Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-xl4lj Total loading time: 0.33 Render date: 2021-06-17T07:04:22.150Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Can the Biomedical Research Cycle be a Model for Political Science?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2016

Abstract

In sciences such as biomedicine, researchers and journal editors are well aware that progress in answering difficult questions generally requires movement through a research cycle: Research on a topic or problem progresses from pure description, through correlational analyses and natural experiments, to phased randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In biomedical research all of these research activities are valued and find publication outlets in major journals. In political science, however, a growing emphasis on valid causal inference has led to the suppression of work early in the research cycle. The result of a potentially myopic emphasis on just one aspect of the cycle reduces incentives for discovery of new types of political phenomena, and more careful, efficient, transparent, and ethical research practices. Political science should recognize the significance of the research cycle and develop distinct criteria to evaluate work at each of its stages.

Type
Reflections Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Angrist, Joshua D. and Pischke, Jörn-Steffen. 2014. Mastering ’Metrics: The Path from Cause to Effect. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ankeny, Rachel A. 2011. “Using Cases to Establish Novel Diagnoses: Creating Generic Facts by Making Particular Facts Travel Together.” In How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehlbach, Scott. 2015. “The Fallacy of Multiple Methods.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 25(2): 1112.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2012a. “Mere Description.” British Journal of Political Science 42(04): 721–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John. 2012b. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glennerster, Rachel. 2013. Running Randomized Evaluations: A Practical Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, Sanchez de as Sierra, Raul, and Van der Windt, Peter. 2013. “Fishing, Commitment, and Communication: A Proposal for Comprehensive Nonbinding Research Registration.” Political Analysis 21(1): 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert, and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovesdy, Csaba P. and Kalantar-Zadeh, Kamyar. 2012. “Observational Studies versus Randomized Controlled Trials: Avenues to Causal Inference in Nephrology.” Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease 19(1): 1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L. 1998. “Canons of Research Design in Qualitative Analysis.” Studies in Comparative International Development 33(3): 1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paluck, Elizabeth. 2010. “The Promising Integration of Qualitative Methods and Field Experiments.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 628(1): 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Donald. B. 1974. “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies.” Journal of Educational Psychology 66(5): 688701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Can the Biomedical Research Cycle be a Model for Political Science?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Can the Biomedical Research Cycle be a Model for Political Science?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Can the Biomedical Research Cycle be a Model for Political Science?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *