Political Science 601: Scope and Methods
Fall 2014
Instructor: Brian Adams
e-mail: badams@mail.sdsu.edu
Phone: 594-4289
Office: Nasatir Hall 122
Office Hours: Mondays 10:30-noon,Wednesdays 10:00-11:00, Thursdays 2:30-4:30, or by
appointment
Overview:
This course introduces graduate students to the discipline of political science by examining four
core concepts: power, rationality, institutions, and democracy. We will approach each concept
from different perspectives, drawing on works from all of the discipline’s subfields. These
concepts are central to understanding the political world and conceptualizing, defining, and
measuring them is a central task of political analysis. In the process of exploring these concepts,
we will also examine the methodological debates within the discipline. This is not a “how to”
course that teaches students how to use various methodological tools (POSC 615 and 516
perform that function), but it will orient students towards the different approaches to studying
politics. The course is also designed to develop skills that graduate students need to write a thesis
and successfully complete the program. Specifically, students will learn how to define a research
question and write a literature review.
Student learning outcomes:
 Recognize the diversity of research conducted within the political science discipline.
 Identify the different methodological approaches to doing political science research and
the advantages and disadvantages of each.
 Learn how to conduct a literature review.
 Explain why key terms in political science are fundamentally contested.
 Identify core debates within the discipline surrounding how to conduct political science
research.
Texts:
Eliasoph, Nina (1998). Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fewsmith, Joseph (2013). The Logic and Limits of Political Reform in China. Cambridge
University Press.
Hirshmann, Albert O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Harvard University Press.
[continued]
Przeworski, Adam et al. (2000). Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and WellBeing in the World, 1950-1990. Cambridge University Press.
1
Putnam, Robert D. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Walzer, Michael (1983). Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.
Journal articles and book chapters available through the course website on blackboard.
Assignments/grading
1. Class participation. Students are expected to come to every class period, prepared to discuss
the assigned readings. Class attendance is mandatory. Students who miss class, or come to class
unprepared and/or late, may be required to complete additional writing assignments. (about onethird of course grade).
2. Literature review (due November 26th). See page 7 for guidelines. (about one-third of course
grade).
3. Take-home final (due December 17th) (about one-third of course grade).
Students with Disabilities
If you are a student with a disability and believe you will need accommodations for this class, it
is your responsibility to contact Student Disability Services at (619) 594-6473. To avoid any
delay in the receipt of your accommodations, you should contact Student Disability Services as
soon as possible. Please note that accommodations are not retroactive, and that accommodations
based upon disability cannot be provided until you have presented your instructor with an
accommodation letter from Student Disability Services. Your cooperation is appreciated.
Course Outline
Note: Course readings are subject to change—changes will be announced in class or via e-mail.
Week 1 (August 27th)
a.) Introduction to the course
b.) How to read political science articles
c.) How to find academic literature
d.) Historical development of the discipline
Part I: Power
Week 2 (September 3rd) ): What is “power”?
Dahl, Robert A. (1957). “The Concept of Power.” Behavioral Science 2 (3): 201-215.
Lukes, Steven (ed.), Power: A Radical View, pp. 14-37.
[Readings continued on next page]
2
Hayward, Clarissa R. (1998). “De-facing Power.” Polity 31 (1): 1-22
Goldman, Alvin I. (1972). “Towards a Theory of Social Power.” Philosophical Studies
23 (4): 221-268.
Barnett and Duvall, “Power in Global Governance.” Pp. 1-23.
Week 3: (September 10th: Power relations between branches of government
Edwards, George C. (2009). The Strategic President : Persuasion and Opportunity in
Presidential Leadership. Princeton University Press. Pages 1-18
Laing, Matthew (2012). “Towards a Pragmatic Presidency? Exploring the Waning of
Political Time.” Polity 44 (2): 234-259.
Cohen, Jeffrey E, Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher (2013). “Placing PresidentialCongressional Relations in Context: A Comparison of Barack Obama and His
Predecessors.” Polity 45 (1): 105-126.
Bickel, Alexander M. 1962. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar
of Politics. Bobbs-Merrill. pp. 1-33.
Lemieux, Scott and George Lovell (2010). “Legislative Defaults: Interbranch Power
Sharing and Abortion Politics.” Polity 42 (2): 210-243.
Recommended: Knopf, Jeffrey W. (2006). “Doing a Literature Review.” PS: Political
Science and Politics 39 (1): 127-132.
