FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
POLITICS
COURSE UNIT OUTLINE 2015/16
POLITICAL THEORY RESEARCH TRAINING
POLI 70601
Semester 1
Seminars start on 28th September 2015
Reading week will be w/c 26th October2015
Convenor: Liam Shields
Email: liam.shields@manchester.ac.uk
Office Hours: please email for an appointment.
Office: 4.063
Please read this document and if you have any questions, comments or corrections,
contact the course convenor.
COURSE CONTENT AND RATIONALE
The course introduces students to key methods and questions in the understanding of
political theory/philosophy. Apart from providing students with key techniques for textual
analysis, the unit presents the central problems of defining political theory and examines
the main answers in the literature. Topics include: conceptual analysis; different methods
of justification; different approaches to facts, principles, and intuitions; historical
approaches to political theory; and the study of ideologies
AIMS
The course aims to introduce students to key methodological issues relevant for the
understanding and critical analysis of political theory/philosophy texts, as well as for
political theorising more generally. In addition, the course aims to help student enhance
their interpretative, argumentative and critical skills by encouraging them to investigate
and apply these methods in their research, and to reflect on the nature of political theory
as a distinctive discipline.
OBJECTIVES
On completion of this unit successful students will be able to use in their research key
approaches to political theory texts, to understand the main problems of defining political
theory and to develop, and argue for, their own views on the topics examined in the
course.
COURSE CREDITS AND WORKLOAD
The course will earn 15 credit points. The University's Academic Standards Code of
Practice specifies that a 15 credit course is expected to require about 150 hours work by
students.
PREREQUISITES
There are no prerequisites or co-requisites for this course, although some background in
political philosophy will be assumed.
SEMINARS
Weekly seminars will take place at 1-3 on Mondays and in Crawford House seminar
room A. Students will be required to give presentations on specific topics that will serve
as the basis for the seminar each week. Attendance at seminars is compulsory. If there
are special circumstances that will prevent you from attending, please contact the course
convenor via email as early as possible.
ASSESSEMENT
The assessment on this course has three parts:
(1) Essay:
(2) Presentation:
(3) Discussion:
75%
15%
10%
1
The due date for the essay is 18th January by 3pm. A copy of the essay MUST be
submitted electronically via the Turnitin online system.
PLEASE NOTE
Submission of Essays: The essay must have a Submission Form and a signed Plagiarism
Declaration Form attached to the front. Essays may not be faxed or e-mailed to the
Department or to another member of staff.
Format of Essays: Essays must be typed and double-spaced throughout using a 12 pt.
Font. Essays must be 3,500 words. Please include in your essay information about the
length of the essay (i.e. the number of words).
Essay Topics: Students must propose their own essay titles. Proposed titles must be
approved by the course convenor.
Bibliography and References: The lack of a proper bibliography and appropriate
references will be penalized by the deduction of marks - normally to a maximum of 10
marks if the scholarly apparatus is entirely inadequate.
Plagiarism: Plagiarism is a serious offence and students should consult the University’s
statement on plagiarism which can be found in their programme handbooks or Taught
Masters and Postgraduate Diploma Student Guide which is distributed during
registration or which can be obtained from the Graduate Office.
Extensions: These are granted only by the Postgraduate Office and must be sought prior
to the deadline (usually at least a week in advance).
2
COURSE READINGS
There is no single textbook for the course, however, the following book provides a
number of the required or further readings for the course:
D. Leopold and M. Stears (eds.) Political Theory: Methods and Approaches (Oxford
University Press, 2008).
There are also introductory texts to political theory, which you may find helpful if you
have not studied much political theory before:





