History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 605-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian S. Lustick

Social scientists who use history as a laboratory for theory development use the work of historians to construct background narratives which can then be coded according to theoretically relevant categories. Yet, virtually no attention has been paid to how these historical monographs are to be chosen. On most periods and themes of interest available accounts differ, not only substantively but also with respect to the implicit theories and conceptual frameworks used to establish salience or produce commonsensical explanations. Unself-conscious use of historical monographs thus easily results in selection bias. Social scientists are bound to be more attracted to and convinced by accounts that accord with the expectations about events contained in the concepts they deploy and the theories they seek to test. Consideration of recent developments in historiographical theory supports the argument that responsible techniques for using historical sources are available, but they require understanding the extent to which patterns within historiography, rather than “History,” must be the direct focus of investigation and explanation. Such an approach has the added advantage of helping to generate historically based studies where observations or cases outnumber variables.

1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 979-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert T. Holt ◽  
John E. Turner

Since 1954, the Committee on Comparative Politics has provided leadership in the comparative field, and one of its central objectives has been to construct a theory of political development. The books in the series that were published in the 1960s lacked rigorous design, although they did provide data and low-level generalizations which could be used in the theory-building task. This essay focuses primarily on Crises and Sequences in Political Development, which is authored solely by Committee members and reports on the results of their theoretical work thus far. The Committee takes the “intuitive empirical generalization” approach to theory development—in contrast with systematic empirical generalization and the analytic-deductive procedure. It is unlikely, however, that the Committee's approach will lead to the formulation of a coherent set of interrelated propositions within which empirical phenomena can be explained. But the Committee's work is not atypical of the theoretical literature in political science, which reflects the reward structure of the discipline. The building of powerful theories will be facilitated when emphasis is placed on the development of clearly falsifiable propositions rather than on the development of loose conceptual frameworks.


2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Inwood ◽  
Hamish Maxwell-Stewart

AbstractHistorians and social scientists routinely, and inevitably, rely on sources that are unrepresentative of the past. The articles in this special issue of the journal illustrate the widespread prevalence of selection bias in historical sources, and the ways in which historians negotiate this challenge to reach useful conclusions from valuable, if imperfect sources.


Author(s):  
Levente Littvay

As recently as 2005, John Alford and colleagues surprised political science with their twin study that found empirical evidence of the genetic transmission of political attitudes and behaviors. Reactions in the field were mixed, but one thing is for sure: it is not time to mourn the social part of the social sciences. Genetics is not the deterministic mechanism that social scientists often assume it to be. No specific part of DNA is responsible for anything but minute, indirect effects on political orientations. Genes express themselves differently in different contexts, suggesting that the political phenomenon behavioral political scientists take for granted may be quite volatile; hence, the impact of genetics is also much less stable in its foundations than initially assumed. Twin studies can offer a unique and powerful avenue to study these behavioral processes as they are more powerful than cross-sectional (or even longitudinal) studies not only for understanding heritability but also for asserting the direction of causation, the social (and, of course, genetic) pathways that explain how political phenomena are related to each other. This chapter aims to take the reader through this journey that political science has gone through over the past decade and a half and point to the synergies behavioral political science and behavioral genetics offer to the advancement of the discipline.


2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Lupia

Editor's note This well circulated but heretofore unpublished report is the summary statement of an interdisciplinary meeting of scholars convened by the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia on June 28, 2010. The workshop, which was funded by the NSF's Political Science Program (Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences Grant #1037831), was convened to answer two compelling questions: Are studies of social behavior that build from discoveries about genes and/or cognition of greater social and scientific value than studies of the same topics that ignore such factors? And, how can fundable research on genes, cognition, and politics generate transformative scientific practices, infrastructure, and findings of high social value? Assembled for the workshop were a group of scholars representing diverse yet increasingly connected research areas, including genetics, cognitive science and neuroscience, decision making and risk analysis, economics, political science, and sociology. The resulting report outlines the substantial challenges facing interdisciplinary research but also describes the considerable contributions to knowledge that could result from sustained collaborations between biologists, geneticists, and brain scientists on the one hand and social scientists on the other. Following this main report are three white papers by Jeremy Freese. Elizabeth Hammock, and Rose McDermott, which address importmant considerations related to the discussion. For a download of the full report, see http://www.isr.umich.edu.cps/workshop.Welcome.html.


2021 ◽  
pp. 003776862110147
Author(s):  
Damon Mayrl ◽  
Dahlia Venny

Despite a recent trend toward the judicialization of religious freedom (JRF), both historical experience and theoretical considerations suggest ‘dejudicialization’ is likely at some point. Yet, dejudicialization has provoked a little comment, and even less theorization, among social scientists studying religious freedom. This article conceptualizes the dejudicialization of religious freedom (DRF) in institutionalist terms, examines the structural forces that have facilitated JRF, and considers whether and how they may be waning in recent years. We argue conditions favorable toward dejudicialization in general, and DRF more specifically, are already emerging; highlight recent developments consistent with such a turn; and develop a typology of the forms that DRF may take.


2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Meads ◽  
Lorenzo Allio

This section regularly examines Regulatory Impact Assessment (IA) at three levels: the EU, theMember States and internationally. Contributions aim to cover aspects such as the interface between IA and risk analysis, looking atmethodologies as well as legal and political science-related issues. Contributions are meant to report and critically assess recent developments in the field, develop strategic thinking, and make constructive recommendations for improving performance in IA processes.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Keele ◽  
Randolph T. Stevenson

Social scientists use the concept of interactions to study effect dependency. Such analyses can be conducted using standard regression models. However, an interaction analysis may represent either a causal interaction or effect modification. Under causal interaction, the analyst is interested in whether two treatments have differing effects when both are administered. Under effect modification, the analysts investigates whether the effect of a single treatment varies across levels of a baseline covariate. Importantly, the identification assumptions for these two types of analysis are very different. In this paper, we clarify the difference between these two types of interaction analysis. We demonstrate that this distinction is mostly ignored in the political science literature. We conclude with a review of several applications.


1966 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 538-540
Author(s):  
Martin Lowenkopf

This conference brought together over 70 social scientists from the Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ugandan constituent Colleges of the University of East Africa (with visitors from Zambia, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, and Rhodesia) for their annual inter-disciplinary, or rather trans-disciplinary, deliberations. Why ‘trans-disciplinary’? Because the historians discussed nationalism, politics, and church movements; political scientists discoursed on economics, rural settlement, agriculture, and education; sociologists criticised political decisions and economic criteria which hampered their investigations into resettlement programmes; and the economists, while speaking mostly about economics, were represented at virtually all panels, apparently to guard their disciplinary preserve against intrusions, presumptions and, in one case, elision with political science.


2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-586
Author(s):  
Niilo Kauppi ◽  
David Swartz

Pierre Bourdieu was a prolific scholar whose multifaceted work inspired research in a wide variety of areas. Beyond sociology we find his influence in anthropology, history, cultural studies, political science, and international relations. Particularly after 1995, when he engaged in a fight against neo-liberalism, he became the pre-eminent public intellectual. Bourdieu clearly stands in the pantheon of the greatest contemporary social scientists. This article explores the social mechanisms that enabled the global circulation of Bourdieu’s oeuvre. Multiple factors in multiple intellectual fields contributed to this process. There are “global Bourdieus.” Throughout his career Bourdieu was a defender of the dominated, and a sharp critic of established powers; his work provides individuals in a variety of central and peripheral fields weapons against social domination whatever its form. This narrative weds together his biography and oeuvre, and forms the web that unites him with the social carriers of his work globally.


Author(s):  
Dean Knox ◽  
Christopher Lucas ◽  
Wendy K. Tam Cho

Social scientists commonly use computational models to estimate proxies of unobserved concepts, then incorporate these proxies into subsequent tests of their theories. The consequences of this practice, which occurs in over two-thirds of recent computational work in political science, are underappreciated. Imperfect proxies can reflect noise and contamination from other concepts, producing biased point estimates and standard errors. We demonstrate how analysts can use causal diagrams to articulate theoretical concepts and their relationships to estimated proxies, then apply straightforward rules to assess which conclusions are rigorously supportable. We formalize and extend common heuristics for “signing the bias”—a technique for reasoning about unobserved confounding—to scenarios with imperfect proxies. Using these tools, we demonstrate how, in often-encountered research settings, proxy-based analyses allow for valid tests for the existence and direction of theorized effects. We conclude with best-practice recommendations for the rapidly growing literature using learned proxies to test causal theories. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document