Political Science 501 Todd Donovan Political Science as a Discipline AH 418 X3018 http://www.wwu.edu/~donovan Office hrs: T 11am, arrg. Wed, Thurs 10am Course Purpose: Political Science 501 is designed to introduce new graduate students to political science as an academic discipline. Given that so many academic pursuits find their place in political science departments, the course is only a partial survey of what political scientists do and how they do it. Course readings were selected to introduce students to some of the issues that have defined the field in the 20th century. We begin with very general questions about what political science is and how it is done, then move to some of the phenomena that many (thought not all) political scientists focus on (i.e. individual behavior, groups, institutions, culture, class, etc.). The course concludes with an evaluation of one example of applied political science research. Although few readings offer direct introductions to "sub- fields" of political science, we will take time to discuss how the discipline is typically compartmentalized. You should leave this class having some sense of how and why a range of political scientists ask (and answer) various questions. You might also leave the class with a better sense of the sort of subjects (and methods) you wish to study. Participation and evaluation: Your primary responsibility is to be in seminar prepared to discuss the assigned readings. This syllabus lists some suggested points to consider when doing the reading. Discussions, however, will not limited to these topics. Students will be asked to summarize, critique and raise questions about the readings. You will also write two short (8-10 page) papers that you should be prepared to present to the class. One paper is to be done on a topic drawn from questions raised about readings from class sections III through VII. Topics will be assigned in class. Papers must be submitted by Monday. @12p.m. of the week the readings are assigned. The second paper will evaluate Putnam's book, Making Democracy Work. The final week(s) of the course will be spent discussing your evaluations of Putnam's work as an example of political science. There will also be a final exam that will be drawn from questions discussed in seminar. Grading criteria: Participation in discussion: 20% First Paper: 20 Second Paper: 30 Final 30 Texts for the course available in bookstore. Additional items are assigned below. Almond, G. 1990 A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Farr, J., J. Dryzek and S. Leonard (eds.) 1995. Political Science in History. New York: Cambridge University Press. Putnam, R. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. I. Introduction and History of the Discipline October 1 *How does political science differ from other academic disciplines? *What do (should) political scientists study? Easton, D. 1991. Political Science in the United States (pp. 37-58 in D. Easton and & C. Schelling, Divided Knowledge) Turner, R. 1991. "The Many Faces of American Sociology." (pp. 59-85 in D. Easton and & C. Schelling, Divided Knowledge) Ball, T. 1995. "An Ambivalent Alliance: Political Science and American Democracy." (Chpt. 2 in Farr et al). II. Science and the Study of Politics. October 8 * Can there be a science of politics? How should the analysis of politics be structured? *What is gained and lost by a scientific approach? *What criteria should be used to evaluate claims made about political phenomena? *What are some criteria for "good" or "bad" (political) science? *What are the units of analysis for a scientific analysis of politics? Kuhn, T. 1962. "The Nature of Normal Science" and "Normal Science as Puzzle-Solving." (Chpt III & IV in Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Rosenberg, A. "Biology and Its Philosophy" (Chapter 1 in The Structure of Biological Science.) Almond, G. "Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science." (Chapter 1 in Almond). Johnson, J. and R. Joslyn. 1995 "Studying Politics Scientifically." (Chpt. 2 in Political Science Research Methods.) recommended: Ball, T. "From Paradigm to Research Program: Toward a Post- Kuhnian Political Science" AJPS 20: 151-77. Kiel, L.D. 1991. "Non-linear Systems and Social Research." Social Science Quarterly. October. King, G., Keohane and Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry : scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press. III Theory and Political Science October 15 *What is theory? *What is the difference between theory and description? *How does the practice of "normative" and "positive" theory differ? *Is there a difference between political thought and political theory? *How might rational choice theory advance the scientific study of politics? *Are there alternatives to rational choice theory that might also advance the scientific study of politics? Sabine, G. 1939. "What is a Political Theory?" Journal of Politics (Feb). Easton, D. 1951. "The Decline of Modern Political Theory." Journal of Politics. Green, D. P. and I. Shapiro. 1994. "Rationality in Politics and Economics." and "The Nature of Rational Choice Theory" (Chapter 1 & 2 in Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. ) Almond, G. 1991. "Rational Choice Theory and the Social Sciences." (Chpt. 4 in Almond). recommended: Barry, Brian. 1970. Sociologists, Economists and Democracy. Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Turner, Jonathan. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Simon, Herbert. Models of Man. IV. Pluralism, Behaviorism and a "Scientific" Study of Politics. October 22 *What is behaviorism? Pluralism? Why/how do they influence the discipline at (about) the same time? *How does the rise of pluralism and/or behaviorism address Easton's (1951) critique of political "theory"? *What are the "biases" in pluralism? *How do the findings from behaviorist research affect the development of the discipline? *Why might pluralism and/or behaviorism facilitate a "scientific" study of politics? Review: Johnson and Joslyn, Political Science Research Methods. Pp. 32-36 Farr, J. 1995. "Remembering the Revolution: Behaviorism in American Political Science." (Chapter 8 in Farr et al). Gunn, J 1995. "Public Opinion in Modern Political Science." (Chapter 8 in Farr et al). Lowi, T. 1971. "Pluralism and the Transformation of Capitalist Ideology." (Chapter 2 in The End of Liberalism). Gunnell, J. 1995. "The Declinations of the "State" and the Origins of American Pluralism." (Chapt. 