Prof. Robert Adcock
Email: adcockr@gwu.edu
Office: 416 Monroe Hall of Government
PSc 8109, Fall 2011
Seminar: Fri 4:00-6:00
Office Hours: Fri 1:30-3:30
Political Science 8109: Systematic Inquiry / Research Design
Course Overview
This seminar introduces graduate students to classic issues and contemporary debates in the logic
and design of empirical social science. The course aims to help you recognize and navigate some
of the varied modes—quantitative, qualitative, and interpretive—of empirical research, and the at
times contentious exchanges about them. By the end of this course, you should become both: 1) a
more methodologically acute consumer of empirical social science, and 2) a more sophisticated
potential producer of research—i.e. better able to clearly formulate a research question, develop
a strategy to answer it, and explain your research choices and results to academic audiences with
varied methodological orientations.
There are four parts to the class. After our introductory session we devote Part One of the class
to a selective survey of issues in the philosophy, history, and sociology of (social) science. Part
Two focuses us specifically on alternative views of causation and their implications for modes
and practices of empirical social science. The longest part of the course, Part Three, then covers
research design choices about variables, cases, methods, concepts and measures. Finally Part
Four devotes our last two meetings to discussing research proposals by seminar participants.
Required Texts for Purchase and Other Readings
1. Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2003. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of
Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 0226300633.
2. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific
Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton UP. ISBN: 0691034710
3. Brady, Henry and David Collier, eds. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared
Standards. 2nd edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN: 1442203447
Learning Outcomes
As a result of completing this course, students will be able to:
 Recognize figures, concepts, and positions in the philosophy of science that have become
part of the conversation of political scientists
 Distinguish alternative views of causation and identify their differential implications for
research styles and standards
 Apply research design standards—about cases and variables, concepts and measures—to
evaluate the research of others and to explicate choices made in your own research
 Formulate research questions, articulate alternative answers to those questions, and begin
to develop a strategy of empirical research to adjudicate between those answers
Course Requirements and Grading
Readings and Discussion: The reading load for this course includes up to ~150 pages a week of
often demanding assigned readings. In order for you and your fellow seminar participants to get
the most out of our discussions you must make time to read the assigned material carefully and
completely. Effective and informed oral participation in seminar will improve your grade, but
neither the frequency nor stridency of interventions are good measures of such participation.
Exercises: You will be assigned five short exercises during the course. You are to complete each
exercise before the meeting it is assigned for and e-mail your response to me by 4 pm the day
(i.e. Thursday) before class. Your response should be a minimum of 1/2 and a maximum of 2
double-spaced pages in length. The first two exercises involve analyzing a recent dissertation in
your research area, and the last three focus on choices in developing your research proposal.
Research Proposal: Your principal writing assignment is to prepare a research proposal. Your
proposal is to be distributed by email to all seminar participants by 4pm on the Tuesday before
your scheduled discussion date. Most proposals will probably be around 6,000-7,500 words in
length, but all should be at least 5,000, and no longer than 10,000 words. More specific details on
what makes up a good proposal will be provided in class.
Proposal Pitch: Taking into account feedback you receive during class discussion of your draft
proposal, your final task is to write a two page research “pitch” succinctly stating succinctly: (a)
the question you propose to address, (b) how it engages political science and/or policy audiences,
and (c) what empirical research you would do to reach and support your answer/argument.
Grading: Your productive participation in seminar discussion of assigned readings will count for
10% of your grade, your five short exercises for 10%, and your constructive in-class comments
on other students’ proposals for a further 10%. Your research proposal draft and pitch will count
together for 70% of your grade.
COURSE SCHEDULE AND READING ASSIGNMENTS
Sept. 2 No class scheduled (APSA annual conference)
Sept. 9 A Science of Politics?
Weber, Max. 2004. “Science as a Vocation.” From The Vocation Lectures, eds. David Owen and
Tracy B. Strong. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
King, Keohane, and Verba. Designing Social Inquiry. Chap 1 (only 1.1)
Keohane, Robert. 2009. “Political Science as a Vocation.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42,
no. 2: 359-63.
Jackon, Patrick Thaddeus. 2011. “Playing with Fire.” Chap. 1 of The Conduct of Inquiry in
International Relations (New York: Routledge).
