PSC 6003: Survey of the Discipline
University of Oklahoma
Fall 2013
Thursday 3-5:50
Kaufman 234
Instructors:
Professor Keith Gaddie, 222 Dale Hall Tower, 325-4989
rkgaddie@ou.edu
Professor Justin J. Wert, 228 Dale Hall Tower, 325-8867
jwert@ou.edu
Course Overview:
PSC 6003 is a required course for graduate students pursuing the Ph.D. in political science. It has
been designed with the belief that future political scientists should devote some reflection to the
nature of our discipline, its history, and its seminal (and historically changing) questions,
presuppositions, methods, classic works, and controversies. It is particularly important to do this
because the modern graduate curriculum has become increasingly fragmented and specialized, often
at the expense of larger inter- and intra-disciplinary meta-questions that always frame our work as
political scientists. We will try to deepen your grasp – and your understanding – of the historical,
intellectual (and political) enterprise of the discipline of political science.
A more practical goal of the course is the introduction to graduate students of the various methods
and approaches that political scientists employ in their research. As future members of the
discipline, you will come across counter-approaches to the political phenomena you are studying
quite often; as scholars actively engaged in researching political phenomena, you will need to
understand all (or most) of these possible approaches and explanatory frameworks.
The course will proceed in three parts. We will first examine the history and development of
“political science” alongside the larger developments of social science at the turn of the twentieth
century. We will then examine particular methodological approaches and controversies that have
developed within the political science discipline during the last half of the twentieth century. After a
brief review of two of these approaches (Rational Choice and Historical Institutionalism), we will
then look at a current problem/research topic in each of the four major disciplinary subfields and
the various methodological approaches and controversies that surround the resolution and
explanation of the problem.
Aside from the nuts and bolts of theory, though, this course is also designed in part to familiarize
you with general professional expectations of our discipline, including publication norms;
conference participation norms; job talks; the job market; and undergraduate and graduate teaching
norms. We will talk formally and informally about these issues as the seminar progresses.
Assignments and Grading:
1. Weekly “reaction” papers, summarizing and critiquing the week’s topic(s) and readings. The
papers are to be 1-2 pages in length. They are to be e-mailed to Professors Gaddie AND
Wert no later than midnight on the Wednesday before our Thursday class. The papers are
worth 10% of your final grade.
2. Each student is to help “lead” one seminar. This entails raising a set of questions and
orienting our discussion for the week’s topic, as well as summarizing and critiquing the
week’s readings (and one or two recommended readings) in a semi-formal paper (appx. 8-10
pages) that will be distributed to the entire seminar. 30%
3. A seminar paper on any topic related to the course. Ideally, this paper will examine the
methodological “terrain” of a topic germane to your own graduate research. Professors
Gaddie and Wert will meet with every seminar participant individually early in the semester
to help you get started with your paper. The paper is due during the week of final exams.
60%.
Required Books:
 Aristotle, The Politics
 Henry E. Brady & David Collier. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared
Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN: 074251126-X
 Jared Diamond and James Robinson, eds. 2010. Natural Experiments of History. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
 Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, & Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific
Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 0691034710
 Ross, Dorothy. 1991. The Origins of American Social Science. New York: Oxford University
Press. ISBN: 052142836X
 V.O. Key. 2006. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee
Press.
 Gabriel Almond. 1990. A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science. Sage. ISBN:
0803933029
 Raymond Seidelman. 1985. Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 18841984. Albany: SUNY. ISBN: 0873959957
 Kristen Monroe. 2005. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science Yale University
Press.
**Most journal articles are available on line**
Accommodation:
The University of Oklahoma is committed to providing reasonable accommodation for students
with disabilities. Students with disabilities should speak to the instructors early in the semester, and
must be registered with the Office of Disabilities prior to receiving accommodations in this course.
Disabilities Services is located in Goddard Health, 325-3852.
Course Schedule
Week 1 (Aug. 22)
Course Introduction and Overview
 Stephen J. Gould. 2000. “Deconstructing the ‘Science Wars’ by Reconstructing an Old
Mold,” Science 287 (January 14): 253-261.
Week 2 (Aug. 29) NO CLASS: APSA
Week 3 (Sept. 5)Preliminaries: What is Political Science?
