Statistical analysis is common in the social sciences, and among the more popular programs is R. This text provides a foundation for undergraduate and graduate students in the social sciences on how to use R to manage, visualise, and analyse data. The focus is on how to address substantive questions with data analysis and replicate published findings. The work adopts a minimalist approach and covers only the most important functions and skills in R to conduct reproducible research. It emphasizes the practical needs of students using R by showing how to import, inspect, and manage data, understand the logic of statistical inference, visualise data and findings via histograms, boxplots, scatterplots, and diagnostic plots, and analyse data using one-sample t-test, difference-of-means test, covariance, correlation, ordinary least squares regression, and model assumption diagnostics.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
The Idea of Governance and the Spirit of Chinese Neoliberalism -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1 Discovering the Neoliberal Soul in China -- Conceptualizing the Spirit of Modern Capitalism -- Ideal Type as an Interpretive Tool -- The Ideal Types of the Spirit of Capitalism -- Engaging in the Idea of Governance -- The Market-Centered Approach to Governance -- The Network-Centered Approach to Governance -- The Third Way to Interpret Governance -- The Outline of the Book -- Notes -- 2 The Engine of Chinese Neoliberalism -- Introduction -- The Components of Neoliberalism -- Stage One: Tactical Neoliberalism -- Stage Two: Expedient Neoliberalism -- Stage Three: Consolidating Neoliberalism -- Conclusion: The Neoliberal Condition in Today's China -- Notes -- 3 Governance for Harmony: An Ideological Configuration -- Introduction -- The Modern Interpretation of Harmony -- The Superior Principle in Governance -- The Narrative of Governance Reality -- Agenda for Improving Governance -- Conclusion: The Ascendancy of Neoliberal Plutocracy -- Notes -- 4 Constructing a Chinese Version of Governance Discourse -- Introduction -- The Initial Stage of Discursive Formation -- Setting a Research Agenda on Political Reforms -- Early Efforts by the Liberals -- The Compromise from Marxists -- The Subsequent Stage of Paradigmatic Formation -- A Path-Breaking Synthesis -- Rapid Reception and Fleeting Suspicion -- Empirical Expansion of Governance -- Conclusion: Forming a Discursive Alliance of Governance -- Notes -- 5 Reflections on Critical Engagement -- The Chinese Version of Governance in Comparison -- Lessons for Interpretive Analysis -- Studying Governance as a Radical Reformer -- Notes -- Appendix I Interview Method and Informant Pool -- Appendix II Sampling Method for Governance Texts
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
This book offers a critical assessment of governance ideas in the context of Chinese neoliberalism. It argues that the Chinese version of governance has emerged as an important discursive practice in the articulation of the neoliberal spirit of the national reform agenda. The book first examines the institutional and intellectual background of governance ideas, capturing the key features of neoliberalization in transitional China. The main body of investigation is an interpretive analysis of governance in terms of its normative principles and technical skills, which effectively package the mature neoliberal vision and reality so that it indicates the dominant ruling structure of Chinese neoliberalism. The subsequent analysis presents a genealogical review of governance discourse and traces its adaptation to local neoliberal experiments. The book concludes with reflections on possible ways of critical engagement with governance ideas and with the intellectual aspects of neoliberalism. The audience of this book is international academics in the field of political studies. Specialists and students who are interested in the intellectual history of governance, the comparative study of governance theory and praxis, and the political thought of contemporary China, will find this book most relevant and useful.--
Abstract This article suggests a theological proposal for envisioning the relationship between the church and state in the context of the Chinese neoliberal regime. It consists of three interrelated tasks. First, I argue that the rise of a neoliberal state has shaped the Chinese political landscape over the past four decades and constrained the collective responses of the Chinese house churches in their cooperative and negotiating strategies. Then, I examine two recent theological announcements by the church leaders and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses in addressing the principles of church–state relations. This critical analysis is followed by a rediscovery of Barth's theological politics of priestly witness, which has laid the Christological foundation for the integrity of faith communities and shed light on their primary concerns and actions towards the Chinese neoliberal state. In this way, I seek to contribute to the ongoing discussion of Chinese political theology by offering a nascent analysis of the political system encountered by the house churches and reclaiming Barth's theological legacy for these churches in public witness.
