DepartmentofPoliticalScience

__________________________________________________________PhDinPoliticalScience ComprehensiveExaminationGuidebookFall2016

Contents Pages2-3: ExaminationOverviewandGeneralDirectionsPages4-8: ReadingLists

Page4- GeneralTheoryandMethodologyPage5- AmericanGovernmentPage5- ComparativePoliticsPage6- InternationalRelationsPage7- PublicPolicy

Page8-13: SampleQuestionsforWrittenExamination

Page9- GeneralTheoryandMethodologyPage10- AmericanGovernmentPage11- ComparativePoliticsPage11- InternationalRelationsPage11- PublicPolicy

2 | P a g e

EXAMINATIONOVERVIEWANDGENERALDIRECTIONSDoctoralstudentssitforthecomprehensiveexaminationattheconclusionofallrequiredcoursework.Thecomprehensiveexaminationconsistsofawrittenandoralcomponent.Thewrittencomponentoftheexamisbasedontheliteratureandresearchintherelevantfieldofstudyandonthestudent’scompletedcourseworkinthatfield.PetitioningtoSitfortheExaminationYourfirststepistopetitiontoparticipateintheexamination.UsetheDepartment’sgraduatepetitionformandincludethefollowinginformation:

1) generalstatementofintenttositforacomprehensiveexamination,2) proposedprimaryandsecondaryfieldsareas(seebelow),and3) alistortablelistingallgraduatecoursescompletedalongwiththefacultyinstructorforthe

courseandthegradeearnedThispetitionshouldbecompletedearlyintheregistrationperiodforwhenthestudentplanstositfortheexam.Allexamineesmustselectaprimaryandsecondaryfieldfromthefollowinglist:

• AmericanGovernment• ComparativePolitics

• InternationalRelations• PublicPolicy

Afteryourpetitionissubmitted,youshouldcontactandspeakwiththechairofthePhDprogram,ProfessorDenisSullivan.Ifatallpossible,thisinitialmeetingshouldtakeplacepriortothesemesterwhenyouplantositfortheexam.Basedonthisdiscussion,ProfessorSullivanmayreferyoutootherfacultymembersdependingonyourproposedfieldareasandquestions.Althoughtherearereadinglistsandsamplequestionslaterinthisbooklet,facultymayrecommendotherreadingsandquestionsthatwillhelpyoufocusonareasofpotentialweakness.RegistrationOnceyourpetitionhasbeenapproved,youmustregisterforPOLS8960,QualifyingExaminationPreparation,forthesemesteryouaretakingthecomprehensiveexam.Thisconstitutesfull-timeregistration.ExceptforspecialcircumstancesapprovedbytheDepartmentandtheGraduateSchool,nocoursesshouldbetakenduringthesemesterwhenyouaresittingforyourcomprehensiveexaminations.TheExaminationTheexaminationisofferedinthefallsemesterandthespringsemester.ThewrittenportionwillgenerallybescheduledinNovemberinthefallandmidMarchinthespring.Theexamisapproximately5hoursinduration(whichincludesarequiredbreak)andconsistsofatotalofthreequestions,onequestionfromeachofthreeofthefollowingcategories:

• generaltheoryandmethodology• thestudent’sprimaryfield• thestudent’ssecondaryfield

