Suchergebnisse

A recent stream of influential research suggests that the inclusion of behavioral genetic models can further inform our understanding of political preferences and behaviors. But it has often remained unclear what these models mean, or how they might matter for the broader discourse in the political science literature. The initial wave of behavioral genetic research focused on foundational discovery, and has begun to outline the basic properties of genetic influence on political traits, while a second wave of research has begun to link genetic findings to broader aspects of political behaviors. In the introduction to this special issue, we explicate how genes operate, the most common forms of behavioral genetic analyses, and their recent applications toward political behaviors. In so doing, we discuss what these findings mean for political science, and describe how best to interpret them. We note potential limitations of behavioral genetic approaches and remain cautious against the overextension of such models. The five articles that follow strive to move beyond discovery and focus more on the integration of behavioral genetic models with mainstream theories of political behavior to analyze problems of interest to political scientists.

A recent stream of influential research suggests that the inclusion of behavioral genetic models can further inform our understanding of political preferences and behaviors. But it has often remained unclear what these models mean, or how they might matter for the broader discourse in the political science literature. The initial wave of behavioral genetic research focused on foundational discovery, and has begun to outline the basic properties of genetic influence on political traits, while a second wave of research has begun to link genetic findings to broader aspects of political behaviors. In the introduction to this special issue, we explicate how genes operate, the most common forms of behavioral genetic analyses, and their recent applications toward political behaviors. In so doing, we discuss what these findings mean for political science, and describe how best to interpret them. We note potential limitations of behavioral genetic approaches and remain cautious against the overextension of such models. The five articles that follow strive to move beyond discovery and focus more on the integration of behavioral genetic models with mainstream theories of political behavior to analyze problems of interest to political scientists. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]

Historically, student assessment in the Political Science Department at Fort Hays State University wasleft to the individual faculty member to embed into his or her courses via exams and writingassignments. Our curriculum and learning objectives were based largely on faculty interest in particularcourses and on broad perspectives of what substantive knowledge a political science major shoulddemonstrate. Over the years, writing courses such as advanced research methods and upper divisiontheory courses served as unofficial capstone experiences. As such, approaches and expectationsvaried depending upon who was delivering the course.

Evidential pluralism has been used to justify mixed-method research in political science. The combination of methodologies within (qualitative) case study analysis, however, has not received as much attention. This article applies the theory of evidential pluralism to causal inference in the case study method process tracing. I argue that different methodologies for process tracing commit to distinct fundamental theories of causation. I show that, problematically, one methodology may not recognize as genuine knowledge the fundamental claims of the other. By evaluating the epistemic reliability of these fundamental claims, we can find a way out of such conflicts and rescue pluralism.

Theories of contracting out offer contrasting perspectives on the noneconomic determinants of local government contracting. Some suggest that ideological motives predominate, with contracting decisions reflecting the ideology of ruling parties. Others emphasize political motives, with governments responding to local preferences. In this article, we draw on ideas about isomorphic pressures within organizational fields to examine whether institutional influences might also affect contracting behaviour. Using a spatial auto-regressive probit model, we evaluate whethermimetic pressures as well as ideological and political motives shape the decision to contract out service provision in English local governments. In addition, we analyse whether those factors also determine whether contracting local governments decide to contract with a commercial firm or a not-for-profit provider. The statistical results suggest that the decision to contract out is spatially dependent, and hence reflective of institutional forces. By contrast, political motives and market size considerations shape with whom local governments contract.

ABSTRACTUndergraduate research (UGR) is a "high-impact practice" that has been consistently shown to effectively promote desirable student-learning outcomes (SLOs) including critical thinking, logic, written and oral communication, problem solving, and interpretation of evidence, especially among minority and disadvantaged students. Mentoring quality UGR experiences in regular upper-level political science courses, however, is a difficult and time-consuming activity. This article describes an attempt to provide an intensive, semester-long, and group-based UGR experience in an upper-level American politics course. It discusses how this experience was designed to deliberately foster specific institutional UGR SLOs and summarizes student perceptions of the overall effectiveness of the experience.

Principal-agent models in public administration concentrate upon policy drift-when agencies allow policy to drift away from the bliss point of executive politicians. We distinguish two types of policy drift: policy shifting and agent shirking. The first occurs when agents' political bliss points are located differently from those of their principals. The second occurs when agents do not competently carry out their principals' wishes. One response to policy shift is to appoint agents who share the bliss point of the principal, allowing the reduction of costly monitoring. Through 10 cases in three Israeli cities where political appointments were made to push through structural changes to contract out services, we show that political appointees are less effective than career bureaucrats, so that solving shifting often increases shirking, especially when monitoring is reduced. The agency problems thus created were only solved by increasing monitoring and returning to career civil servants.

First published online: 29 January 2021 ; Qualitative political science research can significantly increase its credibility if researchers take robust steps toward replicability and enhanced transparency. Making explicit decisions on planning and implementing research, together with commitment to comprehensive reporting, improves transparency. Three instruments serve to this objective: in the planning stage, research protocols map prospective actions in the implementation of research. In the implementing stage, research notebooks permit recording all decisions, deviations and events affecting research. Practical and ethical considerations may prevent the full disclosure of these research notebooks, and, hence, carefully drafted research implementation records provide, in the publication stage, a useful instrument to convey this information. Increased transparency (as created by the use of these three instruments) will lead to better options for replicability, and this, in turn, will increase the validity of qualitative research and dispel some of the concerns about its methodological soundness.

The motor of international politics has been war among the leading states. The most developed states in the international system—the United States, Western Europe, and Japan—form what Karl Deutsch called a security community, which is a group of countries among which war is unthinkable. These states are the most powerful ones in the world and, so, are traditional rivals. Thus the change is striking and consequential. Constructivists explain this in terms of changed ideas and identities; liberals point to democracy and economic interest; realists stress the role of nuclear weapons and American hegemony. My own explanation combines the high cost of war, the gains from peace, and the values that are prevalent within the security community. Whatever the cause, the existence of the community will bring with it major changes in international politics and calls into question many traditional theories of war.