The
American Political System
Research
Paper Assignment: Fall 2007
GOALS:
This is a
short (7-8 page) research paper that will allow you to employ some of the
political science tools from class. You
will choose at least 2 academic articles from a list provided by Dr. Juenke, and
at least 1 more that you find on your own, that deal with a particular
controversy/research question in the political science literature. Next, you will summarize them critically using the analytical
tools from class. You will then develop
an academic argument for how the literature on this topic applies to ideas from
class, and how the research program might be improved by what you have learned
(how would you study your question differently?).
Please see the note on plagiarism in
the last section of the syllabus.
Ignorance of CU’s plagiarism policy (or ignorance of what plagiarism is)
will not protect you from failing this assignment, or the course, if you
plagiarize.
The goal of
this paper is to get you to understand what political scientists actually do,
and to try and analyze a political topic from a different perspective. This is not an easy paper assignment
(contrary to what you might think when you begin it). I want you to try and see how difficult it is
to study a topic from a scientific perspective, instead of simply giving your
opinion, simply describing an issue, or simply parroting what some media pundit
(blogger, editorialist, or hot head on TV) says. If you find yourself doing any of these
comfortable things, you are not doing the assignment.
Expectations:
The
expectations for the paper are the following:
1) Typed, 7-8 pages in length (not
including the bibliography)
a. This is with 1 inch margins and 12
point type. Any deviation from this signals to us that you did not really do a good job on
the paper and are trying to cover it up with dumb tricks.
2) Pick at least 2 readings in American
politics from the list provided (pick something you are actually interested
in!). Next, find at least 1 more reading
(book, article, or other academic
source) that is related to your first readings.
If you wait until the last week before it is due to pick a topic, you
will have a very difficult time with this entire project.
a. Here are some places to look for other
sources (along with the shelves of the library). You have free access to these resources when
you are ON CAMPUS. Off-campus, you must
get a VPN dialer from ITS:
i. www.jstor.org (a very helpful tool for social scientists)
iii. http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/research/ejournalfinder.htm
(e-journal finder for when you find an article and want to find the electronic
copy of it through the library). Simply
type in the name of the journal you are looking for, and then click on the
links to get to the article you want to find.
3) Summarize these articles or books in your paper
in a way that describes the current academic
understanding of this topic. Are there
disagreements about measures? Theory? Is there something that is not being covered
in the pieces you have found that is still unclear? Discuss it.
This is the bulk of the paper.
4) Lastly, I want you to provide me with
a brief discussion of what you think
should be studied next. How might these
scholars study this question in a way that would answer some of your lingering
questions? That is, what could these
scholars learn from you in terms of
figuring out what is going on with your topic (this is where you use stuff you
have learned from class to be a critical analyst)? Could they get better data? Does their theoretical story make sense? What would you still like to know about this
topic?
Here is what your paper will look like
when you are done:
Introduction (brief):
-
Introduce
the topic briefly and describe what the hubbub is all about
-
Why
is this an interesting topic of study (you can find
this out by looking at the articles or books you are referencing. Typically most authors will describe why
their work is important right in the beginning of the book or article! You can do it too!)?
Meat and Potatoes (literature review,
most of the paper)
-
Here
you are summarizing the works you are using.
-
You
want to tie the articles or books together.
Do they reference each other?
-
Look
at THEIR literature reviews to see
how they do this (amazing!).
-
The
difference between a C, B, or A paper will be how seriously you treat the works
you are summarizing. That is, if you
simply give us a simple summary of the readings and move on, we will not be
impressed. I want you to really
understand and think about what the authors are saying to you and to one
another. What do they have to say about
your topic that is helpful?
-
Now,
you take what the articles or books have said, and you add to it with your own
thoughts! What do you think about this
research? How might it be improved? What do think the authors are missing, or
where else might they look to test their ideas better? This is an extremely important part of the
paper. You must show us that you can
think intelligently about the material you have read, using the concepts you
have learned from class.
Last section (longer than the introduction,
but shorter than the previous section)
-
Here
you are telling us what you think can be done better (see previous description
of this above)
-
Tie
things up in a nice bow (this will prevent you from having to do a separate
conclusion).
-
This
section will also separate the good, the bad, and the ugly of these
papers. People who think this through
and demonstrate their thoughts coherently will do well. Those that cannot translate their thinking
into good writing will not do so well.
Please see
the plagiarism statement on the syllabus.
You will turn in an electronic copy of the paper to turnitin.com and it
will be proofed by me and the TAs as well.
If you are unsure what plagiarism is, you are going to cry when you are
busted for it. Don’t be a crybaby. It is your
responsibility as a CU student to know what plagiarism is. Learn what you can do to prevent this
unfortunate event. http://www.plagiarism.org/
“Patchwriting” is not your friend. It is the easiest way to get on our bad side
(not only is it dumb and lazy like all plagiarism, but it is also sneaky and
slimy). You don’t want to see our bad
side. See here for an example:
Research Paper
You must choose at least 2 of the
readings from this list to use for your research paper. They have been placed in categories to make
it easier for you to choose similar articles, but you are certainly not
constrained by these categories (you may mix and match if you think it helps).
