教學大綱 Syllabus

Evaluation and Requirements

1. Weekly review assignments. In the second session of this course, for every class meeting, MA students must write one longer review assignment for one reading and one shorter review assignment for another reading. Doctoral students must write two longer review assignments for two readings. A list of reading assignments will be announced in Week 5. Below is the instruction for writing the assignments.

A). The longer review must be structured into the following sections:

(1) The specific research question that the article explicitly addresses (beginning with “How”)

(2) The broader research question that the article could address (beginning with “Why”)

(3) Why it matters to address the broader research question

(4) What previous studies have suggested and what research gaps that the article aims to fill

(5) The main theory proposed (testable hypotheses/argument, and their theoretical reasoning)

(6) Unit of analysis; research scope (the cases and time periods analyzed in the article); the dependent variable(s), independent variable(s), control variable(s), and how they are measured

(7) Main findings

(8) Critical review

Identifying the specific RQ in section (1) and the broader RQ in section (2) can be confusing for fresh graduate students. The good news is that all assigned readings in this course are empirical research papers. One common feature of the empirical papers is that the title is almost always organized in the manner of “the relationship between the explanatory factors and the outcome to be explained for particular cases.” Let’s take two imaginary papers, for example:

Article #1: “Natural Resource Revenues and Corruption in Latin American Democracies.”

Article #2: “Political Scandals and Electoral Performances of 175 Political Parties in 10 South American Countries (2000-2019).”

In section (1), the specific RQ can be specified in the article’s title or abstract. For article #1, the specific RQ could be: How do natural resource revenues affect levels of corruption in Latin American democracies? Or, it could be: What is the relationship between natural resource revenues and corruption in Latin American democracies? For article #2, the specific RQ could be: How do political scandals affect the electoral performances of 175 parties in 10 South American countries (2000-2019)? Or, it could be: What is the relationship between scandals and electoral performances of 175 parties in 10 South American countries (2000-2019)?

Identifying the broader RQ for section (2) can be challenging. It is because most articles do not mention it explicitly, either in the title or the text. The key point here is to figure out what kind of outcome the article aims to explain. For article #1, the outcome to be explained is the level of corruption. Therefore, the broader RQ is: Why do some countries have higher levels of corruption than others? Or, it could be: What explains the variation in levels of corruption among different countries? For article #2, the outcome to be explained is the electoral performance of political parties. Therefore, the broader RQ is: Why do some parties have better electoral performances than others? Or, it could be: What explains the variation in electoral performances of parties? Identifying the broader RQ is an essential training exercise for developing critical literature review skills for your research project.

Please write the answers to section (1) and section (2) in a question form with a question mark at the end. Please do not write a declarative statement for the answer to each section. Also, please do not mention the research scope (i.e., cases) of the article in your answer for section (2).

In section (3), discuss how the author or authors justify the importance of the research question that the article aims to address.

In section (4), briefly discuss what previous studies have suggested for the research question and specify the research gap this article aims to fill. Specifying research gaps can justify why this article differs from other related studies, how this article engage the existing debates, and what unique contributions that this article can make to the existing literature. The gap could be theoretical, empirical, or methodological. Most articles explicitly indicate such a gap in the Introduction section by briefly evaluating previous literature and mentioning what has not been done so far. To write the answer to section (5), you can use the following template: “Most previous studies have done such and such, but few studies have done… Therefore, this article aims to fill the gap in the literature by ...,” Identifying the gap is an essential training exercise for developing skills for figuring out how to make your research project unique.

In section (5), discuss the theory proposed by the article, including the definition of the key concept(s), the testable hypotheses (or arguments), and the theoretical reasoning (causal mechanism) behind the hypotheses (arguments).

In section (6), identify the unit of analysis and specify the research scope (the cases and time periods analyzed in the article). The unit of analysis relates to the “carrier” of the dependent variable, which can be a country, a subnational administrative unit, an organization (e.g., a political party or NGO), or other kinds of unit. For article #1, the unit of analysis is a country, and the research scope is Latin American Democracies from 1960 to 2019. For article #2, the unit of analysis is a party, and the research scope is 175 parties in 10 South American countries (2000-2019). In addition, specify what the dependent variable(s), independent variable(s), and control variable(s) are, and then, discuss how these variables are measured in the paper. Then, identify the level of measurement (dichotomous, ordinal, or continuous) and the data sources for these variables.

In section (7), summarize the main findings of the article. You can get the information in the abstract and statistical regression tables in the main text. For the presenters, if the reading provides regression tables, please copy and paste the tables into your PowerPoint slides.

In section (8), first briefly discuss what contribution that this article makes, then provide critical comments and questions as if you are the anonymous reviewer for this article. Thoughts for critiques include, but are not limited to: Is the transfer of theory to empirics reasonable? How well are the key concepts measured? Is there any problem in the proposed theory? Are there missing alternative explanations? How reliable are the data? What are the pros and cons of the methodology used by the author(s)? Is the theoretical argument applicable in other contexts for comparative work? What else can be done to improve this article? In your critiques, you are strongly encouraged to cite other similar studies to support your critiques.

B). The shorter review must be structured into the following sections:

(1) The specific research question that the article explicitly addresses (beginning with “How”)

(2) The broader research question that the article could address (beginning with “Why”)

(3) What previous studies have suggested and what research gaps that the article aims to fill

(4) The main theory proposed (testable hypotheses/argument, and their theoretical reasoning)

(5) Unit of analysis; research scope (specific cases and time periods analyzed in the article); the dependent variable(s), independent variable(s), control variable(s), and how they are measured

(6) Main findings

For MA students, a longer review assignment is worth up to 3 points, and a shorter review assignment is worth up to 2 point. For doctoral students, a longer review assignment is worth up to 2.5 points. The assignments will be graded based on its quality. In your assignment, please include your name and the bibliographic information for the reading on the top and insert page numbers at the bottom. The format of an assignment must be: 1) in Word format (DO NOT use PDF file); 3) 12-point font; 4) single-spaced; and 5) with moderate margins. For the longer review, 30% of the content must be in the critical review section. The assignments for a particular weekly class meeting must be posted one day before the class. Your points will be lowered for each late post or incomplete post.

In-Class Presentation: A list of presenters will be announced in Week 5. The presenters can use PowerPoint or simply their assignments for presentations. Each presentation must be no longer than 20 minutes. The presenters must lead the discussions by asking questions to the class. Note: If you are assigned as an in-class presenter, you can upload your PowerPoint slides to Moodle as your assignment.

2. Dataset building and empirical analysis assignments. You will build a dataset based on the V-Dem database. Visit Moodle for more details.

3. Submitted abstract for an international conference. You will submit a 150-word abstract for an annual conference held by one of the following professional political science associations (submission deadline in parenthesis): Midwest Political Science Association (early October), European Political Science Association (mid-December), American Political Science Association (mid-January), or International Political Science Association (late January). You are required to upload to Moodle the confirmation email that shows the association receives your abstract.

4. Research proposal. You will write a theory-driven empirical research proposal. It must be structured into the following five sections:

I. Introduction. First, specify your research topic and proposal a broader research question. Second, discuss why it matters for academia and policy makers to examine this broader research question.

II. Literature review.  First, identify at least two scholarly debates about the explanations of your DV. Here, you should not limit the literature search by focusing on the country cases you are interested in. You have to broaden the search of the literature. For instance, if you are interested in studying what explains the variation in levels of corruption in Africa, you should also search for literature about the explanations of corruption in other regions. Second, discuss the main argument of each debate based on a short literature review of at least five studies for each debate. Third, identify the gap in the literature that your project aims to fill. Possible research gaps include, but are not limited to, 1) missing explanation, 2) lack of systematic tests of different theories, and 3) lack of examination of certain cases.

III. Theoretical arguments and testable hypotheses. Based on the discussion about the gap in the literature, propose an explanation you plan to apply for your empirical analysis. Elaborate on the theoretical reasoning of the explanation. Generate hypotheses based on the explanation.

IV. Research design. First, specify the unit of analysis for the empirical analysis. Second, discuss how you measure the dependent variable(s), independent variable(s) and control variable(s), and then, indicate possible data sources for these variables. Third, discuss the research scope for the empirical analyses. Note that the specific cases and time periods that you plan to cover are determined mainly by data availability. Fourth, discuss the analytical methods that you intend to use. Last, provide a summary that indicates how your research project contributes to the existing literature. In this summary, you can reiterate that there is a gap in the literature, and your research project aims to fill the gap. In addition, briefly discuss one or two cases in the real world that fit the theoretical hypothesis.

Before uploading your research proposal, make sure to include the title of your project, your name, and page numbers. Moreover, please follow the American Political Science Association (APSA) style to format citations and bibliography/references. Last, the format of this paper must be: 1) in Word format; 3) in 12-point font; 4) single-spaced; and 5) with moderate margins. The length of the paper should be at least 2,000 words in total. Every student will be assigned to make an in-class presentation for the proposals on Week 16. Every student will also be assigned to be a discussant for one classmate’s presentation.

The paper is graded based on its clarity (30%), quality of literature review (30%), quality and feasibility of the design (20%), potential contributions (10%), and formality (10%).

5. Class participation. In every class meeting, I will make sure that EVERY student speaks. To facilitate the discussion, please have your assignments at hand. If you are not confident about speaking English, read your assignment out loud. Being unable to recall what you have written in your assignment is unprofessional and will seriously affect your grade for class participation.

General Policies

1. Add/drop the course. Students should drop the course if they 1) miss any of the first three weekly class meetings and 2) plan to skip the last three weekly class meetings.
2. Auditing students. I only permit my advisees to audit this course.
3. Plagiarism. Plagiarism is strictly prohibited in this course. When writing your assignments and research proposal, DO NOT copy and paste sentences from articles you read. Always write in your own words by rephrasing or paraphrasing. You will get a very low grade if I find that your assignments and research proposal have severe plagiarism problems.
4. Using AI tools. Do not use AI tools to produce your assignments and research proposal. However, you are encouraged to use AI tools to proofread and edit your assignments and research proposal. You will get a very low grade if I find that AI tools entirely produced your assignments and research proposal.
5. Teamwork. Teamwork for doing the required assignments and the research proposal is NOT allowed. However, you can discuss the coursework with me and your classmates.
6. Requirements for Ph.D. students. I have much higher expectations for doctoral students who take this course. Doctoral students will be assigned more in-class presentations if necessary. Also, doctoral students are expected to write better assignments and research proposals.
7. Using laptops and cell phones in class. Using laptops for taking notes is permitted. Using cell phones is strictly disallowed in class. If I see any student using a cell phone, I will stop the class until the student stops using the cell phone or leaves the classroom.
8. Re-evaluating grades. You have the right to request a re-evaluation of the grading of your work. In doing so, you must draft a one-page memo outlining why you deserve a better grade. Please note that this memo must be entirely based on the merit of your own work (it cannot be based on comparison with the grades of other students). Remember that your grade will be thoroughly re-evaluated so that the revision might involve a downward or upward change in the grade.