Political Science Research Methods
Assistant Professor: Tsai Jung-hsiang
e-mail:poljht@ccu.edu.tw
Office Hours: by appointment
This seminar introduces students to the literature of political analysis, preparing
students for advanced study in political science. All the students taking this seminar
for credit must do the assigned readings, write a proposal, participate in seminar
discussions, and present your proposal in the last class or give comments on other
students’ proposals. Students are encouraged to write a paper related to your field
such as Comparative Politics, International Relations, and Public Administration. In
doing so, I believe that it may contribute to your future study or thesis. Grading will
be based on the following: proposal 60%, class participation 20%, presentation and
discussion 20%. For the mid-term exam, the students should present your research
questions for five minutes in the class. For the final-term exam, the students should
present their proposal which is more than 5 pages, but less than 7 pages. If the
students are unable to come to class, they have to inform the instructor in advacne by
e-mail. Otherwise, I will consider it as an absence for the class. This class is kind of
demanding, but I hope that all of the students taking this class will not regret choosing
it. By the way, there is no Chinese material for this class or any related Chinese
information on the website such as www.google.com, so the students do not waste
your time on searching for the Chinese version of the articles or books.
Research Design
1. Stephen Van Evera, 1997. “How to Write a Paper,” in Guide to Methods for
Students of Political Science, Appendix (Ithaca: Cornell University Press):
123-128.**
2. Stephen Van Evera, 1997. “The Dissertation Proposal,” in Guide to Methods for
Students of Political Science (Ithaca: Cornell University Press): 115-116.**
3. Stephen Van Evera, 1997. “What is a Political Science Dissertation,” in Guide to
Methods for Students of Political Science, (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press):89-95.**
4. Stephen Van Evera, 1997. “Helpful Hints on Writing a Political Science
Proposal,” in Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press):97-113.**
Political Methodology:
1. James Mahoney and Gary Goertz, 2007. “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting
Quantitative and Qualitative Research,” Political Analysis 14(3): 227-49.***
Introduction to Qualitative Methods
1. Charles C. Ragin, Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and Gisele de Meur. 1996. “Political
Methodology: Qualitative Methods,” in Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter
Klingemann eds. A New Handbook of Political Science New York: Oxford
University Press, pp 749-765.**
Introduction to Quantitative Methods
1. Janet Buttulph Johnson and H.T. Reynolds, 2004. “The Building Blocks of Social
1
Scientific Research: Hypotheses, Concepts, and Variables,” Political Science
Research Methods, 5th edition (Congressional Quarterly Press), Chapter 4,
pp.103-123.**
Comparative Method (1)
1. John Stuart Mill, 2000. A System of Logic: Rationcinative and Inductive: Being a
Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific
Investigation. J M. Robson (ed). Routledge Press. Chapter VIII, pp. 388-406.**
2. Arend, Lijphart. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”
American Political Science Review 65(3): 682-693.（www.jstor.org）**
Comparative Method (2)
1. Charles C. Ragin. 1987. “Case Oriented Comparative Methods” in Charles C
Ragin. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative
Method. University of California Press, pp34-52.**
2. Samuel J. Valenzuela. 1998. ‘Macro Comparisons Without the Pitfalls: A Protocol
for Comparative Research,” in Scott Mainwaring and Arturo Valenzuela Eds.,
Politics, Soceity, and Democracy: Latin America. Westview Press, pp.237-66.**
Comparative method (3): QCA（Qualitative Comparative Analysis）
1. Charles C. Ragin. 1987. “A Boolean Approach to Qualitative Comparison: Basic
Concepts” in Charles C. Ragin. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond
Qualitative and Quantitative Method. University of California Press, pp 85-102.
2. Charles C. Ragin. 1994. “Using Comparative Methods to Study Diversity,” in
Constructing Social Research, California: Pine Forge Press, pp. 105-130.
Comparative method (4): Contextualized Comparison
1. Richard M. Locke and Kathleen Thelen, 1995. “Apples and Oranges Revisted:
Contextualized Comparisons and the Study of Comparative Labor Politics,”
Politics and Society 23(3):337-367. （www.google.com）**
2. Richard M. Locke and Kathleen Thelen. 1998. “Problems of Equivalence in
Comparative Politics: Apples and Oranges, Again,” American Political Science
Association: Comparative Politics Newsletter, No. 8 (Winter), 9-12.