3 | P a g e

TheexammustbetypedonacomputerinRenaissancePark.Studentsdonothaveaccesstonotesorothermaterialduringtheexam.Thewrittenportionoftheexamisreviewedconsideringthethefollowingcriteria:1)knowledgeoftheliterature;2)effectivecommunication;3)synthesisofmajorthemesintheliterature;4)applicationoftheoreticalandmethodologicalconceptstocurrentpoliticalpoliciesandproblems;and5)independentthoughtbeyondtheliterature.Thewrittenportionoftheexamisnotinandofitselfgraded,thoughitisassessedbyacommitteeoffaculty.Ifthatassessmentispositive,thestudentproceedstotheoralexamination.Theoralcomponentoftheexaminationisapproximately90minuteslongandisusuallygivenwithintwotothreeweeksaftercompletionofthewrittenexamination.Thisexamcoversquestionsandissuesraisedinthewrittenexam,butitmaygobeyondthattocovermoregeneraltopicsrelevanttothestudent’sareaofstudy.Discussionmayalsotakeplaceonthestudent’slikelydissertationtopic.Anoverallassessment–passwithdistinction,pass,orfail–ismadeaftertheoralexamination.Thoseassessedaspassorpasswithdistinction,andwhohavesatisfactorilycompletedallrequiredcoursework,areformallynominatedfordoctoralcandidacy.Studentswhofailtheexaminationaftertheirfirstattemptareallowedtopetitiontore-taketheexaminationinasubsequentsemester.Barringextraordinarycircumstances,aPhDstudentwillnotbeallowedtositfortheexammorethantwotimes. AfterPassingtheExaminationAdissertationisrequiredofallPhDCandidates.OnceaPhDstudenthasreachedcandidacy,he/shehasfiveyearstocompleteanddefendthedissertation.Additionally,oncedegreecandidacyisattained,registrationmustbecontinuousuntilgraduationrequirementshavebeenmet.ForeachofthefirsttwosemestersthatadoctoralcandidateisworkingonadissertationthestudentmustregisterforPOLS9990:DoctoralDissertation.Foreachsemesterbeyondthefirsttwosemesters,thestudentmustregisterforPOLS9996:DoctoralDissertationContinuationuntilthedissertationisapprovedbytheGraduateSchoolandissubmittedtotheUniversityLibrary.StudentsdonotregisterforPOLS9990orPOLS9996duringthesummer,unlessthatiswhenthedefenseisscheduled.PleaseseethegraduateprogramofficeortheDepartmentwebsiteforgeneralinformationonpreparingyourdissertationproposal.Thisproposalistobecompletedwithinsixmonthsafterreachingdoctoralcandidacyandiswritteninclosecollaborationwithfacultyonyourdissertationcommittee.Fordetailedinformationonguidelines,rules,andregulationsonthepropersubmissionofacompleteddissertationpleaseseetheGraduateSchoolSubmissionguideonthiswebpage,(http://www.northeastern.edu/casgraduate/commencement/thesis_guidelines/.

4 | P a g e

COMPREHENSIVEEXAMREADINGLISTS Updated—Fall2016Thewrittenportionofthecomprehensiveexamsconsistsofthreequestions:

1) AquestioninGeneralMethodologyandTheory2) AquestionfromyourPrimaryField3) AquestionfromyourSecondaryField

Please note, students should review the most recent syllabi of the respective field seminars and, if necessary, consult with the instructor for that course. The required readings in these seminars are an important starting point for reviewing the literature. The readings listed below constitute the other major source for reviewing the literature. In addition, relevant writings by faculty in the Department might also be consulted. This list will be updated periodically. GENERALMETHODOLOGYANDTHEORY

— Berg,BruceL.2006.QualitativeResearchMethodsfortheSocialSciences.6thed.Boston:Allyn&Bacon.

— Carlson,JamesM.andHyde,MarkS.2003.DoingEmpiricalResearch.Boston:HoughtonMifflin.(orJohnson&Reynoldsetal.)

— Cramer,DuncanandHowitt,Dennis.2004.TheSageDictionaryofStatistics.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

— Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in ComparativePolitics.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.

— Goodin,RobertE.andKlingermann,Hans-Dieter,eds.1996.ANewHandbookofPoliticalScience.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

— Johnson, JanetB.andReynolds,H.T.2004.PoliticalScienceResearchMethods.5thed.Washington,DC:CQPress.(orCarlson&Hyde)

— Jones,GeraldE.2000.HowtoLiewithCharts.Lincoln,NE:AuthorsChoicePress.

