Search results

This article reports on an interpretive content analysis of fourteen research methods texts. We read them as a genre -- exploring their structural & rhetorical features -- to address two questions: To what extent do research methods texts reflect the breadth of methods used in political science & its fields? To what extent do they reflect contemporary ferment concerning questions of social reality & its "knowability?" These questions are intertwined with each other -- epistemological positions on what counts as "science" affect the methods presented -- & with the misleading distinction between "quantitative" & "qualitative" methods. Although these texts vary considerably in the degree to which they engage epistemological issues, all fourteen texts explicitly endorsed or implicitly assumed positivist definitions of science, which can be seen in their treatments of "qualitative" methods issues. Interpretive methods of data access & analysis are almost entirely "disappeared," & positivist qualitative methods of data access receive treatment that ranges from poor to excellent. This textual consensus on positivism as the mode of scientific research in political science has implications for professional practice in four areas: the possibility of field-neutral methods texts, student research agendas, disciplinary meanings associated with "method" & "methodology," & researchers' professional identity as political scientists. 1 Table, 54 References. Adapted from the source document.

Discusses the state of teaching and scholarship of environmental politics within academic institutions, by reviewing over 40 syllabi for mostly undergraduate classes; US.

Although most of this essay relates to the work of political scientists, some of it deals with the writings of others who have contributed to our understanding of the government and politics of Canada. It would be a perverse and superficial student of our political institutions indeed who confined himself to the scholarship of political scientists without familiarizing himself at least in a general way with the writings, for example, of historians Ramsay Cook and W. L. Morton, sociologists S. D. Clark and John Porter, economists John Dales and Harry Johnson, legal scholars Edward McWhinney and Frank Scott, and, outside the bounds of Academia proper, journalists Peter Newman and Claude Ryan, and practising public administrators A. W. Johnson and Herbert Balls.

Like his colleagues generally in the social sciences, the political scientist has prided himself upon the subject-matter content of his teaching. His responsibility has been to enlarge the understanding of the dynamic process by which men govern and are governed. Teaching and research have been coördinate elements of that responsibility. Constantly seeking to find better techniques for observation and measurement of political phenomena, ever trying to define more exactly the field of interest and knowledge, the political scientist has always focused attention upon the subject-matter of his specialization. He has had little time to devote to the problems of teaching methodology.The very fact that higher education has been selective is another possible explanation for our seeming indifference to improvements in teacher-student communication. From necessity, teachers' colleges and the educational profession have given considerable attention to teaching techniques. Primary and secondary schools are intended for mass education. If they fulfill their purpose, they reach virtually all of the population from six to sixteen years of age. The college teacher has had no such mass obligation. Traditionally, only some ten per cent of our high school population continue with higher education, and they are usually divided among the various fields of learning represented in colleges and universities. Selectivity and a limited audience have encouraged the college instructor to concentrate upon subject-matter and to ignore methodology.Political scientists certainly have no reason to offer any apologies for their primary interest.

The face of higher education is changing. One major trend is the fact that students are taking an increasing proportion of their courses online. That is, a growing number of students at not-for-profit private and public colleges and universities are taking some of their course work online and completing other parts in face-to-face courses. What impact does this mix of online and in-person course modalities have on student success? We answer this question by looking at political science majors at a large public university in the USA, taking into account demographics, achievement, and the mix of course modalities the students take (n = 1173). Through descriptive statistics, regression analysis, and predicted probabilities, we analyze how the mix of course modalities students enroll in impacts student success and retention. Results indicate that the success of all students declines as they take a greater proportion of their course load online. As universities seek to address this trend in higher education, they need to be particularly sensitive to ways to increase the success of online learners. Considering the needs of online learners is particularly relevant in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has prompted the shift to online education across the USA and elsewhere, a trend that is likely to continue in the future.