The Experts below are selected from a list of 55905 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Arthur Lupia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Transparent Social Inquiry: Implications for Political Science
Annual Review of Political Science, 2018Co-Authors: Colin Elman, Diana Kapiszewski, Arthur LupiaAbstract:Political Scientists use diverse methods to study important topics. The findings they reach and conclusions they draw can have significant social implications and are sometimes controversial. As a result, audiences can be skeptical about the rigor and relevance of the knowledge claims that Political Scientists produce. For these reasons, being a Political scientist means facing myriad questions about how we know what we claim to know. Transparency can help Political Scientists address these questions. An emerging literature and set of practices suggest that sharing more data and providing more information about our analytic and interpretive choices can help others understand the rigor and relevance of our claims. At the same time, increasing transparency can be costly and has been contentious. This review describes opportunities created by, and difficulties posed by, attempts to increase transparency. We conclude that, despite the challenges, consensus about the value and practice of transparency is emerg...
-
How Do Political Scientists Know What Citizens Want?
Facing the Challenge of Democracy, 2011Co-Authors: Arthur LupiaAbstract:This chapter sets out a paradox: in politics, citizens must sometimes make inconsistent choices in order, ultimately, to have made a consistent one. It examines this paradox to bring out how the preferences of citizens may appear fickle and incoherent because of measurement error. This is done by looking at how many Political Scientists conceptualize and measure what citizens want. The chapter then contends that we can improve our current conceptualization and measurement of citizen preferences. It further argues that progress can come from paying greater attention to how two factors, institutions and cognition, affect preferences. In examining the effect of institutions, the chapter maintains that many scholarly claims about what citizens should want ignore the moderating effect of institutions.
-
the growth and development of experimental research in Political science
American Political Science Review, 2006Co-Authors: James N Druckman, Donald P Green, James H Kuklinski, Arthur LupiaAbstract:Although Political Scientists have long expressed skepticism about the prospects for experimental science, an analysis of the first hundred volumes of the American Political Science Review reveals that randomized experiments have grown in impact and prominence. We document how thinking about experimentation has evolved over the century, and demonstrate the growing influence of laboratory, survey, and field experiments. A number of experiments have transformed how Political Scientists think about causal relationships in specific substantive areas. There are limits to the kinds of questions that experiments can address, but experiments have made important contributions in an array of Political science subfields.
Martha A. Ackelsberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Introduction: Contributions of Women Political Scientists to a More Just World
Politics & Gender, 2005Co-Authors: Martha A. AckelsbergAbstract:This roundtable was originally presented as a panel at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the APSA in Philadelphia that was sponsored by the Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession. It was the sense of members of that committee that far too much of the time and energy of many Political Scientists—especially within the hallowed halls of convention centers—has focused on methodological debates and conflicts, while far too little attention has been directed to issues of social change and/or to contemporary issues of public policy. Nevertheless, it was also our sense that the focus on method to the exclusion—or, at least, the devaluation—of substance has been less true for feminist scholars and others who have been on the margins of the discipline or of the society than it has been for members of the profession at large. Indeed, many of the women and minority scholars, in particular, who entered the field of Political science in the past 20 to 30 years did so precisely because they wanted to make a difference in the world, and to learn how to use the tools of the profession to improve the situation of less empowered members of society, whether in the United States or abroad. Hence, the decision to sponsor this roundtable, to highlight some of those women and their contributions, and to reflect on what we have achieved and what significant questions and tasks remain to be addressed.
Jennifer Woodward - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pedagogy training among Political Scientists opportunities interest and obstacles
Journal of Political Science Education, 2020Co-Authors: David Trowbridge, Jennifer WoodwardAbstract:Over the last two decades there have been periodic calls for improved teacher training and a growth in scholarship on teaching and learning. Yet, we know little about opportunities and participatio...
Vladik Kreinovich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Why Political Scientists Are Wrong 15% of the Time
Journal of Information Technology Education, 2016Co-Authors: Olga Kosheleva, Vladik KreinovichAbstract:An experimental study has shown that among situations when Political Scientists claimed that a Political outcome was impossible, this outcome actually occurred in 15% of the cases. In this paper, we provide a possible explanation for this empirical fact. 1 Formulation of the Problem Empirical fact. A detailed study [5] has shown that among situations when Political Scientists claimed that a Political outcome was impossible, this outcome actually occurred in 15% of the cases. Clarification. It should be noted that we are not talking about bizarre possibilities that everyone considers to be practically impossible – like aliens landing on the White House. If we include such bizarre options, then, of course, the percentage of actual occurrence would be much much smaller. The above research only dealt with outcomes which are realistic enough, so that at least some Political Scientists claim them to be possible. What we do in this paper. In this paper, we propose a possible explanation for the above empirical fact. 2 Analysis of the Problem Seven plus mins two law: reminder. It is known that we usually divide each quantity into 7 plus plus minus 2 categories – this is the largest number of categories whose meaning we can immediately grasp; see, e.g., [2, 3]. For some people, this “magical number” is 7 + 2 = 9, for some it is 7− 2 = 5. Consequences for estimating how possible are different events. As a result, in situations of high uncertainty, when we estimate how possible is an
-
why Political Scientists are wrong 15 of the time
Journal of Information Technology Education, 2015Co-Authors: Olga Kosheleva, Vladik KreinovichAbstract:An experimental study has shown that among situations when Political Scientists claimed that a Political outcome was impossible, this outcome actually occurred in 15% of the cases. In this paper, we provide a possible explanation for this empirical fact. 1 Formulation of the Problem Empirical fact. A detailed study [5] has shown that among situations when Political Scientists claimed that a Political outcome was impossible, this outcome actually occurred in 15% of the cases. Clarification. It should be noted that we are not talking about bizarre possibilities that everyone considers to be practically impossible – like aliens landing on the White House. If we include such bizarre options, then, of course, the percentage of actual occurrence would be much much smaller. The above research only dealt with outcomes which are realistic enough, so that at least some Political Scientists claim them to be possible. What we do in this paper. In this paper, we propose a possible explanation for the above empirical fact. 2 Analysis of the Problem Seven plus mins two law: reminder. It is known that we usually divide each quantity into 7 plus plus minus 2 categories – this is the largest number of categories whose meaning we can immediately grasp; see, e.g., [2, 3]. For some people, this “magical number” is 7 + 2 = 9, for some it is 7− 2 = 5. Consequences for estimating how possible are different events. As a result, in situations of high uncertainty, when we estimate how possible is an
Andrew Reynolds - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Between Science and Engineering: Reflections on the APSA Presidential Task Force on Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance: Political Scientists as Electoral System Engineers
Perspectives on Politics, 2013Co-Authors: John M. Carey, Mala Htun, Shaheen Mozaffar, G. Bingham Powell, Andrew ReynoldsAbstract:Political Scientists have contributed to the world of electoral systems as Scientists and as engineers . Taking stock of recent scientific research, we show that context modifies the effects of electoral rules on Political outcomes in specific and systematic ways. We explore how electoral rules shape the inclusion of women and minorities, the depth and nature of Political competition, and patterns of redistribution and regulation, and we consider institutional innovations that could promote Political equality. Finally, we describe the diverse ways that Political Scientists produce an impact on the world by sharing and applying their knowledge of the consequences of electoral rules and global trends in reform.