— King,Gary;Keohane,RobertO.andVerba,Sidney.1994.DesigningSocialScienceInquiry:ScientificResearchInferenceinQualitativeResearch.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

— Nardi,PeterM.2003.DoingSurveyResearch.Boston:Allyn&Bacon.

— Pollock,Philip.2005.TheEssentialsofPoliticalAnalysis.2nded.Washington,DC:CQPress.

— Przeworski,AdamandTeune,Henry.1982.TheLogicofComparativeSocialInquiry.Malibar,FL:Krieger.

— Ragin, Charles C. 1992. The ComparativeMethod:Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies.Berkley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

— Salkind,Neil.2006.ExploringResearch.6thed.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.

— Shoemaker,PamelaJ.;Tankard,JamesW.,andLasorsa,DominicL.2003.HowtoBuildSocialScienceTheories.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

— Rochefort,DavidA.,ed.2006.QuantitativeMethodsinPractice:ReadingsfromPS.Washington,DC:CQPress.

— Vogt,W.Paul.2005.DictionaryofStatisticsandMethodology:ANontechnicalGuide for theSocialSciences.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

5 | P a g e

— Yin,RobertK.2002.CaseStudyResearch.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

AMERICANGOVERNMENT

— Aldrich, John. 1995.Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

— Allison,Graham.1971.EssenceofDecision.NewYork:HarperCollins.

— Arnold,Douglas.1990.TheLogicofCongressionalAction.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

— Burns,JamesMacGregor.2009.PackingtheCourt:TheRiseofJudicialPowerandtheComingCrisisoftheSupremeCourt.Penguin.

— Canon,BradleyandCharlesJohnson.1999.JudicialPolicies:ImplementationandImpact,2ded.CQPress.

— Carmines, Edward and Stimson, James. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of AmericanPolitics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

— Dahl,Robert.1956.APrefacetoDemocraticTheory.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

— Edwards,George.1989.AttheMargins:PresidentialLeadershipofCongress.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

— Epstein,Lee.1995.ContemplatingCourts.Washington,DC:CQPress.

— Fisher, Louis. 1988. Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretation as Political Process. Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress.

— Forina,Morris. 1989.Congress: Keystoneof theWashington Establishment.NewHaven, CT: YaleUniversityPress.

— Hedge,David.1998.GovernanceandtheChangingAmericanStates.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

— Levinson,Sanford.2006.OurUndemocraticConstitution.OxfordUniversityPress.

— Light,Paul.1997.TheTidesofReform.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

— Light,Paul.1992.ForgingLegislation.NewYork:W.W.Norton.

— Meier,Ken.1985.Regulation:Politics,Bureaucracy,andEconomics.NewYork:St.MartinsPress.

— Neustadt,Richard.1990.PresidentialPowerandtheModernPresidents.NewYork:TheFreePress.

— O’Brien,DavidM.2008.StormCenter:TheSupremeCourtinAmericanPolitics.Norton.

— Rakove,Jack.1996.OriginalMeanings:PoliticsandIdeasintheMakingoftheConstitution.Vintage.

— Rosenthal,Alan.2012.TheBestJobinPolitics:ExploringHowGovernorsSucceedasPolicyLeaders.CQPress.

— Rosenthal,Alan.2008.EnginesofDemocracy:PoliticsandPolicymakinginStateLegislatures.CQPress.

— Schattschneider,ElmerE.1960.TheSemisovereignPeople:ARealist’sViewofDemocracyinAmerica.Hinsdale,IL:DrydenPress.

— Segal,JeffreyandHaroldSpaeth.1993.TheSupremeCourtandtheAttitudinalModel.CambridgeUniversityPress.

— Skowronek,Stephen.1993.ThePoliticsPresidentsMake:LeadershipfromJohnAdamstoGeorgeBush.Cambridge,MA:BelknapPress.

— Tribe,LaurenceH.2008.TheInvisibleConstitution.OxfordUniversityPress.

