Suchergebnisse

On Saturday, September 2, 2006, I staffed an event by my member at the
Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in
Philadelphia. So what, you say? Congressional Fellows are supposed to
staff events, right? Yes, but three years after my fellowship ended? To be
sure, I have continued to be part of the Congressional Fellowship Program
(CFP) in the last few years by continuing to work with staffers who were
my colleagues in Congress, giving talks to interested groups about my
experiences such as the recent presentation I gave on "How a Bill
Really Becomes a Law" at the Dirksen Congressional Center, attending
CFP events at conferences and in D.C., and generally keeping in touch with
the director of the program, Jeff Biggs, and other fellows. Despite all of
this, I never imagined I would end up staffing another event after I left
Capitol Hill.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of doing original research based on primary source material in scientific analysis (see, for example, King 1995). Failing to consult primary sources, and by definition relying on secondary sources, can lead to incorrect analyses and mistaken conclusions. An exemplary case is the apparent mystery of whether justices strategically retire and exactly when Congress passed legislation allowing federal judges to retire with benefits upon reaching age 65. One study cited 1937 as the year and based its analysis of judicial retirement on this "fact" (Abraham 1975). Subsequent studies cited the original piece without ever checking the original data—in this case a federal statute—and "replicated" the same mistaken analyses (see Atkinson 1999). In fact, the actual year this legislation was passed was 1954. This 17-year error not only makes a significant difference in the analysis of judicial retirement decisions, but also shows the importance of verification and replication in political research.