Suchergebnisse

Why a primer on social science experiments? -- The scientific process and how to think about experiments -- Evaluating experiments: realism, validity, and samples -- Innovations in experimental designs: opportunities and limitations -- What to do before, during, and after an experiment -- Designing "good experiments.

Experiments are a central methodology in the social sciences. Scholars from every discipline regularly turn to experiments. Practitioners rely on experimental evidence in evaluating social programs, policies, and institutions. This book is about how to "think" about experiments. It argues that designing a good experiment is a slow moving process (given the host of considerations) which is counter to the current fast moving temptations available in the social sciences. The book includes discussion of the place of experiments in the social science process, the assumptions underlying different types of experiments, the validity of experiments, the application of different designs, how to arrive at experimental questions, the role of replications in experimental research, and the steps involved in designing and conducting "good" experiments. The goal is to ensure social science research remains driven by important substantive questions and fully exploits the potential of experiments in a thoughtful manner.

Laboratory experiments, survey experiments and field experiments occupy a central and growing place in the discipline of political science. The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science is the first text to provide a comprehensive overview of how experimental research is transforming the field. Some chapters explain and define core concepts in experimental design and analysis. Other chapters provide an intellectual history of the experimental movement. Throughout the book, leading scholars review groundbreaking research and explain, in personal terms, the growing influence of experimental political science. The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science provides a collection of insights that can be found nowhere else. Its topics are of interest not just to researchers who are conducting experiments today, but also to researchers who think that experiments can help them make new and important discoveries in political science and beyond.

AbstractThe twenty‐first century has been one of democratic backsliding. This has stimulated wide‐ranging scholarship on the causes of democratic erosion. Yet an overarching framework that identifies actors, behaviors, and decision processes has not been developed. I offer such a structure that includes elites (e.g., elected officials, the judiciary), societal actors (e.g., social movements, interest groups, media), and citizens. I discuss erosive threats stemming from each actor and the concomitant role of psychological mechanisms. The framework highlights the challenge of arriving at a holistic explanation of erosion within a given country during a finite period. It also accentuates why scholars should regularly consider the implications of their specific findings for democratic stability. I conclude by discussing various lessons and suggestions for how to study democratic backsliding.

Persuasion is a vital part of politics—who wins elections and policy disputes often depends on which side can persuade more people. Given this centrality, the study of persuasion has a long history with an enormous number of theories and empirical inquiries. However, the literature is fragmented, with few generalizable findings. I unify previously disparate dimensions of this topic by presenting a framework focusing on actors (speakers and receivers), treatments (topics, content, media), outcomes (attitudes, behaviors, emotions, identities), and settings (competition, space, time, process, culture). This Generalizing Persuasion (GP) Framework organizes distinct findings and offers researchers a structure in which to situate their work. I conclude with a discussion of the normative implications of persuasion.

Science is often considered the best available route to knowledge and, thus, essential for societal progress. Yet contemporary science faces several challenges. These challenges include politicization, misinformation, and inequalities. I outline each of these threats, detailing the ways in which they can undermine the optimal production and application of science. I provide an overview of various research agendas on each, as covered in this volume. Without minimizing the seriousness posed by each threat, I also suggest that existing work provides reason for hope that the scientific enterprise can address these challenges and continue to improve societal well-being.

The American Political Science Association (APSA) connects scholars from varying fields, perspectives, backgrounds, and educational institutions. A microcosm of this diversity can be found on the APSA Council of which I currently have the privilege of being a member. At a recent council meeting, discussion turned to APSA's Teaching and Learning Conference. The conference serves as a venue in which many political scientists define their professional communities, yet, it regularly operates at a financial loss for APSA. Thus the question is what APSA can/should do to continue the conference without suffering a financial loss. The conversation proceeded with a variety of intriguing suggestions, although a solution was not reached. Through much of the discussion, an unstated reality clearly loomed in people's minds. Eventually one of the council members-who is an acclaimed teacher and scholar-stated what I imagine was on everyone's mind: there is a two-tiered system such that most professors at major research universities have scant incentive to invest in undergraduate teaching, and professors at many colleges have reason to excel in the classroom. The disparity manifests itself in a number of trends including the growth of nontenure track faculty at research universities and the anecdotal, but evident, fact that undergraduate course releases constitute an invaluable commodity that regularly becomes part of negotiations for those at research universities. Adapted from the source document.

From the turn of the century through the 1940s, political science was dominated by the study of formal political institutions, philosophical discourse, and descriptive history. Formal rules, such as constitutions, were seen as determining social outcomes. A major shift occurred in the 1950s with the rise of behavioralism (although the beginnings of the movement can be traced to the 1920s; see Dahl 1961; Lane 1987; Simon 1985). Behavioralism 'reversed the causal relationship that had been posited by formal legalism. Societal forces were viewed as the independent variable [and] political outcomes were determined primarily by the preferences and power capabilities of societal actors' (Krasner 1984, 229). More generally, behavioralism represented a change in political science toward more 'scientific' approaches: the goal is to state 'all phenomena of government in terms of observed and observable behavior of men...research must be systematic.... This means that research must grow out of a precise statement of hypothesis and a rigorous ordering of evidence...[and] research in political behavior must place primary emphasis upon empirical methods....The ultimate goal of the student of political behavior is the development of a science of the political process' (Truman 1951: 37-39, as cited in Dahl 1961). Two implications for research and teaching followed. First, scholars increasingly studied public opinion, voting, communications, and other aspects of 'political behavior.' Second, in some ways, the increased usage of what many viewed as a more 'scientific' method meant the collection and analysis of quantifiable data. I suspect it was at this point that statistics and other methodological undergraduate courses were introduced into curricula. On its face this suggests that prior to engaging in political behavior research, students need to acquire requisite methodological training. This would make merging of teaching and research in the field of political behavior a challenge. I suggest an alternative approach where research and undergraduate teaching (in political behavior) can be merged and viewed as a single endeavor. This can be done by incorporating the class in to one's own research, and/or ensuring students undertake complete or partial social science efforts at discovery. In what follows, I provide examples from my own experience teaching and researching in the field of political behavior. To be clear, my intent is not to minimize the importance of undergraduate methods courses and the need for such skills when it comes to particular steps in the research process. However, these courses are not a prerequisite for conducting research with undergraduates, and, in fact, exposing students to courses that incorporate research may stimulate them to pursue further methodological training. I suggest that merging teaching and research can be mutually beneficial to teachers and students. Adapted from the source document.