— Walker,David.1995.TheRebirthofFederalism.Chatham,NJ:ChathamHouse.

6 | P a g e

— Weaver,R.KentandRockman,BertA.1993.DoInstitutionsMatter?:GovernmentCapabilities intheUnitedStatesandAbroad.Washington,D.C.:BrookingsInstitution.

— Whittington, Keith. 1999.Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and ConstitutionalMeaning.HarvardUniversityPress.

— Wilson,JamesQ.1989.Bureaucracy.NewYork:BasicBooks.

COMPARATIVEPOLITICS— Almond,GabrielandSydneyVerba.1963.TheCivicCulture:PoliticalAttitudesandDemocracyinFiveNations.NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications.

— Almond, Gabriel and Sydney Verba, eds. 1989. The Civic Culture Revisited. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

— Anderson,Benedict.1983.ImaginedCommunities.NewYork,NY:Verso.

— Barreto,Amilcar.2009.NationalismandItsLogicalFoundations.Palgrave-MacMillan.

— Bates,RobertH.2001.Prosperity&Violence:ThePoliticalEconomyofDevelopment.NewYork:W.W.Norton.

— Chilcote,RonaldH.1994.TheoriesofComparativePolitics.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

— Dahl,Robert.1971.Polyarchy.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

— Dahl,Robert.1956.APrefacetoDemocraticTheory.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

— Hall,P.A.andTaylor,R.1996.“PoliticalScienceandtheThreeInstitutionalisms.”

— Katz,RichardandCrotty,William,eds.2005.HandbookofPartyPolitics.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

— Lichbach,MarkI.andAlanS.Zuckerman,eds.1997.ComparativePolitics:Rationality,Culture,andStructure.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

— Lijphart,Arend.1999.PatternsofDemocracy.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

— Michels,Robert.1999(1915).PoliticalParties:ASociologicalStudyoftheOligarchicalTendenciesofModernDemocracy.NewYork:Transaction.

— Migdal,JoelS.2001.StateinSociety:StudyingHowStatesandSocietiesTransformandConstituteOneAnother.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

— Ogden,Suzanne.2002.InklingsofDemocracy.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

— Poggi,Gianfranco.1978.TheDevelopmentoftheModernState.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

— Przeworski,AdamandHenryTeune.1970.TheLogicofComparativeSocialInquiry.Malabar,FL:Krieger.

— Putnam,Robert.1993.MakingDemocracyWork:CivicTraditionsinModernItaly.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

— Schumpeter,Joseph.1950.Capitalism,SocialismandDemocracy.NewYork:Harper.

— Skocpol,Theda.1979.States&SocialRevolutions:AComparativeAnalysisofFrance,Russia&China.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

— Smith,AnthonyD.2004.NationsofAntiquity.Malden,MA:Polity.

— Spruyt,Hendrik.1994.TheSovereignStateandItsCompetitors.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

— Tilly,Charles.1990.Coercion,CapitalandEuropeanStates.Cambridge,MA:BlackwellPublishers.

— Tsebelis, George. 1990. Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics. Berkeley: University of

7 | P a g e

CaliforniaPress.

— Whitehead,Laurence.2002.Democratization:TheoryandExperience.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress

INTERNATIONALRELATIONS— Abrahms,Max.2006.“WhyTerrorismDoesNotWork.”InternationalSecurity.

— Fearon,James.1995.“RationalistExplanationsforWar.”InternationalOrganization.

— Finnemore,Martha.1996.NationalInterestsinInternationalSociety.

— Finnemore,MarthaandKatherynSikkink.“InternationalNormDynamicsandPoliticalChange,” InternationalOrganization52:4.

— Gilpin,Robert.1987.ThePoliticalEconomyofInternationalRelations.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

— Gilpin,Robert.1981.WarandChangeinWorldPolitics.Cambridge,MA:CambridgeUniversityPress.

— Goldstein,JoshuaS.2010.InternationalRelations.NewYork:Longman.

