Instructor:
Professor Florian M. Hollenbach
Email: fhollenbach@tamu.edu; Web: fhollenbach.org
Office: 332 LASB Building; Phone: 979-845-5021
Office Hours: Wednesday 3:00pm to 5:00pm or by appointment
Teaching Assistant:
Andrea Junqueira
Email: andrea_junqueira@tamu.edu;
Office Hours: Monday 10am to 11am & Thursday 10am to 11 am
Class Meeting Time:
Tuesday, 1:30pm - 4:20pm
Class Location: Zoom
Class Website:
The syllabus on my website http://fhollenbach.github.io/Pols621_2020 will be continuously updated to reflect any schedule changes. Additional material will be posted on the shared Google Team Drive. We may possibly Google Class.
All assignments are to be submitted electronically via email to fhollenbach@tamu.edu
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
The goal of this course is to familiarize PhD students with the various existing approaches to research in comparative politics. We will cover different strategies and methods of how to produce high quality research. The course is designed so that students will encounter a number of different perspectives on research in the field of comparative politics. Topics range from concept formation, case selection, case studies, to concepts of causal inference with observational data, experiments, and mixed methods. Students will learn how to evaluate other scholars’ research but also practice skills to develop their own research designs. While most readings focus on research design and methods, we will pursue a “hands-on” approach and read as well as replicate applied work (where possible). At the end students should understand the most common approaches to studying comparative politics in the discipline today.
LEARNING OUTCOMES:
At the end of the semester, after completing this course, students are expected to:
- Understand:
- problems of case selection
- the concept of causality
- the limits and strengths of observational data
- experimental designs
- Be able to understand and apply methods commonly used for inference in observational settings
- Write critical but constructive reviews of peers’ research
- Have developed skills to critically evaluate research & for designing their own research projects
COURSE STRUCTURE & REQUIREMENTS:
Class will meet once a week from 1:30pm to 4:20pm on Tuesdays. For most weeks, you should expect classes to be about one hour of lecturing and 90 minutes of discussion. We will cover a variety of concepts, sometimes complicated. I expect you to have done all of the required reading before sending discussion questions the day before class (see below). Even when I lecture, I want you to ask questions and participate actively. In the second part of class we will discuss the readings and applications in more of a group setting. We will also try to work through example applications whenever possible.
For part of this class we will be working on the computer with statistical software. We will use the statistical programming language R. R is available for download here:. I would recommend you download R-Studio, which is a software that makes the use of R much easier. You can download R-Studio here:. Both R and R-Studio are free.
It is important that you somewhat familiarize yourself with R in the first few weeks of the semester. Here is a short document on how to write good r-code: https://github.com/fhollenbach/CodingRules/blob/master/Best_practices_R.pdf. The document also includes some links to resources for learning R, e.g.,https://github.com/Joscelinrocha/Learning-R-resources/wiki.
GRADING & RESPONSIBILITIES:
Your grade will be based on the following:
- Participation (5%)
- Two discussion questions for class session (weeks 1 - 13) (10%)
- One in-class presentation (15%)
- Two paper reviews, simulating a review for the APSR/AJPS/JOP (20%)
- Motivation of Research Question, i.e., paper Introduction (15%)
- Final Project Research Design Presentation (10%)
- Final Research Design (25%)
Readings
We will be reading both articles and book chapters throughout the semester. Readings under the header Additional Readings are not required, but suggestions for those interested in the particular topic. This is a PhD student level seminar; as such I expect all students to come to class prepared, having read all required material prior to sending discussion questions on Monday. I also expect you to complete relevant assignments on time.
Some of the weeks have substantial amounts of readings that may take significant time to get through. Make sure you start early enough. Additionally, some of the methodological work will be difficult. It is okay if you do not fully understand everything before coming to class, that is what our class meetings are for. Nevertheless, read carefully and try to understand each article/chapter. Take notes on your readings, especially on parts you do not understand.
If you have not done so, I would advise you to develop a consistent system of reading and taking notes. We will discuss some approaches to reading early in the semester.
