研究方法與論文寫作 Research Method and Academic Writing

研究方法與論文寫作Research Method and AcademicWriting

104研究

9:10∼12:00270811

3

: Chienwu (Alex) Hsueh: [email protected]: 2:00∼4:00, by appointment, or walk-in welcome

研究論文寫作與作研究

文研究文論 (theory) 論 (argument)

研究 (research design) 與論論法研究方法

法研究研究法研究論文寫作與論文

文與方法論與研究論

研究研究研究

1

104 研究方法與論文寫作

法 (comparative method)與研究法 (case study method)研究方法 ( )

研究方法與研究論文研

論與研究與研究

justify 與方法論與研究研究與寫作

與

方

論與方法寫研究論文

研究文研研究

論( )

研究文論論研究與研究

12:00文

研Office Hour 論

論文(Required) 與 (Recom-

mended)

法研究方法作研究研究方法作

研究論Office

Hour方法論作

與

2


• (5%)

• 與論 (5%)

• 文與研究 (10%)

• 論論 (5%)

• 作與 (5%)

• 作與 (5%)

• 作與 (5%)

• 論文研究 (10%)

• (15%)

• 論 (10%)

• 研究 (25%)

•

( )

• Babbie, Earl. 2013. 研究方法論與 ( 文 )

• King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. 研究作研究

• Stephen Van Evera. 1997. 研究方法

• Caramani, Daniele. 2008. 法論

• 文

• 文文

3


研究方法與論文寫作與

研究方法與研究 :

• Ragin, Charles C. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Set and Beyond.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

• Brady, Henry E. and David Collier, eds. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry:Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edition. Lanham, MA: Rowman &Littlefield.

• 2000 與方法

• Goertz, Gary. 2005. 方法論

• Asher, Herbert. 2007.

• Manheim, Jarol B., Richard C. Rich, Lars Willnat, and Craig L. Brians.2007. 與研究方法

• Neuman, W. Lawrence. 2009. 研究法與 () 文

• 2013 論 (3 )

• 2013 論

• 2015 研究法論與研究法

• 2015 研究法研究法

• 2015 研究法

• Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative So-cial Inquiry. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

• Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method. Berkeley, CA: Univer-sity of California Press.

4


• Lave, Charles A., and James G. March. 1993. An Introduction to Models inthe Social Sciences. Lanham, MA: University Press of America.

• Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2002.Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal In-ference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

• Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Buildingand Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: Universityof Michigan Press.

• Boix, Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds. 2007. The Oxford Handbookof Comparative Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

• Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry Brady, and David Collier, eds. 2008. TheOxford Handbook of Political Methodology. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

• Bernard, H. Russell. 2011. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitativeand Quantitative Approaches, 5th edition. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

• Gerring, John. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

• Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qual-itative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

• Johnson, Janet Buttolph, and H. T. Reynolds. 2012. Political Science Re-search Methods, 7th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.

• Shively, W. Phillips. 2012. The Craft of Political Research, 9th edition.Boston, MA: Pearson.

:

• Gujarati, Damodar N. 2002. ( )( )( )

• Woodrige, Jeffrey M. 2012. ( ) 文

• 2007

5


• 2012 與

• 2011 研究與 SPSS ( )

• 2012 STATA 作與

• 2015 : R

• Morrow, James D. Morrow. 1994. Game Theory for Political Scientists.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

• Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited De-pendent Variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

• King, Gary. 1998. Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theoryof Statistical Inference. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

• Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section andPanel Data. Cambridge, NY: MIT Press.

• Gelman, Andrew and Jennifer Hill. 2006. Data Analysis Using RegressionandMultilevel/Hierarchical Models. NewYork, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.

• McCarty, Nolan and Adam Meirowitz. 2007. Political Game Theory: AnIntroduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

• Kennedy, Peter. 2008. AGuide to Econometrics, 6th edition. Wiley-Blackwell.

• Freedman, DavidA., David Collier, Jasjeet S. Sekhon, Philip B. Stark. 2009.Statistical Models and Causal Inference: A Dialogue with the Social Sci-ences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

• Pearl, Judea. 2009. Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

• Greene, William H. 2012. Econometric Analysis, 7th edition. Boston, MA:Prentice Hall.

6


• Gelman, Andrew, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern, David B. Dunson, Aki Ve-htari, Donald B. Rubin. 2013. Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd edition. Chap-man and Hall/CRC.

• Morgan, Stephen L. and Christopher Winship. 2014. Counterfactuals andCausal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research, 2nd edition.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

:

• Lewis, Michael. 2004.

• 2010 (2010 )

• 2013 研究與論文寫作 ( )

• 2014 論文寫作

• Levitt, Steven and Stephen J. Dubner. 2009. () 文

• Levitt, Steven and Stephen J. Dubner. 2011.

• Levitt, Steven and Stephen J. Dubner. 2014.與

文

論研究方法與研究論 :

• Political Analysis

• The Political Methodologist

• Qualitative Methods

• Quality & Quantity

• Sociological Methods & Research

7


• PS: Political Science and Politics

• The Journal of Politics

• Journal of Theoretical Politics

• American Journal of Political Science (The Workshop)

• American Political Science Review

• Annual Review of Political Science

• Journal of Experimental Political Science

• International Organization

• STATA Journal

• The R Journal

作研究 :

• STATA

• SPSS

• R

• fsQCA

• LATEX

• Zotero

• EndNote

8


論研究方法 ( 論方法)

Scientific Method

Nonexperimental/Observational Method

Case Study Method

Comparative Method

Statistical Method

Experimental Method

Natural Experiment

Quasi-Experiment

Randomized Experiment

Source: Lijphart, Arend. 1975. “The Comparative-Cases Strategy in Compar-ative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 8(2): 158-177.

9


Part I: 研究

• Topic 1: 與作

• Topic 2: 論與

• Topic 3: 文研究與論

• Topic 4: (correlation)與 (causation)

• Topic 5: 作與

Part II: 研究方法

• Topic 6: 法法與法

• Topic 7: 方法與

• Topic 8: 方法

• Topic 9: 研究法與

• Topic 10: 法法

• Topic 11: 研究法

• Topic 12: 研究法

• Topic 13: 研究法與與法

• Topic 14: 法與法

Part III:論文寫作與

• Topic 15: 論文寫作

• Topic 16: 研 I

• Topic 17: 研 II

10


Topic 1 (9/17): 與作

• Homework Due: None

• Required:

– Lewis, Michael. 2004.

• Recommended:

– Ball, Terrence Ball. 1976. From Paradigms to Research Programs:Toward A Post-Kuhnian Political Science. American Journal of Po-litical Science 20(1): 151-177.

– Gabriel A. Almond and Stephen J. Genco. 1977. “Clouds, Clocks, andthe Study of Politics.” World Politics 29(4): 489-522.

– Hawkesworth. 1987. “Beyond Methodological Monism.”Women andPolitics 7: 64-84.

– Most, Benjamin. 1990. “Getting Started on Political Research.” PS:Political Science and Politics 23(4): 592-595.

– Almond, Gabriel. 1996. “Political Science: The History of the Disci-pline.” in Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, eds. A NewHandbook of Political Science (New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress), pp: 50-96.