Half a century after the "Second Great Debate" in international relations (IR) started, scholars still perceive the qualitative versus quantitative division as their principal divide, and yet we do not have a good grasp of the impact of this divide. My research explores how the divide shaped the incentives and behaviors of scholars and influenced the organization of our academic communities and knowledge production. The impact of the divide expressed itself in the distribution of research among methodologies in terms of relative quantity and impact. Less obviously, and yet more importantly, the divide influenced the distribution of quantitative research among different institution types, across fields and journals, and with respect to policy engagement. Using the TRIP database of 7,792 IR articles in twelve top journals from 1980 to 2014, I classify journal articles into three categories—quantitative-only, qualitative-only, and mixed-methods—and categorize author institutions into similar types—publishing quantitative research only, producing nonquantitative work only, and publishing various proportions of quantitative research. Notably, qualitative and quantitative works switched positions over time in terms of relative quantity and impact, with quantitative research more likely published but only slightly more cited in the recent decade. More importantly, the divide produced other less obvious but more serious outcomes. Among 1,111 institutions that ever published IR research in twelve top journals over thirty-five years, two-thirds published nonquantitative research only; fifty-three institutions published more than half of all quantitative articles; institutions publishing quantitative-only or nonquantitative-only research constituted two modal categories. Political science journals published more quantitative research, persistently and with growing convergence; IR journals also evolved toward publishing more quantitative research though with persistent divergence and forming two clusters. Quantitative articles and political science journals were significantly less engaged in providing policy prescriptions than qualitative articles and IR journals. To overcome this lasting and self-perpetuating divide, we must better understand its impact, learn to appreciate alternative approaches, and change the way we train future scholars.
AbstractHalf a century after the "Second Great Debate" in international relations (IR) started, scholars still perceive the qualitative versus quantitative division as their principal divide, and yet we do not have a good grasp of the impact of this divide. My research explores how the divide shaped the incentives and behaviors of scholars and influenced the organization of our academic communities and knowledge production. The impact of the divide expressed itself in the distribution of research among methodologies in terms of relative quantity and impact. Less obviously, and yet more importantly, the divide influenced the distribution of quantitative research among different institution types, across fields and journals, and with respect to policy engagement. Using the TRIP database of 7,792 IR articles in twelve top journals from 1980 to 2014, I classify journal articles into three categories—quantitative-only, qualitative-only, and mixed-methods—and categorize author institutions into similar types—publishing quantitative research only, producing nonquantitative work only, and publishing various proportions of quantitative research. Notably, qualitative and quantitative works switched positions over time in terms of relative quantity and impact, with quantitative research more likely published but only slightly more cited in the recent decade. More importantly, the divide produced other less obvious but more serious outcomes. Among 1,111 institutions that ever published IR research in twelve top journals over thirty-five years, two-thirds published nonquantitative research only; fifty-three institutions published more than half of all quantitative articles; institutions publishing quantitative-only or nonquantitative-only research constituted two modal categories. Political science journals published more quantitative research, persistently and with growing convergence; IR journals also evolved toward publishing more quantitative research though with persistent divergence and forming two clusters. Quantitative articles and political science journals were significantly less engaged in providing policy prescriptions than qualitative articles and IR journals. To overcome this lasting and self-perpetuating divide, we must better understand its impact, learn to appreciate alternative approaches, and change the way we train future scholars.
Abstract.This article examines how institutional uncertainty within the US federal circuit courts influences regulatory agencies' enforcement choices of prosecution or non-prosecution. I argue that the circuits' random assignment of judges and cases creates institutional uncertainty in terms of variation in each circuit's possible rulings with respect to the bureaucracy's policy position. This, in turn, affects agencies' probability of prosecution because the high degree of uncertainty will discourage prosecution, given its cost. In other words, agencies reduce their exposure to judicial review by avoiding prosecution. I use ideological variance within the circuits as a proxy for measuring the circuit courts' internal group dynamics. Large ideological variance indicates high institutional uncertainty and consequently leads to fewer numbers of prosecutions by the bureaucracy. The empirical results based on the prosecution record of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice from 1950 to 1994 strongly support the theory.Résumé.L'article analyse comment l'imprévisibilité des décisions judiciaires au niveau des cours d'appel fédérales de circuit influence les décisions par les agences publiques de poursuivre les contrevenants à la règlementation. Je montre que l'attribution des juges et des causes par loterie crée de l'incertitude quant à l'issue des poursuites. L'incertitude réduit la probabilité que les agences publiques entament des poursuites judiciaires étant donné le coût élevé de celles-ci. En d'autres termes, les agences publiques atténuent l'implémentation de la règlementation par crainte de perdre devant des tribunaux imprévisibles. J'utilise une mesure de variance idéologique pour quantifier la dynamique de groupe à l'intérieur des circuits judiciaires. Une grande variance idéologique signifie un résultat incertain et mène à un nombre réduit de poursuites initiées par les agences publiques. Les données empiriques, provenant des registres de la Division Anti-trust du Ministère de la Justice des États-Unis pour la période s'étendant de 1950 à 1994, soutiennent fortement la théorie.