1 in Farr et al). Suggested: R. Dahl. 1956. Preface to Democratic Theory. Dahl, R. Polyarchy. Campbell, et al 1960 The American Voter (Chapter 20). Converse, P. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics in Apter (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. Eulau, H. 1969. Behavioralism in Political Science. V. The Comparative Study of Politics October 29 *Is there a "scientific" comparative method? *Can political phenomena be studied without a comparative method? *What are some tradeoffs between large and small N studies? *How does Skocpol test her theory? *Is history an independent variable in Skocpol's analysis, or a method for comparison? *Are there shortcomings with Skocpol's approach? Are there other methods that might be used to assess the causes of social revolutions? Lasswell, H. 1968. "The Future of the Comparative Method." Comparative Politics. Collier, D. 1993. "The Comparative Method: Two Decades of Change." (Chpt. 5 in A. Finifter, Political Science: The State of the Discipline II.) Skocpol, T. 1979. States and Social Revolutions. Chapters 1 and 2. Lieberson, S. 1991. "Small N's and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases." Social Forces (December). Lange, P. and G. Garrett. 1985. "The Politics of Growth: Strategic Interactions and Economic Performance..." Journal of Politics. 792-827. recommended: Moore, Barrington. The Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. VI. Historical Approaches and Political Science. November 5 *Is there a comparative historical method for studying politics? *Does Gershenkron use history as a method for testing a theory? *Is history an independent variable in Gershenkron's analysis, or a method for comparison? Tilly, C. 1991. "How (and what) are Historians Doing? (pp. 86-117 in Easton and Schelling). Gershenkron, A. 1962. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. (pp. 5-30; 353-64). Orren, K. and S. Skowrenek. 1995. "Order and Time in Institutional Study: A Brief for the Historical Approach." (Chpt. 12 in Farr). VII. Institutionalism and Institutions. November 12 *What are institutions? How has the study of institutions evolved? *How does the rational choice approach to institutions differ from the historical approach? *Why might the early behaviorists have viewed institutions as "empty shells?" *Are institutions exogenous to political behavior? (How might institutions affect political behavior?) Review: Skocpol's definition of "The State" in State's and Social Revolutions. March, J. and J. Olsen. 1984. "The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life." (American Political Science Review. 78:734-49). Shepsle, K. 1995. "Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach." (Chpt. 11 in Farr et al). Almond, G. 1991. "The Return to the State." (Chpt. 8 in Almond). Bobo, L. and F. Gilliam. 1990. "Race, Sociopolitical Participation and Black Empowerment." (American Political Science Review. June). Lijphart, A. 1994. "Electoral Systems, Types, Patterns, Trends." (Chapter 2 in Liphart, "Electoral Systems and Party Systems.) Amy, D. 1993. "Encouraging Voter Turnout." (Chpt. 7 in Real Voices/New Choices). suggested: Lijphart, A. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems. Chapter 2 Apter , D. 1991. "Institutionalism Reconsidered." Intl. Social Science Journal # 129. VIII. Political Culture as and Explanatory Variable. November 19 *Is culture a phenomena that can be separated from institutions, history and/or behavior? *Is culture a concept that can be measured objectively (empirically)? *Can we study politics without dealing with culture as an explanatory variable? *what are some of the identifiable "cultures" that these authors identify Are they mutually exclusive? Almond, G. 1990. "The Study of Political Culture." (Almond Chpt. 5). Granato, Inglehart and Leblang. 1996. "The Effect of Cultural Values on Economic Development." AJPS 607. Swank, D. 1996. Culture, Institutions and Economic Growth: ...the Role of Communitarian Politics." AJPS. 660. Jackman and Miller. 1996. The Poverty of Political Culture. AJPS 697. Elazar, D. 1984. "The States and the Political Setting." (In American Federalism: A View from the States. Chapter 5). recommended: Inglehart, R. 1977 The Silent Revolution. Almond and Verba. The Civic Culture. Calleo, D. 1978. The German Problem Reconsidered. IX. Class, Race and Gender. November 26 *Why might the study of class, race and culture be important to political science? *Are these used as dependent or independent variables? Lasswell, H. 1958. Politics: Who Gets What, When, Where, How. ("Class," Chapter 7). Walton, et al 1995. Race and Political Science: The Dual Tradition of Race Relations Politics and African Americans." (In Farr et al). Carrol, S and Linda Zerilli. 1993. "Feminist Challenge to Political Science." (In Finifter, State of the Discipline II, Chpt. 3). Collins, Second Paper due November 27th X. Evaluations of Making Democracy Work December 3 *Evaluate Putnam's book in terms of the criteria for "good" and "bad" science. *Discuss how this work "fits" into the various sub-fields of the discipline. Is Putnam's a cultural argument? Dec. 5 OR 10 More on Putnam and Democracy *Can civic culture be constructed consciously? *if social capital is in decline, can it be rebuilt? * Is TV responsible for the demise of American civic culture? Are suburbs? (or MTV, freeways, the Internet, etc.?). Jackman, R and R. Miller. 1996. A Renaissance of Political Culture? AJPS p. 632 Harpers 1996. November. The New Company Town. Putnam, R. 1995. Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy. Putnam, R. 1993. The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life. The American Prospect. p. 35. Putnam, R. 1995. Tuning in, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in American. PS. p. 664. Norris, P. 1996. Does Television Erode Social Capital? A Reply to Putnam. PS p. 474. XI. Final Examination Due December 13 @ 2:00p. Answer only one of the following questions. Your essay should not exceed 7 pages. It should be accompanied by a separate bibliography. 1) Drawing from the course literature, critique and assess the application of social scientific methods in various "approaches" or "sub-fields" of political science. What is gained and/or lost by the use of these social science methods. 2) Drawing from the course literature, critique and assess the development of the discipline of political science in the 20th century. As an academic discipline, what is political science?