C. Bird, An Introduction to Political Philosophy
G. Gaus, Political Concepts and Political Theories
A. Swift, Political Philosophy: A Beginner’s Guide for Students and Politicians
J. Wolff, Introduction to Political Philosophy
Various entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
<http://plato.stanford.edu>
Weekly Seminar Topics and Readings
For each session, you are required to read the readings listed under the ‘Required
Reading’ heading; but you are also expected to follow up specific topics by consulting
the ‘Further Readings’ list. Unpublished texts listed below will be made available from
the course website.
The following are the weekly topics at a glance:
1. Introduction and Organization (No required readings)
2. Conceptual Analysis
3. Intuitionism versus Theory-Building
4. Coherentism: Reflective Equilibrium
5. Foundationalism
6. Moral Intuitions and Debunking Explanations
7. Facts and Principles
8. Ideals, Non-Ideal Theory
9. The Study of Ideologies
10. Summary Session (No required readings)
3
Session 1:
Introduction and Organization (No required readings)
Session 2:
Conceptual Analysis
Required Reading:
 J.L. Austin, ‘A Plea for Excuses’ in his Philosophical Papers. J. O. Urmson and
G. J. Warnock (eds.), OUP 1961 [available at
http://www.ditext.com/austin/plea.html]
 W.B. Gallie, ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society 56 (1956): 167-198.
Further Reading:
 J.L. Austin, Philosophical Papers, J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock (eds.), OUP
1961.
 E. Margolis, and S. Laurence, ‘Concepts’ in The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, esp. section 5, available at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/
 F.E. Oppenheim, Political Concepts: A Reconstruction, University of Chicago
Press 1981 [see also a review by W.A. Galston, American Political Science
Review 75 (1981): 1024-6].
 C. Bird, An Introduction to Political Philosophy, CUP 2006, esp. Part I, section 1.
 G.A. Cohen, ‘Freedom and Money’, unpublished paper [available at
www.utdt.edu/Upload/_115634753114776100.pdf]
 I. Berlin, ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ in his Four Essays on Liberty (OUP, 1969)
and in his Liberty, H. Hardy (ed.) (Oxford University Press), electronic copy
available through http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk [also available (abridged)
in D. Miller (ed.), Liberty, OUP 1991 and in D. Miller (ed.), The Liberty Reader,
Edinburgh University Press 2006].
 G. MacCallum, ‘Negative and Positive Freedom’, The Philosophical Review 76
(1967): 312-34, available from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00318108%28196707%2976%3A3%3C312%3ANAPF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C; reprinted
in D. Miller (ed.), The Liberty Reader (Edinburgh University Press) and in D.
Miller (ed.), Liberty (Oxford University Press).
 H. Steiner. An Essay on Rights, Blackwell, 1996, ch. 2
 R. Dworkin. Justice for Hedgehogs, HUP 2011, ch. 8
Session 3:
Intuitionism versus Theory-Building
Required Reading



G.A. Cohen, Rescuing Justice and Equality, pp. 3-6
J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, section 7 ‘Intuitionism’
H. Steiner, An Essay on Rights, Blackwell, 1996, ch. 4
Further Reading:
4






J. O. Urmson, ‘A Defence of Intuitionism’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society
75 (1975): 111-19.
J. Feinberg, ‘Rawls and Intuitionism’ in N. Daniels (ed.) Reading Rawls Stanford
University Press 1989.
D. Miller and R. Dagger, ‘Utilitarianism and Beyond: Contemporary Analytical
Political Theory’ in T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds.), The Cambridge History of
Twentieth-Century Political Thought, CUP, 2003.
R. Audi, The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value
(Princeton University Press, 2005), chapters 1, 5
M. Otsuka, ‘Saving Lives, Moral Theory, and the Claims of Individuals,’
Philosophy & Public Affairs 34 (2006), 133-35.
Dancy, Jonathan ‘An ethic of prima facie duties’ Ch. 18 in ‘A Companion to
Ethics’ ,Singer, Peter (ed.), Blackwell, (2000).

Dancy, Jonathan ‘Intuitionism’ Ch. 36 in ‘A Companion to Ethics’, Singer, Peter
(ed.), Blackwell, (2000).