Since we will read large parts of them, you should acquire the following books:
Required Books:
- Seawright, Jason. 2016. “Multi-Method Social Science.” Cambridge University Press. (denoted MMSS below)
- Angrist, Joshua and Pischke, Joern-Steffen. 2014. “Mastering Metrics: The Path from Cause to Effect.” Princeton University Press. (denoted MM below)
- King, Gary and Keohane, Robert O. and Verba, Sidney. 1994. “Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research}’’. Princeton University Press.” (denoted KKV below)
- We will also reference Scott Cunningham’s “Causal Inference: The Mixtape” frequently. You can find a free version of the book here: https://www.scunning.com/causalinference_norap.pdf. You can also think of this book as an additional resource if you do not understand material presented elsewhere.
When reading applied papers, you should think about questions such as:
- Question/Framing: What is the question the authors are trying to answer in this work? Is this work important?
- Theory: Is there an original contribution in the theoretical part of the work? Is the theoretical argument coherent? Are the mechanisms elaborated sufficiently? Are the assumptions plausible? Do the hypotheses follow logically from the theoretical argument? Are there theoretical implications that the authors missed?
- Research Design: What is the unit of analysis? What is the research design? Does the research design allow the authors to test the specified hypotheses? Does it allow them to answer the question posed in their work? Are there important issues the authors missed? How could the research design be improved? Does the research design allow for causal identification? If not, why not? Is the description of the research design sufficient?
- Data: Are variables adequately measured and do they correspond to the concepts of interest? Could we improve the authors’ measures? Are other (better) data available to investigate these questions? Is the description of the data sufficient to replicate the authors’ results?
- Findings: Are the results correctly interpreted? Are the findings substantively important? How do the results correspond to the theory? Are there other potential explanations that are not ruled out by the research design? Are the authors interpreting the results causally? If so, is that justified?
- Writing: Which sections of the paper are well/poorly written? Why? Are there parts that are particularly exciting/convincing? If so, for what reason? Does the introduction make you want to continue reading the work? What do you think about the overall structure of the work? Pay particular attention to the abstract and introduction.
Discussion Points:
- To facilitate discussion, please send two discussion questions/points about the readings/class topic at noon on Monday (i.e., day before our class meeting). These could be questions about things you do not understand or criticisms/suggestions about the readings. I will post the collection of your discussion points to the Google Team Drive by 5:00 pm on Mondays. Please try review them briefly before class.
Presentation
- Each of you will prepare one presentation about an applied paper for one of the class sessions. Your presentation should be a discussion of the paper and discuss potential short comings or improvements. You should be critical but constructive. Focus especially on the research design and analysis. If possible, we may try to establish a video conference with the author(s).
Peer Review
- Pick two papers from the list provided in the Google Team Drive. I will assign each of you two due dates for reviews based on your ranked preferences. You should write a review of these papers as if you are reviewing for the APSR/AJPS/JOP. Your review should be at least 1 page single-spaced. On the Google Drive you can find some example reviews done by A&M faculty in previous years (do not share these reviews). Here are some links that may be helpful before writing your first review:
Introduction/Research Motivation
- Submit a 1-2 page (double spaced) introduction/motivation for your research project. Effectively this should be written like the introduction to an article submission. The introduction should be about the same topic/question as your research design and optimally you will want this to be about (or related to) a possible dissertation topic. The introduction needs to clearly state the question you want to answer, why the reader should care, what and how your work contributes to the literature, and a preview (one paragraph) of the research design. Please be ambitious when it comes to your research question and a possible research design. I will meet with each of you to provide feedback to you on the introduction during office hours. This assignment is due on: 10/13/2020 Two links that might be helpful when writing the introduction:
Research Design
- The final project in this class is to submit a research design. Your final project will be a research design for a future paper or possible dissertation project. Specifically, you should combine the introduction to your research question with a research design section. After receiving feedback on the introduction, you will give a short presentation of your research design during our last class session on 11/24/2020. This presentation may be attended by other faculty in the department, with the goal of providing constructive feedback to you.
Your final project (and presentation) does not need to include data or data analysis. Instead, focus on writing up a clear research design that will allow you to empirically investigate your research question in the best possible way. What are the observable implications of your argument? What research design will allow you to best discriminate between different explanations? How could you best identify a causal relationship? Your final research design should be 10-15 pages (excluding the bibliography, double-spaced).