-
Citations
within dotted lines are closely related to one another, and in many cases they
directly contradict one another. This is
GOOD. There is a debate here, and you
can understand the debate better by looking at disagreements.
Political Participation and Behavior
Bobo, Lawrence, and
Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr. 1990.
"Race, Sociopolitical
Participation, and Black Empowerment." The American Political Science Review 84
(2):377-93.
Banducci, Susan, Todd
Donovan, and Jeffrey Karp.
2004. "Minority
Representation,
Empowerment, and Participation." The Journal of
Politics 66 (2):534-56.
Alford, Funk and
Transmitted?"
American Political Science Review,
Vol. 99, No. 2, 153-167.
Paul Allen Beck; M. Kent Jennings. 1982.
“Pathways to Participation.” The
American Political Science Review, Vol.
76, No. 1: 94-108.
Donald D. Searing; Joel J. Schwartz; Alden E. Lind. 1973.
“The Structuring
Principle: Political Socialization
and Belief Systems.” The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 67, No. 2: 415-432.
Lijphart, Arend.
1997. “Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved
Dilemma.” The
American Political Science Review 91(1): 1-14.
Richard Timpone.
1998. “Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United
States.”
American Political Science Review 92: 145-58.
Graber,
Doris A. 1994. “Why Voters Fail
Information Tests: Can the Hurdles be
Overcome?” Political
Communication. Vol. 11, Issue 4, p331-346.
Powell Jr., G. Bingham 1986.
“American Voter Turnout in Comparative
Perspective”
American Political Science Review
80(1): 17-43.
Lau, Richard R. and
David P. Redlawsk (1997).
“Voting Correctly.” The
American Political Science Review 91,3:
585-598.
Richard Timpone.
1998. “Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United
States.” American Political Science Review 92:
145-58.
Citrin, Jack, Eric Schickler, and John Sides. 2003. “What if Everyone
Voted? Simulating the Impact of Increased Turnout in Senate Elections.”
American Journal of Political Science
47(1): 75-90.
Putnam (1995) “Bowling Alone:
Journal of Democracy Vol. 6, No. 1
Institutions"
in L. Dodd & C. Jillson (eds.) The Dynamics of American Politics: 106-131.
McDonald, Michael
and Samuel Popkin. 2001.
“The Myth of the Vanishing
Voter.”
American Political Science Review
95(4): 963-974.
Bartels,
L. M. 2000. "Partisanship and Voting Behavior,
1952-1996."
American Journal of Political
Science 44:
35-50.
Civil Rights and Liberties
Marie A. Eisenstein. 2006.
“Rethinking the Relationship between Religion and
Political Tolerance in
the
James L. Gibson.
1987. “Homosexuals and the Ku Klux Klan: A Contextual
Analysis of Political Tolerance.” The Western
Political Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3: 427-448.
John L. Sullivan; George E. Marcus;
1981. “The
Sources of Political Tolerance: A Multivariate Analysis.” The American Political Science
Review, Vol. 75, No. 1: 92-106.
Darren W. Davis; Brian D. Silver. 2004. “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public
Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on
Kinder, Donald and
of
Haider-Markel, Donald P.
and Kenneth J. Meier (1996).
“The Politics of
Gay and
Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of the Conflict.” The Journal of Politics 58,2: 332-349.
Policy/Bureaucracy
Houston,
David and Lilliard Richardson.
2004. “Drinking-and-Driving in
A Test of Behavioral Assumptions
Underlying Public Policy.” Political
Research Quarterly 57(1): 53-64.
Christopher Z.
Mooney; Mei-Hsien Lee.
1995. “Legislative Morality in the
American States: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform.” American
Journal of Political Science,
Vol. 39, No. 3: 599-627.
Nicholson,
The
work of Theodore J. Lowi.”
Policy Sciences 35: 163-177.
Robert A. Pape. 2003. “The
Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.” The
American Political Science Review, Vol.
97, No. 3: 343-361.
Parties and Interest Groups
Riker, William. 1976. “The Number of
Political Parties: A Reexamination of
Duverger’s Law.” Comparative
Politics 9(1): 93-106.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1995. “The
Politics of Institutional Choice:
Presidential
Ballot Access for Third Parties in the
Mutz, Diana C. 2002. “Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing
Democratic
Theory in Practice.” American
Political Science Review, 96(1): 111-126
David Mayhew. “Electoral Realignments.”
Annual Review of Political
Science (200) 3: 449-474.
Schaffner, Brian, Matthew Streb, and Gerald Wright.
2001. “Teams Without
Uniforms:
The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections.” The Political Research Quarterly. 54(1): 7-30.
Richard Hall and
Frank Wayman. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and
the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional
Committees.” American Political Science Review 84: 797-820.
David Austen-Smith
and John Wright.
1994. “Counteractive Lobbying.” American
Journal
of Political Science 38:
25-44.