McNaughton, D. (1996), 'An Unconnected Heap of Duties?', Philosophical
Quarterly Singer,

Peter. "Living high and letting die." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
59.1 (1999): 183-187.46,433-447
Session 4: Coherentism: Reflective Equilibrium
Required Reading:
 T. M. Scanlon, ‘Rawls on Justification’, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to Rawls, CUP 2003.
 Rawls, John ‘outline for a decision procedure in ethics’ The Philosophical Review
Vol. 60, No. 2 (Apr., 1951), pp. 177-197
Further Reading
 N. Daniels, Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and
Practice, CUP 1996. ALL Part 1
 N. Daniels, ‘Reflective Equilibrium’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reflective-equilibrium]
 Hare, R. M. ‘Argument from received opinion’, in his ‘Essays on Philosophical
Method’, Macmillan, (1971).
 Grice, G. R. ‘Moral Theories and received opinion’ Aristotelian Society, supp. 52
(1978) pp. 1-12
 Norman, Wayne ‘Inevitable and Unacceptable? Methodological Rawlsianism in
Anglo-American Political Philosophy’, Political Studies, Vol. 46. No. 2 (1998)
pp.276-294.
 Klein, P., and Warfield, T. A., 1994, “What Price Coherence?,” Analysis, 54:
129–132.
5











Olsson, E. J., 2001, “Why Coherence is not Truth-Conducive,” Analysis, 61: 236241.
Quine, W. and Ullian, J., 1970, The Web of Belief, New York: Random House
Raz, J. ‘The claims of reflective equilibrium’, Inquiry, Vol. 25, (1982) pp.307-330
Daniels, N. (1979a), 'Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in
Ethics', Journal of Philosophy 76,5,256-282.
Daniels, N. (1980b), 'Reflective Equilibrium and Archimedean Points', Canadian
Journal of Philosophy 10, 1,83-103.
Haslett, D.W. (1987), 'What Is Wrong with Reflective Equilibria?', Philosophical
Quarterly 37, 305-311.
Klosko, G. (1993), 'Rawls's "Political" Philosophy and American Democracy' ,
American Political Science Review 87, 348-359.
Lyons, D. (1975), 'Nature and Soundness of the Contract and Coherence
Arguments', in N. Daniels (ed.), Reading Rawls, Oxford: Blackwell, pp.141-167.
Knight, Carl. "The method of reflective equilibrium: Wide, radical, fallible,
plausible." Philosophical papers 35.2 (2006): 205-229.
Session 5:
Foundationalism (versus coherentism)
Required Reading:



D. McDermott ‘Analytical Political Philosophy,’ in D. Leopold and M. Stears
(eds.), Political Theory: Methods and Approaches (OUP, 2008), 11-28.
Sidgwick, Henry ‘Essays on ethics and method’ edited by Marcus G. Singer, Oxford
University Press, (2000) Ch 5.
M. Timmons, 1987, ‘Foundationalism and the Structure of Ethical Justification’,
Ethics 97 (1987): 595-609.
Further Reading:







Peter van Inwagen, ‘Philosophical Failure’ in The Problem of Evil, OUP 2006.
K. Lippert-Rasmussen, ‘Appendix I: Methodology’ in his Deontology,
Responsibility and Equality, University of Copenhagen 2005.
Gerald F. Gaus, Justificatory Liberalism (OUP, 1996), chapters 5-7.
De Paul, M. ‘Reflective Equilibrium and Foundationalism’, American
Philosophical Quarterly, Jan (1986) pp. 59-69.
Hare, RM. (1996), 'Foundationalism and Coherentism in Ethics', in W. Sinnott
Armstrong and M. Timmons (eds.), Moral Knowledge? New Readings in Moral
Epistemology, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.190-199.
Sidgwick, Henry, ‘Methods of Ethics’, Macmillan, (1874). Part III.
Singer, Peter. "Sidgwick and reflective equilibrium." The Monist (1974): 490517.
Session 6:
Moral Intuitions and Debunking Explanations
Required Reading
6




J. McMahan, ‘Moral Intuitionism,’ in Hugh LaFollette, ed., The Blackwell Guide
to Ethical Theory, (Blackwell, 2000) pp. 92-110.
P. Singer, ‘Ethics and Intuitions,’ Journal of Ethics 9 (2005): 331-52.
S. Berker, ‘The Normative Insignificance of Neuroscience,’ Philosophy & Public
Affairs 37 (2009): 293-329.
Harman, Gilbert ‘The nature of morality: an introduction to ethics’, Oxford
University Press, (1977) Ch. 1
Further Reading:












Huemer, Michael. "Revisionary intuitionism." Social Philosophy and Policy 25.01
(2008): 368-392.
F.M. Kamm, Intricate Ethics (OUP), especially chapter 14
W. Sinnott-Armstrong, Moral Psychology V. 2: The Cognitive Psychology of
Morality: Intuition and Diversity (MIT)
J. Haidt, ‘The Emotional Dog and its Rationalist Tail: a social intuitionist
approach to moral judgement,’ Psychological Review 108 (2001): 814-834. [also
available at
http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.emotionaldog.manuscript.pdf].
C. Sunstein et al., ‘Moral Heuristics,’ Behavioural and Brain Sciences 28 (2005),
531-573.
J. Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition (CUP), especially chapters 1-2
J. Mikhail, ‘Aspects of the theory of moral cognition: Investigating intuitive
knowledge of the prohibition of intentional battery and the doctrine of double
effect,’ available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=762385
J. Greene ‘From neural "is" to moral "ought": what are the moral implications of
neuroscientific moral psychology?’ Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4 (2003): 847850.
J. Greene et al., ‘An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral
Judgment,’ Science, 293 (2001): 2105-2108.
Mackie, J. L. "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, 249 pp." (1977).
Kahane, Guy. "Evolutionary debunking arguments." Noûs 45.1 (2011): 103-125.
Kamm, Frances M. "Neuroscience and moral reasoning: a note on recent
research." Philosophy & Public Affairs 37.4 (2009): 330-345.
Session 7:
Facts and Principles
Required Reading:


G. A. Cohen, ‘Facts and Principles’ Philosophy & Public Affairs, 31 (2003): 211245.
D. Miller, ‘Political Philosophy for Earthlings,’ in D. Leopold and M. Stears (ed.),
Political Theory: Methods and Approaches (OUP), 29-48.
Further Reading:
7












A. Mason, ‘Just Constraints’, British Journal of Political Science 34 (2004): 251-268.
Estlund, David. "Utopophobia." Philosophy & Public Affairs 42.2 (2014): 113134.
Cohen, Joshua. "Taking people as they are?." Philosophy & public affairs 30.4
(2001): 363-386.
A. Sen, ‘What Do We Want From a Theory of Justice?’ The Journal of
Philosophy CIII (2006): 215-38.
C. W. Mills, ‘“Ideal Theory” as Ideology’, Hypatia 20 (2005): 165-84.
L. Murphy, ‘Institutions and the Demands of Justice,’ Philosophy and Public
Affairs 7 (1998): 251-91.
T. Nagel, ‘What Makes Political Theory Utopian?' Social Research, 65 (1989): 90320; reprinted as‘The Problem of Utopianism’ in his Equality and Partiality,
Oxford University Press, 1991.
O. O’Neill, ‘Abstraction, Idealization and Ideology in Ethics’ in J.D.G. Evans
(ed.), Moral Philosophy and Contemporary Problems (RIP Series), CUP 1988:
55-69.
L. Valentini, ‘On the Apparent Paradox of Ideal Theory’, Journal of Political
Philosophy 17 (2009): 332-355.
L. Valentini and M. Ronzoni, ‘On the Meta-Ethical Status of Constructivism:
Reflections on G.A. Cohen's "Facts and Principles"’ Politics, Philosophy&
Economics, 7 (4) (2008), 403-22.
Tomlin, Patrick. "Should We Be Utopophobes about Democracy in Particular?."
Political Studies Review 10.1 (2012): 36-47.
Jubb, Robert. "Playing Kant at the court of King Arthur." Political Studies (2014).
Session 8:
Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory
Required:


Hamlin, Alan, and Zofia Stemplowska. "Theory, ideal theory and the theory of
ideals." Political Studies Review 10.1 (2012): 48-62.
Simmons, A. "Ideal and nonideal theory." Philosophy & Public Affairs 38.1
(2010): 5-36.
Further:




Stemplowska, Zofia, and Adam Swift. "Ideal and nonideal theory." The Oxford
Handbook of Political Philosophy (2012): 373-389.
Social Theory and Practice [Special Issue, Social Justice: Ideal Theory Theory,
Nonideal Circumstances] (April 2008)
Valentini, Laura. "Ideal vs. Non‐ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map." Philosophy
Compass 7.9 (2012): 654-664.
Schmidtz, David. "Nonideal Theory: What It Is and What It Needs to Be*."
Ethics 121.4 (2011): 772-796.
8



















Levy, Jacob T. "There's No Such Thing as Ideal Theory." Available at SSRN
2420125 (2014).
C. Farrelly, ‘Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation’, Political Studies 55 (2007):
844-64.
Gilabert, Pablo. "Comparative assessments of justice, political feasibility, and
ideal theory." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15.1 (2012): 39-56.
Sleat, Matt. "Realism, Liberalism and Non‐ideal Theory Or, Are there Two Ways
to do Realistic Political Theory?." Political Studies (2014).
Wiens, David. "Political Ideals and the Feasibility Frontier." Economics and
Philosophy (2014): 1-31.
Erman, Eva, and Niklas Möller. "Three failed charges against ideal theory."
Social theory and practice 39.1 (2013): 19-44.
Sleat, Matt. "Realism, Liberalism and Non‐ideal Theory Or, Are there Two Ways
to do Realistic Political Theory?." Political Studies (2014).
Wiens, David. "Against Ideal Guidance." The Journal of Politics 77.2 (2015):
433-446.
Carey, Brian. "Towards a ‘Non‐Ideal’Non‐Ideal Theory." Journal of Applied
Philosophy 32.2 (2015): 147-162.
Stemplowska, Zofia, and Adam Swift. "Ideal and nonideal theory." The Oxford
Handbook of Political Philosophy (2012): 373-389.
Stemplowska, Zofia, and Adam Swift. "Rawls on ideal and nonideal theory." A
Companion to Rawls (2013): 112-127.
Lawford‐Smith, Holly. "Debate: Ideal theory—a reply to Valentini." Journal of
Political Philosophy 18.3 (2010): 357-368.
Gilabert, Pablo, and Holly Lawford‐Smith. "Political feasibility: a conceptual
exploration." Political Studies 60.4 (2012): 809-825.
Lawford‐Smith, Holly. "Understanding Political Feasibility*." Journal of Political
Philosophy 21.3 (2013): 243-259.
Miller, David. "Distributive justice: What the people think." Ethics (1992): 555593.
Miller, David. "Two ways to think about justice." Politics, philosophy &
economics 1.1 (2002): 5-28.
Robeyns, Ingrid. "Ideal theory in theory and practice." Social Theory and Practice
(2008): 341-362.
James, Aaron. "Constructing justice for existing practice: Rawls and the status
quo." Philosophy & Public Affairs 33.3 (2005): 281-316.
Wiens, David. "Prescribing Institutions Without Ideal Theory*." Journal of
Political Philosophy 20.1 (2012): 45-70.
Session 9:
The Study of Ideologies
Required Reading:
9


Michael Freeden, ‘Thinking politically and thinking about politics: language,
interpretation and ideolology,’ in D. Leopold and M. Stears (ed.), Political
Theory: Methods and Approaches (OUP), 196-215.
Gerald F. Gaus, ‘Ideology, Political Philosophy, and the Interpretive Enterprise: A
View from the Other Side,’ in Liberalism Theory and Practice: Essays for
Michael Freeden, Ben Jackson and Marc Stears eds. (OUP, forthcoming).
Available here: http://www.gaus.biz/Freeden.pdf
Further Reading:






M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach, OUP
1996, especially part I. [available from www.oxfordscholarship.com].
M. Freeden, ‘What Should the “Political” in Political Theory Explore?’, Journal
of Political Philosophy, 13 (2005): 113-134.
K. Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, [various editions], esp. ch. 2.
C. Geertz, ‘Ideology as a Cultural System’ in D.E. Apter (ed.) Ideology and
Discontent New York, 1964, pp. 47-76 (reprinted in C. Geertz, The Interpretation
of Cultures, London, 1993).
A. Norval, ‘The Things We Do With Words’, British Journal of Political Science,
30 (2000): 313-46.
G. F. Gaus, Political Concepts and Political Theories, Westview 2000, esp. ch. 2.
Session 10: Summary Session
Footnotes and Referencing Guidelines
All essays must employ the scholarly apparatus of references (or footnotes) and a Bibliography.
At the end of an essay, you must provide a Bibliography which lists your sources in alphabetical
order by author’s surname. In the essay itself, you must use a reference or footnote to give the
source for any quotation, any data, and/or for any view or interpretation which you summarise or
which you attribute to another source or author. References (or footnotes) enable the reader to
find as easily as possible the authority for every important fact not obviously from a textbook and
the sources contributing to all ideas and comments.
There are different acceptable referencing styles. Professional journals and scholarly books can
provide students with examples of different acceptable styles. Whatever referencing style and
bibliographic style you choose to use, be consistent.
Whatever style a student chooses, the titles of book, journals, newspapers, and magazines are
either underlined (or italicized) while the titles of articles are placed inside quotation marks.
Quotation marks are not placed around the titles of books and journals.
Also, in the Bibliography, sources are listed in alphabetical order by author’s surname. Hence, in
the Bibliography, an author’s surname comes before forenames; however, in a footnote (or
endnote), forenames precede surname.
10
References may be placed
at the bottom of each page (footnotes),
at the end of the essay before the Bibliography (endnotes),
or in the text if a student uses the Harvard style of referencing.
Some journals place p. before a page number and pp. before page numbers. Other journals
simply use the page number(s). You may choose either to use p. and pp. before the page
number(s) or not to use them.
The following style of referencing is used by Political Science Quarterly, Politics and Society,
Political Theory, Philosophy, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Philosophical Review, Nous,
Phronesis and other academic journals and many academic publishers.
book, first reference:
Forenames Surname, Title (place of publication: publisher, date), pages.
Robert W. Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 765.
Robert C. Trundle, Jr., Ancient Greek Philosophy (Aldershot: Avebury, 1994), p. 37.
book, subsequent references:
Johannsen, Douglas, 765.
Trundle, Ancient, 86.
journal article, first reference:
Forenames Surname, ‘Title of Article,’ Journal (date), volume: pages.
Stephen White, ‘Gramsci and the Italian Communist Party,’ Government and Opposition (Spring,
1972), 7: 202.
Joseph Levine, ‘Conceivability and the Metaphysics of Mind,’ Nous (Dec. 1998), 32 (4): p. 462.
journal article, subsequent references:
White, ‘Gramsci and the Italian Communist Party,’ 214.
Levine, ‘Conceivability,’ p. 461.
a chapter in a collection, first reference:
Forenames Surname, ‘Title of chapter,’ name of editor(s), ed., Title of Book (place of
publication: publisher, date), page(s).
Kay Lawson, ‘When Linkage Fails,’ in Kay Lawson and Peter H. Merkl, eds., When Parties Fail:
Emerging Alternative Organizations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 18.
Peter Edwards, ‘The Future of Ethics,’ in Oliver Leaman, ed., The Future of Philosophy (London:
Routledge, 1998), 56.
11
a chapter in a collection, subsequent references:
Lawson, ‘When Linkage Fails,’ p. 23.
Edwards, ‘Future,’ 57.
a source from the www:
Sharon Parrott, ‘Welfare Recipients Who Find Jobs: What Do We Know about Their
