Logo UAB

Introduction to Research

Code: 42273 ECTS Credits: 10
2024/2025
Degree Type Year
4313335 Political Science OB 0

Contact

Name:
Carolina Galais Gonzalez
Email:
carolina.galais@uab.cat

Teachers

Eva Anduiza Perea
Gabriela de Carvalho

Teaching groups languages

You can view this information at the end of this document.


Prerequisites

Students enrolled in this course are expected to have a bachelors degree level in political science or in any other social science discipline.

Remedial readings:

Brians, Wilnat, Manheim & Rich, Empirical Political Analysis, various editions.

Pollock, P. 2009 The essentials of political analysis, Washington: CQ Press, 3rd ed.


Objectives and Contextualisation

The purpose of this module is to provide students with the methodological tools that are required for designing research projects in political science. The module is intended to help students successfully defend their Master Thesis and develop research proposals for PhD applications.

The module overviews the different phases of research, analyzes their potential problems and discusses solutions discussed in the literature. Within the module department professors and researchers present their current and past research projects, with an emphasis in linking relevant research questions to adequate research strategies.

 


Competences

  • Demonstration reading comprehension for specialist texts in English.
  • Design a research project that satisfies the criteria of rigour and academic excellence.
  • Develop leadership skills.
  • Generate innovative ideas.
  • Identify the main methodological difficulties that arise in political analysis and know how to deal with them using the existing tools.
  • Students should be able to integrate knowledge and face the complexity of making judgements based on information that may be incomplete or limited and includes reflections on the social and ethical responsibilities associated with the application of their knowledge and judgements.
  • Using the appropriate criteria make an individual evaluation of reports, documents and research carried out by third parties.
  • Work in international and interdisciplinary teams whose members have different origins and backgrounds.

Learning Outcomes

  1. Compare hypotheses using the different methods available.
  2. Define a research problem.
  3. Define an appropriate research strategy for a problem.
  4. Define concepts.
  5. Demonstration reading comprehension for specialist texts in English.
  6. Develop leadership skills.
  7. Draw up a theoretical framework.
  8. Generative innovative ideas.
  9. Students should be able to integrate knowledge and face the complexity of making judgements based on information that may be incomplete or limited and includes reflections on the social and ethical responsibilities associated with the application of their knowledge and judgements.
  10. Understand the characteristics of scientific knowledge.
  11. Understand the control logic of alternative explanations.
  12. Understand the limitations and possibilities of each research strategy.
  13. Understand the problems that can emerge when defining a research problem and know how to deal with them.
  14. Understand the problems that may emerge when defining concepts and how to deal with them.
  15. Using the appropriate criteria make an individual evaluation of reports, documents and research carried out by third parties.
  16. Work in international and interdisciplinary teams whose members have different origins and backgrounds.

Content

What is scientific knowledge? What is an academic paper?

Quoting, plagiarism and tools to organize your references 

How to define a research problem, a theoretical framework and your hypotheses

Conceptualization and operationalization

Conceptualization and measurement through surveys

Research design for hypothesis testing

Comparative research designs

Case studies

Experimental research designs


Activities and Methodology

Title Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Type: Directed      
Lectures and presentations 60 2.4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Type: Supervised      
Tutorials 50 2 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Type: Autonomous      
Reading and assignment preparation 113 4.52 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

The module is structured in two different kinds of seminars:
1) seminars dealing with methodological questions related to the research process

2) research in practice serminars, where researchers and professors of the department will present their past or current research projects

 

All sessions require previous reading of the indicated texts and an active participation of students. These are necessary conditions to create an informed dialoge and a stimulating environment to discuss the different methodological issues involved in any research process.

 

Annotation: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.


Assessment

Continous Assessment Activities

Title Weighting Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Final assignment 50% 13 0.52 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Participation 10% 2 0.08 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Research proposal outline. Question and hypotheses. 20% 6 0.24 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14
Review on qualitative methodologies 20% 6 0.24 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

To receive a passing grade, students must have attended at least 80% of all sessions with punctuality.  Grading will be based on the following criteria:

-          Participation in class discussion (10%).

-          Three written assignments (90%), from which:

  • Initial research proposal, Research Question & Hypotheses (20%)
  • Review of qualitative methodologies (20%)
  • Final Assignment: Research proposal (50%)

Bibliography

Bartolini, S. 1993. “On Time and Comparative Research.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 5(2): 131-167.

Blais, A., & Galais, C. (2016). Measuring the civic duty to vote: A proposal. Electoral Studies, 41, 60-69.

Burns, Nancy, and Gallagher, Katherine. (2010). “Public Opinion on Gender Issues: The Politics of Equity and Roles.” Annual Review of Political Science 13(1); 425-443.

Canes-Wrone, Brandice. (2015). “From Mass Preferences to Policy.” Annual Review of Political Science 18(1): 147-165.

Collier, D. 1993, “The comparative method” in Political Science: The state of the discipline II, Washington: American Political Science Association

Falleti, Tullia G. and Lynch, Julia F. 2009 “Context and Causal Mechanism in Political Analysis”, Comparative Political Studies 42(9): 1143-1166.

Fish, M. Steven. 2002. “Islam and Authoritarianism” World Politics 55:1, pp.4-37.

Geddes, Barbara. 1990. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics.” Political Analysis 2(1): 131-150.

Geddes, Barbara. 2003. "Big Questions, Little Answers: How the Questions You Choose Affect the Answer You Get." Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gerber, A.S. and Green, D.P., 2012. Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. WW Norton

Gerring, J. 2004, “What is a Case Study and what is it good for” American Political Science Review, 98: 2. An easier version can be found in the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (edited by C. Boix and S. Stokes)

Hancké, B. 2009, Intelligent research design: a guide for beginning researchers in the social sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katzer, J. 1998, Evaluating Information. A Guide for Users of Social Science Research, Boston: MacGraw Hill, ch 9.

Keohane, Robert O. 2009. “Political Science as a Vocation” PS: Political Science & Politics 42:2. pp.359-363.

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. 2007. Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Holt, NY: Harcourt College Publishers. Can be downloaded here: http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy015/Researchbookz.pdf

King, G., R. O. Keohane and S. Verba 1999, Designing Social Enquiry¸Princeton: Princeton University Press. Can be accessed here: https://sites.duke.edu/niou/files/2014/06/king94book.pdf

Klingemann, H. D. (1998). Mapping political support in the 1990s: A global analysis (No. FS III 98-202). WZB Discussion Paper.

Knopf, Jeffrey W. (2006). “Doing a Literature Review.” PS: Political Science & Politics 39(1): 127-132.

Lieberman, Evans S. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 9(3): 435-452.

McDermott, Rose. “The Ten Commandments of Experiments.” PS: Political Science & Politics. 46:3 (July 2013), pp.605-610.

Pollock, P. 2016. The essentials of political analysis, Washington: CQ Press, 3rd ed, ch 1. Preview of Ch. 1 can be accessed on Google Books: https://books.google.es/books?id=oV90CAAAQBAJ&dq=essentials+of+political+analysis+pollock&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press.

Tarrow, Sidney “Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide” in Brady & Collier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry, Chapter 10, pp. 171-180.

Toshkov, D. (2016). Research design in political science. Bloomsbury Publishing.


Software

No software required.


Language list

Name Group Language Semester Turn
(TEm) Theory (master) 1 English first semester morning-mixed