 Aristotle, The Politics, Books 1, 3,4,5, & 6
 ALMOND, GABRIEL. 1990. A DISCIPLINE DIVIDED: SCHOOLS AND SECTS IN POLITICAL
SCIENCE . SAGE .
Week 4 (Sept. 12)
The History & Construction of Social and Political Science
Required:
 ROSS, DOROTHY. 1991. THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN SOCIAL SCIENCE. NEW YORK:
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
 SEIDELMAN, RAYMOND & EDWARD J. HARPHAM. 1985. DISENCHANTED REALISTS:
POLITICAL SCIENCE AND THE AMERICAN CRISIS, 1884-1984. ALBANY: STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK PRESS
Recommended:
 Smith, Munroe. 1886. “The Domain of Political Science.” Political Science Quarterly 1:1.
 Willoughby, W.W. 1904. “The American Political Science Association.” Political Science
Quarterly 19:107.
 Goodnow, Frank J. “The Work of the American Political Science Association.” The
American Political Science Review
 Collini, Stefan, Donald Winch, and John Burrow. 1983. That Noble Science of Politics: A Study
in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 FARR, JAMES, JOHN S. DRYZEK, AND STEPHEN T. LEONARD, EDS. 1995. POLITICAL
SCIENCE IN HISTORY: RESEARCH PROGRAMS AND POLITICAL TRADITIONS. NEW YORK:
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
 Wasby, Stephen L. 1970. Political Science -- The Discipline and its Dimensions: An Introduction.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
 V.O. Key, Jr. 1958. “The State of the Discipline.” American Political Science Review 52:961.
 Adcock, Robert. 2003. “The Emergence of Political Science as a Discipline: History and the
Study of Politics in America, 1875-1910.” History of Political Thought 24:481.
 Dryzek, John S. & Stephen T. Leonard. 1988. “History and Discipline in Political Science.”
American Political Science Review 82: 1245.
 Kaufman-Osborn. 2006. “Dividing the Domain of Political Science: On the Fetishism of
Subfields.” Polity 38: 41.
Week 5 (Sept. 19)
Political Science & Method(s)
Required:
 KING, GARY, ROBERT O. KEOHANE & SIDNEY VERBA. 1994. DESIGNING SOCIAL
INQUIRY: SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH. PRINCETON: PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY PRESS.
 BRADY, HENRY E. AND DAVID COLLIER. 2004. RETHINKING SOCIAL INQUIRY:
DIVERSE TOOLS, S HARED STANDARDS. LANHAM: ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD.
Recommended:
 MARCUS K REUZER, “HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS: THE
CASE OF THE ORIGINS OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION .” AMERICAN POLITICAL
SCIENCE REVIEW , VOL. 104, NO. 2 (2011).
 NORTON, ANNE. 2004. 95 THESES ON POLITICS, CULTURE, & METHOD. NEW HAVEN:
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS .
 KRISTEN MONROE. 2005. PERESTROIKA ! THE R AUCOUS REBELLION IN POLITICAL
SCIENCE. NEW HAVEN: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS .
 SHAPIRO, IAN, ROGERS M. SMITH, AND TAREK E. MASOUD. 2004. PROBLEMS AND
METHODS IN THE STUDY OF POLITICS. NEW YORK: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
 Smith, Rogers M. 2004. “Identities, Interests, and the Future of Political Science.” Perspectives
on Politics 2: 301.
 Cohn, Jonathan. 1999. “Irrational Exuberance: When Did Political Science Forget about
Politics?” The New Republic, Oct. 25, 25-32.
Week 6 (Sept. 26)
Roundtable: Publishing in Political Science Journals
 Keith Gaddie
 Hank Jenkins-Smith
Week 7 (Oct. 3)
What Historians and Economists Think About Political Science (and political scientists)
 David Chappelle (History)
 Kevin Grier (Economics)
Week 8 (Oct. 10)
Rational Choice
Required:
 Moe, Terry. 2005. “Power and Political Institutions.” Perspectives on Politics 3: 218.
 Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective
Action.” American Political Science Review 92: 1.
 Riker, William H. 1995. “The Political Psychology of Rational Choice Theory,” Political
Pyschology) 16: 23.
Recommended:
 GREEN, DONALD AND IAN SHAPIRO. 1994. THE PATHOLOGIES OF RATIONAL CHOICE:
A CRITIQUE OF APPLICATIONS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE. NEW HAVEN: YALE UNIVERSITY
PRESS.