Employment and Earnings?,’ (http://www.cbpp.org/11-16-98wel.htm), p. 18.
www source, subsequent references:
Parrott, ‘Welfare Recipients,’ p. 34.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE (Non-Harvard style):
a book:
Surname, Forenames, Title, place of publication: publisher, date.
Johannsen, Robert W. Stephen A. Douglas, New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.
Trundle, Robert C., Jr., Ancient Greek Philosophy, Aldershot: Avebury, 1994.
a journal article:
Surname, Forenames, ‘title of article,’ Journal (date), volume (no.): pages.
Webb, Paul D., ‘Are British Political Parties in Decline?,’ Party Politics (July, 1995), 1: 299-322.
Levine, Joseph, ‘Conceivability and the Metaphysics of Mind,’ Nous (Dec. 1998), 32 (4): 449-80.
a chapter in a collection:
Surname, Forenames, ‘Title of Chapter’ in editor’s or editors’ name(s), ed., Title, place of
publication: publisher, date, pages.
Dunleavy, Patrick, ‘Chapter 6: The Political Parties,’ in Patrick Dunleavy, Andrew Gamble, Ian
Holliday, and Gillian Peele, eds., Developments in British Politics 4th edition, London:
Macmillan, 1994, pp. 123-153.
Edwards, Peter, ‘The Future of Ethics,’ in Oliver Leaman, ed., The Future of Philosophy,
London: Routledge, 1998, 41-61.
a source taken from the www:
Parrott, Sharon, ‘Welfare Recipients Who Find Jobs: What Do We Know about Their
Employment and Earnings?,’ http://www.cbpp.org/11-16-98wel.htm, pp. 1-43.
The Harvard Style of Referencing is a short form of referencing used by the American Political
Science Review, the Journal of Politics, Party Politics, Politics, International Organization,
12
Pacific Review, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, and many other
journals and publishers.
In the Harvard style, the Bibliography at the end provides the complete reference, while the note
in the text provides only the author’s surname, year, and page(s). The Harvard style reserves
numbered footnotes for explanatory footnotes. The Harvard style of referencing uses a, b, etc.
when the Bibliography lists more than one source for the same author(s) for the same year.
Near the end of each issue of Pacific Review are clear examples of how to reference every type of
publication in the Harvard style. Hence, any student who wants to use the Harvard style of
referencing and has a question about how to reference a particular type of publication, should
consult the extensive and clear examples provided by the Pacific Review.
Example:
After the break-up of the national Democratic party in 1860, Stephen Douglas declared:
‘Secession is disunion. Secession from the Democratic party means secession from the federal
Union’ (Johannsen 1973, 772).
HARVARD STYLE BIBLIOGRAPHY:
a book:
Johannsen, Robert W. 1973. Stephen A. Douglas. New York: Oxford University Press.
Trundle, Robert C. Jr. 1994. Ancient Greek Philosophy. Aldershot: Avebury.
a journal article:
Webb, Paul D. 1995. ‘Are British Political Parties in Decline?,’ Party Politics 1: 299-322.
Agassi, Joseph. 1998. ‘Knowledge Personal or Social,’ Philosophy of the Social Sciences 28 (4):
522-51.
a chapter in a collection:
Dunleavy, Patrick. 1994. ‘The Political Parties,’ in Patrick Dunleavy, Andrew Gamble, Ian
Holliday, and Gillian Peele, eds., Developments in British Politics 4th edition, pp. 123-53.
London: Macmillan.
Edwards, Peter. 1998. ‘The Future of Ethics,’ in Oliver Leaman, ed., The Future of Philosophy,
41-61. London: Routledge.
a source taken from the www:
Parrott, Sharon. 1998. ‘Welfare Recipients Who Find Jobs: What Do We Know about Their
Employment and Earnings?,’ http://www.cbpp.org/11-16-98wel.htm, pp. 1-43.
When the Bibliography lists more than one source for the same author from the same year:
Bowler, Shaun and David Farrell. 1995a. ‘A British PR Election Testing STV with London’s
Voters,’ Representation, 32: 90-94.
13
Bowler, Shaun and David Farrell. 1995b. ‘The Organizing of the European Parliament:
Committees, Specialization, and Coordination,’ British Journal of Political Science, 25: 219-43.
Towell, P. 1995a, ‘Rebellious House Republicans Help Crush Defense Bill,’ Congressional
Quarterly, 30 Sept., pp. 3013-16.
Towell, P. 1995b, ‘Congress Clears Defense Bill,’ Congressional Quarterly, 18 Nov., p. 3550.
14