Frank Baumgartner
and Beth Leech.
1996. “The Multiple Ambiguities of
‘Counteractive
Lobbying’.” American
Journal of Political Science 40: 521-42.
Congress
Polsby, Nelson. 1968 "The
Institutionalization of the
Representatives." American
Political Science Review 62: 144-168.
Shepsle, K and B. Weingast.
1994 "Positive Theories of Congressional
Institutions." Legislative Studies Quarterly.
19: 149-179.
Shepsle, K. and B. Weingast.
1987. "The Institutional Foundations of
Committee
Power." American Political Science Review 81:
85-104.
Denzau, A. and R. Mackay. 1983. "Gatekeeping
and Monopoly Power of
Committees:
An Analysis of Sincere and Sophisticated Behavior." American Journal of Political Science 27: 740-761.
Abramowitz, Alan,
Brad Alexander, and Matthew Gunning. 2006.
"Incumbency,
Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in
Shipan, Charles R. 2004. "Regulatory
Regimes, Agency Actions, and the
Conditional
Nature of Congressional Influence." American Political
Science Review 98: 467-480.
Elections and Representation
Fox, Richard L. and
Jennifer L. Lawless. "To Run or Not to Run for
Office:
Explaining Nascent Political Ambition." American Journal of Political Science,
Vol. 49, No. 3. July 2005: 642-659.
Sue Thomas. 1991. “The Impact of Women
on State Legislative Policies.”
Journal
of Politics 53:
958-76.
Verba, Sidney, Nancy
Burns, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1997. "Knowing
and Caring about Politics: Gender and
Political Engagement." The Journal of Politics 59 (4):1051-72.
Jones, David. Monika McDermott. 2004.
“The Responsible Party Government
Model
in House and Senate Elections.” The
American Journal of Political Science 48(1): 1-12.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M.
Snyder, and Charles Stewart.
2001.
"Candidate
Positioning in
Meier, Kenneth, Eric Gonzalez Juenke,
Robert Wrinkle, J.L. Polinard. 2005.
“Structural
Choices and Representational Biases: The Post-Election Color of
Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 49(4): 758-768.
The Presidency
Matt Eshbuagh-Soha. 2005. “The Politics of Presidential
Agendas.” The Political
Research Quarterly 58(2): 257-268.
Peake, Jeffrey S. 2001. “Presidential
Agenda Setting in Foreign Policy.” Political
Research
Quarterly 54: 69-86.
Edwards, George C.
III and B. Dan Wood.
1999. “Who Influences Whom? The
President,
Congress, and the Media.”
American Political Science Review 93: 327-344.
George C. Edwards III; Tami Swenson. 1997.
“Who Rallies? The Anatomy of a
Rally Event.” The Journal of
Politics, Vol. 59, No. 1: 200-212.
Leonie Huddy;
Anxiety,
and Support of Antiterrorism Policies.” American
Journal of Political Science, Vol. 49, No. 3: 593-608.
John B. Gilmour.
2002. “Institutional and Individual Influences on the President's
Veto.” The Journal of Politics, Vol.
64, No. 1: 198-218.
Media
Prior, Markus. 2002. “Liberated
Viewers, Polarized Voters. The Implications of
Increased
Media Choice for Democratic Politics.” The Good Society 11(3):10-16.
Baum, Matthew A. 2005. “Talking the
Vote: Why Presidential Candidates Hit the
Talk Show
Circuit.” American Journal of Political Science 49(2):213-234.
Stephen Ansolabehere,
Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon,
and Nicholas Valentino.
1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the
Electorate?” American Political Science Review 88: 829-38.
Wattenberg, Martin and Craig Leonard Brians. 1999. “Negative Campaign
Advertising:
Demobilizer or Mobilizer?” American
Political Science Review 93(4): 891-899.
Judiciary
William Mishler
and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993. “The Supreme Court as a
Countermajoritarian Institution: The Impact of Public
Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions.” American Political Science Review 87:
87-101.
Helmut Norpoth
and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1994. “Comment.” American Political
Science
Review 88: 711-16.
William Mishler
and Reginald S. Sheehan. “Response.” American Political
Science
Review 88: 716-24.
Johnson, Timothy R. and Andrew D.
Martin. 1998. “The Public’s Conditional
Response to
Supreme Court Decisions.” American
Political Science Review Vol. 92, No. 2: 299-309.
Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Calderia and Lester Kenyatta Spence.
“Measuring
Attitudes toward the
Baum, Lawrence. 2003. "The
Supreme Court in American Politics." Annual
Review of Political Science. 6:161-80.
George, Tracey E. and Lee Epstein.
1992. "On the Nature of Supreme Court
Decision
Making." American Political Science
Review. 86(2):323-37.
Songer, Donald R. and Stefanie A. Lindquist.
1996. "Not the Whole Story: The
Impact of
Justices' Values on Supreme Court Decision Making." 40 American Journal of Political Science
1049-1063.
Rosenberg, Gerald. 1991. The Hollow Hope.
Press. 1-36.