— Gourevitch,Peter.1978.“TheSecondImageReversed,”InternationalOrganization.32:4.

— Hoffman, Stanley. 1981. Duties Behond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical InternationalPolitics.

— Huntington, Samuel. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of theWorldOrder. NormanOK:UniversityofOklahomaPress.

— Jervis.Robert.1976.PerceptionandMisperceptioninInternationalPolitics.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

— Katzenstein,Peter. 1996. TheCultureofNationalSecurity:NormsandIdentity inWorldPolitics. NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

— Keck,Margaret and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: AdvocacyNetworks in InternationalPolitics.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.

— Keohane,RobertO.1986.NeorealismanditsCritics.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

— Keohane, Robert O. 2005. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

— Keohane,RobertO.andJosephS.Nye.2001.PowerandInterdependence.3rdEdition.NewYork:Longman.

— Kubalkova, Vendulka, NicholasOnuf and Paul Kowert, eds. 1998. International Relations in a ConstructedWorld.NewYork:M.E.Sharpe.

— Kydd,AndrewandBarbaraWalter.2006.“TheStrategiesofTerrorism.”InternationalSecurity.

— Lenin,VladimirI.1996[1920].Imperialism:TheHighestStageofCapitalism.London:Junius.

— Mearsheimer,John.“TheFalsePromiseofInternationalInstitutions,“InternationalSecurity.

— Morgenthau,Hans.1948.PoliticsAmongNations:TheStruggleforPowerandPeace.

— Neufield,Mark. 1995. The Restructuring of International Relations Theory. New York: CambridgeUniversityPress.

— Pape,Robert.2003.“TheStrategicLogicofSuicideTerrorism.”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview.

— Risse, Thomas. “Let’s Argue: Communicative Action in World Politics.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

8 | P a g e

— Russett, Bruce. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

— Shapiro,Michael J. and YawardAler, eds. 1996.ChallengingBoundaries:Global Flows, Territorial Identities.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

— Smith, S., Booth, K. and Zalewski,M. eds. 1996. International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

— Stephan,MariaandEricaChenoweth.2008.“WhyCivilResistanceWorks:TheStrategicLogicofNonviolentConflict.”InternationalSecurity.

— Tickner,J.Ann.2001.GenderingWorldPolitics:IssuesandApproachesinthePost-ColdWarEra.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

— Waltz,Kenneth.2001.Man,theState,andWar.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

— Waltz,Kenneth.1999.TheoryofInternationalPolitics.

— Wendt,Alexander.1999.SocialTheoryofInternationalPolitics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

— Young,Oran.1989.InternationalCooperation.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

PUBLICPOLICY— Bardach,Eugene.2011.APracticalGuideforPolicyAnalysis,4thed.CQPress.

— Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, BryanD. 2009.Agendas and Instability in American Politics. 2nd Edition.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

— Blake,CharlesandJessicaAdollno.2007.ComparingPublicPolicies,2nded.CQPress.

— Bobrow,DavisandDryzek,John.1987.PolicyAnalysisbyDesign.Pittsburgh:UniversityofPittsburghPress.

— Downs,Anthony.1957.AnEconomicTheoryofDemocracy.NewYork:Harper.

— Eduardo,Araral,Jr.etal.(eds.).2013.RoutledgeHandbookofPublicPolicy.RoutledgePress.

— Fischer,Frank.1995.EvaluatingPublicPolicy.Chicago:Nelson-HallPublishers.

— Gladwell,Malcolm.2002.TheTippingPoint.BackBayBooks.

— Goggin,Malcolm;Bowman,Ann;Lester,JamesandO’Toole,Jr.,Laurence.1990.ImplementationTheoryandPractice.Glenview,IL:ScottForesman/LittleBrown.

— Hargrove,ErwinandJohnGlidewell.1990.ImpossibleJobsinPublicManagement.Lawrence,KS:UniversityPressofKansas.