- Your research design should be ambitious. Think hard about what you would like to do in your research, maybe even dream a little.
- One goal of the research design is that you could possibly use it for an application to the NSF Dissertation Improvement Grants. You can find information about the NSF Dissertation Improvement Grant here (though with the restructuring of NSF, things might change a bit). The goal is for you to be able to submit an application in the spring or summer of 2021. Talk to your advisers about possibly submitting an application.
Final research designs will be due on December 6th at 6pm CET
Your written assignments will be graded on both content and quality of writing. Again, I want you to be ambitious in your research designs. You can find helpful links on how to write well here: http://fhollenbach.org/WritingAcademic/. Writing is one of the most fundamental skills for academics. All of us struggle and it requires a lot of practice. Do not hesitate to ask for help. If you are having trouble with it, please talk to me or visit the University Writing Center (see below).
The grading scale (in %) used in this class for all written assignments, and the overall class grade will be the following:
- A= 89.5
- B= 79.5–<89.5
- C= 69.5–<79.5
- D= 59.5–<69.5
- F=<59.6
WRITING HELP:
The University Writing Center (UWC), located in 1.214 Sterling C. Evans Library and
205 West Campus Library, offers one-on-one consultations to
writers. To find out more about UWC
services or to schedule an appointment, call 458-1455, visit the web
page at https://writingcenter.tamu.edu/, or stop by in person.
ACADEMIC HONESTY:
“An Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.”
“Texas A&M University students are responsible for authenticating all work submitted to an instructor. If asked, students must be able to produce proof that the item submitted is indeed the work of that student. Students must keep appropriate records at all times. The inability to authenticate one’s work, should the instructor request it, may be sufficient grounds to initiate an academic misconduct case” Section 20.1.2.3, Student Rule 20.
You can learn more about the Aggie Honor System Office Rules and Procedures, academic integrity, and your rights and responsibilities at aggiehonor.tamu.edu.
All students should follow the highest standards of academic integrity. Cheating or plagiarism will not be tolerated in any way and will have grave consequences for your academic career. If you are unsure what entails plagiarism, come talk to me. Any cases of cheating or plagiarism will be submitted to the academic honor council, no exceptions.
CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR, PARTICIPATION, & ELECTRONIC DEVICES:
I expect you to attend class unless circumstances prohibit you from doing so. If you must miss class, please let me know in advance. You are still responsible to do the readings and submit discussion questions and assignments, even if you are missing class. Of course, this semester is full of unusual circumstances. If you have trouble following the class or fulfilling any of the requirements, please speak to me early on. Similarly, if you get sick, let me know.
I strongly encourage everybody to participate in class discussion. Please be respectful to your fellow class mates, do not interrupt them, and wait until called upon.
While we are all on the computer during class, please try to keep distractions to a minimum. In addition, please make sure your cell phones are on silent mode and refrain from using them or other devices during class time.
Classroom Code of Conduct
The Department of Political Science at Texas A&M University is committed to fostering an environment of learning and scholarship that is open, respectful, and welcoming to all, regardless of race, religion, gender (identity), ability, age, socio-economic background, or sexual orientation. As outlined in the department’s Code of Conduct, we strive to create a positive climate for all students, faculty, and staff. We are dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for all members and guests of the department.
Whereas, we expect members of the political science department to adhere to the departmental Code of Conduct in general, respectful behavior by all participants is especially important in the classroom and other course-related interactions (virtual and in-person). An environment conducive to learning and scholarship requires free speech and an open mind, but must be free of harassment, hostile, or threatening behaviors. Faculty, staff, and students ought to be proactive in helping others and speak up to avoid harm in the case that any of these unwelcome behaviors are observed.
In selecting a Zoom background, it is expected that everyone adheres to the above Code of Conduct and refrains from material that is discriminatory or degrading to others.
In the Zoom environment, your screen name must be the name that is listed on the course roster, unless otherwise noted. If you do not go by the name on the roster, please contact Dr. Hollenbach in the first week of class.
ABSENCES & LATE POLICY:
Except in the case of observance of a religious holiday, to be excused, the student must
notify his or her instructor in writing (acknowledged e-mail message
is acceptable) prior to the date of absence. In cases where advance
notification is not feasible (e.g. accident or emergency) the student
must provide notification by the end of the second working day after
the absence. This notification should include an explanation of why
the notice could not be sent prior to the class. Accommodations sought for
absences due to the observance of a religious holiday can be sought
either prior or after the absence, but not later than two working days
after the absence. Legitimate circumstances include religious
holidays, illness, serious family emergencies
and participation in group activities sponsored by the University,
etc. See http://student-rules.tamu.edu/rule07 for additional
information.
All assignments are due on their due date at the beginning of class. Unexcused late work will be penalized by a 7.5 percentage point deduction for each 24hrs your work is late. For example, if you hand in the assignment on the same day it is due, but after class, your maximum score will be 92.5%. If you hand in your assignment more than 24hrs late, e.g., 1:45 pm the next day, your maximum score will be 85%, after 48hrs it would be 77.5%, and so on. Late work will be excused only in the case of university-excused absences. Only under extreme circumstance will I make exceptions to these rules. Again, if something comes up that keeps you from performing your best in this class, please talk to me early on.
In the fall of 2020, students may use the Explanatory Statement for Absence from Class formin lieu of a medical confirmation. Students must submit the Explanatory Statement for Absence from Class within three business days after the last date of absence.
RE-GRADING POLICY:
Students that want to appeal a grade received on an exam or assignment must submit a regrading request in written form (e.g., email). This request has to be turned in within five working days after the graded exams or assignments are returned to the class. The written statement must explain exactly why the student believes the current grade is incorrect. I will then regrade the entire assignment extra carefully. NOTE, as a consequence your grade may go up or down.
COMMUNICATION:
The best place to ask questions is in the zoom classroom. Most questions that arise are things that are also pertinent to other students, please ask it in class. If your question is not related to class material or relevant to other students, we can discuss it after class. I encourage you to visit my office hours to discuss any difficulties with the readings or class.
You can generally expect me to reply to emails within 24 hours during the work week.
DISABILITY:
Texas A&M University is committed to providing equitable access to learning opportunities for all students. If you experience barriers to your education due to a disability or think you may have a disability, please contact Disability Resources in the Student Services Building or at (979) 845-1637 or visit http://disability.tamu.edu. Disabilities may include, but are not limited to attentional, learning, mental health, sensory, physical, or chronic health conditions. All students are encouraged to discuss their disability related needs with Disability Resources and their instructors as soon as possible.
Reasonable accommodations will be made for all students with
disabilities, but it is the student’s responsibility to inform the
instructor early in the term. Do not wait until just before an exam to
decide you want to inform the instructor of a learning disability; any
accommodations for disabilities must be arranged well in advance.
Title IX and Statement on Limits to Confidentiality
Texas A&M University is committed to fostering a learning environment that is safe and productive for all. University policies and federal and state laws prohibit gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, including sexual assault, sexual exploitation, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.
With the exception of some medical and mental health providers, all university employees (including full and part-time faculty, staff, paid graduate assistants, student workers, etc.) are Mandatory Reporters and must report to the Title IX Office if the employee experiences, observes, or becomes aware of an incident that meets the following conditions (see University Rule 08.01.01.M1):
• The incident is reasonably believed to be discrimination or harassment.
• The incident is alleged to have been committed by or against a person who, at the time of the incident, was (1) a student enrolled at the University or (2) an employee of the University.
Mandatory Reporters must file a report regardless of how the information comes to their attention – including but not limited to face-to-face conversations, a written class assignment or paper, class discussion, email, text, or social media post. Although Mandatory Reporters must file a report, in most instances, you will be able to control how the report is handled, including whether or not to pursue a formal investigation. The University’s goal is to make sure you are aware of the range of options available to you and to ensure access to the resources you need.
Students wishing to discuss concerns in a confidential setting are encouraged to make an appointment with Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS).
