods social science research. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 4(4) (2008):31-46

 

   Wednesday, June 26 Module 14 Quantitative and Qualitative II - Jason Seawright and David Collier

 

   Multi-method research designs, combining qualitative analysis with some form of statistical research, are increasingly widespread in the social sciences. However, not enough is known about what makes such combinations productive for causal inference. This module presents a view of multi-method research in which design is pivotal, and offers tools and recommendations for a series of issues related to multi-method research design.

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Integrative Multi-Method Research

 

   Jason Seawright and David Collier

 

   
While multi-method research is growing in prestige and frequency in the social sciences, many applications are not much more persuasive than single-method research. Research design remains critical. Multi-method designs make their biggest contribution to causal inference (an idea which can serve as a shared standard across many methodological traditions) when they are integrative rather than triangulation-oriented: they use methods to test each others’ assumptions and to address each others’ weaknesses, rather than as a wholescale replication.

 

   14.1.1.  Jason Seawright, Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming, Chapter 1: Integrative Multi-Method Research

 

   14.1.2.  Jason Seawright, Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 2: Causation as a Shared Standard

 

   Recommended

 

   14.1.3. Evan Lieberman, ‘Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research,’ American Political Science Review (2005) 99 (3): 435-52.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm Combining Regression and Case Studies

 

   Jason Seawright and David Collier

 

   
The most popular and widely-known quantitative approach in the social sciences involves regression and related models. What are the contributions of these models to causal inference? What are their weaknesses? How can case studies be selected and designed to mitigate those weaknesses? What can regression-type work contribute to case studies?

 

   14.2.1 Jason Seawright, Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools, Cambridge University Press,  Chapters 3 - 6: Regression and Causal Inference; Using Case Studies to Test and Refine Regressions; Case Selection after Regression; and Regression-Based Tests of Case-Study Findings.

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Multi-Method Research with Matching, Natural Experiments, and Randomized Experiments

 

   Jason Seawright and David Collier

 

   
While regression-type work remains popular and important, quantitative methodologists have access to newer and sometimes more powerful tools. How can case-study research most profitably contribute in multi-method designs involving three of these tools: matching methods, natural experiments, and randomized experiments?

 

   14.3.1. Gary Alan Fine and Kimberly D. Elsbach, ‘Ethnography and Experiment in Social Psychological Theory Building: Tactics for Integrating Qualitative Field Data with Quantitative Lab Data,’  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36 (Jan. 2000): 51-76.

 

   14.3.2. Thad Dunning, Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), Chapter 7: The Central Role of Qualitative Evidence.

 

   Recommended

 

   14.3.3. Jason Seawright, Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools, Cambridge University Press,  Chapter 7: Combining Case Studies and Matching.

 

   Wednesday, June 26 Module 15 Ethnography I - Fred Schaffer and Timothy Pachirat

 

   Overall Description

 

   How does sustained attention to meaning making in the research world contribute to the study of politics? What are the promises, and perils, of social research that invites the unruly minutiae of lived experience and conceptual lifeworlds to converse with, and contest, abstract disciplinary theories and categories? In this practice-intensive short course, we explore two ethnographic methods - participant observation and ordinary language interviewing - with specific attention to their potential to subvert, generate, and extend understandings of politics and power.

 

   8:45am - 10:15am

 

   Introductions [Pachirat and Schaffer]

 

   Part A: Introduction to Ethnography  [Pachirat]

 

   This part of the session explores the promises and pitfalls of ethnographic approaches to the political.

 

   15.1.1. Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture” (assigned as U-4-1)

 

   15.1.2. Bent Flyvbjerg,  “The Power of Example,” in Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again.

 

   15.1.3. Edward Schatz, “Ethnographic Immersion and the Study of Politics,” and “What Kind(s) of Ethnography does Political Science Need? In Edward Schatz, ed., Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power.