— Heineman,Robert;Bluhm,WilliamT.;Peter,StevenA.andKearny,EdwardN.,eds.1991.TheWorldofthePolicyAnalyst.Chatham,NJ:ChathamHouse.

— Hill,MichaelandPeterHupe.2003.ImplementingPublicPolicy.SagePublications.

— Hood,ChristopherandHelenMargetts.2007.TheToolsofGovernmentintheDigitalAge.PalgraveMacmillian.

— Howlett,MichaelandM.Ramesh.1995.StudyingPublicPolicy:PolicyCyclesandPolicySubsystems.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

— Judd,DennisandSwanstrom,Todd.2002.CityPolitics:PrivatePowerandPublicPolicy.3rded.NewYork:Longman.

— Kingdon,John.2010.Agendas,Alternatives,andPublicPolicies.UpdateEdition.HarperCollins.

9 | P a g e

— Kraft,MichaelandScottFurlong.2007.PublicPolicy:Politics,Analysis,andAlternatives.2nd.Ed.

— Lipset,SeymourMartin.1997.AmericanExceptionalism.W.W.Norton.

— McDonough,JohnE.2000.ExperiencingPolitics.UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

— Moran,Michael,etal.2006.TheOxfordHandbookofPublicPolicy.OxfordUniversityPress.

— Olson,Mancur.1965.TheLogicofCollectiveAction.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

— Osborne,DavidandPlastrik,Peter.1997.BanishingBureaucracy.NewYork:Penguin.

— Parson,D.W.Parson.1995.PublicPolicy.EdwardElgarPublishers.

— Peters,Guy.1997.AmericanPublicPolicy.Chatham,NJ:ChathamHouse.

— PolicyStudiesJournal.2009.SpecialEditiononPolicyTheory.Vol.37,Issue1.

— Rochefort,DavidandRogerCobb.1994.PoliticsofProblemDefinition.UniversityPressofKansas.

— Rose,Richard.1993.Lesson-DrawinginPublicPolicy:AGuidetoLearningAcrossTimeandSpace.Chatham,NJ:ChathamHouse.

— Rosenberg,Gerald.1991.TheHollowHope:CanCourtsBringAboutSocialChange?Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

— Sabatier,Paul.2007.TheoriesofthePolicyProcess.2ndEd.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

— Schneider,AnneandHelenIngram.1997.PolicyDesignforDemocracy.UniversityPressofKansas.

— Smith,KevinandChristopherLarimer.2009.ThePublicPolicyTheoryPrimer.WestviewPress.

— Stone,Deborah.2012.PolicyParadox:TheArtofPoliticalDecisionMaking,3rded.NewYork:Norton.

— Theodoulou,StellaZ.andCahn,MatthewA.,eds.1994.PublicPolicy:TheEssentialReadings.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

— Wildavsky,Aaron.1992.TheNewPoliticsoftheBudgetaryProcess.NewYork:HarperCollins.

COMPREHENSIVEEXAMSAMPLEQUESTIONS Updated—Fall2013Thefollowingquestionsaretypicalofthoseaskedineachofthecomprehensiveexamareas.However,theyaresamplesonly.Theydonotnecessarilycovereveryquestionorareayoumightbeaskedaboutinyourexamination. SampleMethodologyandGeneralTheoryQuestions

1. Youhavejustagreedtoteachacourseonmethodstograduatestudentsinpublicpolicyatyourlocaluniversity.Onceyou’vemetthestudents,youfindthattheyfall intotwowarringcamps:onegroupisveryquantitativelyorientedandloves learningabouttheapplicationofstatisticaltechniquesinpolicyresearch;theothergroupeschewsthisapproach,favoringthemethodsandinsightsofqualitativeresearch.Howwouldyouteachthiscoursetobringthesestudentfactionsto somekindofmiddlegroundwherebothunderstandandappreciate theuseof theother’sapproach? Inteachingthisclass,whatwouldyoutellstudentsaboutthekindsofproblemsorquestionsthatarebesthandledbyeachmethodology?Howwouldyoudemonstratethatthereareresearchtopicsrequiringquantitativeaswellasqualitativeanalysisforafullunderstanding

10 | P a g e

ofthepolicydynamicsinvolved?