Students can learn more about filing a report, accessing supportive resources, and navigating the Title IX investigation and resolution process on the University’s Title IX webpage.
Changes to Syllabus
I reserve the right to update/modify/clarify the syllabus with advance
notification.
Class Schedule
Week 1 (08/25)
- Introduction, Syllabus, Logistics
Is the science of comparative politics possible?
Readings:
- Boix, Carles & Susan C. Stokes. 2009. “Introduction.” Boix, Carles and Susan C. Stokes (eds.): Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (On Google Team Drive)
- Przeworski, Adam (2007): “Is the Science of Comparative Politics Possible?” Boix, Carles and Susan C. Stokes (eds.): Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 147-171. (On Google Team Drive)
- Huber, John. 2013. “Is theory getting lost in the ‘identification revolution’?”. Monkey Cage Blog. Link
- Contributions by Kanchan Chandra, Barbara Geddes, Scott Gehlbach, Gretchen Helmke & G. Bingham Powell Jr., Leonard Wantchekon, Elisabeth Jean Wood in the Comparative Politics Newsletter Fall 2005. Link
- Pepinsky, Tom. 2015. “The Coherence of Multiple Methods.” Link
Week 2 (09/01): Models and Theory
Readings:
- Geddes, Barbara. 2003.”Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics.” University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor Chapter 2 (available electronically through library)
- Gerring, John. 2011. “Social Science Methodology : A Unified Framework.” Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA. Chapter 3 (available electronically through library)
- Clarke, Kevin A., and David M. Primo. 2007. “Modernizing Political Science: A Model- Based Approach.” Perspectives on Politics. 5(4): 741-753.
- Little, Andrew T. and Tom B. Pepinsky. 2016. “Simple and Formal Models in Comparative Politics.” Chinese Political Science Review. 1: 425–447.
Applications:
- Svolik, Milan. 2013. “Learning to Love Democracy: Electoral Accountability, Government Performance, and the Consolidation of Democracy.” American Journal of Political Science. 57(3): 685-702.
Additional Readings:
- Ward, Michael D. 2017. “Do We Have Too Much Theory in International Relations or Do We Need Less? Waltz Was Wrong, Tetlock Was Right.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
Week 3 (09/08): Concepts & Measurement
Readings:
- Gerring, John. 2011. “Social Science Methodology : A Unified Framework.” Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA. Chapter 5-7 (available electronically through library)
- KKV Chapters 1 & 2
Applications:
- Treier, Shawn and Jackman, Simon. 2008. “Democracy as a Latent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science. 52(1):201-217
Additional Readings:
- Goertz, Gary. 2006. “Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide.” Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. “Concept Misinformation in Comparative Politics.” American Political Science Review 64(4): 1033-1053.
- Collier, David, and James E. Mahon. 1993. “Conceptual Stretching Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis.” American Political Science Review 87(4): 845-855.
Week 4 (09/15): Case Selection
Readings:
- Geddes, Barbara. 2003.”Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics.” University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor Chapters 3 & 4 (available electronically through library)
- MMSS Chapter 4
- KKV Chapter 4
- Aronow, Peter M. and Cyrus Samii. 2016. “Does Regression Produce Representative Estimates of Causal Effects?” American Journal of Political Science. 60(1):250-267.
Additional Readings:
- Gerring, John. 2007. “Case Study Research: Principles and Practices.” Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA. Chapter 4
Week 5 (09/22): Case Studies, Analytical Narratives, and Process Tracing (Virtual Visit by Alisha Holland)
Presentation: MM
Readings:
- Dunning, Thad. “Improving Process Tracing: The Case of Multi-Method Research.” In: Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Edited by Bennet, Andrew and Jeffrey T. Checkel. Chpt. 8. Link
- MMSS: Chapter 3
- Levi, Margaret and Weingast, Barry R. 2017. “Analytic Narratives, Case Studies, and Development.” Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2835704 (on Google Team Drive)
- KKV section 6.1 (pages 208-213)
Applications (pick one):
- Holland, Alisha C. 2016. “Forbearance.” American Political Science Review. 110(2): 232-246.
- Weyland, Kurt. 2016. “Crafting Counterrevolution: How Reactionaries Learned to Combat Change in 1848.” American Political Science Review. 110(2): 215–31.