Crawford, Kerry. 2011. “Punctuated Silence: Variation in the United Nations’ Response to
Wartime Sexual Abuse.” GWU Department of Political Science Dissertation Proposal.
PART ONE: SELECTED ISSUES IN THE PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE
Sept. 16 Theory and Observation: Logic, Inference, and Testing
Godfrey-Smith. Theory and Reality. Chaps. 1-4, 10, 14 (14.1, 14.5-14.6)
King, Keohane, and Verba. Designing Social Inquiry. Chaps. 1 (1.2-1.3), 2 (2.1-2.6), 3 (only 3.5)
Rogowski, Ronald. “How Inference in the Social (but Not the Physical) Sciences Neglects
Theoretical Anomaly.” Chap. 5 in Brady and Collier, eds. Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2nd ed.
EXERCISE #1
Sept. 23 Structure & Dynamics of Science
a. History of Science: Studying Scientific Change and Debating Progress
Godfrey-Smith. Theory and Reality. Chaps. 5-7
Chernoff, Fred. 2004. “The Study of Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations.”
International Studies Review 6: 49-77
b. Sociology of Science and the Realism/Construction Tension
Godfrey-Smith. Theory and Reality. Chaps. 8-9, 11-12
Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Chaps. 1, 3
Sept. 30 Explanation and Social Science: Classic Debates and Beyond
a. Introducing a Classic Puzzle: What does/should Explanation involve?
Godfrey-Smith. Theory and Reality. Chap. 13
Hempel, Carl G. 1942. “The Function of General Laws in History.” Journal of Philosophy 39,
no. 2: 35-48.
Elster, Jon. 2007. “Explanation.” Chap. 1 of Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts
for the Social Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Weber, Max. 2004/1921. “Basic Sociological Concepts: Methodological Foundations.” Pp. 311327 of Sam Whimster, ed., The Essential Weber (New York: Routledge).
Bevir, Mark. 2006. “How Narratives Explain.” In Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea,
eds. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn.
Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
b. Typologies of Explanation
Wendt, Alexander. 1998. “On constitution and causation in International Relations.” Review of
International Studies 24, no. 5: 101-18.
Abbott. Methods of Discovery. Chaps. 1.
EXERCISE #2
PART TWO: CAUSATION
Oct. 7 Causation: Statistical Analysis and Experiments
Abbott, Andrew. 1998. “The causal devolution.” Sociological Methods and Research 27, no. 2:
148-81.
Goldthorpe, John H. 2001. “Causation, Statistics, and Sociology.” European Sociological Review
17, no. 1: 1-20.
King, Keohane, and Verba. Designing Social Inquiry. Chap. 3 (up through 3.3).
Brady and Collier, eds. Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2nd ed., Chap. 3 (p. 67-76), Chap. 2 (p. 40-49),
Chap. 9 (p. 172-77), Introduction to the Second edition, Chap. 14 (by Thad Dunning).
Oct. 14
a. Causal-Process Observations and Process Tracing
Brady and Collier, eds. Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2nd ed. Chap. 9 (p. 182-96), Chap. 12 (Brady).
Beck, Nathaniel. 2006. “Is Causal-Process Observation an Oxymoron?” Political Analysis 14:
347-52.
Bennett, Andrew. “Process-Tracing.” Chap. 10 in Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2nd ed.
Freedman, David A. “On Types of Scientific Inquiry: The Role of Qualitative Reasoning.” Chap.
11 in Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2nd ed.
b. Causal Mechanisms
Elster, Jon. 2007. “Mechanisms.” Chap. 2 of Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts
for the Social Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press).
George, Alexander and Andrew Bennett. 2005. “Case Studies and the Philosophy of Science.”
Chap 7 of Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press).
Gerring, John. 2007. “The Mechanismic Worldview: Thinking Inside the Box.” British Journal
of Political Science 37: 1-19.
McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2008. “Methods for Measuring Mechanisms
of Contention.” Qualitative Sociology 31: 307-31.
Oct. 21 Causal Complexity and Necessary/Sufficient/INUS Causes
Mahoney, James. 2010. “After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research.” World
Politics 62, no. 1: 120-47.
Ragin, Charles C. 2000. “Diversity-Oriented Research” and Causal Complexity.” Fuzzy-Set
Social Science (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). Chap. 1, Chap. 4.
Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz. 2006. “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and
Qualitative Research.” Political Analysis 14: 227-49.
Goertz, Gary and Jack S. Levy. 2007. “Causal Explanation, Necessary Conditions, and Case
Studies.” Chap. 2 in Gary Goertz and Jack S. Levy, eds. Explaining War and Peace: Case
Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals (New York: Routledge)
Mahoney, James, Erin Kimball and Kendra L. Koivu. 2009. “The Logic of Historical
Explanation in the Social Sciences.” Comparative Political Studies 42, no. 1: 114-46.
Mahoney, James. 2008. “Toward a Unified Theory of Causality.” Comparative Political Studies
41, no. 4/5: 412-36.
EXERCISE #3
PART THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN CHOICES
Oct. 28 Choosing Cases and Variables: DSI on Bias & Efficiency and RSI Responses
King, Keohane, and Verba. Designing Social Inquiry. Chaps. 2.7, 3.4, 4, 5.2-5.7, 6.
Collier, David, James Mahoney, and Jason Seawright. “Claiming too Much: Warnings about
Selection Bias.” Chap. 6 from Rethinking Social Inquiry, 1st ed. (file online)
Seawright, Jason. “Regression-Based Inference: A Case Study in Failed Causal Assessment.”
Chap. 13 in Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2nd ed.
Nov. 4 Cases Continued
Ragin, Charles C. 2000. “Constituting Populations” and “Studying Cases as Configurations.”
Chaps. 2-3 of Fuzzy-Set Social Science (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz. 2004. “The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in
Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 98, no. 4: 653-669
Gerring, John and Jason Seawright. 2007. “Techniques for Choosing Cases.” Pp. 71-74, 86-150
in Gerring, Case Study Research: Principles and Practices (New York: Cambridge UP).
EXERCISE #4
Nov. 11 Multi-Method Research
a. Promise and Challenges
Tarrow, Sidney. “Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide.” Chap. 6 in Brady and Collier,
eds. Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2nd ed.
Lieberman, Evan. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative
Research.” American Political Science Review 99, no. 3: 435-52.
Munck, Gerardo L. and Richard Snyder. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative
Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Laitin interview (read to top of p. 632)
Kuehn, David and Ingo Rohlfing. 2009. “Does It, Really? Measurement Error and Omitted
Variables in Multi-Method Research.” Qualitative Methods 7, no. 2: 13-23
b. Applications: Research on Civil War
Fearon, James D., and David D. Laitin. 2008. “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative
Methods.” In Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, eds, The
Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, 756-76.
Various Authors. 2008. “Symposium: Bridging the Gap? Connecting Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods in the Study of Civil War.” Qualitative Methods 6, no. 1: 13-23 (read
to end of Nome contribution).
Nov. 18 Concepts, Types, and Measures
Levitsky, Steven. 1998. “Institutionalization and Peronism: The Concept, the Case, and the Case
for Unpacking the Concept.” Party Politics 4, no. 1: 77-92.
Goertz, Gary. 2009. “Point of Departure: Intension and Extension.” Chap. 7 in David Collier and
John Gerring, eds. Concepts and Methods in Social Science: The Tradition of Giovanni
Sartori (New York: Routledge).
Elman, Colin. 2009. “Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Analysis.” Chap. 6 in David Byrne
and Charles C. Ragin, The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Methods (London: SAGE).
Adcock, Robert and David Collier. 2001. “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for
Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” American Political Science Review 95, no. 3: 529-46
Goertz, Gary. 2006. “Increasing Concept-Measure Consistency.” Chap. 4 (up through p. 115) of
Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Herrera, Yoshiko M. and Devesh Kapur. 2007. “Improving Data Quality: Actors, Incentives, and
Capabilities.” Political Analysis 15: 365-86.
Mudde, Cas, and Andreas Schedler. 2010. “Rational Data Choice.” Political Research Quarterly
63, no. 2: 410-16.
EXERCISE #5
Nov. 25 No class -- Thanksgiving
PART FOUR: RESEARCH PROPOSAL DISCUSSION
Our last two meetings (Dec 2 and 9) will be devoted to discussion of student research proposals.
You will be assigned to complete and circulate your proposal one week, and the other week you
are to read the proposals circulated for that session, prepare feedback, and come to class that day
prepared to share your feedback orally.