2. Congratulations!YouhavesuccessfullypassedyourPh.D.ComprehensiveExamsatNortheasternUniversityandyouhavedecidedthata“casestudy”approachisthemostappropriatedesigntouseforyourdissertation;however,youhavebeentoldbyyourdissertationadvisorthatyoumustuseacomparativecasestudyapproachinthisresearch,givenyourresearchquestion.Youareplanningtomeetwithyourentirecommitteetoexplainyourproposedresearchdesign.Inpreparingforthisyouradvisorasksyoutoprepareahandoutwithadiscussionofeachofthefollowing.

• Whatisthenatureofyourproposedresearchincludingtheresearchquestion?(1paragraph)

• Howandwhymightyouusea“mostsimilarsystems”design?(Becertaintorelateyourresponsetothenatureofyourresearchquestion.)

• Howandwhymightyouusea“mostdifferentsystems”design?(Becertaintorelateyourresponsetothenatureofyourresearchquestion.)

• Whatarethemostimportantfactorsindecidingwhichapproachtousebetweenthesetwochoices?

3. Scholarsinourdisciplinecontinuetodebatetheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofstudiesbasedonthecase-studyapproachversustheso-called“large-N”studies.

a) Whatwouldyouhighlightastheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthetwoapproaches?b) Howdothetwolendthemselves,ornot,toquantitativeandqualitativeanalyses?c) Aretherewaysthetwoapproachesmightbecombinedwithinasingleresearchdesign?

Finally,pleasediscusshowtheseapproacheshavebeenappliedinthepolicyareayouaremostinterestedinstudyingandwithwhatresults?

SampleAmericanGovernmentQuestions1. Incomparativeterms,itisoftenclaimedthatAmericanpoliticalpartiesareweakerthanparties

inmostothercountries,whileAmericaninterestgroupsarestronger.Takeeitherhalfofthisclaimandassessit.AreAmericanpartiesespeciallyweak/interestgroupsespeciallystrong?Ifso,whatfeaturesofAmericansocietyandtheAmericanpoliticalsystemareresponsibleforthischaracteristic?

2. ThedevelopmentofpublicpolicyatthelevelofAmericannationalgovernmentisoften

portrayedascomingfromaclashbetweenCongressandthepresidency.Selectoneofthesetwobranches,andassessitspower.Whatconstitutionalorotherresourcesdoesithave?Whatobstaclesdoesitface?Howhasitspowerchangedovertime?

3. TwokeycharacteristicsinAmericangovernmentaretheseparationofpowersandfederalism.Ingeneral,whatimpactdoeseachhaveonpublicpolicymakingintheAmericancontext?Howdosuchinstitutionalfactorsfigureintocontemporarytheoreticalmodelsofthepolicyprocessthatfocusontopicslikeagendasetting,policyinnovation,andpoliticaleconomy?Usespecificexamplesandmakereferencestotheliteraturewhereappropriate.

11 | P a g e

SampleComparativePoliticsQuestions1. Chooseanimportantissueregardingacountryinwhichyouhaveaparticularresearchinterest.

Pleaseexplainhowatleastthreetheoreticalapproachestothestudyofcomparativepoliticsmighthelpustobetterunderstandthatissue.Notelimitationsaswellaspossibledistortionsproducedbythesetheories.(Youarefreealsotoarguethattwoofthetheoriesyouselectareoflittlehelpinunderstandingtheissue.)

2. WithinComparativePoliticstherearethreeprimaryapproaches:PoliticalCulture,Structure,and

RationalChoice.Somecontendthatthethreearemutuallyexclusive.Otherssuggestthattheymightbecomplementary.Taketwoofthesethreeapproachesanddiscusshowthosetwocomplementeachotherwhenitcomestocomparativeanalysis.Backyourargumentwithadiscussionofsomeofthekeyfigures/authorsinthetwoareasyouselect.