Additional Readings:
- Gerring, John. 2007. “Case Study Research: Principles and Practices.” Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.
- Skarbek, David. 2016. “Covenants without the Sword? Comparing Prison Self-Governance Globally.” American Political Science Review. 110(4): 845–62.
- Skarbek, David. 2011. “Governance and Prison Gangs.” American Political Science Review. 105(4): 702–16.
Week 6 (09/29): Concepts of Causal Inference
Readings:
- Imbens, Guido and Rubin, Donald D. 2015. “Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction.” Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA. Chapters 1 & 2: pages 3–30 (On Google Team Drive)
- Rubin, Donald 2005. “Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes.” Journal of the American Statistical Association. 100(469):322–331.
- Pearl, Judea and Glymour, Madelyn and Jewell, Nicholas P. 2016. “Causal Inference in Statistics : A Primer.” John Wiley & Sons: West Sussex, UK. Skim Chapter 1 as necessary, Read Chapter 2 (available electronically through library)
Additional readings:
- KKV: Chapter 3
- Cunningham: Chapters “Directed acyclical graphs” & “Potential outcomes causal model”
- Pearl, Judea and Dana Mackenzie. 2018. “The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect.” Basic Books.
Week 7 (10/06): Discovering Natural Experiments (Virtual Visit by David Broockman)
Presentation: Francesco Bromo
Readings:
- Dunning: Chapters 1 & 2
- Sekhon, Jasjeet S. and Titiunik, Rocio. 2012. “When Natural Experiments Are Neither Natural nor Experiments.” American Political Science Review. 106(1):35–57.
- Cantoni, Davide and Noam Yuchtman. 2020. “Historical Natural Experiments: Bridging Economics and Economic History.” Prepared for the Handbook of Historical Economics. Link
Applications (pick one):
- Broockman, David E. and Evan J. Soltas. 2020. “A natural experiment on discrimination in elections.” Journal of Public Economics. 188(August 2020).
- Galiani, Sebastian and Ernesto Schargrodsky. 2010. “Property Rights for the Poor: Effects of Land Titling.” Journal of Public Economics 94(9):700-729.
Additional Readings:
- MMSS Chapter 6
- Blattman, Christopher and Jeannie Annan, 2010. “The Consequences of Child Soldiering.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press 92(4): 882-898.
- Hainmueller, Jens, and Hangartner, Dominik. 2013. “Who Gets a Swiss Passport? A Natural Experiment in Immigrant Discrimination.” American Political Science Review. 107(1):159–187.
Week 8 (10/13) Experiments (Virtual Visit by Pia Raffler)
Submit Introduction/Research Motivation
Presentation: Chen Shen
Readings:
- MM: Chapter 1
- Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 2012. “Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation.” Chapter 1. (On Google Drive)
- Duflo, Esther, Rachel Glennerster and Michael Kremer. 2007. “Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit.” http://economics.mit.edu/files/806 Chapters 4 & 5
Applications:
- Raffler, Pia. 2020. “Does Political Oversight of the Bureaucracy Increase Accountability? Field Experimental Evidence from an Electoral Autocracy.” Working Paper. Link
Additional Readings:
- Habyarimana, Humphreys, Posner, and Weinstein. 2006. “Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision? An Experimental Approach.” American Political Science Review. 109(4): 709-726.
- Paler, Laura. 2013. “Keeping the Public Purse: An Experiment in Windfalls, Taxes, and the Incentives to Restrain Government.” American Political Science Review 104(7): 706-725.
- Grossman, Guy, and Michelitch, Kristin. 2018. “Information Dissemination, Competitive Pressure, and Politician Performance between Elections: A Field Experiment in Uganda.” American Political Science Review. 112(2): 280–301.
- Gottlieb, Jessica. 2016. “Greater Expectations? A Field Experiment to Improve Accountability in Mali.” American Journal of Political Science. 60(1): 143-157.
