Originally published in 1983, this book locates the behavioural approach to the study of politics in its social science and historical context. The text reviews the findings in a number of fields - public opinion, electoral behaviour, political participation, policy outputs, political recruitment, political welfare and socialisation, among others. The book is comprehensive and when first published it was the first single-author study to integrate the diverse findings of many studies both from the UK and North America. It was particularly written for students on courses in political analysis, political methods, political sociology and political behaviour
Political science has its laws, and they can predict what will happen in politics. One such law can predict whether George Bush will be reelected President in 1992.It is true that political science is not politics. This relationship between the two is no different than that between any science and the reality which it analyzes. Every science is a repository of abstractions which model the critical aspects of a much more complex underlying phenomena. While some political scientists have expected a one-to-one, deterministic relationship between the science and the material it studied, most anticipated the "deterministic randomness" (or "chaos") paradigm becoming popular even in the physical sciences today. Deterministic, because the science assumes that there are intrinsic underlying laws; but random because, with the inherent complexity, much will necessarily remain unpredictable (in statistical terms, that there always will be an "e" in the equation).
It has now been four years of contested elections for the Council of the Association. In this note we ask: What can we learn about these elections from a political science perspective?
Intro -- Experimental Political Science -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Preface and Acknowledgments -- Notes on the Contributors -- Chapter 1 Introduction: Experimental Political Science in Perspective -- Part I Overview -- Chapter 2 Voting Behavior and Political Institutions: An Overview of Challenging Questions in Theory and Experimental Research -- Chapter 3 Laboratory Tests of Formal Theory and Behavioral Inference -- Chapter 4 Voting Mechanism Design: Modeling Institutions in Experiments -- Part II Experimental Designs -- Chapter 5 Strategic Voting in the Laboratory -- Chapter 6 Survey Experiments: Partisan Cues in Multi-party Systems -- Chapter 7 Experimental Triangulation of Coalition Signals: Varying Designs, Converging Results -- Part III Exploring and Analyzing Experimental Data -- Chapter 8 Statistical Analysis of Experimental Data -- Chapter 9 Experimental Chats: Opening the Black Box of Group Experiments -- Part IV Challenges to Inferences from Experiments -- Chapter 10 On the Validity of Laboratory Research in the Political and Social Sciences: The Example of Crime and Punishment -- Chapter 11 Gathering Counter-Factual Evidence: An Experimental Study on Voters' Responses to Pre-Electoral Coalitions -- Chapter 12 Using Time in the Laboratory -- Part V Conclusion -- 13 Conclusion: Ways Ahead in Experimental Political Science -- Appendix: Resources for Experimental Research in the Social Sciences -- Index.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
To a substantial extent, political scientists continue to be in a state of shock, or even denial, over the results of the November 1994 mid-term elections. This degree of surprise has been largely attributed to the failure of the 1994 elections to conform to numerous models that have successfully predicted past election results on the basis of some combination of presidential popularity and economic performance. In a broader sense, it has become fashionable to argue alternately that the voters weren't really saying anything, or that they did not know what they were saying, or that they were saying things not fit for polite company—angry, mean, and even racist things. Such an interpretation does a disservice both to our profession and to our friends and neighbors, the real people who cast those votes.It will be some time before we are able to untangle the factors that led to the Republican sweep and to see whether it was a short-term aberration or the beginning of a long-term trend in congressional elections. Nevertheless, I would like to offer a two-part explanation for the results and the consequent academic confusion: the election models that we use as both a tool and a crutch are at the same time not precise enough and too precise.They are not precise enough because they do not capture all that needs to be taken into account even on the dimensions of the economy and presidential popularity.
This book studies the history America's political parties and the challenges they face today. In the 2016 primaries the anti-establishment candidates had an early advantage with a wild-card quality that resonated with modern voters, demonstrating how drastically America's political climate has changed and the need for nonpartisan party reform
PROFESSOR LAZARSFELD ONCE REFERRED TO SOCIOLOGY AS BEING IN A sense a residuary legatee, the surviving part of a very general study, out of which specializations have successively been shaped.The same might be said of political science. In the West the first deliberate and reflective studies of political life were made in Greece at the end of the th century BC, and in the succeeding century. The histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, some of the pamphlets attributed to Xenophon, above all the normative and empirical studies of Plato and Aristotle were among the direct ancestors of contemporary political science. Parallel examples are to be found in the intellectual history of China, India and Islam. It seems that at certain stages in the development of great societies questions of legitimacy, power and leadership assume supreme importance; and intense intellectual effort, using the best analytical tools available, is devoted to the study of man as brought to a focus in the study of politics.
