Old American Rumors
posted by American and Comparative Politics Job Blog at 5/01/2007 09:35:00 AM
American and Comparative Jobs
Hello bloggers! As requested, I have turned off comment moderation. But, if it becomes a personal free-for-all I will ask someone else to manage the blog because I do not have time to devote to continuously deleting comments.
1114 Comments:
Wow I'm first and have nothing to say.
You think you've got nothing to say? This comment is even more worthless.
Don't worry, over time plenty of others will chip in with uninformative comments.
HERBERT KORNFELD DEAD!
Funny thing is. These posts are an improvement over what is usually posted on these poli sci blog/boards.
Right; as if anything *I* would have to say would be uninformative.
Sheesh.
Speculation on what jobs will be available next year?
What American searches failed last year? That's not a bad way to start a speculative list.
West Virginia has a slot that they did not hire this year. They will reopen it next year.
Question: When a search for an Assistant Professor position fails because the committee couldn't find "suitable" candidates, is the position more likely to turn into a search for an Associate Professor the following year (given adequate funding)?
Elon is going to try their search again next year.
Is Millikin still actively searching, or are they going to start again in the fall?
Among others: Elon, High Point, the notorious Northern Iowa, UNO, and Tulane. Probably Millikin unless they scored someone out of Midwest.
Lafayette is waiting until Fall 2009. I doubt WNEC tries again.
Table also reports Columbia, Kent State, and Wright State as unfilled. They also report a Michigan "no hire" but I heard a rumor they got Jacoby to come over from E. Lansing.
Assuming most of the 'declined' didn't fill, you can add: 1 Western Kentucky position, Stephen F. Austin, UIC, and James Madison U.
Based on ads for one-years and known moves, you can probably add: Missouri State, Grand Valley State, Southern Indiana, Sac State, Williams, Idaho, Central Florida, Georgetown, New Hampshire, Montana, UT-Austin, Indiana State, Wash. State, Southern California, and Northwestern.
Florida State will probably try to poach senior again and also continue its quixotic effort to get an experimental behavior person.
Anyone know why certain job searches failed this year?
Elon?
Lafayette?
Illinois-Urbana?
Kent State?
here's two predictions - 1;University of Miami will get no hiring authority next year and 2;one of their two new hires will leave next year. source on prediction 1: an admin type who knows their new dean and got into a conversation in a social setting recently and source number two - a conversation at midwest
I phone interviewed with Lafayette a few years back for this position. The search committee/department is a mess. They seemed divided about "fit"
Re 1:55's forecasts, Florida State hired one experimentalist in its "quixotic" efforts.
Lafayette doesn't seem to have a clue what they want; they need a quantitatively-oriented Americanist, but for whatever reason they can't find one that fits their mold (very mid-20th-century political science). Go figure.
I think a lot of places got fewer applicants than they expected (one tenure-track job I'm aware of had less than a dozen applicants), lost their first choice, and didn't trust that #2/#3 out of their shallow pool was "good enough" - so no hire. I don't know first-hand on Elon or Kent State, but that could have been their issue.
I don't pretend to know what is up with Millikin, but I heard they terminated the contract of their old Americanist just after he had a serious medical problem. Maybe they're not finding many prospective faculty who want to subject themselves to a full medical workup before an offer... or are just trying to play "guess the disease that this person will get" with interviewees.
On failed searches: most get readvertised at the junior level.
Add Emory to the list; according to the Wiki, they had three positions open this year and only hired two. I believe the third line was for a quant-formal type doing judicial.
"... is the position more likely to turn into a search for an Associate Professor the following year (given adequate funding)?"
Probably not. Most deans hate having to do that - even in departments that need more experienced people.
"Jacoby to come over from E. Lansing."
WHAT?
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Jacoby to UMich, really?
You would also think Georgia would replace Lockerbie.
American U will continue it's endless attempt to hire.
I am out of town and have very little internet access. I am going to un-moderate the blog so can everyone avoid being offensive for the next few weeks! :)
From what I understand the Dean and the faculty at Elon could not agree on a candidate so they decided to hire no one and try again in the fall.
re: Elon, this has apparently happened more than once over the past six or seven years...
I've heard (third hand and a couple months back) two things about Emory's search plans: 1) they want to fill multiple positions in American, and 2) formal theory will not be a requirement because they feel they got that this year.
I'm not very confident that this info is accurate. But hey, it is a rumor blog. Maybe somebody in the know can confirm or (more likely) deny.
Kent State had one round of interviews in the fall, lost their top candidate. It is not clear if they made other offers out of that first round or not.
Second round of candidates in January, they lost at least one of the candidates and decided not to hire until next year.
The gossip I heard at Midwest was that the process was complicated by disagreement between junior and senior members of the department, and the department deferred to the junior members.
They want to hire someone who does behavior, but also does policy and can contribute to their PhD program in public policy. There aren't many people out there like that, and so my guess is that they will either change what they are looking for or have difficulty hiring next year as well. They are trying to replace Tolbert, and those are some pretty big shoes to fill.
I'd assume Duke will have searches. They have been trying to hire in American for ages with no success (latest failed search was Ting's, before that Lupia & Gerber, etc).
And their one behavior person (junior) is leaving.
Who did Emory get this year that does formal theory?
From the REp board:
Berkeley's REP/POC offers/recruitments:
(1) Sarah Song: political theory, in the areas of race, gender, and immigration. Currently Ass't Prof at MIT. Offer of joint appointment with the Law School. Offer accepted.
(2) Archon Fung: metro studies/political theory, focus on participatory democracy and urban governance. Currently Ass't Prof at Harvard/Kennedy School. Offer out; Harvard is putting him up for tenure; Berkeley voting to bump offer up to tenure. No decision yet.
(3) Lisa Garcia-Bedolla: Latino politics, immigrant political socialization and incorporation. Currently Assoc. w/tenure at UC-Irvine. Offer from Berkeley Ed School, w/courtesy appt. in Poli Sci. No decision yet.
(4) Vincent Hutchings: public opinion, voting behavior, African American politics. Currently Assoc. w/tenure at Michigan. Offer is likely forthcoming.
(5) Mike Ting: American political institutions, bureaucracy, game theory. Currently Assoc. w/tenure at Columbia. Berkeley offer is joint w/Public Policy and Political Science.
(6) Tommie Shelby: philosophy of race, African American political thought. Currently Assoc. at Harvard. Bumped up to tenure at Harvard; offer at Columbia. Berkeley offer joint w/Philosophy and Law School. No decision yet.
(7) Matt Barreto: public opinion, voting behavior, Latino politics. Currently Ass't at U-W. Recruitment fell through; lack of support in subfield in Berkeley PoliSci.
Didn't David Rohde go to Duke just a year or two ago? This seems like some success to me. Would like to have someone with Rohde's record in my dept.
Lockerbie is leaving Georgia? Where is he going?
The wiki says Lockerbie is going to be the chair at Eastern Carolina.
Career Development Fellowship in Politics (3 yr position)
University of Oxford
http://jobs.ac.uk/jobfiles/
RH518.html
OK, so I have to ask--why would Lockerbie leave Georgia to be chair at a directional campus? Am I missing something here?
The Rohde hire overlaps too much with Aldrich at Duke. Rohde is great, but he means more at a place like Michigan State. Little value added for Duke.
What sorts of things does Duke need in American? I assume they're not really interested in Behavior, right?
Looking at their website, I'd say what they need most is young faculty with a strength in methods.
Substantively, they NEED behavior. Whether they WANT behavior is a different matter.
I have heard (admittedly, second-hand) that they have no interest in behavior (which I find silly).
OK, so I have to ask--why would Lockerbie leave Georgia to be chair at a directional campus? Am I missing something here?
Might it have anything to do with salary? I can only speak for junior positions, but in my job search I generally found starting salaries at some of the bigger SEC schools to be pretty low.
Unless one has information on the matter, speculation seems useless.
There are so many factors behind an individual's decision to stay/move... from spouse to kids to extended family to weather to money.