- MMSS Chapter 7
Week 9 (10/20) Regression Discontinuity (Virtual Visit by Jacob Grumbach)
Review 1 Due
Presentation: Lu Sun
Readings:
- Dunning: Chapter 3 & section 5.2
- MM: chapter 4
- De Magalhães, Leandro and Dominik Hangartner, Salomo Hirvonen, Jaakko Meriläinen, Nelson Ruiz, and Janne Tukiainen. 2020. “How Much Should We Trust Regression Discontinuity Design Estimates? Evidence from Experimental Benchmarks of the Incumbency Advantage.” APSA Preprints. Link.
Applications (pick one):
- Dell, Melissa. 2010. “The Persistent Effects of Peru’s Mining Mita.” Econometrica 78(6): 1863-1903.
- Grumbach, Jacob M. and Sahn, Alexander. 2020. “Race and Representation in Campaign Finance.” American Political Science Review. 114(1): 206-221.
Additional readings:
- Dell, Melissa, and Pablo Querubin. 2018. “Nation Building Through Foreign Intervention: Evidence from Discontinuities in Military Strategies.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(2): 701-764.
- Brollo, Fernanda and Nannicini, Tommaso. 2012. “Tying Your Enemy’s Hands in Close Races: The Politics of Federal Transfers in Brazil.” American Political Science Review. 106(4): 742–61.
- Szakonyi, David. 2018. “Businesspeople in Elected Office: Identifying Private Benefits from Firm-Level Returns.” American Political Science Review. 112(2): 322–338.
- Cunningham: chapter “Regression discontinuity”
- Cattaneo, Matias D. and Idrobo, Nichol`as and Titiunik, Roc'io. 2018. “A Practical Introduction to Regression Discontinuity Designs: Volume II” Cambridge Elements: Quantitative and Computational Methods for Social Science. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~titiunik/books/CattaneoIdroboTitiunik2018-Cambridge-Vol2.pdf
- Calonico, Sebastian and Cattaneo, Matias D. and Titiunik, Rocio. 2014. “Robust nonparametric confidence intervals for regression-discontinuity designs. Econometrica. 82(6):2295-2326.
- Eggers, Andrew C. and Freier, Ronny and Grembi, Veronica and Nannicini, Tommaso. 2018. “Regression Discontinuity Designs Based on Population Thresholds: Pitfalls and Solutions.” American Journal of Political Science. 62(1):210-229.
- Ornstein, Joseph T. and Duck-Mayr, JBrandon. 2020. “Gaussian Process Regression Discontinuity.” Working Paper. Link
- De Magalhães, Leandro and Dominik Hangartner, Salomo Hirvonen, Jaakko Meriläinen, Nelson Ruiz, and Janne Tukiainen. 2020. “How Much Should We Trust Regression Discontinuity Design Estimates? Evidence from Experimental Benchmarks of the Incumbency Advantage.” APSA Preprints. Link.
Week 10 (10/27) Instrumental Variables
Presentation: Keigo Tanabe
Readings:
- Dunning: chapter 4 & section 5.3
- MM: chapter 3
Applications (pick one):
- Acharya, Avidit and Blackwell, Matthew and Sen, Maya. 2016. “The Political Legacy of American Slavery.” The Journal of Politics. 78(3): 621-641.
- Dittmar, Jeremiah E and Ralf R Meisenzahl. 2020. “Public Goods Institutions, Human Capital, and Growth: Evidence from German History.” The Review of Economic Studies. 87(2): 959–996.
Additional readings:
- Cunningham: chapter “Instrumental variables”
- Sovey, Allison and Donald P. Green. 2011. “Instrumental Variables Estimation in Political Science: A Readers’ Guide.” American Journal of Political Science, 55(1):188-200.
- Betz, Timm and Cook, Scott J. and Hollenbach, Florian M. 2019. “Spatial Interdependence and Instrumental Variable Models.”. Political Science Research and Methods. In Print.
Week 11 (MONDAY 11/02) Big Data & Machine Learning (Virtual Visit by Michelle Torres)
Presentation: Manuela Munoz
Readings:
- Egami, Naoki and Christian Fong and Margaret E. Roberts and Brandon M. Steward. 2020. “How to Make Causal Inferences Using Texts.” Working Paper. Link
- Torres, Michelle and Francisco Cantú. 2020. “Learning to See: Convolutional Neural Networks for the Analysis of Social Science Data.” Working Paper.