 

   15.1.4. Timothy Pachirat, "The Political in Political Ethnography: Dispatches from the Kill Floor," in Political Ethnography (U. Chicago, 2009)

 

   Part B: Introduction to Ordinary Language Interviewing  [Schaffer]

 

              

 

   Ordinary language interviewing is a tool for uncovering the meaning of words in everyday talk. By studying the meaning of words (in English or other languages), the promise is to gain insight into the various social realities these words name, evoke, or realize. This part of the session covers some basic questions about ordinary language interviewing: what it is, what can be discovered through it, and how it is similar to and different from other types of ethnographic interviewing.

 

   15.1.5. Barbara Sherman Heyl, “Ethnographic Interviewing.” In Handbook of Ethnography edited by Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland and Lyn Lofland (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001): 369-83 [14 pages].

 

   15.1.6. Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Blue and Brown Books (New York: Harper, 1965): 17-20 [4 pages].

 

   15.1.7. Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972): 274-79 [5 pages].

 

   15.1.8. Frederic Charles Schaffer, Democracy in Translation: Understanding Politics in an Unfamiliar Culture (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998): ix-xii, 54-85 [36 pages].

 

   Session 2 (1:40-3:30) How to Do an Ordinary Language Interview [Schaffer]

 

   In this session participants will learn how to conduct an ordinary language interview, and practice doing one focusing on words of their own choosing. Participants will also learn and practice different strategies for approaching people to interview.

 

   At the beginning of this session, participants will sign up for their fieldsite locales and be organized into groups. Participants will work with their groups during this session’s exercises and in the short course’s subsequent exercises.

 

   Session 3 (4:00-6:00) Ordinary Language Interviewing Field Exercise and Write-Up [Schaffer]

 

   Participants will go to fieldsites (around campus or at the Carousel Center Mall) to conduct ordinary language interviews. They will then write-up their main findings.

 

   Wednesday, June 26 Module 16 Content Analysis II - Will Lowe and Sven Oliver Proksch

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Practical II: Document Classification and Topic Models

 

   Will Lowe and Sven-Oliver Proksch, University of Mannheim 

 

   In this exercise session, we show how to use open source text analysis tools for supervised automated classification and topic models.

 

   Course participants will be able to choose one of two labs. Both labs will take the form of a worked example using R and its various text analysis packages. Lab 1 is intended for those without prior experience with R. We will introduce just enough for participants will be able to follow along and recreate the analysis on their own machines. Lab 2 is intended for those with prior experience of R. Here we provide example analyses as a starting point for participants to experiment with their own data.

 

   A handout with the software prerequisites will be provided before the course.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.                     

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm Positions

 

   Will Lowe and Sven-Oliver Proksch, University of Mannheim 

 

   Scaling models try to estimate actors' positions on interesting dimensions using differential word usage. In this session we learn how to fit and interpret such models, how to think about dimensionality of texts, what important discourse features are left out or abstracted away, and what we have to assume about how words are generated in order to be able to apply them. We then consider to what extent those assumptions are reasonable, and also how square them with the idiosyncratic and often strategically structured institutional contexts in which political language actually appears.

 

   16.2.1. M. Laver, K. Benoit, and J. Garry,  Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data. American Political Science Review 97(2) 2003: 311-332.

 

   16.2.2. S.-O. Proksch and J.B. Slapin, Position taking in European Parliament speeches.  British Journal of Political Science, 2009.

 

   Optional

 

   16.2.3. W. Lowe, K. Benoit, S. Mikhaylov, and M. Laver,    Scaling policy positions from coded units of political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(1) 2011:123-155

 

   16.2.4. J. Slapin and S-O Proksch, A Scaling Model for Estimating Time-Series Party Positions from Texts. American Journal of Political Science 52(3) 2008: 705-722.

 

   16.2.5 S-O Proksch and J. Slapin, Institutional Foundations of Legislative Speech. American Journal of Political Science 56(3) 2012: 520-537

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Practical III: Extracting Positions from Texts

 

   During this exercise session, we present open source text analysis tools for extracting policy positions from political texts. As before, participants will be able to choose Lab 1 (no prior knowledge of R) or Lab 2 (prior knowledge of R assumed).