（www.google.com）**
Case Study I
1. Charles C. Ragin. 2000. Fuzz-set Social Science. University of Chicago Press,
Chapter 3. “Studying Cases as Configurations,” **
2. Stephen Van Evera. 1997. “What are Case Studies?” in Stephen Van Evera. (ed)
Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, Cornell University Press, pp
49-88.**
Case Study II
1. Alexander L. George and Andrew Benett. 2005. “Part II: How to Do Case
Studies” in Alexander L. George and Andrew Benett (eds). Case Studies and
Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press, Chapter 1& Chapter 2.**
2. Alexander L. George and Andrew Benett. 2005. “Part II: How to Do Case
Studies” in Alexander L. George and Andrew Benett (eds). Case Studies and
2
Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Chapter 3-4, 5, 6.**
Case Study III
1. Alexander L. George and Andrew Benett. 2005. “Part II: How to Do Case
Studies” in Alexander L. George and Andrew Benett (eds). Case Studies and
Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Chapter 9, 10**
The Types of Cases:
1. James Mahoney and Gary Goertz. 2004. “The Possibility Principle: Choosing
Negative Cases in Comparative Research,” American Political Science Review
98(3): 653-70.**
2. John Gerring. 2006. “Single Outcome Studies: A Methodogical Primer,”
International Sociology 21(5): 707-34.**
Selection Bias in Qualitative Research
1. Barbara Geddes. 2003. “How the Cases you Choose Affects the Answers You Get:
Selection Bias and Related Issues” in Barbara Geddes, Paradigms and Sand
Castles: Theory and Research Design in Comparative Politics. The University of
Michigan Press, pp 89-129.**
2. David Collier and James Mahoney. 1996. “Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in
Qualitative Research” World Politics 49(1): 56-91.**
Causal Inference in Qualitative Research
1. James Mahoney, 2008. “Toward a Unified Theory of Causality,” Comparative
Political Studies 20(10): 1-25.**
2. Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 2003. “Can One or A Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains”
in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds) Comparative Historical
Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press, pp305-336.**
Mechanism and Explanation
1. Roger Peterson. 1997. “Mechanisms and Structures in comparisons,” in John R.
Bowen and Roger Peterson. (eds) Critical Comparisons in Politics and Culture.
Cambridge University Press.pp61-77.**
2. Charles Tilly. 2001. “Mechanisms in Political Process,” Annual Reviews of
Political Science 4:21-41.**
Path Dependence
1. Paul Pierson. 2000 “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of
Politics.” American Political Science Review 94(2): 251-67.***
2. Bennett, A., & Elman, C. 2006. “Complex causal relations and case study methods:
The example of Path Dependence. Political Analysis, 14, 250-267.**
Process Analysis:
1. Paul Pierson. 2004. “Long-term Processes,” in Paul Pierson. Politics in Time:
History, institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press, pp79-102.**
2. Alexander L. George and Timothy J. McKeown. 1985. “Case Studies and
Theories of Organizational Decision Making,” Advances in Information
Processing in Organizations, Vol. 2 (Santa Barbara: JAI Press).**
3
Timing and Sequence
1. Paul Pierson. 2004. “Timing and Sequence,” in Paul Pierson. Politics in Time:
History, institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press, pp54-78.**
2. Abbott, Andrew. 1993. “Sequences of Social Events: Concepts and Methods for
the Analysis of Order in Social Processes,” Historical Methods 16:129-47.**
3. Abbott, Andrew. 2002. Times Matter: On Theory and Method. Oriental Institute
Publication Press.**
Necessary Conditions
1. Bear F.Braumoeller. and Gary Goertz. 2000. “The Methodology of Necessary
Conditions,” American Journal of Political Science 44(4):844-858.**
2. Garry Goertz amd Harvey Starr. 2003. Necessary Conditions: Theory,
Methodology, and Applications. Rowman & Littlefield Roublishers, Inc. Chapter
3**
Comparative Historical Analysis
1. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 2003. “Comparative Historical
Analysis: Achievements and Agendas” in James Mahoney and Dietrich
Rueschemeyer (eds) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences.
Cambridge University Press, pp3-38.**
Concept formation and Stretching
1. Gary Goertz, 2006. Social Science Concept New Jersey: Princeton Univesity Press.
Chapter 1**
Classifications, Typologies, Taxonomies
1.
2.
Paul E. Lazasfeld and Allen H. Barton, 1951. “Qualitative Measurement in the
Social Sciences: Classification, Typologies, and Indices,” In Daniel Lerner and
Harold D Lasswell eds., The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope
and Method (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp152-92.**
Siobhan Daly. 2003. “The Ladder of Abstraction: A Framework for the
Systematic Classification of Democratic Regime Types,” Politics 23(2):
96-128.**
4