AbstractDemocratic governance has been a central tenant of leadership development in U.S. political science departments. The discipline of political science focuses on the development of engaged citizens and responsible leaders who can have a positive impact in their communities at all levels.
Over two decades ago, anthropologist Gayle Rubin began a now-classic article with a deceptively simple declaration: "The time has come to think about sex" (1984). Although Rubin was not the first thinker to place sex at the center of her work, her systematic sketch of Western sexual ideology made it possible to think about the political ramifications of sex in new and productive ways by disentangling the physical acts of sex from gender and sexuality (i.e., how we understand, interpret, and ascribe meaning to those acts). Among her many useful insights was the recognition that sex and sexuality are part of a hierarchical value system that serves as the basis for other forms of social, economic, and political power. Sex is the starting point of all human life and, consequently, sexuality subtends all other institutions from marriage to families, communities, states, and international organizations. What Foucault (1978) called biopower—the regulation of bodies, including sex—has continued to change and expand, giving rise to new forms of biopolitics—the regulation of populations and sexuality. Such regulations include moral policing and criminal sanctions, biomedical intervention, family and immigration laws, and a host of other tools that have tended to establish heterosexuality as the only normal and sanctioned sexual behavior. Regulating sex, and particularly reproduction, is an essential objective of the state because, ultimately, sex and reproduction are key to how the state regulates the fundamental element of its own composition: citizenship.
Vols. 4-38, 40-41 include Record of political events, Oct. 1, 1888-Dec. 31, 1925 (issued as a separately paged supplement to no. 3 of v. 31-38 and to no. 1 of v. 40) ; Microfilm. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Issued by the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York, 1909- ; by the Academy of Political Science, Edited by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University ; Vols. 1-15, 1886-1900. 1 v; Vols. 1-30, 1886-1915. 1 v.; Vols. 1-45, 1886-1930. 1 v.; Vols. 46-65, 1931-50. 1 v ; NEWS; MICROFILM 21252: See call no. H1 P8 for MAIN holdings on paper for this title. ; MAIN; AQ P66: Includes reprint editions when original not available ; SCP weekly serials 2007/2008. ; UPD
Recently we have witnessed a number of rapid shifts toward populism in the rhetoric and policies of major political parties, as exemplified in the 2016 Brexit Referendum, 2016 US Election, and 2017 UK General Election. Our perspective here is to focus on understanding the underlying societal processes behind these recent political shifts. We use novel methods to study social dynamics behind the 2016 Presidential election. This is done by using network science methods to identify key groups associated with the US right-wing during the election. We investigate how the groups grew on Twitter, and how their associated accounts changed their following behaviour over time. We find a new external faction of Trump supporters took a strong influence over the traditional Republican Party (GOP) base during the election campaign. The new group dominated the GOP group in terms of new members and endorsement via Twitter follows. Growth of new accounts for the GOP party all but collapsed during the campaign. While the Alt-right group was growing exponentially, it has remained relatively isolated. Counter to the mainstream view, we detected an unexpectedly low number of automated 'bot' accounts and accounts associated with foreign intervention in the Trump-supporting group. Our work demonstrates a powerful method for tracking the evolution of societal groups and reveals complex social processes behind political changes.
Recently we have witnessed a number of rapid shifts toward populism in the rhetoric and policies of major political parties, as exemplified in the 2016 Brexit Referendum, 2016 US Election, and 2017 UK General Election. Our perspective here is to focus on understanding the underlying societal processes behind these recent political shifts. We use novel methods to study social dynamics behind the 2016 Presidential election. This is done by using network science methods to identify key groups associated with the US right-wing during the election. We investigate how the groups grew on Twitter, and how their associated accounts changed their following behaviour over time. We find a new external faction of Trump supporters took a strong influence over the traditional Republican Party (GOP) base during the election campaign. The new group dominated the GOP group in terms of new members and endorsement via Twitter follows. Growth of new accounts for the GOP party all but collapsed during the campaign. While the Alt-right group was growing exponentially, it has remained relatively isolated. Counter to the mainstream view, we detected an unexpectedly low number of automated 'bot' accounts and accounts associated with foreign intervention in the Trump-supporting group. Our work demonstrates a powerful method for tracking the evolution of societal groups and reveals complex social processes behind political changes.