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm – 5:30pm Content Analysis and Research Design

 

   Will Lowe and Sven-Oliver Proksch, University of Mannheim 

 

   In this session we discuss the strengths and limitations of the methods shown in the previous sessions with an eye to how computer assisted content analyses can be best integrated into your research designs. We also welcome practical questions concerning data acquisition, computing issues, and effective presentation of text analysis results.

 

   This session is organized in a question and answer format: You ask the questions, and we (as a group) will try to provide some useful answers.

 

   Thursday, June 27 Module 17 Natural Experiments I - Thad Dunning and Daniel Hidalgo

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Introduction to Natural Experiments

 

   What are natural experiments? We introduce the concept of natural experiments and discuss their strengths and limitations through a survey of recent examples from political science and economics.

 

   17.1.1. Thad Dunning, Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Chapters 1-4.  

 

   17.1.2. Rafael Di Tella, Sebastian Galiani, and Ernesto Schargrodsky, “The Formation of Beliefs: Evidence from the Allocation of Land Titles to Squatters.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, (2007): 209–241.

 

   17.1.3. Daniel Posner.  “The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi.” American Political Science Review (2004) 98 (4).

 

   17.1.4. David Clingingsmith, Asim Ijaz Khwaja, and Michael Kremer, “Estimating the Impact of the Hajj: Religion and Tolerance in Islam's Global Gathering.”  Quarterly Journal of Economics (2009) 124 (3): 1133–1170

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.                     

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm   Natural Experiments: Quantitative Methods

 

   We discuss the role of statistical models in the analysis of natural experiments and provide an overview of quantitative techniques suitable for estimating causal effects. We emphasize the advantages of simplicity and transparency in the quantitative analysis of natural experiments.

 

   17.2.1. F. Daniel Hidalgo. 2012.  “Digital Democratization: Suffrage Expansion and the Decline of Political Machines in Brazil.”  Manuscript, Department of Political Science, MIT.

 

   17.2.2. Thad Dunning, Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Chapters 5--6.  

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Natural Experiments: Qualitative Methods

 

   We highlight the essential role of qualitative methods in the analysis of natural experiments. We present examples that illustrate how qualitative evidence can bolster the credibility of causal assumptions and aid in the interpretation of quantitative results.

 

   17.3.1. Thad Dunning, Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012, chapter 7.  

 

   17.3.2. Diana Dumitru and Carter Johnson, “Constructing Interethnic Conflict and Cooperation: Why Some People Harmed Jews and Others Helped Them during the Holocaust in Romania.” World Politics (2011) 63 (1): 1-42

 

   Thursday, June 27 Module 18 Ethnographic Methods II - Frederic Schaffer and Timothy Pachirat

 

   8:45 - 10:15 Ordinary Language Interview Debriefing [Schaffer]

 

   First we will discuss the challenges participants encountered in approaching people to interview, conducting ordinary language interviews, and writing up results. Next we will catalogue the different word uses/meanings that participants discovered in doing their fieldsite interviews.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.

 

   2:00 - 3:30 Ethics and Praxis in Participant Observation [Pachirat]

 

   An exploration of the practice of participant observation, with special emphasis on jottings, fieldnote writing, and the ethics of fieldwork.

 

   18.2.1. Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, chapters 1 - 5 (pp. 1 - 141).  

 

   Session 6 (4:00 - 5:30) Participant Observation Fieldwork Exercise [Pachirat]

 

   In small groups, participants will conduct participant-observation exercises in pre-selected fieldsites.

 

   Session 7 (5:30 - 7:30) Fieldnote Writing

 

   Participants will use this time to write up a set of fieldnotes based on jottings taken in their

 

   fieldsites.

 

   Thursday, June 27 Module 19 Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Fuzzy Sets I - Charles Ragin and Alrik Thiem

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Introduction to Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)

 

   Charles Ragin, University of California, Irvine and Alrik Thiem, ETH Zurich

 

   This session introduces QCA, especially its use as a tool for deciphering and unraveling causal complexity. QCA uses set-theoretic procedures that are consistent with common practices in case-oriented comparative research. The key difference is that with QCA it is possible to examine an intermediate number of cases—too many for conventional qualitative analysis.