3. Regardlessofourresearchpreferenceswewillalwaysbeconfrontedwithscholarswhowriteonourtopicareafromdifferenttheoreticalandmethodologicalapproaches.Asastudentofcomparativepolitics,howdoyouorganizethisseemingchaos?Howdomajorresearchparadigmshelporhurtinorganizingthedisciplineandourpersonalresearchprojectinlightoftherestofthediscipline?ProvideexamplesfromthescholarlyliteratureonComparativePoliticsand/orMethodologywhenansweringthesequestions.

SampleInternationalRelationsQuestions1. Takingonemajorconflictinvolvinginternationalactorspleasewriteananalysisexplaininghow

atleastthreeinternationalrelationstheoriescanhelpusunderstandthatconflict.Also,pleasenotelimitationsaswellaspossibledistortionsfromusingthesetheories.(Youarefreealsotoarguethattwoofthetheoriesyouselectareoflittlehelpinunderstandingtheconflict.)

2. Pleasewriteanessayexplaininghowinternationalrelationstheorycanhelpusunderstandonepoliticalsystemorpoliticalprobleminyourprimaryareaofresearch.Youshouldconsiderallmajortheoreticalapproachesyoucouldemploy,butyoushouldfocusprimarilyonatheoryortheoriesyouconsidertobemosthelpfulinunderstandingyoursubstantivefocus.Concludeyouranswerwithabriefconsiderationofthefollowingquestions:Whataspects,ifany,ofyoursubjectareaarenotamenabletotheoreticalanalysis,andhowmightthetheoreticalapproach(s)youpreferdistortone’sunderstandingofthesubject?Howmightyoupreventorcountersuchtheoreticalaswellasideologicaldistortionsinyouranalysis?

3. TheSeptember11,2001,terroristattacksspurredunprecedentedinterestinthestudyofterrorism.Andyet,fundamentalquestionsabouttoday’sterrorismthreatremainunsettled.Identifyadebatewithinthestudyofterrorism,explainitssignificancetounderstandingterrorism,andassesstheevidence.

12 | P a g e

SamplePublicPolicyQuestions1. Theliteratureonproblemdefinitionandagendasetting,takenasawhole,hasbecomeamajor

componentintheoriesofthepolicyprocessand,even,onapproachestopolicyanalysis.Usingthecoreliterature,applytheseconceptstoaspecificpolicyareaofyourchoice,explaininghowthedynamicsofproblemdefinition(forexample,Stone’snotionof“causalstories”)andofagendasettingshapethenatureofpolicydiscourse,theprobabilityofattentionbypolicymakers,and,finally,policyoutcomes.Whatarethelimitstowhichthesedynamicsofproblemdefinitionagendasettingcanexplainpolicyprocessesandoutcomes?Thatis,howmuchdootherfactors(e.g.,institutionaldesign,processrules)playaroleinshapingtheoutcomeinthisparticularinstance?Citeliteraturewherenecessaryanduseful.

2. Policyanalysishasbeencharacterizedasbothanartandascience.Explainthischaracterization,citingboththescientificandartisticcharacterofpolicyanalysis.Doyouagree?Explain.

3. Choose an area of public policywithwhich you have good familiarity and describe the latestmajor piece of legislation or regulatory initiative adopted within this domain. Next, brieflyoutline the alternative policy approaches that were set aside in favor of the actual policyestablished.Usingconcepts/frameworks/theoriesfromtheliteratureonproblemdefinitionandagendasetting,explainwhythepolicymakingprocessonthisissuedevelopedandturnedoutasit did. Finally, what implications for program implementation (approach, challenges, likelyeffectiveness) follow from the fact that policymakers settled on this particular policy designwhilerejectingmoreorlessambitiousalternatives?