7:06 Is obviously a graduate student or someone who is ignorant when it comes to knowledge of what makes a good dept. Some departments aim to build depth in a 2-3 areas, while some aim for breath of coverage. Both strategies are reasonable ones to follow.
Using 7:23's logic. I guess Michigan and UNC are lacking as a depts because "they NEED" institutionalists. Give me a freaking break!
I'll speak for UMich: Michigan seems to have enough institutions people, thank you very much. Hall, Shipan, etc.
We take great pride in being a well rounded department.
I think it's a fair question: Can you be a top Department in American Politics without having any coverage in behavior?
Now, I don't particularly care for behavior, but I am inclined to answer "No" (unless you are tiny and want to heavily go the boutique route... in which case chances are you won't be top).
I am a Duke PhD (arrived while Brehm and Gronke were still there and left before Rohde arrived).
From what I hear, Rohde has been a fantastic addition. He is great with students and contributes greatly to the vitality of the department. Rohde may overlap substantively with Aldrich, but if you want to study Congress (especially parties in Congress) then Duke and UCSD are, IMHO, by far the best available options. (If you want to study Congress but not parties, then I guess Stanford GSB is the place to go.)
I think it is wise to build from strength--hiring Rohde was a smart decision. I think Duke should have hired Jenkins when he interviewed last year on the same logic--build from strength.
While Aldrich is most known for his parties/congress work, it simply is not fair to say that Duke has no coverage in behavior once Transue leaves. Aldrich has a pretty impressive behavior record.
My experience as to why Duke has trouble hiring--they want the perfect magic candidate that is great substantively, has terrific stats skills, is a formidable formal modeler. When those people exist (which I believe is rarely), Duke gets outbid by other departments--places that trump on salary, location, and prestige. Moreover, some candidates get scared off at the prospect of being the primary methods instructors.
Look at Wash U and the infamous "Wash U N"--hiring is extremely difficult.
Exactly. Look at WashU. Associate and up hires over the 5-6 years: Calvert; Gibson; Crisp; Gabel; Smith; Spriggs.
People make the silly mistake at only looking on the 0's. They should look at the 1's too. Name another department that has attracted as many strong tenured hires over the last decade. You will struggle.
This is not job related, but is relevant to American Politics. The APSR editor's report for 2005-2006 reports that the largest % of published articles came from...Political Theory (31% vs. 29% for American Politics). In terms of submissions, American Politics had 37% of submissions, while Political Theory only 15%. And of all articles published, a MINORITY used quantitative empirical analysis.
This has really gotten out of hand. Could anyone possibly argue that this is even close to being representive of our discipline?
Wow. Yet another Duke/Washington discussion on job hires. Is there anything else going on in the job market for the 99% of us out there who aren't at Duke or Washington?
This is not job related, but is relevant to American Politics. The APSR editor's report for 2005-2006 reports that the largest % of published articles came from...Political Theory (31% vs. 29% for American Politics). In terms of submissions, American Politics had 37% of submissions, while Political Theory only 15%. And of all articles published, a MINORITY used quantitative empirical analysis.
This has really gotten out of hand. Could anyone possibly argue that this is even close to being representive of our discipline?
Ahhh, the consequences of perestroika.... I'm sure they are thrilled.
The REAL question is this--is this new emphasis on political theory moving the discipline forward or not compared to the days of yore...
This reinforces my previous impression - some of the Political Theory that makes it into APSR is very weak.
Now I understand why.
It always struck me that Sigelman bent over backwards to please the Perstroikans. Here is some proof.
Bring Back Bing!
Well, I'm hoping the UCLA crowd will return the APSR to being a high-quality journal.
Moreover, some candidates [at Duke] get scared off at the prospect of being the primary methods instructors.
-----
Isn't that deMarchi's role in the department?
The new editorship is already under quite a bit of pressure - and facing patently unfair accusations. Read below.
================================
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:01:30 -0600
From: "Sampaio, Anna" Anna.Sampaio@CUDENVER.EDU
Reply-To: "Latino-C: Latino Caucus of APSA" LATINO-C@LISTSERV.ilstu.edu
To: LATINO-C@LISTSERV.ilstu.edu
Subject: Re: FYI
Hi Folks,
I agree with the assessments that have been shared here about the APSA editorial board (thanks especially to Tony for recapping what happened at the council meeting). There are two related issues here that I think we need to address - the direct question of our exclusion from the APSR editorial board and the larger disciplinary "gatekeeping" that this incident portends.
On the first question, Michael JC, Tony, and myself have been in contact with the chairs of the CSLyL and the Latina/o caucus, along with additional colleagues, and have come up with a list of additional names to submit for the board. This list includes colleagues who approach Latino/a politics from a broad range of subject areas as well as different methodological and analytical trajectories- the point here being to avoid the tokenizing process that Ray cautioned about and to push for multiple additions to the board, including people who can review in Racial/Ethnic politics, as well as people who can review in American, CP, Theory, etc. The list is also gender balanced and includes colleagues from comprehensive and teaching institutions (a population that was also largely excluded from the proposed editorial team that included 5 people from Yale, 5 from Princeton, 4 from Stanford, 4 from Chicago, 4 from Berkeley, 3 from Michigan, 3 from MIT, 3 from Chicago - along with a hea
lthy sam
It is also important to note that there were a number of other substantive fields excluded from the proposed editorial team - including sexuality and politics, feminist theory, people engaged in qualitative research methods, public policy, and intersectionality. I know that there are colleagues working to develop lists in several of these areas and are also pushing for additions to open up the board. Collectively, these efforts should help to change the face of the editorial team; however, I found a more onerous obstacle to this problem presented in the fact that the "proposed" editorial board was not much of a proposal at all. That is, the list was clearly presented for approval and when we pressed for changes we were continually met with the response that the 57 people on the list had already been invited and there was no way to "un-invite" them - so all we could do was
propose additional names that would grow the list but not alter those already on it. I think in the future, we might want to consider pressing for a more open and transparent process of editorial board selection that we apply to all the disciplinary journals- if not an actual nominating committee - that APSA has oversight on to prevent this from happening again.
In the end, I have to say that I was really surprised by how narrowly conceived and exclusive the proposed editorial board was. What was most startling to me about this whole mess was how starkly the proposed editorial board contrasted with the actual diversity on the council and other APSA programs. This is still clearly an area of our discipline that has yet to be effectively "de-segregated" and one that stands as a hallmark for so many of what the discipline is about.
Those are my 2 cents.
Anna
Anna Sampaio, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Graduate Advisor
Department of Political Science
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center
Campus Box 190, P.O. Box 173364
Denver, CO 80217-3364
303.556.8318-office
303.556.3556-department
303.556.6041-fax
Anna.Sampaio@cudenver.edu
________________________________
From: Latino-C: Latino Caucus of APSA on behalf of Raymond Rocco
Sent: Fri 4/20/2007 10:16 AM
To: LATINO-C@LISTSERV.ilstu.edu
Subject: Re: FYI
Thanks to Tony for this update on the
situation. And thanks also to him and Anna and
the other folks who pressed the issue, and this
clearly illustrates once again why its so
important to have folks in positions where they
can give voice to our concerns. And I certainly
agree with Tony's observation that the
marginalization that we've faced within the
discipline is a reflection of what goes on
throughout society more generally. While there
are clearly some good folks who understand and
support the effort to make the discipline more
diverse, there are still many others who actively
resist. And we should remember that this
struggle for inclusion has gone on for more than
35 years ago when the majority of the ASPA
president and council summarily dismissed the
efforts of the few folks we had at the time to
open up the discipline. And so I think Val's
message this morning asks the right question - "how should we proceed."
Since there are quite a few players in this and
because there are different aspects to the
situation, perhaps the first step might be to set
up some kind of conversation on line between
those of us who are or want to be involved in
developing some kind of response to the specific
issue of the journal board as as way of
highlighting the reasons for the continued
marginalization of Latina/o politics.