– Hakes, John K. and Raymond D. Sauer. 2006. An Economic Evalua-tion of the Moneyball Hypothesis. Journal of Economic Perspectives20(3): 173-185.

– Brady, Henry E., David Collier, and Jason Seawright. 2006. “Toward aPluralistic Vision of Methodology.” Political Analysis 14(3): 353-368.

– Schwartz, Martin A. 2008. “The importance of stupidity in scientificresearch.” Journal of Cell Science 121: 1771.

– Keohane, Robert O. 2009. “Political Science as a Vocation.” PS: Po-litical Science & Politics 42: 359-363.

– Lake, David A. 2011. “Why “isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemol-ogy, and Academic Sections as Impediments to Understanding andProgress.” International Studies Quarterly 55: 465-480.

11


Book Popper, Karl. 1934. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York,NY: Harper & Row.

Book Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

Book Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Pro-grammes. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Book Jervis, Robert. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and So-cial Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Book Wendt, Alexander. 2015. Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unify-ing Physical and Social Ontology. New York, NY: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Book 2010 論與

12


Topic 2 (9/24): 論與


• Required:

– 研究方法論與研究與論

• Recommended:

– Matchlup, Fritz. 1961. Are the Social Science Really Inferior?”Southern Economic Journal 27(3): 173-184.

– Platt, John. 1964. Strong Inference. Science 1146: 347-353.– Riker, William H. 1977. The Future of A Science of Politics. Amer-ican Behavioral Scientist 21(1): 11-38.

– Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1985. ”Toward a Scientific Understand-ing of International Conflict: A Personal View. International StudiesQuarterly 29(2): 121-136.

– Hill, KimQuaile. 2004. MythsAbout the Physical Sciences and TheirImplications for Teaching Political Science. PS: Political Science andPolitics 37(3): 467-471.

– ReviewSymposium: TheQualitative-QuantitativeDisputation: GaryKing, Robert O. Keohane, and SidneyVerba’s Designing Social In-quiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research* Laitin, DavidD. 1995. “Disciplining Political Science.”The Amer-ican Political Science Review 89(2): 454-456.

* Caporaso, James A. 1995. “Research Design, Falsification, andthe Qualitative-Quantitative Divide.” The American Political Sci-ence Review 89(2): 457-460.

* Collier, David. 1995. “TranslatingQuantitativeMethods for Qual-itative Researchers: The Case of Selection Bias.” The AmericanPolitical Science Review 89(2): 461-466.

* Rogowski, Ronald. 1995. “The Role of Theory and Anomaly inSocial-Scientific Inference.” The American Political Science Re-view 89(2): 467-470.

13


* Tarrow, Sidney. 1995. “Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Di-vide in Political Science.” The American Political Science Review89(2): 471-474.

* King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba. 1995. “TheImportance of Research Design in Political Science.” The Ameri-can Political Science Review 89(2): 475-481.

* Mahoney, James. 2010. After KKV: The New Methodology ofQualitative Research. World Politics. World Politics 62(1): 120-147.

14


Topic 3 (10/1): 文研究與論


• Required:

– 研究方法 7-25 寫論文方法論文研究

– 研究作研究

• Recommended:

–

15


Topic 4 (10/8): (correlation)與 (causation)• Homework Due: None

• Required:

– YouTube– 研究作研究論與論

• Recommended:

– Robinson,William S. 1950. Ecological Correlations and the Behaviorof Individuals. American Sociological Review 15(3): 351-357 .

– Achen, Christopher H. and Duncan Snidal. 1989. “Rational Deter-rence Theory and Comparative Case Studies.” World Politics 41(2):143-169.

– George, Alexander L. and Richard Smoke. 1989. “Deterrence andForeign Policy.”World Politics 41(2): 170-182.

– Jervis, Robert. 1989. “Rational Deterrence: Theory and Evidence.”World Politics 41(2): 183-207.

– Lebow, Richard Ned and Janice Gross Stein. 1989. “Rational De-terrence Theory: I Think, Therefore I Deter.” World Politics 41(2):208-224.

– George W. Downs. 1989. “The Rational Deterrence Debate.” WorldPolitics 41(2): 225-237.

– Fearon, James D. 1991. “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing inPolitical Science.”World Politics 43(2): 169-195.

– Braumoeller, Bear F. and Gary Goertz. 2000. The Methodology ofNecessary Conditions.” American Journal of Political Science 44(4):844-858.

– King, Gary and Langche Zeng. 2005. “The Dangers of Extreme Coun-terfactuals.” Political Analysis 14(2): 131-159.

– Gerring, John. 2005. “Causation: A Unified Framework for SocialSciences.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 17(2): 163-198.

16


– Slantchev, Branislav L., Anna Alexandrova, and Erik Gartzke. 2005.“Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the Logic of the Demo-cratic Peace.” American Political Science Review 99(3): 459-462.

– Steinberg, Paul F. 2007. Causal Assessment in Small-N Policy Stud-ies. Policy Studies Journal 35(2): 181-204.

– Mahoney, James. 2008. Toward a Unified Theory of Causality.Comparative Political Studies 41(4-5): 412-436.

– Monroe, Burt. 2011. “The Five Vs of Big Data Political Science: In-troduction to the Virtual Issue on Big Data in Political Science.” Polit-ical Analysis: Virtual Issue 4: Big Data in Political Science.

– Imai, Kosuke; LukeKeele, Dustin Tingley, and TeppiYamamoto. 2011.Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mech-anisms from Experimental and Observational Studies The AmericanPolitical Science Review 105(4): 765-789.

– Messerli, Franz H. 2012. “Chocolate Consumption, Cognitive Func-tion, andNobel Laureates.”NewEngland Journal ofMedicine 367(16):1562-1564.

– King, Gary, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts. 2013. “How Cen-sorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences CollectiveExpression.” American Political Science Review 107(2): 326-343.

– King, Gary, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts. 2014. “Reverse-Engineering Censorship in China: Randomized Experimentation andParticipant Observation.” Science 345: 1-10.

– Sekhon, Jasjeet S. 2009. “Opiates for the Matches: MatchingMethodsfor Causal Inference.” Annual Review of Political Science 12:487-508.

Book Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Book Goertz, Gary, and Harvey Starr, eds. 2003. Necessary Conditions:Theory, Methodology, and Applications. Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littlefield.

Book Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 2005. 研究

– Rational Choice Theory:

17


Book Green, Donald P. and Ian Shapiro. 1994. Pathologies of RationalChoice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

* Cox, Gary W. 1999. “The Empirical Content of Rational ChoiceTheory: A Reply to Green and Shapiro.” Journal of TheoreticalPolitics 11(2): 147-169.

* Wuffle, A. 1999. Credo of a Reasonable Choice Modeler.Journal of Theoretical Politics 11(2): 203-206.

– Formal Methods, Formal Complaints: Debating the Role of Ra-tional Choice in Security Studies:* Bueno deMesquita, Bruce and James D.Morrow. 1999. SortingThrough theWealth of Notions.” International Security 24(2): 56-73.