 

   19.1.1. Charles C. Ragin, Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, 2008, chapters 1-3  .

 

   19.1.2. Axel Marx, Benoit Rihoux and Charles Ragin, The origins, development, and application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: the first 25 years, European Political Science Review, 2013.

 

   Recommended

 

   19.1.3. Benoit Rihoux and Gisele De Meur. Crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA), chapter 3 of Benoit Rihoux and Charles C. Ragin (eds.), Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Technique. Sage, 2009.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm Lunch.

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm Basic Principles of Crisp-Set QCA and Multi-Valued QCA

 

   Charles Ragin, University of California, Irvine and Alrik Thiem, ETH Zurich

 

   There are four main types of QCA applications: small-to-medium-N versus large-N crossed with crisp set versus fuzzy set analysis. All the basic principles, including the concepts of set-theoretic consistency and coverage, are first elaborated using small-to-medium Ns and crisp sets. Multi-valued QCA extends the basic truth table approach to include multichotomies among the causal conditions. This session also addresses the debate regarding multi-valued QCA.

 

   19.2.1. Charles C. Ragin, Boolean approach to qualitative comparison. Chapters 6 and 7 of The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press, 1987.

 

   19.2.2. Maarten Vink and Olaf van Vliet. 2009. "Not quite crisp, not yet fuzzy? Assessing the Potentials and Pitfalls of Multi-Value QCA." Field Methods 21: 265-289.

 

   19.2.3. Alrik Thiem. 2013. "Clearly crisp, and not fuzzy: A Reassessment of the (putative) Pitfalls of Multi-Value QCA." Field Methods 25: 197-207.

 

   19.2.4. Maarten Vink and Olaf van Vliet. 2013. Potentials and Pitfalls of Multi-value QCA: Response to Thiem.” Field Methods 25:208-213.

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Counterfactual Analysis: A Set Theoretic Approach

 

   Charles Ragin, University of California, Irvine and Alrik Thiem, ETH Zurich

 

   One of the key features of qualitative research is its reliance on counterfactual analysis. Surprisingly, most qualitative researchers are unaware that they conduct counterfactual analysis “on the fly,” and the analytic process remains hidden and implicit. With QCA, counterfactual analysis is made explicit in the form of the distinction between “easy” versus “difficult” counterfactual cases. The examination of counterfactual analysis in QCA illustrates the theory and knowledge dependence of empirical social science.

 

   19.3.1. Charles C. Ragin, Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, 2008, chapters 6-9  

 

   19.3.2. Soda, Giuseppe, and Santi Furnari. 2012. "Exploring the Topology of the Plausible: Fs/QCA Counterfactual Analysis and the Plausible Fit of Unobserved Organizational Configurations." Strategic Organization 10 (3):285-96.

 

   Recommended

 

   19.3.3. Charles C.  Ragin, The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press, 1987, chapter 7 (also assigned as 19.2.1)

 

   Friday, June 28  Module 20 Natural Experiments II - Thad Dunning and Daniel Hidalgo

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Evaluating Natural Experiments

 

   We critically assess natural-experimental research using an evaluative framework based on (1) the plausibility of as-if random assignment; (2) the credibility of causal and statistical assumptions; and (3) the substantive and theoretical relevance of the intervention.  We emphasize the importance of quantitative and qualitative diagnostics and substantive knowledge for building successful natural-experimental designs.

 

   20.1.1. Thad Dunning. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Chapters 8-10.  

 

   20.1.2. Devin Caughey and Jasjeet Sekhon, “Elections and the Regression Discontinuity Design: Lessons from Close U.S. House Races, 1942–2008.” Political Analysis 19(4) 2011: 385–408.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm  Lunch.                     

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm Design Your Own Natural Experiment

 

   In this session, we give participants the opportunity to design a natural experiment related to their own work and receive feedback from course participants.

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Multi-Method Research and Natural Experiments

 

   We end the course by evaluating the promise and obstacles to the use of multi-method research in the analysis of natural experiments. Drawing upon the previous sessions and readings, we discuss how qualitative methods can help address some of the criticisms of natural experiments, as well as how natural experiments can bolster the inferences drawn from qualitative evidence.

