This course provides a forum for developing well-specified and coherent research projects.  The seminar offers its members an opportunity to work through their ideas and test their arguments in a structured and collegial setting. Students will devote most of their time to defining and pursuing their research in close consultation with the professor.  Professor and student interaction on the student's specific research project will be emphasized.  The expectation is that every paper will be submitted to a conference and/or a journal at the end of the quarter. (We will write a conference proposal and manuscript submission letter during the term.)   

The seminar is divided into two parts.  In Part I, the group will meet to discuss general principles of legislative research design and the specific task of constructing a publishable article.  For example, How does one tie narrow topics to broad theories?  What is a valid argument?  This part of the course will include analyzing a published article as a class.  Specifically, the research design will be reconstructed and critiqued.  

Throughout the course individual meetings between the professor and the student will be stressed.  Class time will occasionally be used as a forum to discuss problems that have arisen for colleagues while pursuing their research.  

In Part II of the course, each member of the seminar will present her/his proposal to the group.  A week before your presentation, you must circulate to all members of the seminar a 500-word (one single-spaced page) "Project Statement" formulated along the lines specified below.  Other interested faculty and graduate students will be invited to participate in the presentations; a conference setting will be mimicked.  You should view this segment of the course as an opportunity to present your work, identify strengths and weaknesses of your project, and get new ideas.  

Readings:

Required:  
Becker, Howard S.  1986. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  
There is a packet, which contains the articles and selections below, available for purchase from Cop-Ez in the basement of Bricker Hall.
 Recommended:
Seltzer, Richard A.  1996.  Mistakes that Social Scientists Make: Error and Redemption in the Research Process.  New York: St. Martin’s Press.  (I have a copy that can be borrowed).  
  
Course Requirements:

1.  Everyone is expected to participate in seminar meetings.  A special premium must be placed on participating in sessions devoted to the work of other students in this seminar. 

2.  A short written exercise is due October 7th.   You will be asked to wrestle with two fundamental issues:
? What empirical question does your paper seek to answer?
? What theoretical interest do you have in this problem?

For more on this assignment, see the attached page, "Exercise 1:  From Topic to Research Question."

3.  Using the assigned article by Jacobson and Dimock, prepare a Project Statement (see Assignment 2 for a description) as if you were the author of THEIR paper.  Focus on research design and methodology.  Due October 14th.

4.  Hand in a draft of the statement of your problem, research design, and method to be used on October 23rd.

5.  Students will get experience in the role of reviewing articles.  Each student will select one published article for the class to review in addition to those selected by the instructor.  Bring one copy of the article you are choosing to class on October 23rd.  Critiques of 2 articles not chose by you will be due on October 18th.   

6.  Draft of your “paper” due on November 4th.  I will be happy to read anything and everything at any other time during the course as well.  

7.  Draft of your vita due on November 11th.  

8.  Drafts of your letters to the conference section organizer and to the editor are due November 18th.  

9.  Circulate to all seminar members a 500-word (one single-spaced page) "Project Statement."  It will provide a concise summary of your research question, main argument, and research design, and will identify the theoretical implications of your work.  The one-page statement should be in  departmental mailboxes at least two days before your talk.  Follow the format outlined on the attached page, "Exercise 2:  Project Statement."  

10.  Present your work to the seminar.  Details about the format will be provided in class.  

11.  Serve as a discussant or journal reviewer regarding a colleague's paper.   
 12.  Hand in the manuscript by December 8th.  

Grading: 35% of the course grade based on the paper due on December 8th, 10% for your performance as a discussant, 10% for class participation, 5% each the remaining 9 assignments.  

Note of interest:  The Carl Albert Research and Studies Center has initiated Congress-L, an Internet Mailing List for Congressional Scholars, intended to provide an academic forum for scholars.  To subscribe, send the following E-mail message to LISTSERV@UOKNOR.EDU:  Subscribe CONGRESS-L (your name).  
 