* Martin, Lisa L. 1999. The Contributions of Rational Choice: ADefense of Pluralism.” International Security 24(2): 74-83.

* Niou, Emerson M.S. and Peter C. Ordeshook. 1999. Return ofthe Luddites.” International Security 24(2): 84-96.

* Powell, Robert. 1999. The Modeling Enterprise and SecurityStudies.” International Security 24(2): 97-106.

* Zagare, Frank C. 1999. All Mortis, No Rigor.” InternationalSecurity 24(2): 107-114.

* Walt, Stephen M. 1999. A Model Disagreement.” InternationalSecurity 24(2): 115-130.

– Empirical Implication of Theoretical Models (EITM):* Granato, Jim. 1991. “An Agenda For Econometric Model Build-ing.” Political Analysis 3(1): 123-154.

* Granato, Jim and Frank Scioli. 2004. “Puzzles, Proverbs, andOmega Matrices: The Scientific and Social Significance of Em-pirical Implications of Theoretical Models (EITM).” Perspectiveson Politics 2(2): 313-323.

* John Aldrich, James Alt, and Arthur Lupia. 2008. “The EITMApproach: Origins and Interpretations” in Janet Box-Steffensmeier,Henry Brady, and David Collier, eds. Oxford Handbook of Politi-cal Methodology. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), pp:828-843.

18


* Granato, Jim, Melody Lo and M. C. Sunny Wong. 2010. “AFramework for Unifying Formal and Empirical Analysis.” Amer-ican Journal of Political Science 54(3): 783-797.

* Hill, Kim Quaile. 2012. “In Search of General Theory.” TheJournal of Politics 74(4): 917-931.

Book Morton, Rebecca B. 1999. Methods and Models: A Guide to theEmpirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Book Clarke, Kevin A., and David M. Primo. 2012. A Model Disci-pline: Political Science and the Logic of Representations. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.

19


Topic 5 (10/15): 作與

• Homework Due: 文與研究 (31.5 )

• Required:

– 研究方法論與

• Recommended:

– Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. Concept Misformation in ComparativePolitics. American Political Science Review 64(4): 1033-1053.

– Jones, Charles O. 1974. Doing Before Knowing: Concept Devel-opment in Political Science. American Journal of Political Science18(1): 215-228.

– Dryzek, John. 1988. The Mismeasure of Political Man. Journal ofPolitics 50(3): 702-725.

– David Collier and James E. Mahony. 1993. Conceptual StretchingRevisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis. AmericanPolitical Science Review 87(4): 845-855.

– Jacoby, William G. 1999. “Levels of Measurement and Political Re-search: An Optimistic View.” American Journal of Political Science43: 271-301.

– Ray, James Lee. 2001. Integrating Levels of Analysis in WorldPolitics. Journal of Theoretical Politics 13(4): 355-388.

– Adcock, Robert and David Collier. 2001. “Measurement Validity:A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” TheAmerican Political Science Review 95(1): 529-546.

– Laver, Michael, Kenneth Benoit, and John Garry. 2003. “ExtractingPolicy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data.” AmericanPolitical Science Review 97: 311-331.

– Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz. 2004. The Possibility Princi-ple: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research. AmericanPolitical Science Review 98(4): 653-669.

20


– McDonald, Michael P., and Samuel L. Popkin. 2001. “The Myth ofthe Vanishing Voter.” American Political Science Review 95: 963-974.

– King, Gary, Christopher J. L. Murray, Joshua A. Salomon, and AjayTandon. 2004. “Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Compa-rability of Measurement in Survey Research.” American Political Sci-ence Review 98: 191-207.

– Hewitt, Joseph and Gary Goertz. 2005. Conceptualizing InterstateConflict. International Interactions 31(2): 163-182.

– Ahlquist, John S. and Margaret Levi. 2011. Leadership: What ItMeans, What It Does, and What We Want to Know About It.” AnnualReview Political Science 14:1-24.

– Chiba, Daina, CarlaMartinezMachain, andWilliamReed. 2014. “Ma-jor Powers and Militarized Conflict.” Journal of Conict Resolution 58:976-1002.

– Fariss, Christopher J. 2014. “Respect for Human Rights has ImprovedOver TimeModeling the Chnaging Standard of Accountability.”Amer-ican Political Science Review 108(2): 297-318.

– Kirk, Jerome and Marc L. Miller. 1985. Reliability and Validity inQualitative Research. New York, NY: Sage Publications.

Book Most, Benjamin A. and Harvey Starr. 1989. Inquiry, Logic and Inter-national Politics. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Book Goertz, Gary. 2005. Social Science Concepts: AUser’s Guide. Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

– Measuring Democracy and Nondemocracy:* Jaggers, Keith and Ted Robert Gurr. 1995. Tracking Democ-racy’s Third Wave with the Polity III Data. Journal of PeaceResearch 32(4): 469-482.

* Gleditsch, Kristian S. andMichael D.Ward. 1997. “Double Take:A Reexamination of Democracy and Autocracy in Modern Poli-ties.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(3): 361-383.

* Treier, Shawn and Simon Jackman. 2008. “Democracy as a La-tent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 201-217.

21


* Daniel Pemstein, Stephen A. Meserve, and James Melton. 2010.“Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of TenMeasures of Regime Type.” Political Analysis 18(4): 426–449.

* Cheibub, José Antonio; Jennifer Gandhi, James Raymond Vree-land. 2010. Democracy and dictatorship revisited. PublicChoice 143(1-2): 67-101.

* Bormann, Nils-Christian and Matt Golder. 2013. DemocraticElectoral Systems around the world, 1946-2011. Electoral Stud-ies 32 (2): 360-369.

* Clark, William Roberts, Matt Golder, and Sona N. Golder. 2012.“Demoncracy and Dictatorship: Conceptulization and Measure-ment.” in Clark,WilliamRoberts, Matt Golder, and SonaN.Golder,eds. Principles of Comparative Politics (CQ Press), pp: 143-170.

* Svolik, Milan W. 2012. “The World of Authoritarian Politics.” inMilan W. Svolik. 2012. The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. (NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press), pp. 19-50.

* Wilson,MatthewC. 2014. ADiscreet Critique ofDiscrete RegimeType Data. Comparative Political Studies 47(5): 689-714.

22


Topic 6 (10/22): 法法與法


• Required:


• Recommended:

– Campbell, Donald and H. L. Ross. 1968. The Connecticut Crack-down on Speeding: Time Series Data in Quasi-Experimental Analy-sis. Law and Society Review 3(1): 33-54.

– Singer, J. David. 1974. The Historical Experiment as a ResearchStrategy in the Study of World Politics. Political Inquiry 2(1): 23-52.

– Ostrom, Elinor, James Walker, and Roy Gardner. 1992. “Covenantswith and without a Sword: Self-Governance Is Possible.” AmericanPolitical Science Review 86: 404-417.

– Mondak, Jeffery J. 1995. Newspapers and Political Awareness.American Journal of Political Science 39(2): 513-527.

– Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 2000. The Effects of Can-vassing, DirectMail, and Telephone Contact onVoter Turnout: A FieldExperiment. The American Political Science Review 94(3): 653-663.

– Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2000. “The Effects of Can-vassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A FieldExperiment.” American Political Science Review 94: 653-663.

– Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, Jr., and Charles Stewart.2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redis-tricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal ofPolitical Science 44(1): 17-34.

– Donohue, John J., III, and Steven D. Levitt. 2001. “The Impact ofLegalized Abortion on Crime.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116:379-420.

– Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2002. “Reclaiming the Experi-mental Tradition in Political Science.” in Ira Katznelson and Helen V.Milner, eds. Political Science: State of the Discipline (New York, NY:W.W. Norton), pp: 805-832.

23


– McDermot, Rose. 2002. “ExperimentalMethods in Political Science.”Annual Review of Political Science 5: 31-61.

– Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. Clientilism and Voting Behavior: Ev-idence from a Field Experiment in Benin. World Politics 55(3): 399-422.

– Daniel N. Posner. 2004. “The Political Salience of Cultural Differ-ence: Why Chewas and Tumbukas Are Allies in Zambia and Adver-saries inMalawi.” The American Political Science Review 98 (4): 529-545.

– Reinikka, Ritva and Jakob Svensson. 2004. Local Capture: Evidencefrom a Central Government Transfer Program in Uganda. QuarterlyJournal of Economics 119(2): 679-705.

– Duch, Raymond andHarvey Palmer. 2004. It’s NotWhether YouWinor Lose but How You Play the Game: Self-Interest, Social Justice, andMass Attitudes towardMarket Transition. American Political ScienceReview 98(3): 437-452.

– Chattopadhyay, Raghabendra, and Ester Duflo. 2004. “Women asPolicy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment inIndia.” Econometrica 72: 1409-1443.

– Miguel, Edward. 2004. Tribe or Nation: Nation-Building and PublicGoods in Kenya versus Tanzania. World Politics 56(3): 327-362.

– Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski and ArthurLupia. 2006. “The Growth and Development of Experimental Re-search in Political Science.” The American Political Science Review100(4): 627-635.

– Horiuchi, Yusaku, Kosuke Imai, and Naoko Taniguchi. 2007. “De-signing and Analyzing Randomized Experiments: Application to aJapanese Election Survey Experiment.” American Journal of PoliticalScience 51: 669-687.

– Habyarimana, James, Macartan Humphreys, Daniel N. Posner, andJeremy M. Weinstein. 2007. “Why Does Ethnic Diversity Under-mine Public Goods Provision?” American Political Science Review101: 709-725.

– Nickerson, David W. 2008. “Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from

24


Two Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review 102: 49-57.

– Palfrey, Thomas R. 2009. “Laboratory Experiments in Political Econ-omy.” Annual Review of Political Science 12:379-388.

– Hutchings, Vincent L. and Ashley E. Jardina. 2009. “Experiments onRacial Priming in Political Campaigns.” Annual Review of PoliticalScience 12:397-402.

– Humphreys, Macartan and Jeremy M. Weinstein. 2009. “Field Exper-iments and the Political Economy of Development.” Annual Review ofPolitical Science 12:367-378.

– de Rooij, Eline A. Donald P. Green, and Alan S. Gerber. 2009. “FieldExperiments on Political Behavior and Collective Action.” Annual Re-view of Political Science 12:389-395.

– Hyde, Susan. 2015. “Experiments in International Relations: Lab,Survey, and Field.” Annual Review of Political Science 18, forthcom-ing.

– Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2010. “Dynamic PublicOpinion: Communication Effects over Time.” American Political Sci-ence Review 104: 663-680.

– Barabas, Jason, and Jennifer Jerit. 2010. “Are Survey ExperimentsExternally Valid?” American Political Science Review 104: 226-242.

– Malesky, Edmund, Paul Schuler, and Anh Tran. 2012. “The AdverseEffects of Sunshine: A Field Experiment on Legislative Transparencyin an Authoritarian Assembly.” American Political Science Review106: 762-786.

– Bond, Robert M., Christopher J. Fariss, Jason J. Jones, Adam D. I.Kramer, CameronMarlow, JaimeE. Settle, and JamesH. Fowler. 2012.“A 61-Million-Person Experiment in Social Influence and PoliticalMobilization.” Nature 489: 295-298.

– Sinclair, Betsy, Margaret McConnell, and Donald P. Green. 2012.“Detecting Spillover Effects: Design and Analysis of Multilevel Ex-periments.” American Journal of Political Science 56: 1055-1069.

– Grose, Christian R. 2014. “Field Experimental Work on Political In-stitutions.” Annual Review of Political Science 17: 355-370.

25


Book Camerer, Colin. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments inStrategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Book Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, ArthurLupia. eds. 2011. New York, NY: Cambridge Handbook of Experi-mental Political Science.

Book Mutz, Diana C. 2011. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Book Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2012. Field Experiments: De-sign, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Book Morton, Rebecca B. and Kenneth C. Williams. 2010. ExperimentalPolitical Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Book Teele, Dawn Langan. 2014. Field Experiments and Their Critics: Es-says on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

– Natural Experiment:* Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and JamesA. Robinson. 2001.“The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empir-ical Investigation.” American Economic Review 91: 1369-1401.

* Brancati, Dawn. 2007. Political Aftershocks: The Impact of Earth-quakes on Intrastate Conflict.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution51(5): 715-743.

* Healy, Andrew J., NeilMalhotra, andCecilia HyunjungMo. 2010.“Irrelevant Events Affect Voters’ Evaluations of Government Per-formance.” PNAS 107(29): 12804-12809.

* Ramsay, Kristopher W. 2011. “Revisiting the Resource Curse:Natural Disasters, the Price of Oil, and Democracy.” InternationalOrganization 65(3): 507-529.

* Jasjeet S. Sekhon and Rocío Titiunik. 2012. “When Natural Ex-periments Are Neither Natural nor Experiments.” American Po-litical Science Review 106 (1): 35-57.

* Glynn, Adam N., and Maya Sen. N.D. “Identifying Judicial Em-pathy: Does HavingDaughters Cause Judges to Rule forWomen’sIssues?” American Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.

26


Book Dunning, Thad. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sci-ences: A Design-Based Approach. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

– Special Issue on Experimental Methods in Political Science:* Lupia, Arthur. 2002. “New Ideas in Experimental Political Sci-ence.” Political Analysis 10 (4): 319-324.

* McDermott, Rose. 2002. “ExperimentalMethodology in PoliticalScience.” Political Analysis 10 (4): 325-342.

* Lavine, Howard,Milton Lodge, James Polichak, andCharles Taber.2002. “Explicating the BlackBoxThrough Experimentation: Stud-ies of Authoritarianism and Threat.” Political Analysis (4): 343-361.

* Gibson, James L., GregoryA. Caldeira, and Lester Kenyatta Spence.2002. “The Role of Theory in Experimental Design: ExperimentsWithout Randomization.” Political Analysis 10 (4): 362-375.

* Eckel, Catherine, Martin Johnson, and Rick K. Wilson. 2002.“Fairness and Rejection in the Ultimatum Bargaining Game.” Po-litical Analysis 10 (4): 376-393.