 Cox, Gary. 1999. “The Empirical Content of Rational Choice Theory: A Reply to Green and
Shapiro.” Journal of Theoretical Politics. 11: 147.
 Riker, William H. and William Zavoina. 1970. “Rational Behavior in Politics: Evidence from
a Three Person Game.” American Political Science Review. 64: 48.
 Walt, Stephen M. 1999. “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies,”
International Security 23: 5-48.
 Bueno de Mesquita & Morrow, Martin, Niou & Ordeshook, Powell, Zagare, and Walt (all in
International Security 24:2 (Autumn 1999), 56-130.
Week 9 (Oct. 17)
Historical Institutionalism
Required:
 March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. 1984. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational
Factors in Political Life.” American Political Science Review. 78: 734-749.
 Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.”
American Political Science Review. 94 (2): 251-267.
 Mahoney, James. 2004. “Comparative-Historical Methodology.” Annual Review of Sociology.
30:81-101.
 Orren, Karen and Stephen Skowronek. 1994. “Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes for
a ‘New Institutionalism.’” In, The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and
Interpretations. ed. Larry C. Dodd. Boulder: Westview Press.
Recommended:
 ORREN, KAREN AND STEPHEN S KOWRONEK. 2004. THE SEARCH FOR A MERICAN
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT . CAMBRIDGE: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS .
 STEPHEN SKOWRONEK. 1997. THE POLITICS PRESIDENTS MAKE, HARVARD
UNIVERSITY PRESS.
 STEPHEN SKOWRONEK. 1982. BUILDING A NEW AMERICAN STATE, CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS.
 Lusitck, Ian S. 1996. “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical
Records and the Problem of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 90: 605-618.
 Walter Dean Burnham. 1967. “Party Systems and the Political Process,” in The American
Party
Systems, Chambers and Burnham, eds, Oxford University Press.
 Rogers Smith and Desmond King. 2005. “Racial Orders in American Political
Development,” American Political Science Review 99: 75-92.
Week 10 (Oct. 24)
Political Theory: How to “Read” a Text
Guest: Prof. Don Maletz
Required:
 Leo Strauss, “On a Forgotten Kind of Writing”
 Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory
Vol., No. 1 (1969)
 Michael Oakeshott, “Introduction to Leviathan”
Recommended:
 Gunnell, John G. 1988. “American Political Science, Liberalism, and the Invention of
Political Theory.” American Political Science Review 82: 71.
 Gunnell, John G. 1981. “Encounters of a Third Kind: The Alienation of Theory in
American Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 25: 440.
Week 11 (Oct. 31)
American Politics
Required:
 V.O. Key, Southern Politics in State and Nation
Week 12 (Nov. 7)
Comparative Politics
Guests: Prof. Paul Goode
Required:
 Rudra Sil and Peter Katzenstein, “Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics:
Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions.” Perspectives on Politics,
Vol. 8, no. 4 (2011).
 J. Paul Goode, “Redefining Russia: Hybrid Regimes, Fieldwork, and Russian Politics,”
forthcoming in Perspectives on Politics, December 2010
Recommended:
 Kathleen Thelen. 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” Annual Review
of Political Science.
 Ira Katznelson. 1997. “Structure and Configuration in Comparative Politics,” in Mark Irving
Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman, Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Kathleen Thelen. 2003. “How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative Historical
Analysis,” in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds, Comparative Historical Analysis
in the Social Sciences Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Week 13 (Nov. 14)
PA/Policy
Guests: Alyssa Hicklin
Required:
 Frank Goodnow, Politics and Administration” (D2L)
 David L. Weimer, “Theories of and n the Policy Process,” The Policy Studies Journal, vol. 36, no. 4
(2008) [D2L]
 Anthony M. Bertelli and Lilliard E. Richardson, Jr., “The behavioral Impact of Drinking and Driving
Laws,” The Policy Studies Journal, vol. 36, no. 4 (2008) [D2L]
Week 14: (Nov. 21)
International Relations
Guests: Prof. Greg Russell
Prof. Jonathan Monten
Week 15 (Nov. 28) Thanksgiving Break
Week 16 (Dec. 5)
 Perestroika (all)
 Jared Diamond and James Robinson, eds. 2010. Natural Experiments of History. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
**Seminar papers due Dec. 13 by 5:00 P.M.**