At 06:56 PM 4/19/2007, Tony Affigne wrote:
>Thanks for the insights, Ray and Gary. I
>appreciate your contributions to this
>discussion! And thanks, Gary, for bringing the issue to the entire group.
>
>Here's some additional food for thought:
>
>When the UCLA proposal came to the Council last
>year, we approved it with the proviso that the
>"editorial committee"/collective/junta would be
>supplemented with a "diverse" executive committe
>and even *more diverse editorial board. After
>receiving these assurances, I was the APSA
>Council member who formally introduced a motion
>to approve the UCLA proposal. (Although to be
>honest...we didn't really have any choice; the
>Washington proposal was incomplete).
>
>Unfortunately, the actual result presented at
>the subsequent Council meeting (last Saturday)
>fell far short of our expectations, and of the
>firm commitment Rogowski et al. made in August.
>
>That's why the Council meeting on Saturday must
>have felt something like a buzz saw to Rogowski and Triesman.
>
>Not only did the proposed APSR executive
>committee not include any additional people from
>UCLA, the 40-odd member editorial board was
>*completely devoid of Latinos/as, or for that
>matter, *anyone who studies, cares about, or understands Latino/a politics.
>
>The Council reaction/opposition was so *fierce,
>not only from Anna and myself, but from other
>Council members as well (including two vice
>presidents -- Acklesberg and Brady; secretary
>Luis Fraga wasn't in attendance), that APSA
>president Bob Axelrod had no choice but to
>"suggest" that the proposal be withdrawn.
>Rogowski (reluctantly) agreed to do so, in order
>to receive additional suggestions and come back
>with a more diverse list. That's where we are right now.
>
>So let's be clear. While everything Gary and Ray
>have written is absolutely on point, we need to
>recognize that, given the difficult choices we
>faced, we have brought this entire process to a
>complete halt -- while Rogowski et al. wait to
>receive (and in the end, whatever their
>preferences, *accept) nominations for several
>additional appointments to the editorial board
>of the discipline's premier, flagship journal.
>The Council (including Luis) will vote on the
>new editorial committee proposal by e-mail,
>between now and July 1st, when the UCLA team takes control of APSR.
>
>Of course the glass is half empty; but it's also half full...
>
>I should add that I believe Gary and Ray are
>correct, y la lucha continua. Even if we were to
>bring about the addition of numerous Latino/a,
>feminist, postmodernist, postcolonialist,
>insurgent, qualitative, and other modern
>thinkers to the APSR editorial board -- our
>work, our communities, and our research
>interests could *still be ignored and
>marginalized by the discipline's mainstream
>centers of power. The game's far from over.
>
>But in what way, exactly, is this any different
>from the marginalization our communities face,
>every day? I'm happy to be in a position to make
>our voices heard, and force (absolutely --
>because the last thing "they" wanted was to
>address our concerns) the new APSR editors to
>hear and respond to our demands for inclusion,
>diversity, and empowerment. We did what we had
>to do, made the most of the resources we
>command, and we most definitely made 'em sweat.
>
>Thanks, everyone!
>
>Abrazos, compañeros/as,
>
>Tony
>
>
>At 3:41 PM -0700 4/19/07, Ray Rocco wrote:
> >I'm glad to see that this issue has been taken up by members of the
> >caucus. While I agree that its important that we have representatives on
> >the various bodies in the associations, I think its also important to put
> >this particular concern in context and see it as, Gary correctly points
> >out, as one more indication that Latina/os are still not on the radar
> >screen when discussions regarding both associational and department
> >business are being undertaken. With regard to the proposal that was
> >submitted by a group of faculty at UCLA to bring the journal to our dept, I
> >can say that during the planning stages, none of the nine individuals who
> >formed part of that working group ever spoke to, consulted with, or invited
> >either myself or my three African American colleagues to
> >participate. Oversight? No, in my view its that what we study, Latina/o
> >politics, African American politics is simply not considered to be very
> >important.
> >
> >While this is obviously not an isolated instance, I do think that there is
> >reason to pursue the issue beyond getting one of us appointed to the APSR
> >board which I see as tokenism at best. The APSR is supposedly the flagship
> >journal in the discipline and as such, not only what it publishes but also
> >it's operating policies help to define the norms for political science more
> >broadly. So for the leadership to have agreed to award the control over
> >the journal for the next several years to a proposal despite the lack of
> >concern with diversity or representativeness, means that they were in fact
> >sanctioning that norm. This is even more startling for us at UCLA since
> >the issue was raised on our campus with administrators who were involved in
> >supporting the initial proposal, and who were fully aware of the poor
> >record of the dept vis-a-vis minority issues. The broader question, then,
> >is can we do anything to address this more basic issue, and my own view is
> >that we should open that discussion. While this is a more difficult task,
> >we should target specific departments and practices that have dubious or
> >poor records (shouldn't be difficult to find a few contenders) and propose
> >specific remedies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >At 02:52 PM 4/19/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >>I would like to add to Gary's observation that we should also engage our
> >>Latino and African American colleagues at UCLA in conversation on this.
> >>It is an eye opener and has wider implications. Meanwhile we will
> >>finish the letter of nomination.
> >>Rodolfo Rosales
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Latino-C: Latino Caucus of APSA
> >>[mailto:LATINO-C@LISTSERV.ilstu.edu] On Behalf Of Gary Segura
> >>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:51 PM
> >>To: LATINO-C@LISTSERV.ilstu.edu
> >>Subject: FYI
> >>
> >>In my newfound determination to see that we document events of
> >>importance to our collective interests, I thought I would make everyone
> >>aware of an issue that emerged on Saturday in Chicago.
> >>
> >>Apparently, the UCLA team of editors taking over the editorship of the
> >>APSR presented its proposed editorial board to the executive council of
> >>APSA. Despite the list being 50 names long, there was not a single
> >>Latino included (or so I am told--I am happy to accept clarification or
> >>correction). I was not at the meeting and heard this second hand. If
> >>accurate, this represents yet another slap in the face to Latinos and
> >>scholars of Latino politics. My understanding was that our members
> >>serving on the Executive Council (Anna, Michael, and Tony) raised the
> >>issue very effectively and I want to thank them for their efforts. UCLA
> >>is apparently "considering" possible additions.
> >>
> >>I understand that the Caucus and the Status Committee is working to
> >>address the issue and I applaud their efforts as well. I just wanted to
> >>remind everyone of the importance of maintaining our representation in
> >>key decision-making bodies. I also thought it was important for
> >>everyone to a) know this occurred and b) remain vigilant regarding
> >>possible push-back against our many efforts and achievements.
> >>
> >>Abrazos,
> >>Gary
>
>
>----------------------
>
>Tony Affigne, MPA, PhD
>Professor and Chair
>Department of Political Science
>319 Howley Hall
>Providence College
>Providence, RI 02918
>Tel. 401-865-2569
I would encourage people to use the more quantitative journals, like AJPS, JOP, and QJPS, and let APSR languish as 2nd rate. If APSR is going to be the "quota journal," so be it.
I would instead people to HELP the incoming editorship resist these demagogic pressures towards quotas.
I'd be happy with subfield quotas in APSR as long as they were representative of the practice of political science research in the United States. What we have now is anti-quant/anti-American bias, in my view.
If _APSR_ has changed in response to external pressure, it is due to declining subscription/membership rates. As most know, APSA membership fees are much higher that those of the regional associations, thus it is more sensitive to disinterest and alienation than the regionals.
With a general sense that the Association and the _APSR_ were seemingly irrelevant to core political science issues, _Perspectives on Politics_ was created. This also served to stave off a call to allow Association members to choose from a set journals to go along with their membership.
Most university libraries carry e-versions of most journals. Who cares which hard-copy journals are packaged with membership?
The question of having a list of journal subscriptions to choose from to go along with APSA membership came up eight to nine years ago. Hence, it was before e-copies of journals were a general phenomena.
This is silly. Letting other approaches that are widely employed - especially in subfields other than American politics - into the APSR does not make it weaker. It is, after all, a journal that aims to cover our field. Given the continuing disproportionate (to APSA membership) prevalence of American politics work in general, it strikes me rather ironic to claim that it somehow "biased" against formal or quantitative American work. If that is the case, then you would have to agree that it is "intensely biased" against, for example, qualitative comparative work. Or you would have to simply assert that work that doesn't take a formal of quantitative approach is prima facie bad. That of course, would only prove the perestroikans' point.
I think the question comes down to "intellectual rigor." Qualitatitive approaches are fine, but many such works tend toward the overly descriptive, and away from hypothesis testing and theorizing.
And, of course, lots of quantitative work can be atheoretical and overly narrow in substantive contribution.
My sense is that the political theory community is pretty insular, which creates a lot of "inside baseball" logrolling in journal reviewing. Sigelman could be contibuting to this by selecting referees who are too "inside the debate beltway," so to speak.
My own view is that the APSR reads much more like a journal like Critical Review or Foreign Affairs these days, in the way that "big question" qualitative, descriptive work tends to get published there.
I would submit that for the most part in the social sciences formal hypothesis testing is misplaced. Simply put, "laws" do not exist in the social sciences in the way that they do in the physical sciences. Thus, the idea of using hypotheses to "test" and "discover" laws is largely inappropriate in the social sciences.
The charge of insularity and cohort reviewers is frequently leveled against rational choice theorists and formal modelers. The argument is that there are few "expert" individuals that work with these "theories" and "methodologies." As a result, only a relatively small number of reviewers can be called upon to assess such work. Moreover, the allegation is that they often give each other a free pass.
So that's why junior profs who are modellers can't get their work published? It's well known that senior folks in the modelling field eat their young.
If it's "inside baseball" in every field, the percentages in terms of submissions/acceptances at a journal like APSR should indicate this. Do they?
What I have been told is that historically rational choice submissions were gaining favorable treatment at _APSR_. While 8 percent of all _APSR_ submissions are accepted for publication, 15 percent of all rational choice submissions are accepted. This may have changed under Sigelman's stewardship.
And what constitutes "rational choice"? Does that mean pieces that are exclusively formal?
3:37 has it right. I edit a journal that often receives submissions that feature formal models. My experience has been that senior modelers tend to have unrealistically high expectations about what constitutes publishable work in their field. Assertions that modelers give each other “free passes” on their submissions during the referee process are out of touch with reality. I wonder if the same kind of problem arises in job placements.
Hey 2:11, Can you provide more than 1-2 examples of this? I'm a modeller and I read the APSR and see some modelling, an occasional big think piece, and some political theory. Which is how I've always remembered it.
We get an idea in our heads and facts become totally irrelevant. Where are these New Yorker and Foreign Affair style pieces? Really. Give me more than 2 examples in the last, say, 5 years. Is the number more than the quantitative/formal pieces in ONE APSR issue?
Interesting Article:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/03/law-firm-rescinds-offer-to-ex-autoadmit-director/
"I would submit that for the most part in the social sciences formal hypothesis testing is misplaced. Simply put, "laws" do not exist in the social sciences in the way that they do in the physical sciences. Thus, the idea of using hypotheses to "test" and "discover" laws is largely inappropriate in the social sciences."
Interesting hypothesis. Care to submit it to any sort of rigorous test? Or formally prove it?
Of course not. Numbers probably scare you.
I'm not surprised that we're returning to the methods / race debates again, but rather than get sucked in let me say two quick things and bow out:
1. If you're interested in trends in what's been published in the APSR, my colleague Tobin Grant has actually written a brief paper looking at methods used in the journal's history. He wrote it up for their centennial issue or whatever, but it didn't get accepted.
2. Can I offer a different point of view? In a discipline as diverse as ours, does it really make sense to have a single flagship journal? My understanding is that, for example, a "top" publication in an anthropology journal is really a "top" subfield journal because they have no major disciplinary wide publication. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it is better than the bickering.
RE: 7:31 p.m.
The laws of physics transcend time and space. Therefore, the behavior of matter and energy transcend time and space. Water, for example, boils at 212 degrees F in Russia, the United States, Italy, etc., and in the years 1002, 1102, 2002, etc.
None of this can be said of human behavior. Different people will behave differently in response to the same stimulus – especially across different regions and temporal frames. We can understand the factors that shape people’s behavior, but we have to approach it very differently than the way we approach analyzing the behavior of matter and energy. Thus, hypothesis testing can be used to effectively deduce the laws of physics and the different dimensions of these laws. In contrast, hypothesis testing is of dubious utility in the social sciences since there are no laws of human behavior – not in the way that there are laws in physics.
5/05/2007 9:24 PM :
Congratulations! That is the most ridiculous post in the "apparently believed" category" that I have read in quite some time.
Do you understand the laws of probability, the logical/philosophical bases of hypothesis testing, the idea of "confounds," or the structure of modeling vis-a-vis "omitted variables?"
I am more than open to qualitative work, slow journalism, and quite aware of measurement error (which is all you're really talking about -- if you don't see this, then I guess the ubiquity of measurement error is all the more evident...), but please, please, please don't step up to the philosophy of science/causality debate with anything less than a slingshot. First, it's a pointless debate from a philosophical/logical perspective (both sides basically argue that the other couldn't possibly prove their point, regardless of the evidence) and, second, it's over in practical terms. The tools of quantitative analysis are not the exlucise means to forward knowledge, but they certainly work very, very well in many domains.
If you don't believe me on the last point, then I'd like to offer you a series of monetary bets on various social/political/economic phenomena -- and you can't use any quantitative analysis.
Actually nothing in 9:24's account of behavior is at odds with assumptions in statistical modeling. Lack of exact replication is precisely why statistical models specify probability distributions for dependent variables; this recognizes that conditional on independent variables the dependent variable does not always turn out the same way. As for variations across context and places etc. -- that is exactly what theory is for, to spell out those dependencies.
Hypothesis testing in statistics is not based on 'laws' in the physics sense. It has also not played much role in the historical development of laws of physics or chemistry, and being an inductive tool, it played no role whatsoever in _deducing_ those laws.
I think 9:24 might have been better off taking an actual statistics course than intro to philosophy of science to fulfill his department's methods requirement.
All this philosophical stuff is interesting, but let's get the "hard science" right, too: the boiling point of water is not universally 212 degrees F but also depends on atmospheric pressure...
Do you mind? We are trying to argue deductively that deductive work in political science is worthless. Thank you for keeping any facts to yourself.
Ladies and germs, forget causal laws in physics: I just realized that the physics of a ball's movement depend on whether it's on a buttered pan or on a box top lined with sand paper.
I also innocently used the phrase "ball's movement" in a post.
I think Darrly E.'s post is just intended to create "friction."
If it's "inside baseball" in every field, the percentages in terms of submissions/acceptances at a journal like APSR should indicate this. Do they?
5/05/2007 3:38 PM
***********************************
Yes, they do. Formal work represented 14% submissions in APSR, yet 22% of publications. Not nearly as outrageous as the 15% vs. 31% over-representation of theory, though.
Formal work represented 22% of publications in APSR? No WAY. Unless "formal work" is defined VERY ambiguously.
9:42 p.m. wrote:
Lack of exact replication is precisely why statistical models specify probability distributions for dependent variables; this recognizes that conditional on independent variables the dependent variable does not always turn out the same way. As for variations across context and places etc. -- that is exactly what theory is for, to spell out those dependencies.
____________________________________
The key difficulty here is predictive power. Let us assume a researcher of human behavior finds a range of probability outcomes from the interaction of a set of variables for a given period of time (e.g., 1980 to 2000), in a given place (e.g., Mexico City). How much confidence do we have that in another time frame or in a different setting the same variable interactions will yield the same probability results? We have very low to no confidence of this. That is why these probability models have to continuously be run in different time-frames, in different settings, and different variables are frequently added and subtracted from these models. In contrast, no tests are conducted to determine the temperature at which water boils, because water boils at 212 degrees F (with some variation due to atmospheric conditions) and that fact is rightly assumed.
Re:
OK, so I have to ask--why would Lockerbie leave Georgia to be chair at a directional campus? Am I missing something here?
5/05/2007 7:03 AM
Might wonder the same thing about North Carolina Charlotte, which just hired a new chair from Indiana.
"Let us assume a researcher of human behavior finds a range of probability outcomes from the interaction of a set of variables for a given period of time (e.g., 1980 to 2000), in a given place (e.g., Mexico City). How much confidence do we have that in another time frame or in a different setting the same variable interactions will yield the same probability results? We have very low to no confidence of this."
Only if you attribute causality to "time" and "place" rather than to a set of underlying (probably unobserved) behavioral, economic, psychological, social, etc factors (i.e. a "theory"). And sure, if your method of inquiry is entirely inductive and you consider "theory" to a set of inductively "derived" facts, you would have a problem. This is intellectually lazy.
"In contrast, no tests are conducted to determine the temperature at which water boils, because water boils at 212 degrees F (with some variation due to atmospheric conditions) and that fact is rightly assumed."
Gee, I wonder how we figured out this universal physical law. How could we know this if no one ever tested it? Maybe it's in the Bible somewhere...
None of this can be said of human behavior. Different people will behave differently in response to the same stimulus – especially across different regions and temporal frames. We can understand the factors that shape people’s behavior, but we have to approach it very differently than the way we approach analyzing the behavior of matter and energy.
5/05/2007 9:24 PM
-------------------------------
Your right. However, this makes the math harder not easier. I am gonna guess that is not the answer you were looking for.
The APSR ought to be like the Academy Awards. Published once a year and everyone in the "academy" -- in this case, the membership -- gets to vote on which article gets the Apsie in American, IR, Comparative, REP, Theory, etc. They can have a nice little ceremony on Saturday night at APSA and give each winner a little statuette.
“Your right. However, this makes the math harder not easier. I am gonna guess that is not the answer you were looking for.”
-----------------------------------
This is not necessarily a qualitative vs. quantitative issue. The core matter at hand is whether hypothesis testing in the social sciences has general utility. My position is that because there are no general laws to deduce in the social sciences hypothesis testing is misplaced in the social sciences.
-----------------------------------
“‘In contrast, no tests are conducted to determine the temperature at which water boils, because water boils at 212 degrees F (with some variation due to atmospheric conditions) and that fact is rightly assumed.’”
“Gee, I wonder how we figured out this universal physical law. How could we know this if no one ever tested it? Maybe it's in the Bible somewhere...”
-----------------------------------
The salient point is that once the boiling point of water is established this principle does not have to be tested in different venues or different time frames. It is an enduring fact that is assumed away in the physical sciences.
In contrast, in the social sciences variable relationships in one setting will be very different in another setting. This automatically discounts the idea of hypothesis testing, with its overt implication of discovering enduring variable relationships.
In the social sciences we are limited to retrospective analysis – whereby we are limited to analyzing events after the fact. We all have a sense of how events are going to turn out, but in the end this is as much intuition as anything else.
In contrast, in the social sciences variable relationships in one setting will be very different in another setting. This automatically discounts the idea of hypothesis testing, with its overt implication of discovering enduring variable relationships.
-------------
What a silly statement? You truly believe there are no systematic effects across time & space? Do you feed this foolishness to your grad students? Or maybe you're a grad student being fed this nonsense. This kinds of crap comes down to the following: weak scholars need to rationalize their weakness in some way. Rather than learn skills, and try testing hypotheses, they "assume away" the whole social scientific enterprise.
RE: 5:16 p.m.
Please name some of these enduring systematic social effects that transcend time and space.
The redemptive power of Jesus Christ?
Duverger's Law?
That political parties structure political decision making?
That ideology is underlying tenet of voting behavior?
That political actors are purposive?
5:39. Do you REALLY believe that there are NO systematic social/political forces/effects?
And if so, how do you know? Do you simply assert it? Or have you tested and found the lack of any systematic forces/effects?
RE established people leaving flagships for chair positions at non-flagships, perhaps they involved significant raises, more attractive living situations, an opportunity to move into administration, etc. There are a lot of reasons that an established person might find a position like that attractive. It isn't that mysterious.
My position is that because there are no general laws to deduce in the social sciences hypothesis testing is misplaced in the social sciences.
Hypothesis testing is not actually related to the existence of general scientific laws in any way. It requires no assumption that the probability distribution from which a sample is drawn generalizes beyond that one single case at hand. It requires only that the sample could have been different than it actually was, or that there is some contingency and as far as anyone can say randomness in the observations. That's it. Given that, you have a probability distribution, and inferences to be made. Hypotheses in the statistical sense are just pointed inferences.
Honestly, I think this person is a propagandist in favor of statistical modeling. These objections are too easily refuted.
I think that many of these "laws" being cited as general propositions are variable.
Duverger's law does not hold equally well in all contexts (e.g Moser)
Ideology does not structure the vote equally in all contexts (e.g. Huber, Zechmeister)
Political parties do not necesarily structure political decision making (Mainwaring)
Incumbent fortunes are not necesarily tied to the economy (Anderson)
etc.
But even here, the question is whether these instabilities are "random" or systematic oportunities for theorizing. As a comparativist, I believe it is the latter. I can generate explanations for all these variations that have testable implications for further analysis and refinement.
And yes, once you control for context the above variables have consistent effects.
RE: 6:58 p.m.
I think you are correct. The difficulty is that the term “hypothesis” does have a specific denotation. Moreover, the arguments posited by our colleagues on this blog do indicate that many hold that social science hypothesis testing (a misnomer by your acknowledgment) does denote generalizations.
And yes, once you control for context the above variables have consistent effects.
----
Of course. I don't think anyone would argue that variable x would have the same effect everywhere and at every point in time. But, as you note, we CAN control for the context, to help discern the systematic effect of variable x. Is this up for dispute? By anyone?
RE: 8:15 p.m.
In the case of Duverger's law, how you account for the British case – a national three party system with single-member plurality district elections? (Also, in U.K. politics there are additional parties that successfully operate at the regional level.) Or the Indian case, another multi-party system with SMPD elections?
Simple: Duverger (at least as formalized by Riker & Downs) only applies to a single constituency, not to a national electoral system. That it only generalizes to the same two party system in national elections in a few countries/territories (the United States, Belize, Bermuda, and Puerto Rico are the most prominent off the top of my head) isn't that surprising.
Look at constituency races in India, Britain, Canada, etc. and you'll generally find effective two-party competition in most, but not all, cases.
I bought a new Duverger for my kid's comforter the other day.
You never think about it until it's too late, but Duverger's law is really correct: if you don't have a Duverger, you WILL spill that taco sauce on your comforter.
6:58 here.
Hypothesis testing is not a misnomer by my lights. Rather, it is a nomer. You just have to understand what a hypothesis is.
Many people who use it also believe in statements of general applicability about human behavior, that is true. But they also usually believe in conditional generalizations: when the conditions stay fixed in theoretically relevant ways, behavior on average stays fixed. And of course, in different times and places conditions have not stayed fixed. The whole point of research then is to delineate how changes in conditions map into changes in behavior. That argument simply shows up as independent variables in a statistical model.
In any case, even if people who seek or believe in general statements about human behavior are completely misguided, it does not prevent the coherent or useful application of statistical modeling or hypothesis testing in political science.
Put differently, the argument of the anti-stats person is: since general laws of human behavior do not exist, hypothesis testing is not appopriate. This argument fails on its face since hypothesis testing never presupposed such laws in the first place. You may know this argument by its more familiar name, 'non-sequitur.'
I've always been a big fan of the musical stylings of Robert Duverger. That guy had some pipes...
Duverger's law refers to district level outcomes. Please refer to Gary Cox.
man this thread is like being back in my first term of grad school - let's take it back to american rumors - I heard some good rules to lvie by once 1)don't try to educate the world cuz you're doing good to educate yourself and 2)you can't argue with a damn fool
Oh fer chrissake. Can't you people just figure out how to make sure that your methods are appropriate to the questions you are asking and leave it at that?
To the rat choicers, hard core quants and positivists: the discipline includes non-positivist research that does not rely on hypothesis testing to address some important questions. Get over it.
To the antifoundationalists, postmodernists, and non-positivists: generalization and gold-standard hypothesis testing is useful to understand some forms of human behavior and politics. Get over it.
If the best you can do as critique is "I don't think your method is a legitimate means of studying politics," then just STFU already unless the person in question is using something that the community has generally defined as out of bounds AND you actually have an argument to make. The more interesting internal critique is "I don't think your method can really answer the question you are asking." That I am willing to hear.
RE: 10.11 p.m.
“Look at constituency races in India, Britain, Canada, etc. and you'll generally find effective two-party competition in most, but not all, cases.”
Your caveat “in most, but not all, cases” concedes my point. Duverger’s law is not a law, but refers to a tendency, or a likely outcome – if you will. This leads me to a methodological matter. If I am studying elections globally, can I assume Duverger’s “law” or must I examine each and every case of countries using SMPD elections to determine the level of party competition? Clearly, the latter holds.
If there is anyone out there who doubts that "institutions matter," just look how quickly this blog has gone to shit since moderation was turned off.
Indeed.
I quite hope some of those posts were by 1st year grad students. Otherwise, it'd be scary.
No one doubts that institutions matter. That's a stupid question. It probably always was. When was there a general consensus that they didn't matter?
Anyway I think these posts have actually not been all that different in tone, and have just as much intellectual content as when the moderator is here.
So there you have it: institutions don't matter after all.
To 7:40. I think the whole "institutions matter" stuff arose because of the (a) hegemony of Behavioralism in the 1950s and 1960 and (b) the overreliance of preference-based decison making by the public choice folks in the 1970s.
At one time, what we call "Institutions" today was simply the study of "elite behavior." And thus was simply an extension of the Behavior-based theories to elite political actors.
As an example, look at Rick Hall's work on participation in Congress. It adds a useful element to the discipline today, but 30-40 years ago, that's ALL the study of the Congress really was.
None of this can be said of human behavior. Different people will behave differently in response to the same stimulus – especially across different regions and temporal frames. We can understand the factors that shape people’s behavior, but we have to approach it very differently than the way we approach analyzing the behavior of matter and energy.
5/05/2007 9:24 PM
-------------------------------
Precisely! Now get to computer science class, your diagnosis calls for some agent based modeling.
[author prepares to duck and cover... here comes the shit from both sides] ;)
RE: 6:58 p.m. and 12:20 a.m.
Your overall argumentation raises two salient points. Firstly, you claim that hypotheses in the social sciences refer not to immutable laws but to assertions about data sets. Hence, you wrote:
“Hypothesis testing is not actually related to the existence of general scientific laws in any way. It requires no assumption that the probability distribution from which a sample is drawn generalizes beyond that one single case at hand.”
This amounts to a case study conceptualization of analysis. In other words, the social science researcher is in effect saying “in the case of this data set the alternative hypothesis is accepted or rejected.” This is seemingly an appropriate utilization of hypothesis testing in the social sciences.
You go beyond this argument, however, in the following:
“Many people who use it also believe in statements of general applicability about human behavior, that is true. But they also usually believe in conditional generalizations: when the conditions stay fixed in theoretically relevant ways, behavior on average stays fixed. And of course, in different times and places conditions have not stayed fixed. The whole point of research then is to delineate how changes in conditions map into changes in behavior. That argument simply shows up as independent variables in a statistical model.”
Going back to my earlier point about Duverger’s law (7:16 a.m.), we do not find that human “behavior on average stays fixed.” Instead what can be empirically mapped are tendencies (loosely defined) in human behavior. Moreover, in too many instances people/institutions/countries defy these tendencies. In the end, all this amounts to the fact that laws cannot be deduced from human behavior.
How about we rename "Duverger's Law" as "Duverger's Hypothesis" and move on? I don't even think Duverger (or, for that matter, Henry Droop--who came up with it in the first place) alleged that the emergence of two-party systems was analogous to a law of nature.
By analogy, let's assume for the sake of argument that there are other habitable planets in the universe, and that life has evolved on some of these other planets. If the life on those planets is not exactly like that on Earth, does that invalidate the theory of evolution (which is much closer to a "law" than Duverger)? We might need to account for the varying conditions of these planets... but nonetheless, a general "theory of evolution" would still explain the development of complex life forms, even if the end result in each ecosystem is not the same.
(Incidentally, you don't "deduce laws from human behavior"; you'd actually be applying inductive reasoning in that case.)
RE: 8:54 a.m.
Thank you for the correction on my misuse of “deduce.”
Your invocation of evolutionary theory is apt. Like the evolutionary process, human behavior is shaped by the immutable laws of physics. While the behavior of matter and energy can be successfully/precisely modeled within this these laws, human behavior in response to physical forces varies so greatly that it defies successful/precise modeling/prediction.
Back to the APSR, I don't understand the post about its theory focus being consistent its "big-question" articles, a la Foreign Affairs and Critical Review. My experience with APSR is that its theory articles are all too attentive to hashing out fine points in the extant literature (Straussian, liberal, or multicultural), so that they are even narrower than what you'd find in Political Theory, etc. If there's been a change for the better under Sigelman, I haven't noticed it. (In Foreign Affairs and Critical Review it's all big think, all the time.) Conclusion: APSR is good at perpetuating the intellectual status quo, and is a good source for finding out what the intellectual status quo is. But if you want intellectual stimulation, you go to Foreign Affairs, Critical Review, the back pages of the New Republic, the Boston Review, the Claremont Review--anywhere but APSR.
human behavior is shaped by the immutable laws of physics. While the behavior of matter and energy can be successfully/precisely modeled within this these laws, human behavior in response to physical forces varies so greatly that it defies successful/precise modeling/prediction.
5/07/2007 9:27 AM
----------------------------------
Pure conjecture.
Normally I do not read Critical Review, but the recent issue that is devoted to Converse's 1964 piece is a very interesting read. It is "big think" and contains, to the best of my memory, no models whatsoever.
The issue republishes the famous Converse article/chapter--that alone is worth the $12 I paid at Borders. It is nice to be able to read it without someone else having already marked it to death.
Oh fer chrissake. Can't you people just figure out how to make sure that your methods are appropriate to the questions you are asking and leave it at that?...
If the best you can do as critique is "I don't think your method is a legitimate means of studying politics," then just STFU already unless the person in question is using something that the community has generally defined as out of bounds AND you actually have an argument to make. The more interesting internal critique is "I don't think your method can really answer the question you are asking." That I am willing to hear.
5/07/2007 7:10 AM
---------------------------------
7:10's argument seems to be for methodological pluralism, but it also presumes that all questions are appropriate questions. I think sometimes these kinds of debates really reflect fundamental disagreements about what legitimate topics and questions are for the discipline.
A critique such as "I don't think your method is a legitimate means of studying politics" might really mean:
"You aren't studying politics," or "Your question is not a legitimate question about politics."
Two basic questions naturally follow:
1. What is politics?
2. What are legitimate questions about politics?
Another interpretation of the debate about whether there exist universal laws of human behavior is that it is reflects ongoing and larger debates about knowledge and epistemology. (Just stating the obvious!)
Here, this boils down to whether or not you think "political science" (or any of the "social sciences") is a "science" that can establish empirical regularities, our degree of certainty in those regularities, and theoretical explanations for them.
If not, then perhaps you think the best we can do is to come up with interpretations that rationalize our experiences. In that case, "political science" is a misnomer. We can still learn important "truths" (as in the humanities), but we would make no pretense to being a science.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Methods at UNC? Marco Steenbergen is leaving, or so people at MPSA claimed.
Dirctionals and Chairs.
May be interested in moving up the administrative ladder.
May be interested in a higher salary (not separate from the first reason).
May like the area of the country.
May want a lower teaching load even if it has some administrative hassles.
Did USC ever make any senior methods hires? I heard about Mike Alvarez interviewing there. What happened?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yes, let us move on, please, to more productive matters.
And, if there is nothing to talk about, please refrain from picking upon particular individuals.
"picking on"? they are only stating facts...
And you'd love it if we all stated facts about you here, right?
If so, please post your name so we can go over your CV.
Funny, the person so interested in making factual statements now seems uninterested in others making factual statements about himself.
I wonder why.
well-stated, 12:44
"Dirctionals and Chairs.....
"(Possible reasons for moving)..... May like the area of the country."
Having been to Greenville a few times, I thinking that one of the other reasons is more likely for Lockerbie (or anyone who moves there).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
So what exactly did anyone gain from 3:12's snarky comment? If you are going to be nasty at least be clever.
This forum really shouldn't be about bashing people in our discipline. Either we quit doing this or this blog board should come to an end.
For whatever it is worth, I understand that Duke is going to make a serious effort to hire in behavior this year.
valentino is GTT
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Re 10:49
If all APSA is about is political science with the emphasis on science, then why are there departments of government and departments of politics? Should we revoke their departmental memberships? Would you refuse to apply for jobs at these places?
Not everyone in the discipline sees hypothesis testing as the only legitimate means to understand questions about politics.
And be sure to check your filters, as they may affect your mileage. Why is an article that focuses exclusively on very high level methodology and asks no question that has any bearing whatsoever on any political phenomenon a contribution to political science?
"Not everyone in the discipline sees hypothesis testing as the only legitimate means to understand questions about politics."
-------------------------
I agree, we also need formal/computational models to generate the hypotheses that are then tested.
"And be sure to check your filters, as they may affect your mileage. Why is an article that focuses exclusively on very high level methodology and asks no question that has any bearing whatsoever on any political phenomenon a contribution to political science?"
-----------------------------------
Because it presents a tool to the rest of the discipline. Many times these tools help us with some characteristic of data that is often used in Political Science work. The recent issue of PA looking at TS-CS techniques when t>n is an example. The sad thing is that most of the discipline won't see this stuff. A survey that summarizes all of this info belongs in a top 3.
"The sad thing is that most of the discipline won't see this stuff. A survey that summarizes all of this info belongs in a top 3."
This suggests that the APSR is publishing too little, not too much, theory and epistemology.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in your fancy hammer that is only appropriate to one type of nail. I prefer ballpeens myself.
Do you like...stuff?
I am not sure why this all has to be re-hashed over and over.
This war is over and the writing is on the wall.
Quals who are tenured will hold on as long as possible and make alot of noise on the way out. They will probably concentrate in a few departments over time. Eventually a dean will come into those last remaining prestigious qual departments and clean house. New grad students without quant skills will end up at lesser and lesser departments, eventually concentrating in LAC's.
This same story played out in Economics a generation ago. The fate of the Austrians, Marxist and Feminist in that discipline awaits our own versions of these.
Those from those perspectives that still are relevant in econ have adapted and can express their theories in the language of the discipline. They also refuse to ghettoize themselves by adopting the above labels. There is no reason that this can't happen for us in poli-sci (and we would benefit as a discipline if it did). However, the hostility of those in these types of "heterodox" perspectives to scientific work will likely preclude it.
keep fiddling!
RE: 7:08 a.m.
You may be correct. The question confronting us, however, is: is the process you describe the result of science or politics? If it is the latter (and I suspect it is), then the discipline will likely become irrelevant in analyzing/understanding the momentous issues facing us.
VERY well said, 5/08/2007 7:08 AM.
Take a look at the affiliations of those most active in the Perestroika movement -- Cal State Hayward, Utah, Delaware, Eastern Michigan, Cal Irvine, etc. They're not exactly bastions of graduate education. Do any of them even have graduate programs??
(And yes, I know there are a few supporters at places like Penn and Chicago, but they are not producing graduate students, or at least graduate students who are competitive on the market.)
Yes, just like economics has become irrelevant. And "American studies" is increasingly representing the bleeding edge of momentous debates.
7:08 is either 1) an over-eager grad student, or 2) the kind of person whose colleagues immediately roll their eyes whenever he/she speaks in a faculty meeting. Probably doesn't get a lot of invitations to happy hours, or anything else.
Most people want their departments to have a mixture of cutting-edge stats people who ask big questions, Hindi, Arabic, and Chinese speakers who do rigorous field and case (and quant) work, and elite theorists. That's just the way it is, so relax.
RE: 8:14 a.m.
Economics ceased being an analytical discipline long ago. Today, it is an ideological prop for global neo-liberalism. Is that the role you see for political science?
Just out of curiosity, 5/08/2007 8:26 AM, when do you think economics was truly an analytical discipline? (Please don't say 1848.)
Haha. Is the poster serious? Did s/he really think that a post like "Economics ceased being an analytical discipline long ago. Today, it is an ideological prop for global neo-liberalism" would be damning.
Yes, economists are evil and taking over. They just follow whatever ideological guidelines the IMF feeds them.
Pff, please, talk about involuntary humor!!
Thanks for the entertainment value!
Let's ignore the childish posts of the person in question and move on.
For chrissake, even Ting's queries would be welcomed at this point.
Anything but the critico-mumbo-jumbo of our prolific poster.
RE: 8:35 a.m.
By touting the unquestioned "value" of the free market many, many economists do forward (prop up) the agenda of the IMF. Do you disagree?
Of course I do you clown. Read some public economics first.
Dear Blogmistress,
I will pay for your plane ticket back home (Business Class, even) if you will please come back and start moderating this blog again.
Signed,
Someone who's tired of seeing job rumor blogs taken over by childish "debates"
I'll chip in.
Hell, critical studies champ - I'll chip in so you keep posting... SOMEWHERE ELSE.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I really yearn for the ole' days when the only annoying postings were about Ting.
So is Ting staying at Columbia?
What about Groseclose? What has he done since tenure other than media bias?
i may not be moderating it explicitly, but I am still lurking. I will try and catch the snarky comments when I have access to email. No one needs to discuss anyone's tenure record/decisions here.
hey 7:08 - check out the simon hix dept rankings before you start slaughtering UC Irvine. Have you ever read any of Bernie Grofman's or Kamal Sadiq's work? Don't let your fury at the Perestoikans overwhelm what should be your awareness of the discipline.
>(And yes, I know there are a few supporters at places like Penn and Chicago, but they are not producing graduate students, or at least graduate students who are competitive on the market.)
----
It is hard for us from Chicago, Penn, Yale, Columbia, Harvard, Berkeley and the other schools where there are notable perestroikans to get good jobs, but not all of us can get hired at Southern Tech U.
Um, 5/08/2007 9:55 AM, I meant that the Perestroikans at Penn and Chicago weren't producing competitive graduate students.
As for Cal-Irvine, you're right 5/08/2007 9:42 AM. You should have mentioned Russ Dalton, too. Sorry.
I have an honest question that is not intended to be “snarky.”
What do people who disapprove of qualitative approaches think of the “classics” (Weber, Marx, Durkheim)? Do we consider the Protestant Ethic is “unscientific,” or somehow less of a contribution, because of the method it utilizes?
RE: 8:57 a.m.
One subfield of economics does negate the reality that the discipline of economics promotes the free market. Obviously, there are dissenters within the discipline, but they are at the margins of academia.
It should also be noted that the subfield of public economics utilizes the same methods and shares the same assumption underpinning the rest of the discipline of economics. Namely, that "the market is best", and government should only intervene when necessary.
That should read:
One subfield of economics does not negate . . .
My apologies
Yes, because econometrics and formal modeling are ideologically biased. Phew, those i.i.d. observations are surely the creation of evil IMF-ers. Ah, and that proof by contradiction has very clearly a neo-con pedigree.
I would love LOVE to find out who the ignorant poster is. I am genuinely amazed by some of his posts. Keep up the good work my friend. It's all a conspiration, and you will unmask it!