* Green, Donald P. and Alan S. Gerber. 2002. “The DownstreamBenefits of Experimentation.” Political Analysis 10 (4): 394-402.

* Simon, Adam F. and Tracy Sulkin. 2002. “Discussion’s Impacton Political Allocations: An Experimental Approach.” PoliticalAnalysis 10 (4): 403-412.

27


Topic 7 (10/29): 方法與

• Homework Due: 文 (4 1.5)

• Required:


– 研究作研究

• Recommended:

– Geddes, Barbara. 1990. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the An-swersYouGet: SelectionBias in Comparative Politics.”Political Anal-ysis 2(1): 131-150.

28


Topic 8 (11/5): 方法


• Required:


• Recommended:

– Granato, Jim. 1991. An Agenda for Econometric Model Building.Political Analysis 3: 123-154.

– Gill, Jeff. 1999. “The Insignificance of Null Hypothesis SignificanceTesting.” Political Research Quarterly 52(3): 647-674.

– Gelman, Andrew and Hal Sterna. 2006. “The Difference BetweenSignificant and Not Significant is not Itself Statistically Signif-icant.” The American Statistician 60(4): 328-331.

– King, Gary, Michael Tomz and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. “Making theMost of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presenta-tion.” American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 347-361.

– Collier, David and Seawright, Jason and Brady, Henry E. 2003. “Qual-itative versusQuantitative: WhatMight Distinction ThisMean?”Qual-itative Method 1(1): 4-8.

– Schrodt, Philip A. 2006. Beyond on the Linear Frequentist Ortho-doxy. Political Analysis 14(3): 335-339.

– Interaction Terms:* Braumoeller, Bear F. 2004. “Hypothesis Testing and Multiplica-tive Interaction Terms.” International Organization 58(4): 807-820.

* Dawson, Jeremy. F. and Andreas. W. Richter. 2006. “ProbingThree-Way Interactions in Moderated Multiple Regression: De-velopment and Application of A Slope Difference test.” Journalof Applied Psychology 91(4): 917-926.

* Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark andMatt Golder. 2006.“Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analy-ses.” Political Analysis 14(1): 63-82.

29


* Zelner, Bennet A. 2009. “Using Simulation to Interpret Resultsfrom Logit, Probit, and Other Nonlinear Models.” Strategic Man-agement Journal 30(12): 1335-1348.

* Berry, William D., Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt and Justin Esarey.2010. “Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Mod-els: Is a Product Term Essential?” American Journal of PoliticalScience 54(1): 248-266.

* Berry, William D., Matt Golder and Daniel Milton. 2012. “Im-proving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction.” The Journal ofPolitics 74(3): 653-671.

* Dawson, Jeremy. F. 2014. “Moderation inManagement Research:What, Why, When and How.” Journal of Business and Psychol-ogy 29(1): 1-19.

Book Jaccard, James J. and Robert Turrisi. 2003. Interaction Effects inMultiple Regression. SAGE Publications.

Book Franzese, Robert and Cindy Kam. 2007. Modeling and Interpret-ing Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Michigan, IL:University of Michigan Press.

– Control Variables and Omitted Variable Bias:* Achen, Christopher H. 2000. Why Lagged Dependent VariablesCan Suppress the Explanatory Power of Other Independent Vari-ables. Unpublished.

* Keele, Luke. 2005. “Dynamic Models for Dynamic Theories:The Ins and Outs of Lagged Dependent Variables.” Political Anal-ysis 14(2): 186-205.

* Achen, Christopher H. 2002. Toward A New Political Method-ology: Microfoundations and ART.” Annual Review of PoliticalScience 5(1): 423-450.

* Ray, James Lee. 2003. Explaining Interstate Conflict and War:What Should BeControlled for?”ConflictManagement and PeaceScience 20(1): 1-31.

* Kadera, Kelly M. and Sara McLaughlin Mitchell. 2005. Mannafrom Heaven or Forbidden Fruit? The (Ab) Use of Control Vari-ables in Research on International Conflict. ConflictManagementand Peace Science 22(4): 273-275.

30


* Ray, James Lee. 2005. Constructing Multivariate Analyses(of Dangerous Dyads). Conflict Management and Peace Science22(4): 277-292.

* John R. Oneal and Bruce Russett. 2005. Rule of Three, LetIt Be? When More Really Is Better. Conflict Management andPeace Science 22(4): 293-310.

* Kadera, Kelly M. and Sara McLaughlin Mitchell. 2005. Heed-ing Ray’s Advice: An Exegesis on Control Variables in SystemicDemocratic Peace Research. Conflict Management and PeaceScience 22(4): 311-326.

* Achen, Christopher H. 2005. Let’s Put Garbage-CanRegressionsand Garbage-Can ProbitsWhere They Belong. Conflict Manage-ment and Peace Science September 22(4): 327-339.

* Clarke, Kevin A. 2005. The PhantomMenace: Omitted VariableBias in Econometric Research. Conflict Management and PeaceScience 22(4): 341-352.

* Starr, Harvey. 2005. Cumulation from Proper Specification:Theory, Logic, Research Design, and Nice Laws. ConflictManagement and Peace Science 22(4): 353-363.

* Clarke, Kevin A. 2009. Return of the PhantomMenace: OmittedVariable Bias in Political Research. Conflict Management andPeace Science 26(1): 46-66.

* Vance, Colin and Nolan Ritter. 2012. The Phantom Menaceof Omitted Variables: A Comment. Conflict Management andPeace Science 29(2): 233-238.

* Clarke, Kevin A. 2012. More Phantom Than Menace. ConflictManagement and Peace Science 29(2): 239-241.

31


Topic 9 (11/12): 研究法與

• Homework Due: 作與 (21.5 )

• Required:

– 研究方法論與研究

• Recommended:

–

32


Topic 10 (11/19): 法法


• Required:


• Recommeded:

Special Issue Qualitative Methods Newsletter 2(1, Spring 2004)– Symposium onDiscourse and Content Analysis.

33


Topic 11 (11/26): 研究法

• Homework Due: 作與 (21.5 )

• Required:

– Caramani, Daniele. 2008. 法論

• Recommended:

– Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the ComparativeMethod.” American Political Science Review 65(3): 682-693.

– Lijphart, Arend. 1975. “The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Compar-ative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 8(2): 158-177.

– DeFelice, E. Gene. 1986. “Causal Inference and Comparative Meth-ods.” Comparative Political Studies 19(3): 415-437.

– Collier, David. 1990. “The Comparative Method: Two Decades ofChange.” in Dankwart Rustow and Kenneth Paul Erickson, eds. Com-parative Political Dynamics (New York, NY: Harper Collins), pp: 7-31.

– Faure, Andrew Murray. 1994. “Some Methodological Problems inComparative Politics.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 6 (3): 307-322.

– Dion, Douglas. 1998. “Evidence and Inference in the ComparativeCase Study.” Comparative Politics 30(2): 127-146. 307-322.

– Coppedge, Michael. 1999. “Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories:Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics.” ComparativePolitics 31(4): 456-76.

– Mahoney, James. 2000. “Strategies of Causal Inference in Small-NAnalysis.” Sociological Methods Reserach 28: 387-424.

– Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strat-egy for Comparative Research.” The American Political Science Re-view 99(3): 435-452.

– Bennett, Andrew and Colin Elman. 2007 “Qualitative Methods: TheView From the Subfields.” Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 111-121.

34


– Mahoney, James. 2007. “Qualitative Methodology and ComparativePolitics.” Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 122-144.

– Pierson, Paul. 2007. “The Costs ofMarginalization: QualitativeMeth-ods in the Study of American Politics.” Comparative Political Studies40(2): 146-169.

– Multilevel and Longitudinal Comparative Studies:* Skocpol, Theda and Margaret Somers. 1980. “The Uses of Com-parative History in Macrosocial Inquiry.” Comparative Studies inSociety and History 22(2) : 174-197.

* March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. 1984. “The New Institu-tionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life.” The Ameri-can Political Science Review 78(3): 734-749.

* Tilly, Charles. 1990. “How (and What) are Historians Doing.”American Behavioral Scientist 33(6): 685-711.

* Tilly, Charles. 1993. “Contentious Repertories in Great Britain.”Social Science History 17(2): 253-280.

* Hall, Peter A. and Rosemary C. R. Taylor. 1996. “Political Sci-ence and the ThreeNew Institutionalisms.”Political Studies 44(5):936-957.

* Lustiek, Ian S. 1996. “History, Historiography, and Political Sci-ence: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of SelectionBias.” American Political Science Review 90(3): 605-618.

* Thelen, Kathleen. 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Compar-ative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 369-404.

* Aspinwall, Mark D. and Gerald Schneider. 2000. “Same Menu,Seperate Tables: The Institutionalist Turn in Political Science andthe Study of European Integration.” European Journal of PoliticalResearch 38(1): 1-36.

* Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, andthe Study of Politics”The American Political Science Review 94(2):251-267.

* Büthe, Tim. 2002. “Taking Temporality Seriously: ModelingHistory and the Use of Narratives as Evidence.” American Po-litical Science Review 96(3): 481-493.

* Thelen, Kathleen. 2012. “Varieties of Capitalism: Trajectories of

35


Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity.” AnnualReview of Political Science 15: 137-159.

Book Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States Social Revolutions: A ComparativeAnalysis of France, Russia and China. NewYork, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Book Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens and John D.Stephens. 1992. Capitalist Development andDemocracy. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

Book Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Time Matters: On Theory and Method.Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.

Book Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 2003. Compara-tive Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Book Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, andSocial Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Book Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Politi-cal Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, andJapan. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Book Kohli, Atul. 2004. State-Directed Development: Political Powerand Industrialization in the Global Periphery. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

– Boolean Analysis:* Romme, A. Georges. L. 1995. “Boolean Comparative-Analysisof Qualitative Data: AMethodological Note.”Quality &Quantity29 (3): 317-329.

* Gordin, Jorge P. 2001. “The Electoral Fate of EthnoregionalistParties in Western Europe: A Boolean Test of Extant Explana-tions.” Scandinavian Political Studies 24 (2): 149-170.

* Mahoney, James. 2001. “Path-Dependent Explanations of RegimeChange: Central America in Comparative Perspective.” Studies inComparative International Development 36(1): 111-141.

* Steve. Chan. 2003. “Explaining War Termination: A BooleanAnalysis of Causes” Journal of Peace Research 40(1): 49-66.

* Braumoeller, Bear F. and Yevgeniy Kirpichevsky. 2005. “WhenMore Is Less: Integrating Qualitative Information and BooleanStatistics.” Political Analysis 13(3): 261-279.

36


Book Ragin, Charles. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving BeyondQualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA: Univer-sity of California Press.

Book Caramani, Daniel. 2008. Introduction to the ComparativeMethodwith Boolean Algebra. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

– Fuzzy Set Analysis:* Weyland, Kurt. 1998. “The political fate of market reform inLatin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe.” International StudiesQuarterly 42(4): 645-673.

* Mahoney, James. 2004. Reflections on Fuzzy-Set/QCA. Qual-itative Methods 2(2): 17-21.

* Ragin, Charles and Benoit Rihoux. 2004. Qualitative Compara-tive Analysis (QCA): State of the Art and Prospects. QualitativeMethods 2(2): 3-13.

* Pennings, Paul. 2005. “The Diversity and Causality of WelfareState Reforms Exploredwith Fuzzy-Sets”Quality&Quantity 39(3):317-339.

* Benoit. Rihoux. 2006. “Qualitative ComparativeAnalysis (QCA)and Related Systematic Comparative Methods: Recent Advancesand Remaining Challenges for Social Science Research.” Interna-tional Sociology 21(5): 679-706.

* Metelits, Claire M. 2009. The Consequences of Rivalry: Explain-ing Insurgent ViolenceUsing Fuzzy Sets.”Political ResearchQuar-terly 62(4): 673-684.

* Vis, Barbara. 2012. “The Comparative Advantages of fsQCAand Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses.” So-ciological Methods & Research 41(1): 168-198.

Book Ragin, Charles. 2000. Fuzzy Set Social Science. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Book Schneider, CarstenQ. andClaudiusWagemann. 2012. Set-TheoreticMethods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Compar-ative Analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

37


Topic 12 (12/3): 研究法


• Required:

– 研究方法研究研究

– 研究作研究

• Recommended:

– Allison, Graham T. 1969. Conceptual Models and the Cuban MissileCrisis. American Political Science Review 63(3): 689-718.

– Bendor, Jonathan and Thomas H. Hammond. 1992. “Rethinking Alli-son’s Models.” American Political Science Review 86(2): 301-322.

– Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case Study and Theory in Political Science.in Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, eds. Handbook of Po-litical Science, Vol. 7: Strategies of Inquiry (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley), pp: 79-137.

– George, Alexander L, and Timothy J. McKeown. 1985. Case Stud-ies and Theories of Organizational Decision Making.” in Robert F.Coulam and Richard A. Smith, eds. Advances in Information Process-ing in Organizations, Vol. 2 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), pp: 21-58.

– Collier, David. 19991. The Comparative Method.” in Dankwart A.Rustow and Kenneth Paul Erickson eds., Comparative Political Dy-namics (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1991), pp. 7-31.

– Dogan, Mattei and Ali Kazancigil. 1994. Compare Why and How:Comparing, Miscomparing, and the Comparative Method.” in MatteiDogan and Ali Kazancigil eds., Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strate-gies, Substance (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell), pp. 14-35.

– Kritzer, Herbert M. 1996. “The Data Puzzle: The Nature and Interpre-tation in Quantitative Research.” American Journal of Political Sci-ence 40(1): 1-32.

– Collier, David and James Mahoney. 1996. “Insights and Pitfalls: Se-lection Bias in Qualitative Research.”World Politics 49(1): 56-91.

38


– Mahoney, James .1999. “Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisalin Macrocausal Analysis.” The American Journal of Sociology 104(4):1154-1196.

– McKeown, Timothy. 1999. “Case Studies and the Statistical WorldView: Review of King, Keohane, and Verba’s Designing Social In-quiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research.” International Or-ganization 53(1): 161-190.

