PS 800--POLITICAL SCIENCE AS A DISCIPLINE

 

FALL SEMESTER 1996

TUESDAY 3:30-5:25

350 BIRGE HALL

 

DAVID CANON AND RICHARD MERELMAN

416 NORTH HALL 407 NORTH HALL

PHONE: 263-2283 PHONE: 263-2035

HOURS: 2:30-3:30 M+W HOURS: Tues. 11-12:00,

and by appointment W 3:30-4:30, and by appointment

 

COURSE DESCRIPTION

 

This course begins by providing an overview of the theoretical approaches to studying politics and a survey of recent work in the four main subfields of the discipline (political philosophy, American politics, comparative politics, and international relations). We will spend the remainder of the semester addressing seven fundamental topics concerning political science as a discipline: the relationship between political engagement and political science; the connection between liberal democracy and political science; the scientific status of political science; the nature of explanation in political science; the range of evidence in political science; the implication of professionalization for political science; and the public ends political science might serve. These topics inhere within every substantive field within political science, within every piece of research (or they should!), and in teaching (mostly at the graduate level, but to some extent at the undergraduate level as well). Though abstract, these are eminently practical topics that every political scientist inevitably encounters. This course provides students an opportunity to address these topics directly, and to begin forming their own perspectives about political science as a discipline. The instructors are open to a wide range of positions and wish to stimulate reasoned dialogue on each topic.

 

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

 

1) The quality of this seminar depends on participation from all of you. Everyone is expected to read the required readings by the day of the seminar and be willing and able to participate meaningfully in discussions. It is essential to have a good understanding of each reading, not only individually but also how they fit together. Before each seminar you might want to make an outline of the questions and issues that you see as central to help you organize your thoughts for the week.

 

2) There will be a 10-12 page seminar paper that examines one of the seven topics outlined above and discussed in the seminar. The paper will allow you to go beyond the course readings and explore one of these questions in some detail. The first half of the paper should outline the various positions taken in the literature on your topic, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the views, and stake out a position of your own. The second half of the paper should show how this topic has played out in some specific topic in the substantive field that interests you most. For example, how has the roll call voting in Congress literature dealt with the problem of contextualism or to what extent does the balance of power theory in IR help stimulate political debate? Does the substantive literature that you examine show an adequate awareness of your topic? How close does the literature, as a whole, come to meeting the position that you outlined at the end of the first section of the paper?

 

3) You also will write a short paper (6-7 pages) comparing a political scientists' approach to a specific topic with that of other providers of knowledge, such as journalists, historians, biographers, sociologists, social psychologists, economists, anthropologists, documentary TV and film makers, etc. The task is to show what is distinctive to the political scientist's approach, as compared to one or more of these other observers of the political world. You should choose a specific topic--such as conflict between nations, political corruption, the performance of a specific political institution, religion in politics, etc.--and look at the topic through the "lens" of political science research and one competing purveyor of knowledge. Then compare and contrast the two approaches. What is distinctive about the political scientists' examination of the question, if anything?

 

4) Each of you will be responsible for a five-minute presentation on the relevance of a given weekís topic for the work in your chosen field of specialization. This presentation will provide a brief overview of how the research in your subfield addresses a specific problem. For example, does the literature on Congress engage the important issues of the day, or does it exhibit the same "absence of passion" noted by Ted Lowi? Are students of European politics sensitive to the problems posed by the hermeneutic approach? What impact have the post-modernists had on IR theory? Your review is not expected to be exhaustive (how much can you do in five minutes!); however, we do expect you to bring in some material that was not assigned for the week.

 

5) There will be a final examination. We will discuss the format of the exam in class.

 

COURSE EVALUATION Your final grade for the seminar will be determined as follows: the seminar paper and the final examination are 35% each, the short paper is 20%, and seminar participation (your five-minute presentation and your weekly contributions) will be 10%.

 

COURSE READINGS The course readings will be available for purchase at the Humanities Copy Center (1650 Humanities). There will also be a copy on reserve in the Graduate Student Reading Room on the third floor of North Hall. The number and length of readings varies from week to week (ranging from 50 to 170 pages a week, but averaging about 130 pages). A general disclaimer for those of you who may not recognize some of the authors in your area: the substantive articles assigned for this course do not comprise the "great" or "best" works in a given area; rather we chose the articles to illustrate a given perspective, question, or type of research. Also, there is one book that is available for purchase at the University Bookstore on State Street.

 

COURSE OUTLINE The readings for each week (with the exception of the first week) are organized in the following fashion: there are between one and three selections that discuss the general topic for the week and also at least three examples of this general topic, one from each of the substantive areas of political science (American, Comparative, and International Relations--these selections are always listed in this order). For most of the weeks, all of the readings are assigned for everyone, but in the weeks with a heavier reading load you may exclude one of the three substantive examples.

 

September 3rd--Separate Tables?

 

September 10th--A Whirlwind tour of the major theoretical approaches to studying political science

 

III. September 24th--What is the relationship between liberal democracy and political science?

 

IV. Can the study of politics be scientific?

 

A. October 1st--A positivist response.

 

B. October 8th--Interpretive and hermeneutic response.

 

C. October 15th--A post-structuralist response.

 

D. October 22nd--New approaches: Ideas and Interests

 

Peter Hall, The Political Power of Economic Ideas, (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989, concluding chapter.

Martin Hollis and Steve Smith. Explaining and Understanding in International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, Chapters 7-9.

 

V. What are the distinctive problems of explanation in political science?

 

A. October 29th--The problem of causal explanation.