Course Schedule

September 25 Introduction

October 2 Social Science and the Study of Politics
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba.  1994.  Designing Social Inquiry. 
Princeton:  Princeton University Press.  pp.  3-49
What are the three main points of this reading?
What is its relevance to your work?
Exercise 1 Due on Oct. 7

October 9 From Topic to Research Question 
Becker, Howard S.  1986. Writing for Social Scientists.  Chapters 1-5.
Jacobson and Dimock Project Statement Due on Oct. 14

October 16 Research Design and Methodology
Jacobson, Gary and Michael Dimock.  1994.  "Checking Out:  The Effects of BankOverdrafts on the 1992 House Elections."  American Journal of Politics 38(3): 601-624.
Becker, Howard S.  1986. Writing for Social Scientists.  Chapters 1-5.

October 23 The Role of Reviewer – What to Look For and What to Avoid
Read manuscript in packet.  Come prepared to critique.  
Draft of Exercise 2 Due     
One copy of your selected published article for review Due
Critiques of 2 of the articles selected by your colleagues are Due Oct. 28

October 30 Editorial Decisions/Constructive Suggestions/The Carefully Worded Reply/Possible Extensions
Read all articles selected by your colleagues.
Draft of Your Paper Due Nov. 4

November 6 One-On-One, no class meeting
Draft of Your Vitas Due Nov. 11
 November 13 Using Your Colleagues Near and Far
Drafts of Your Letters to the Conference Section Organizer and to the Editor Due Nov. 18

November 20 One-On-One

November 27 Happy Thanksgiving (no classes)

December 2 Presenter or Discussant . . .

December 4 . . . (flipping roles ) discussant or presenters.  REMINDER:  Assignment 2 due at least two days before your presentation.

December 8  Final manuscript due!
Paper must be turned in by 5:00 p.m. on December 8th to receive a grade and thus avoiding an incomplete.

 
  Research Colloquium in Legislative Politics and Policy Making
 

 Exercise 1:  From Topic to Research Question
 

Write a one-page response. 
 

Think about your general area of research interest and write down 3-5 empirical questions that the paper will seek to answer.  (The questions could be variations on a theme.) 

Then ask yourself:  What theoretical interest do I have in this question?  (Put other ways:  What is the theoretical issue at stake?  Why, from a theoretical perspective, is this question interesting?)  In response, write down a couple of theoretical questions that arise out of/underlie you empirical concern.

Finally, write a paragraph that discusses the "fit" between your empirical and theoretical questions:  Are you focusing on empirical questions that will allow you to respond to your theoretical questions?  Given your theoretical interests, might a different case or set of empirical questions be more appropriate?  
  Research Colloquium in Legislative Politics and Policy Making

 Exercise 2:  Project Statement
 

A week before your presentation to the seminar, you should place copies of your 500-word (one single-spaced page) "Project Statement" in the departmental mailboxes of all seminar members.  (Bibliographic references should be listed on a separate page and conform to the APSR Style Manual.)  These should be distributed one week before your presentation.  You are encouraged to give copies to other faculty and graduate students who may be interested in your project, and to invite these people to attend.  Your statement should follow the following format. 

Your statement should be divided into four sections of roughly equal length:
 

 Project Title

Part I:  Statement of the Problem
Part II:  Summary of the Main Argument
Part III:  Research Design and Methods
Part IV:   Theoretical Implications / Relevance

The statement should make sense to a political scientist who is not a specialist in legislative politics.  Part I should identify the concrete research problem and locate it with respect to theoretical issues/literatures in social science.  Part II should lay out your main argument.  What does your research show, how do you interpret your findings, and how will this answer/solve the research problem set out in Part I?  (In effect, you are laying out "hypotheses" that have theoretical implications.)  Be as explicit in Part III as space will allow.  In Part IV, tell us what political scientists learn from your research.  Be sure to explain why they should read your work even if they have no interest in the empirical problem at hand.