Note: Students should submit a one-paragraph summary of their literature review topic
sometime this week through blackboard.
Week 4 (September 17th): Who has power?
Dahl, Who Governs, pp. 1-8, 85-6, 115-140, 163-165, 223-228.
Stone, Clarence N. (1993). "Urban Regimes and the Capacity to Govern: A Political
Economy Approach." Journal of Urban Affairs 15 (1): 1-28.
Lindblom, Charles E. (1982). “The Market as Prison.” Journal of Politics 44 (2): 324-336.
Winters, Jeffrey A and Benjamin I Page (2009). “Oligarchy in the United States?”
Perspectives on Politics 7(4): 731-751.
Smith, Mark A. (1999). “Public Opinion, Elections, and Representation Within a Market
Economy: Does the Structural Power of Business Undermine Popular Sovereignty?”
American Journal of Political Science 43 (3); 842-863.
3
Part II: Rationality
Week 5 (September 24th): The rational choice approach to political science
Green, Donald P. and Ian Shapiro. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. Pp. 13-32.
Riker, William H. and Peter C. Ordeshook (1968). “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.”
American Political Science Review 62 (1): 25-42.
Ferejohn, John A. and Morris P. Fiorina (1974) “The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision
Theoretic Analysis.” American Political Science Review 68 (2): 525-536.
Wildavsky, Aaron (1987). “Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A
Cultural Theory of Preference Formation.” American Political Science Review 81 (1): 321.
Edelman, Murray. The Symbolic Uses of Politics, pp. 1-21.
Week 6 (October 1st): The “rationality” of war and ethnic conflict
Fearon, James D. (1995). “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization
49 (3): 379-414.
Walt, Stephen M. (1999). “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security
Studies.” International Security 23 (4): 5-48.
Varshney, Ashutosh (2003). “Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict, and Rationality.”
Perspectives on Politics 1, 1: 85-99.
Kaufman, Stuart J. (2006). “Symbolic Politics or Rational Choice? Testing Theories of
Extreme Ethnic Violence.” International Security 30 (4): 45-86.
Week 7 (October 8th): Rationality and responses to institutional decline
Hirschmann, Exit, Voice and Loyalty, pp. 1-128
Warren, Mark E. 2011. “Voting With Your Feet: Exit-Based Empowerment in
Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 105 (4): 683-694 (note I have
not assigned the entire article).
4
Part III: Institutions
Week 8 (October 15th): Institutional Theories
March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen (1984). “The New Institutionalism: Organizational
Factors in Political Life.” American Political Science Review 78 (3): 734-743.
Hall, Peter A. and Rosemary C.R. Taylor (1996). “Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44 (5): 937-956.
Shepsle, Kenneth A. (2006). “Rational Choice Institutionalism.” In R.A.W. Rhodes,
Sarah A. Binder and Bert A. Rockman (eds.). Political Institutions. Oxford University
Press. Pages 23-38.
Sanders, Elizabeth (2006). “Historical Institutionalism.” In R.A.W. Rhodes, Sarah A.
Binder and Bert A. Rockman (eds.). Political Institutions. Oxford University Press. Pages
39-55.
Hay, Colin (2006). “Constructivist Institutionalism.” In R.A.W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder
and Bert A. Rockman (eds.). Political Institutions. Oxford University Press. Pages 56-74.
Week 9 (October 22nd): Empirical works using institutional frameworks
Frymer, Paul (2005). “Racism Revisited: Courts, Labor Law, and the Institutional
Construction of Racial Animus.” American Political Science Review 99 (3), 373-387.
Galanter, Marc (1974). “Why the ‘Haves’ Come out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of
Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9 (1): 95-125 and 135-144.
Lieberman, Robert C. (2002). “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining
Political Change.” American Political Science Review 96 (4): 697-712.
Soss, Joe (1999). “Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning and Political
Action.” American Political Science Review 93 (2): 363-380.
Week 10 (October 29th): Chinese Politics
Fewsmith, The Logic and Limits of Political Reform in China, all.
5
Week 11 (November 5th): Decentralization: Institutions and Governmental Performance
Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy: Towards Consolidation. Johns Hopkins
University Press. Pages 117-159
Treisman, Daniel. 2007. The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political
Decentralization. Cambridge University Press. Pages 1-15.
Kymlicka, Will. 2005. “Federalism, Nationalism, and Multiculturalism.” In Dimitrios
Karmis and Wayne Norman, eds. Theories of Federalism: A Reader. Palgrave Macmillan.