Over/under on age of the Marxist is 62. Berkeley or Harvard Ph.D.
I'm right, aren't I? Admit it!
It should also be noted that the subfield of public economics utilizes the same methods and shares the same assumption underpinning the rest of the discipline of economics. Namely, that "the market is best", and government should only intervene when necessary.
5/08/2007 10:35 AM
------------------------------------
You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
What do people who disapprove of qualitative approaches think of the “classics” (Weber, Marx, Durkheim)? Do we consider the Protestant Ethic is “unscientific,” or somehow less of a contribution, because of the method it utilizes?
5/08/2007 10:30 AM
-------------------------------------
I'll bite since I am at the dentist office with nothing to do.
This work was "state of the art" at the time it was published. However science moves forward. We now have the means and the data to test his theories. This happened in the natural sciences too. The complexity of the atom was too advanced to be known at one point in history. So scientist did what they could with the tools they had. But you don't stop and throw up your hands and say this phenomona is too hard or to complex to understand. Nor do you discard the past findings out of hand because they were not as technologically advanced. Science marches on slowly and surely. Old truths are refined or discarded. And you always look for the best tool for the job.
Time for my root canal :(
RE: 10:40 a.m.
What I am pointing out is obvious to any honest observer. Namely, that the discipline of economics, for the most part, serves as a promoter of neo-liberal globalization. I am surprised anyone would hold otherwise.
Over/under on age of the Marxist is 62. Berkeley or Harvard Ph.D.
------
I'd put good money on under. I'd guess early/mid 40s. That's my age, and the poster sounds like some people I went to school with. Maybe even younger.
RE: 11:06 AM
You mean "casual observer."
If politics is so scientific, then why couldn't you all tell us the outcomes of the 2006 congressional elections before they happened? I mean, it's just like predicting the speed rate of a falling object except with fancier math, right?
And if you think that quantitative/formal scholars are flooding the market and shoving out all the qualitative/mixed methods people, I suggest that you go back to arithmetic.
Re: 11:36 AM
Scientific does not equal deterministic.
5/08/2007 11:36 AM If politics is so scientific, then why couldn't you all tell us the outcomes of the 2006 congressional elections before they happened?
Well, I think this poster is setting up a straw man here. I think a better question is, "which methods were better at predicting the election - qualitative or quatitative?"
And on that note, while the quals and perestroikians run around claiming the discipline hates them and how much better their methods are than quantiative methods; please consider the following:
In my experience, quants dont disrespect or have a problem with good qualitative work. Some qualitative people have a problem, and are happy to admit it, with quant work.
Perhaps they refuse to take additional classes or gain additional tools. I dont know. But I have never seen this behavior coming from quantitative people.
Second, much of what is referred to as qualitative work is just really bad normative theory/investigative journalism/opinion pieces/etc....
Unfortunately, alot of bad political scientists call thier bad work "qualitative" when in truth it is just bad. Bad work should not be accepted just because someone applies the label "qualitative" to it and screams methodological discrimination.
Actually, Erikson and others did predict the outcome prior to the election...if you read real science, you'll learn real things.
The weird thing about the strength of demand for quantitative and formal scholars is that it tends to indicate the fact that there isn't a "flood" -- oh wait, don't let me say the "law" of supply and demand. I mean, somewhere, somebody preferred to pay a higher price for the same quality good, oh yeah, and a kid donated $5 to his opponent in a dictator game.
Seriously, though -- how would "your" political science be any different from "your portrait" of economics? I mean, the stripes might differ, but the two beasts would be isomorphic. Oops. Sorry. That's a hegemonic term. I'll explain: every ABD is isomorphic to a squirrel, and every academic job is isomorphic to a nut.
Accordingly, there's a saying that asserts that you might get a job.
Of course, quant stuff is *never* bad. Did anyone here not read the "quantitative" piece in American Politics Research arguing that John Stewart increases cynicism among the young, which was more full of speculation than any article I've ever read? That was embarassing. The journals are filled with bad quant material of that sort, with secondary data from marketing companies and foundations with only a loose connection to one's research questions, tortured rationalizations for using incomplete data, experiments involving traditional-age college students, etc.
Re 12:24: I've seen a few quants that disparage most/all qualitative research... but they're certainly outnumbered by those who go the other way.
As for "economists are cheerleaders for the market" I'd refer the ignorant poster to the field of behavioral economics... or even to the op-ed pages of the New York Times, where a leading economist argues strongly in favor of state intervention (except when it's being proposed by Republicans) on a twice-weekly basis.
My apologies in advance for the length of the post. It’s just that these debates also occurred back in ye olde tyme, and Weber understood this stuff better than anyone then or now.
“Let us assume that we have succeeded by means of psychology or otherwise in analyzing all the observed and imaginable relationships of social phenomena into some ultimate elementary ‘factors,’ that we have made an exhaustive analysis and classification of them and then formulated rigorously exact laws covering their behavior. What would be the significance of these results for our knowledge of the historically given culture or any individual phase thereof, such as capitalism, in its development and cultural significance? As an analytical tool, it would be as useful as a text book of organic chemical combinations would be for our knowledge of the biogenetic aspect of the animal and plant world. In each case, certainly an important and useful preliminary step would have been taken. In neither case can concrete reality be deduced from ‘laws’ and ‘factors.’…[This is because] the analysis of reality is concerned with the configuration into which those (hypothetical!) ‘factors’ are arranged to form a cultural phenomenon which is historically significant for us…In stating this we arrive at the decisive feature of the method of the cultural sciences…Wherever the causal explanation of ‘cultural phenomenon”—an historical individual” is under consideration, the knowledge of causal laws is not the end of the investigation but only a means. It facilitates and renders possible the causal imputation to their concrete causes of those components of a phenomenon the individuality of which is culturally significant."
Regardless of your methodological proclivities, “Objectivity and the Social Sciences” is a great read.
Re: 5/08/2007 12:40 PM
Of course there is bad quant work. No one, not even quant people, claim other wise. However, the problem is that the criticism that you make in your post, much like many other criticisms made by qualitative people, is that when the results dont match their preconcieved notions, the obvious assumption is that the methods and numbers mumbo jumbo are all wrong. ie...just cause you love John Stewart and are a raving liberal whose policy views cloud his judgment, dont attack quantitative methodology or particular pieces that you dont like.
No, it couldn't be that I read the article and found it to be pathetic! I just didn't agree with the conclusion. Of course. All those numbers are magical.
I think the anti-quant people here have made an interesting shift. This line of discussion started out with an assertion that stats modeling *cannot* be usefully applied in the study of human behavior.
Then people said yes, actually it can.
*Now* the anti-quant people are attempting to claim the pro-quant people reveal, through this counterargument, that they think *all* quant work is good. "Magical numbers" and such-like aspersions.
"Can be usefully applied" != "universally intelligently used."
The main problem with the specific study was that it said the "increasing cynicism" effect was limited to people in an experiment who'd never seen the show and not regular viewers. But the article said this was "relevant" nonetheless, then used non-random survey data to back their case up, etc.
Let's also not confuse APR with the APSR.
On the basis of this anecdote, I don't know whether to feel better or worse about my recent rejection by APR.
The main problem with the specific study was that it said the "increasing cynicism" effect was limited to people in an experiment who'd never seen the show and not regular viewers. But the article said this was "relevant" nonetheless, then used non-random survey data to back their case up, etc
-----------------
This critique suggests you haven't taken research design 101.
I just glanced at this APR piece--a solid, interesting empirical contribution (and btw, I don't know the authors). They presented experimental results (where the viewers weren't regular viewers) and contrasted their responses to a control group (good internal validity; less external validity). They then presented ADDITIONAL, non-experimental survey data to try to show external validity. There are problems of course, but it seems like an interesting piece.
From the wiki:
Charleston Southern University: 2 reported episodes of dismissal of Assistant Professors without cause
Space for rebuttal: Had to cut costs due to millions lost in investment fraud perpetrated by professor in the economics department
<< Home