– Eckstein, Harry. 2000. “Case Study and Theory in Political Science.”in Roger Gomm, Martyn Hammersley, and Peter Foster eds., CaseStudy Method (London: Sage, 2000), pp. 119-164.

– Mahoney, James. 2000. “Strategies of Causal Inference in Small-NAnalysis.” Sociological Methods and Research 28(4): 387-424.

– Snyder, Richard. 2001. “Scaling Down: The Subnational Compara-tiveMethod.” Studies in Comparative International Development 36():93-110.

Debate Seawright, Jason. 2002. “Testing for Necessary and/or Sufficient Cau-sation: Which Cases Are Relevant?” Political Analysis 10(2): 178-193.

Debate Clarke, Kevin A. 2002. “The Reverend and the Ravens: Comment onSeawright.” Political Analysis 10(2): 194-197.

Debate Braumoeller, Bear F. and Gary Goertz. 2002. “Watching Your Poste-rior: Comment on Seawright.” Political Analysis 10(2): 198-203.

Debate Seawright, Jason. 2002. “What Counts as Evidence? Reply.” PoliticalAnalysis 10(2): 204-207.

– Sekhorn, Jasjeet S. 2004. “Quality Meets Quantity: Case Studies,Conditional Probability, and Counterfactuals.” Perspectives on Poli-tics 2(2): 281-293.

– Gerring, John. 2004. ”What Is A Case Study and What Is It GoodFor?” American Political Science Review 98(2): 341-354.

– Benoit, Kenneth R. 2005. “How Qualitative Research Really Counts.”Qualitative Methods Newsletter 3 (Spring, 2005): 9-12.

– Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz. 2004. “The Possibility Principle:Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research.” American Polit-ical Science Review 98(4): 653-670.

39


– Ross, Michael L. 2004. “How Do Natural Resources Influence CivilWar? Evidence from Thirteen Cases.” International Organization 58:35-67.

– Elman, Colin. 2005. “Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studiesof International Politics.” International Organizations 59(2): 293-326.

– Bennet, Andrew and Colin Elman. 2006. “Qualitative Research: Re-cent Developments in Case Study Methods” Annual Review of Politi-cal Science 9: 455-476.

– Gunnell, John G. 2006. “Dislocated Rhetoric: The Anomaly of Polit-ical Theory.” Journal of Politics 68: 771-782.

– Mahoney, James. 2007. “Qualitative Methodology in ComparativePolitics.” Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 122-144.

– Gerring, John. 2007. “Is There a (Viable) Crucial Case Method?”Comparative Political Studies 40(3): 231-252.

– Gerring, John and Rose McDermott. 2007. “An Experimental Tem-plate for Case Study Research.” American Journal of Political Science51(3): 688-701.

– Bennett, Andrew and Colin Elman. 2007. “Case Study Methods inthe International Relations Subfield.” Comparative Political Studies40(2): 170-195.

– Levy, Jack S. 2007. “QualitativeMethods and Cross-Method Dialoguein Political Science.” Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 196-214.

– Levy, Jack S. 2008. Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics ofInference.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 25(1): 1-18.

– Collier, David. 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: PoliticalScience and Politics 44(4): 823-830.

– Dimitrov, Martin K. 2013. “Understanding Communist Collapse andResilience.” inMartinK.Dimitrov eds. WhyCommunismDidNot Col-lapse? Understanding Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Asia andEurope (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), pp. 3-39.

Book Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Book George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies andTheory Development in the Social Sciences. The MIT Press.

40


Book Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practice.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Book Coppedge, Michael. 2012. Democratization and Research Methods.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Book Rohlfing, Ingo. 2012. Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Inte-grative Framework. Palgrave Macmillan.

Book Weller, Nicholas and Jeb Barnes. 2014. Finding Pathways: Mixed-Method Research for Studying Causal Mechanisms. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Book Bennett, Andrew and Jeffrey T. Checkel. 2014. Process Tracing:From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. New York, NY: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

• Symposium on Process Tracing:

– Elman, Colin and JohnM.Owen. 2015. “Symposium on Process Trac-ing: Note to Readers.” Security Studies 24(2): 199.

– Mahoney, James. 2015. “Process Tracing andHistorical Explanation.”Security Studies 24(2): 200-218.

– Tannenwald, Nina. 2015. “Process Tracing and Security Studies.” Se-curity Studies 24(2): 219-227.

– Bennett, Andrew. 2015. “Using Process Tracing to Improve PolicyMaking: The (Negative) Case of the 2003 Intervention in Iraq.” Secu-rity Studies 24(2): 228-238.

– Waldner, David. 2015. “Process Tracing and Qualitative Causal Infer-ence.” Security Studies 24(2): 239-250.

• Other Advanced Implications:

– Drozdova, Katya and Kurt Taylor Gaubatz. 2014. “Reducing Uncer-tainty: Information Analysis for Comparative Case Studies.” Interna-tional Studies Quarterly 58(3): 633-645.

– Braumoeller, Bear F. 2014. “Information and Uncertainty: Inferencein Qualitative Case Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 58(4):873-875.

41


Topic 13 (12/10): 研究法與與法

• Homework Due: 作與(5 1.5 )

• Required:


• Recommended:

– H. S. Becker. 1958. “Problems of Inference and Proof in ParticipantObservation.” American Sociological Review 23(6): 652-660.

– Huitt. 1961. ”Democratic Party Leadership in the Senate.” AmericanPolitical Sscience Review 55: 333-344.

– Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Thick Description: Toward An Interpre-tive Theory of Culture. in Clifford Geertz, ed. The Interpretation ofCultures (New York, NY: Basic Books), pp: 3-30.

– Fenno, Richard F. 1977. “U.S. House Members in Their Constituen-cies: An Exploration.” American Political Science Review 71(3): 883-917.

– Aunger, Robert. 1995. On Ethnography: Storytelling or Science?”Current Anthropology 36(1): 97-130.

– Parin A. Dossa. 1997. “Reconstruction of Ethnographic Field Sites:Mediating Identities: Case Study of a Bohra Muslim Women in Lamu(Kenya).” Women’s Studies International Forum 20(4): 505-515.

– McLaughlin. 1999. “From the Field to the Courthouse: Should So-cial Science Research be Privileged.” Law and Social Inquiry 24: 925-1003.

– Tilly, Charles. 2001. “Mechanisms in Political Processes.” AnnualReview of Political Science 4: 21-41.

– Shapiro, Ian. 2002. Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study ofPolitics, or What’sWrong with Political Science andWhat to Do aboutIt.” Political Theory 30(4): 596-619.

– Gladwin, Peterson and Mwale. 2002. “The Quality of Science in Par-ticipatory Research: A Case Study from Eastern Africa.” World De-velopment 30(4): 523-543.

42


– Martin, John Levi. 2003. “What Is Field Theory?” American Journalof Sociology 109(1): 1-49.

– Clark, Janine A. 2006. “Field Research Methods in the Middle East.”PS: Political Science and Politics 39(3): 417-423.

– Wood, Elisabeth. 2007. Field Methods. in Carles Boix and SusanC. Stokes, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press), pp: 123-146.