 

   20.3.1. Thad Dunning. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Chapter 11.   

 

   Further Readings by Topic (for both Modules 17 and 20):

 

   Standard Natural Experiments:

 

   Blattman, Christopher. 2008. “From Violence to Voting: War and Political Participation in Uganda.” American Political Science Review 103 no. 2: 231–247.

 

   Chattopadhyay, Raghabendra and Esther Duflo. 2004. “Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in India.” Econometrica 72 no. 5: 1409–43.

 

   Doherty, Daniel, Donald Green, and Alan Gerber. 2006. “Personal Income and Attitudes toward Redistribution: A Study of Lottery Winners.” Political Psychology 27 (3): 441-458.

 

   Ferraz, Claudio and Frederico Finan. 2008. “Exposing Corrupt Politicians: The Effect of Brazil’s Publicly Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 123 no. 2: 703–745.

 

   Hyde, Susan. 2007. “The Observer Effect in International Politics: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. World Politics 60: 37–63.

 

   Lyall, Jason. 2009. “Does Indiscriminate Violence Incite Insurgent Attacks? Evidence from Chechnya.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 no. 3: 331–62.

 

   Posner, Daniel.  2004. Posner, Daniel N. 2004. “The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas Are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 529-545.

 

   Regression-Discontinuity Designs:

 

   Dunning, Thad and Janhavi Nilekani.  2010. “Ethnic Quotas and Political Mobilization: Caste, Parties, and Distribution in Indian Village Councils.” Working paper, Department of Political Science, Yale University.  Available at    http://www.thaddunning.com/research/all-research.

 

   Lee, David S. 2008. “Randomized Experiments from Non-random Selection in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Econometrics 142 no. 2: 675–97.

 

   Lerman, Amy. 2008. “Bowling Alone (With my Own Ball and Chain): The Effects of Incarceration and the Dark Side of Social Capital.”  Manuscript, Department of Politics, Princeton University.

 

   Thistlewaite, Donald L. and Donald T. Campbell. 1960. “Regression-discontinuity Analysis: An Alternative to the Ex-post Facto Experiment.” Journal of Educational Psychology 51 no. 6: 309–17.

 

   Instrumental-Variables Designs:

 

   Miguel, Edward, Shanker Satyanath and Ernest Sergenti. 2004. “Economic Shocks and Civil Conflict: An Instrumental Variables Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 122: 725–753.

 

   Analysis and Design:

 

   Angrist, Joshua D. and Alan B. Krueger. “Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 (4): 69-85.

 

   Brady, Henry, and David Collier, eds. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd edition.

 

   Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

 

   Dunning, Thad. 2008. “Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 282-293. Online version available at http://intl-prq.sagepub.com/pap.dtl (October 3, 2007).

 

   Dunning, Thad. 2008. “Model Specification in Instrumental-Variables Regression.”  Political Analysis 16 (3): 290-302. Online version published as doi:10.1093/pan/mpm039.

 

   Dunning, Thad. 2008. “Natural and Field Experiments: The Role of Qualitative Methods.” Qualitative Methods 6 (2) (Newsletter of the American Political Science Association’s Organized Section on Qualitative Methods).

 

   Freedman, David.  2005.  Statistical Models: Theory and Practice.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

   Freedman, David, Robert Pisani, and Roger Purves. 2007.  Statistics.  4th Edition, W.W. Norton & Co. See Chapter 1 (“Controlled Experiments”) and Chapter 2 (“Observational Studies”).

 

   Green, Donald P., Terence Y. Leong, Holger L. Kern, Alan S. Gerber, and Christopher W. Larimer.  2009.  “Testing the Accuracy of Regression Discontinuity Analysis Using Experimental Benchmarks.”  Political Analysis 17(4): 400-417.

 

   Sovey, Allison J. and Donald P. Green. 2011. “Instrumental Variables Estimation in Political Science: A Readers’ Guide.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (1): 188-200.

 

   Friday, June 28 Module 21 Ethnographic Methods III, Frederic Schaffer and Timothy Pachirat

 

   Session 8 (9:15-10:15) Triad Reviews of Fieldnotes

 

   Participants exchange and comment on each other’s fieldnotes.

