Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Institutional Choice After Communism: A Critique of Theory-Building in an Empirical Wasteland (1998) Michael Bernhard

Institutional Choice After Communism: A Critique of Theory-Building in an Empirical Wasteland (1998) Michael Bernhard

Ratings: (0)|Views: 42 |Likes:
During the past decade there has been a tendency in political science to belittle area-based compara­tive politics and argue that comparativists need to become more "scientific" like their colleagues in other subdisciplines. Robert Bates, the former president of the APSA's organized comparative politics section, even has called area specialists traitors to science who have forsaken the search for general­izable knowledge. This tendency in the discipline has been contemporaneous with the collapse of Eu­ropean communist regimes, and the discipline's treatment of these events provides one of the first op­portunities to assess the emergent orthodoxy. Mainstream journals have published a number of articles by specialists in democratization who do not have extensive training in the region. Such "trespassers" have applied existing theories of democratization to Eastern Europe. This paper critically evaluates the part of this literature devoted to questions of institutional choice in new democracies. The major find­ing is that much of this literature is marred by highly suspect interpretations and outright errors of fact. In many cases, these inaccuracies are so great as to render much of the theoretical insight drawn by these articles suspect. The conclusion of the paper is that by radically separating empirical from nomothetic knowledge, and determination of fact from theorizing, the errant trespassers create well specified theories that are based on slim or bad evidence. In short, they practice bad science.
During the past decade there has been a tendency in political science to belittle area-based compara­tive politics and argue that comparativists need to become more "scientific" like their colleagues in other subdisciplines. Robert Bates, the former president of the APSA's organized comparative politics section, even has called area specialists traitors to science who have forsaken the search for general­izable knowledge. This tendency in the discipline has been contemporaneous with the collapse of Eu­ropean communist regimes, and the discipline's treatment of these events provides one of the first op­portunities to assess the emergent orthodoxy. Mainstream journals have published a number of articles by specialists in democratization who do not have extensive training in the region. Such "trespassers" have applied existing theories of democratization to Eastern Europe. This paper critically evaluates the part of this literature devoted to questions of institutional choice in new democracies. The major find­ing is that much of this literature is marred by highly suspect interpretations and outright errors of fact. In many cases, these inaccuracies are so great as to render much of the theoretical insight drawn by these articles suspect. The conclusion of the paper is that by radically separating empirical from nomothetic knowledge, and determination of fact from theorizing, the errant trespassers create well specified theories that are based on slim or bad evidence. In short, they practice bad science.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial No-derivs

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/06/2012

pdf

 
InstitutionalChoiceAfterCommunism:ACritiqueofTheory-BuildinginanEmpiricalWasteland
MichaelBernhardAssociateProfessorofPoliticalScienceThePennsylvaniaStateUniversityUniversityParkPA16801e-mail:mhb5@psu.eduProgramonCentral
&
EasternEuropeWorkingPaperSeries#47AbstractDuringthepastdecadetherehasbeenatendencyinpoliticalsciencetobelittlearea-basedcompara-tivepoliticsandarguethatcomparativistsneedtobecomemore"scientific"liketheircolleaguesinothersubdisciplines.RobertBates,theformerpresidentoftheAPSA'sorganizedcomparativepoliticssection,evenhascalledareaspecialiststraitorstosciencewhohaveforsakenthesearchforgeneral-izableknowledge.ThistendencyinthedisciplinehasbeencontemporaneouswiththecollapseofEu-ropeancommunistregimes,andthediscipline'streatmentoftheseeventsprovidesoneofthefirstop-portunitiestoassesstheemergentorthodoxy.Mainstreamjournalshavepublishedanumberofarticlesbyspecialistsindemocratizationwhodonothaveextensivetrainingintheregion.Such"trespassers"haveappliedexistingtheoriesofdemocratizationtoEasternEurope.Thispapercriticallyevaluatesthepartofthisliteraturedevotedtoquestionsofinstitutionalchoiceinnewdemocracies.Themajorfind-ingisthatmuchofthisliteratureismarredbyhighlysuspectinterpretationsandoutrighterrorsoffact.Inmanycases,theseinaccuraciesaresogreatastorendermuchofthetheoreticalinsightdrawnbythesearticlessuspect.Theconclusionofthepaperisthatbyradicallyseparatingempiricalfromnomotheticknowledge,anddeterminationoffactfromtheorizing,theerranttrespasserscreatewellspecifiedtheoriesthatarebasedonslimorbadevidence.Inshort,theypracticebadscience.
 
1
InstitutionalChoiceafterCommunism:ACritiqueofTheory-buildinginanEmpiricalWasteland
1
MichaelBernhardAssociateProfessorofPoliticalScienceThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity
Introduction
Duringthelastdecadetherehasbeenatrendwithinpoliticalsciencetodiscountthevalueofarea-basedcomparativepoliticsandarguethatcomparativistsneedtobecomemore"scientific"liketheircolleaguesinAmericanpoliticsandsomebranchesofinternationalrelations.ThistendencyisevidentinpublicationsoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociationsuchasPS:PoliticsandPoliticalScienceandCP-APSA(thenewsletteroftheorganizedcomparativepoliticssectionoftheassociation).Arelateddevelopmentistheabolitionofmanyofthearea-basedjointcommitteesoftheAmericanCouncilofLearnedSocietiesandtheSocialScienceResearchCouncil,atthebehestoftheSSRC,whichisnowmoreinterestedinsupportingcross-nationalquantitativeandfonnalresearch.Incertaindepartmentswherebehavioralandformalapproachespredominate,areaspecialistsaredenigratedasmere"journalists"whojust"reportthefacts."Inthisregardpoliticalscienceisbeginningtomirrordevelopmentsinotherfieldssuchaseconomicsandsociology,whichhaveseenasharpdeclineinthenumberof"areaspecialists"employedattopproqrams."ThemostvisibleaspectofthisnewtrendinpoliticalsciencehasbeentheBatescontroversy.
3
RobertBates,formerpresidentoftheAPSA'sorganizedcomparativepoliticssection,claimsthatareaspecialistshaveturnedtheirbacksonthescientificpursuitofgeneralizableknowledge."WhileBatesdeniesthathewishestorelegateareaspecialiststothesecondaryroleofdatacollectorsfortheoreticians,likesomeofhiscolleagues,twoparagraphslaterhetalksabouthowgametheory(hisfavoredapproach)"requirespreciselythekindsofdatagatheredbyethnographers,historians,andstudentsof
culture."
Andhisproposalsforafusionofgametheoryandareastudies(analyticnarratives,etc.)donotreallyspecifytheroleofarea

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->