– Wedeen, Lisa. 2011. “Reactions on Ethnographic Work in PoliticalScience.” Annual Review of Political Science 13(1): 255-272.

– Bernard, H. Russell. 2011. “Participant Observation.” in H. RussellBernard. 2011. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative andQuantitative Approaches, 5th edition (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press),pp: 256-290.

Special Issue Qualitative Methods Newsletter 2(1, Spring 2004)– Symposium onField Research.

Book Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Dis-tricts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Book Kapiszewski, Diana, LaurenM.MacLean andBenjamin L. Read. 2015.Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

43


Topic 14 (12/17): 法與法

• Homework Due: 論文研究 (4 1.5)

• Required:

– 研究法與 ( )/ 研究

• Recommended:

– Harkness and Warren. 1993. “The Social Relations of Intensive In-terviewing: Constellations of Strangeness and Science.” SociologicalMethods Research 21: 317-339.

– Chong. 1993. “How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights andLiberties.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 867-899.

– Devault. 1990. “Talking and Listening from Women’s Standpoint:Feminisf Strategies for Interviewing and Analysis.” Social Problems37: 701-721.

– Downe, P.J. 1999. “Laughing When It Hurts: Humor and Violencein the lives of Costa Rican Prostitutes.”Women’s Studies InternationalForum 22: 63-78.

Book Mosley, Layna. ed. 2013. Interview Research in Political Science.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

– (focus group interviewing):* Morgan and Spanish. 1984. “Focus Groups: A New Tool forQualitative Research.” Qualitative Sociology 7: 253-270.

– (structured interviewing) (semi-structuredinterviewing)與 (in-depth interviewing):* Bernard, H. Russell. 2011. “Interviewing I: Unstructured andSemistructured.” in H. Russell Bernard. 2011. Research Meth-ods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,5th edition (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press), pp: 156-186.

* Bernard, H. Russell. 2011. “Interviewing II: Questionnaires.” inH. Russell Bernard. 2011. Research Methods in Anthropology:Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 5th edition (Lanham,MD: AltaMira Press), pp: 187-222.

44


Book Rubin, Herbert J. and Irene S. Rubin. 2011. Qualitative Interview-ing: The Art of Hearing Data, 3rd edition. SAGE Publications.

– (interviewing political elites):* Peabody, Robert L., Susan Webb Hammond, Jean Torcom, LynneP. Brown, Carolyn Thompson and Robin Kolodny. 1990. “Inter-viewing Political Elites.” PS: Political Science and Politics 23(3):451-455.

* Leech, Beth L. 2002. “Interview Methods in Political Science.”PS: Political Science and Politics 35(4): 663-664.

* Leech, Beth L. 2002. “AskingQuestions: Techniques for Semistruc-tured Interviews.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35(4): 665-668.

* Goldstein, Kenneth. 2002. “Getting in the Door: Sampling andCompleting Elite Interviews.” PS: Political Science and Politics35(4): 669-672.

* Aberbach, Joel D. and Bert A. Rockman. 2002. “Conducting andCoding Elite Interviews.”PS: Political Science and Politics 35(4):673-676.

* Woliver, Laura R. 2002. “Ethical Dilemmas in Personal Inter-viewing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35(4): 677-678.

* Berry, Jeffrey M. 2002. “Validity and Reliability Issues in EliteInterviewing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35(4): 679-682.

* Rivera, SharonWerning, PolinaM.Kozyreva and EduardG. Sarovskii.2002. “Interviewing Political Elites: Lessons from Russia.” PS:Political Science and Politics 35(4): 683-688.

* Tansey, Oisín. 2007. “Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: ACase for Non-Probability Sampling.” PS: Political Science andPolitics 40(4): 765-772.

45


Topic 15 (12/24): 論文寫作• Homework Due: None

• Required:

– 研究方法論與研究文研究與

• Recommended:

– Stimson, James A. N.D. “Professional Writing in Political Science: AHighly Opinionated Essay.” Working paper, University of North Car-olina.

– King, Gary. 1995. “Replication, Replication.” PS: Political Scienceand Politics 28: 443-499.

– King, Gary. 2006. “Publication, Publication.” PS: Political Scienceand Politics 39: 119-125.

– Zigerell, L. J. 2013. “Rookie Mistakes: Preemptive Comments onGraduate Student Empirical Research Manuscripts.” PS: Political Sci-ence & Politics 46:142-146.

46


Topic 16 (12/31): 研 I• Homework Due: ( slides 12 )論 (3 1.5 )

• Required:

– None

• Recommended:

– Waltz, Kenneth N. 1997. “Evaluating Theories.” The American Polit-ical Science Review 91(4): 913-917.

– Schrodt, Philip A. 2014. “SevenDeadly Sins of Contemporary Quanti-tative Political Analysis.” Journal of Peace Research 51(2): 287-300.

– Reynolds, Garr. 2011. Presentationzen

– Reynolds, Garr. 2013. Presentationzen Design

47


Topic 17 (1/7): 研 II• Homework Due: ( slides 12 )論 (3 1.5 )

• Required:

– None

• Recommended:

– King, Gary. 2011. “Ensuring the Data-Rich Future of the Social Sci-ences.” Science 331(11): 719-721.

– Varian, Hal R. 2014. “Big Data: New Tricks for Econometrics.” TheJournal of Economic Perspectives 28(2): 3-27.

– Symposium: BigData, Causal Inference, andFormal Theory: Con-tradictory Trends in Political Science?* Clark, WilliamRoberts andMatt Golder. 2015. “Big Data, CausalInference, and Formal Theory: Contradictory Trends in PoliticalScience? - Introduction.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48(1):65-70.

* Monroe, Burt L., Jennifer Pan, Margaret E. Roberts, Maya Senand Betsy Sinclair. 2015. “No! Formal Theory, Causal Inference,and Big Data Are Not Contradictory Trends in Political Science.”PS: Political Science & Politics 48(1): 71-74.

* Titiunik, Rocío. 2015. “Can Big Data Solve the FundamentalProblem of Causal Inference?” PS: Political Science & Politics48(1): 75-79.

* Grimmer, Justin. 2015. “We Are All Social Scientists Now: HowBigData, Machine Learning, andCausal InferenceWork Together.”PS: Political Science & Politics 48(1): 80-83.

* Nagler, Jonathan and Joshua A. Tucker. 2015. “Drawing Infer-ences and Testing Theories with Big Data.” PS: Political Science& Politics 48(1): 84-88.

* Ashworth, Scott, Christopher R. Berry and EthanBueno deMesquita.2015. “All Else Equal in Theory and Data (Big or Small).” PS:Political Science & Politics 48(1): 89-94.

48


* Patty, JohnW. and ElizabethMaggie Penn. 2015. “Analyzing BigData: Social Choice and Measurement.” PS: Political Science &Politics 48(1): 95-101.

* Keele, Luke. 2015. “The Discipline of Identification.” PS: Polit-ical Science & Politics 48(1): 102-106.

49

研究方法與論文寫作 Research Method and Academic Writing

Documents

Transcript of 研究方法與論文寫作 Research Method and Academic Writing