Suchergebnisse

Why have governments responded to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in such different ways? During the past quarter century, international agencies and donors have disseminated vast resources and a set of best practice recommendations to policymakers around the globe. Yet the governments of developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean continue to implement widely varying policies. Boundaries of Contagion is the first systematic, comparative analysis of the politics of HIV/AIDS. The book explores the political challenges of responding to a stigmatized condition, and identifies ethnic boundaries--the formal and informal institutions that divide societies--as a central influence on politics and policymaking. --From publisher's description.

This response to Prof. Lieberman's essay questions its analogy between "biomedical research" and the academic discipline of political science. Focused on the disanalogy of scope and scale between the two, it takes issue not with the "criterial framework" he offers, but with the quality of argumentation that leads us there. Supplementing the essay's impressionistic account of editorial practice with evidence drawn from the New England Journal of Medicine and the publishing history of APSA journals since the 1960s, I suggest that the issue here is not simply editorial virtue and professional norms, but differences in the material and institutional bases of the journals' alternative publication models.

In sciences such as biomedicine, researchers and journal editors are well aware that progress in answering difficult questions generally requires movement through a research cycle: Research on a topic or problem progresses from pure description, through correlational analyses and natural experiments, to phased randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In biomedical research all of these research activities are valued and find publication outlets in major journals. In political science, however, a growing emphasis on valid causal inference has led to the suppression of work early in the research cycle. The result of a potentially myopic emphasis on just one aspect of the cycle reduces incentives for discovery of new types of political phenomena, and more careful, efficient, transparent, and ethical research practices. Political science should recognize the significance of the research cycle and develop distinct criteria to evaluate work at each of its stages.

In sciences such as biomedicine, researchers and journal editors are well aware that progress in answering difficult questions generally requires movement through a research cycle: Research on a topic or problem progresses from pure description, through correlational analyses and natural experiments, to phased randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In biomedical research all of these research activities are valued and find publication outlets in major journals. In political science, however, a growing emphasis on valid causal inference has led to the suppression of work early in the research cycle. The result of a potentially myopic emphasis on just one aspect of the cycle reduces incentives for discovery of new types of political phenomena, and more careful, efficient, transparent, and ethical research practices. Political science should recognize the significance of the research cycle and develop distinct criteria to evaluate work at each of its stages.

The proliferation of historically oriented replication data has provided great opportunities for political scientists to develop and to test theories relevant to a range of macrohistorical phenomena. But what is the quality of such data? Are the codings or quantitative mappings of historical events, processes, and unit characteristics based on sufficiently solid foundations equivalent to those found in detailed case studies? This article evaluates a set of the most transparently disseminated replication datasets across a variety of research domains from the perspective of best-practice qualitative-historical research. It identifies a wide range of practices, highlighting both fundamental and innovative standards that might be adopted in future research. Adapted from the source document.