Pages 269-289.
Faguet, Jean-Paul (2012). Decentralization and Popular Democracy: Governance from
Below in Bolivia. University of Michigan Press. Pages 1-47 and 159-198.
This is an e-book available for free through the SDSU library.
Part IV: Democracy
Week 12 (November 12th): Justice and Democracy
Walzer, Spheres of Justice, preface and chapters 1, 4, 8, 12, 13
Week 13 (November 19th): Social capital
Putnam, Robert D. Making Democracy Work. pp. 1-192.
Week 14 (November 26th): No Class (day before Thanksgiving)
Literature Review due November 26th
Week 15 (December 3rd): Democratization
Przeworski, Adam et al. Democracy and Development. Pp. 1-215 (you can skim the
chapter appendices).
Week 16 (December 10th): Political apathy
Eliasoph, Nina. Avoiding Politics, pp. 1-84, 131-187, 230-263
Final exam due Wednesday, December 17th
6
Guidelines for writing the literature review
Choosing a research topic
1. There are few restrictions on the topic you choose, other than it must be “political science” in
some general sense.
2. Your topic should be a narrow research question. By narrow, I mean that it should deal with
one specific political phenomenon. For example, “racial politics in American cities” is way too
broad for a topic; something along the lines of “Is deracialization a successful strategy for
mayoral candidates?” would be more appropriate.
3. Your topic should be formulated as a question that attempts to understand a specific political
phenomenon.
4. In order to define a research topic, you need to know something about the literature. Thus, you
need to do some reading even before you have a clear idea of what research question you want to
study. The best approach is to start out with a general topic, do some reading on that topic, and
then define a more specific research question.
5. The research topic can be tweaked as you write your literature review. Defining a research
question is necessary to orient your research, but it is not written in stone.
6. You may not “recycle” papers you wrote as an undergraduate or graduate student. Any student
found doing this will be given a failing grade.
Writing the Literature Review
1. A literature review synthesizes past research on a topic. Literature reviews are not simply
summaries of books and articles. You should not write this paper in the format “author A said x,
and author B said y,” which is essentially a series of book reports rather than a literature review.
What you should do is integrate your sources to map out the terrain of the scholarly discourse on
the subject. You should pull out core ideas and concepts from the readings, and weave them
together into a coherent discussion of your topic. Part of this process involves “comparing and
contrasting” different authors, but a literature review goes beyond that: it not only compares
authors, but also fits them together into a coherent picture. The best literature reviews say
something about the literature as a whole: in addition to describing the scholarly debate, they
also comment on it. This is not in the form of who’s right or wrong but rather a commentary on
the fundamental issues at stake or the particular shape or characteristics of the debate. In other
words, a good literature reviews is not just a description of the literature, but also an
interpretation. We will talk about what makes for a good literature review in class, and we are
reading some literature reviews in class that are good models to follow.
2. One of the biggest problems graduate students often run into is they miss important parts of
the literature or spend too much time on insignificant/tangential works. As you write your
literature review, ask yourself whether you are focused on the most important research in the
area.
7
3. Doing a good literature review requires good library skills. Spend some time familiarizing
yourself with library resources and using online library databases.
4. One of the best article databases to use is Web of Science Core Collection; even though it is
not user-friendly, it includes almost all political science journals and most relevant journals from
other disciplines. You can also do cited reference searches, which are quite valuable. Another
database that include political science journals is J-Stor, although it is less comprehensive than
Web of Science. There are some political science journals in ProQuest and Academic Search
Premier, but they are incomplete in their coverage.
5. Your literature review should focus on academic literature (books and articles). Do not include
newspaper or magazine articles. If you have reason to, you can draw on literature outside of
political science (such as sociology or economics).
6. Page length. There is no specified minimum or maximum, although I expect it will be about
10-15 pages.
General
1. If you want some examples of literature reviews, a good place to look is The Annual Review of
Political Science, which is an annual collection of literature reviews on various topics with the
discipline. The quality of the reviews vary, but they will provide you with some idea of how
literature reviews are structured. The Annual Review of Political Science is available for free
through SDSU’s library databases.
2. You should use the citation method used in the American Political Science Review, which is
the generally accepted method of citation in the discipline (although there is a lot of variation). I
would suggest getting a recent article of the APSR and following its citation method.
3. Don’t hesitate to come to my office hours to discuss your literature review. We can also make
an appointment to meet if you cannot make office hours.
8