Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-xjl2h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-23T02:03:26.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What We Mean by Scope and Methods: A Survey ofUndergraduate Scope and Methods Courses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2009

Charles C. Turner  and
Cameron G. Thies
Charles C. Turner
Affiliation:
California State University, Chico
Cameron G. Thies
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Self-reflective political scientists have extensively reviewed thehistory of the discipline and argued over its future, but to datethere has been little effort to systematically survey undergraduatescope and methods courses (for an exception see Thies and Hogan2005). This lack ofdata leaves the discipline unable to assess how much we are teachingundergraduates about the scope of political science or, indeed, whatwe mean by the scope of the discipline. Similarly, though there havebeen many battles waged over the appropriateness of variousmethodologies, it is not clear how much of this discussion, or howmany of these methods, make it into the undergraduate classroom.Survey results from a nation-wide sample of political sciencedepartments indicate that most departments require a scope andmethods course of their majors and that, while there is a great dealof variety in topics covered, some common themes exist and somecommon assignments are used.

Information

Type
The Profession
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 367 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, Greg. 2001. “Teaching Undergraduate Methods.” The Political Methodologist 10 (1): 2–4.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, Barth, Aharon, and Rutherford, Kenneth R.. 2003. “Do We Preach What We Practice? A Survey of Methods in Political Science Journals and Curricula.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (2): 373–78.Google Scholar
Clawson, Rosalee, Hoffman, Aaron, and McCann, James A.. 2001. “If We Only Knew Then What We Know Now: A Few Reflections on Teaching Undergraduate Quantitative Methods Courses.” The Political Methodologist 10 (1): 4–5.Google Scholar
Hojnacki, Marie. 2001. “Teaching Undergraduates about the Quantitative Study of Politics.” The Political Methodologist 10 (1): 5–6.Google Scholar
Hubbell, Larry. 1994. “Teaching Research Methods: An Experimental and Heterodoxical Approach.” PS: Political Science & Politics 27 (1): 60–64.Google Scholar
Janda, Kenneth. 2001. “Teaching Research Methods: The Best Job in the Department.” The Political Methodologist 10 (1): 6–7.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Christopher N. 2008. “Textbook Methodology: Undergraduate Research Methods as Depicted in Textbooks.” Presented at the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 2001. “Teaching Undergraduate Methods: Overcoming ‘Stat’ Anxiety.” The Political Methodologist 10 (1): 7–9.Google Scholar
Marfleet, B. Gregory, and Dille, Brian J.. 2005. “Information Literacy and the Undergraduate Research Methods Curriculum.” Journal of Political Science Education 1 (2): 175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, Lawrence. 2002. “The Centrality of Epistemology in Methods Education.” PS: Political Science & Politics 35 (1): 121–25.Google Scholar
McBride, Allan B. 1994. “Teaching Research Methods Using Appropriate Technology.” PS: Political Science & Politics 27 (3): 553–57.Google Scholar
McBride, Allan B. 1996. “Creating a Critical Thinking Learning Environment: Teaching Statistics to Social Science Undergraduates.” PS: Political Science & Politics 29 (3): 517–21.Google Scholar
Parker, Jonathan. 2008. “Undergraduate Research Methods Teaching in Political Science: A Comparative Perspective.” Presented at the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
Poggione, Sarah. 2001. “Teaching Undergraduate Methods for the First Time.” The Political Methodologist 10 (1): 10–11.Google Scholar
Reinke, Saundra J. 2005. “Mission Impossible? Teaching Undergraduates Research Methods.” The Political Science Educator 10 (1): 3.Google Scholar
Rodgers, Pamela H., and Manrique, Cecilia. 1992. “The Dilemma of Teaching Political Science Research Methods: How Much Computers? How Much Statistics? How Much Methods?” PS: Political Science & Politics 25 (2): 234–37.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 2003. “Is This the Curriculum We Want? Doctoral Requirements and Offerings in Methods and Methodology.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (2): 379–86.Google Scholar
Stone, Peter. 2001. “Making the World Safe for Methods.” The Political Methodologist 10 (1): 9–10.Google Scholar
Thies, Cameron G., and Hogan, Robert E.. 2005. “The State of Undergraduate Research Methods Training in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38 (2): 293–97.Google Scholar
Turner, Charles C. 2005. “The Motivating Text: Assigning Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38 (1): 67–69.Google Scholar
Wahlke, John C. 1991. “Liberal Learning and the Political Science Major: A Report to the Profession.” PS: Political Science & Politics 24 (1): 48–60.Google Scholar