 

   Session 9 (2:00 - 3:30) Paired-triad Discussions and Presentations

 

   Participants combine with other triads to discuss the experience of doing participant observation.

 

   Session 10 (4:00 - 5:30) Overall Debriefing (ordinary language interviewing and participant observation) [Pachirat and Schaffer]

 

   In this session, we will reflect together on the following two clusters of questions: (1) How can ordinary language interviewing and participant observation be fruitfully combined when doing ethnographic fieldwork? What are the potential pitfalls of such a combination? (2) To what extent does the method one adopts shape what one apprehends? Specifically, do we learn something different when we access meaning by means of (relatively unstructured) participant observation as opposed to (relatively structured) ordinary language interviewing?

 

   Friday, June 28 Module 22 Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Fuzzy Sets II, Charles Ragin and Alrik Thiem

 

   8:45am - 10:15am Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Set Calibration, and Fuzzy Set Analysis

 

   Charles Ragin, University of California, Irvine and Alrik Thiem, ETH Zurich

 

   Almost all cross-case information can be represented in terms of fuzzy sets. Unlike “variables,” fuzzy sets must be calibrated, and the calibration of fuzzy sets relies heavily on external knowledge, not on inductively derived statistics like means and standard deviations. This use of external knowledge provides the basis for a much tighter connection between theoretical concepts and empirical analysis. This session concludes with a demonstration of counterfactual analysis using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and a parallel demonstration of QCA-R.

 

   22.1.1. Charles C. Ragin, Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, 2008, chapters 4, 5, 10, and 11.  

 

   Recommended

 

   22.1.2. Charles C. Ragin, Fuzzy Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press, 2000, chapters 6, 8, 9, and 11.

 

   10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break.

 

   10:45am - 12:30pm Research Design Discussion Sessions (not part of Module).

 

   12: 30pm - 2:00pm Lunch.

 

   2:00pm - 3:30pm QCA Software: fsQCA and QCA-R

 

   There are several software packages today that implement principles of QCA. After sketching the lay of the land, the discussion turns to examine features of fsQCA and QCA-R.  fsQCA is specific to the Windows platform (including Apple computers running Windows) while the R version is multi-platform.

 

   22.2.1. Alrik Thiem and Adrian Duşa, "Boolean Minimization in Social Science Research: A Review of Current Software for Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)."    Social Science Computer Review 

 

   Recommended:

 

   22.2.2 Charles Ragin, User’s Guide to Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin/fsQCA/download/fsQCAManual.pdf

 

   22.2.3 Alrik Thiem and Adrian Duşa, Qualitative Comparative Analysis with R: A User’s Guide. Springer

 

   3:30pm - 4:00pm Coffee Break.

 

   4:00pm - 5:30pm Advanced Topics in Set-Theoretic Analysis

 

   Charles Ragin, University of California, Irvine and Alrik Thiem, ETH Zurich

 

   In this session we address several topics related to advanced applications of QCA: (1) the incorporation of time, (2) the use of “subset/superset” analysis, and (3) the analysis of set coincidence. One of the trademarks of qualitative research is its careful treatment of different aspects of time. QCA, however, is typically applied to cross-sectional evidence. Various ways of incorporating the temporal dimension into QCA will be discussed. “Subset/superset analysis” can be used to dissect a user-specified causal recipe. It is more deductive in nature than QCA proper.  Techniques of set coincidence provide powerful tools for the study of inequality.

 

   22.3.1. Neal Caren and Aaron Panofsky, TQCA. A technique for adding temporality to Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Sociological Methods and Research 34: 147-172, 2005.

 

   22.3.2. Charles C. Ragin and Sarah I. Strand. 2008. “Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis to study causal order. Comment on Caren and Panofsky (2005).” Sociological Methods and Research 36: 431-441

 

   

 

Follow Maxwell at:

twitter facebook youtube linkedin blog rss
Syracuse University Give Now

Consortium on Qualitative Research Methods | Maxwell School | Syracuse University | 346 Eggers Hall | Syracuse, NY 13244-1090 | 315.443.4068