- Grimmer, Justin. 2015. “We Are All Social Scientists Now: How Big Data, Machine Learning, and Causal Inference Work Together” PS: Political Science & Politics. 48(1):80-83.
- Avenancio-León, Carlos and Troup Howard. 2020. “The Assessment Gap: Racial Inequalities in Property Taxation.”. Working Paper. Link
Week 12 (11/10) Surveys & Survey Experiments (virtual visit by Alicia Cooperman)
Presentation: Thiago Moreira
Readings:
- Fowler, Floyd J. 2009. “Applied Social Research Methods: Survey research methods (4th ed.).” SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Chapters 1 - 3 (available electronically through library)
- Hainmueller, Jens and Hangartner, Dominik and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2015. “Do survey experiments capture real-world behavior?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/28/1416587112.short
Applications (pick one):
- Cooperman, Alicia. 2020. “Trading Favors: Local Politics and Development in Brazil.” Working Paper. (On Google Drive)
- Blair, Graeme, Kosuke Imai, and Jason Lyall. 2014. “Comparing and Combining List and Endorsement Experiments: Evidence from Afghanistan.” American Journal of Political Science. 58(4):1043-1063.
Additional Readings:
- Abramson, Scott and Korhan Koçak and Asya Magazinnik. 2020. “What Do We Learn About Voter Preferences From Conjoint Experiments?” Working Paper. Link
- Ahlquist, John. 2018. “List Experiment Design, Non-Strategic Respondent Error, and Item Count Technique Estimators.” Political Analysis. 26(1):34-53.
- Malesky, Eddy J. and Gueorguiev, Dimitar D. and Jensen, Nathan M. 2015. “Monopoly Money: Foreign Investment and Bribery in Vietnam, a Survey Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science. 59(2):419-439.
- Lyall, Jason and Blair, Graeme and Imai, Kosuke. 2013. “Explaining Support for Combatants during Wartime: A Survey Experiment in Afghanistan.” American Political Science Review. 107(4):679–705.
- Frye, Timothy. 2006. “Original Sin, Good Works, and Property Rights in Russia: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” World Politics 58(4):479-504.
Week 13 (11/17) Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence (virtual visit by Tariq Thachil)
Review 2 due
Presentation: Hank Yang
Readings:
- Humphreys, Macarten, and Alan M. Jacobs. 2015. “Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach.” American Political Science Review. 109(4): 653-673.
- MMSS Chapter 8
- Lieberman, Evan I. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review. 99(3): 435-452.
Applications (pick one):
- Thachil, Tariq. 2017. “Do Rural Migrants Divide Ethnically in the City? Evidence from an Ethnographic Experiment in India.” American Journal of Political Science. 61(4):908-926.
- Lu, Yingdan and Jennifer Pan. 2020. “Capturing Clicks: How the Chinese Government Uses Clickbait to Compete for Visibility.” Political Communication, DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2020.1765914
Additional Readings:
- Cox, Gary W. and Jon H. Fiva and Daniel M. Smith. 2019. “Parties, Legislators, and the Origins of Proportional Representation.” Comparative Political Studies, 52(1), 102–133.
- Lyall, Jason and Wilson III, Isaiah. 2009. “Rage Against the Machines: Explaining Outcomes in Counterinsurgency Wars.” International Organization. 63(1): 67–106.
- Nichter, Simeon and Peress, Michael. 2017. “Request Fulfilling: When Citizens Demand Clientelist Benefits.” Comparative Political Studies. 50(8): 1086–1117.
- Paglayan, Agustina S. 2020. “The Non-Democratic Roots of Mass Education: Evidence from 200 Years.” American Political Science Review. Forthcoming.
- Street, Alex. 2014. “My Child Will Be a Citizen: Intergenerational Motives for Naturalization.” World Politics. 66(2): 264-292. doi:10.1017/S0043887114000033
Week 14 (11/24) Research Design Presentations
Week 15 (12/06)
Final Research Design Description due at 6 pm CET on December 6th