Degree | Type | Year |
---|---|---|
Political Science | OB | 0 |
You can view this information at the end of this document.
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.
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.
What is scientific knowledge? What is an academic paper?
Quoting, plagiarism and use of AI
How to define a research problem, a theoretical framework and your hypotheses
Conceptualization and operationalization
Quantitative research designs
Research design for hypothesis testing
Comparative research designs
Case studies
Experimental research designs
Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Type: Directed | |||
Lectures and presentations | 53 | 2.12 | 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 12, 1, 4, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16 |
Type: Supervised | |||
Tutorials | 10 | 0.4 | 14, 13, 11, 10, 12, 1, 4, 2, 3, 7 |
Type: Autonomous | |||
Reading and assignment preparation | 107 | 4.28 | 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 12, 1, 4, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16 |
The module is structured in two different kinds of seminars:
1) seminars dealing with methodological questions related to the research process
2) students' presentations of their research projects (4 sessions by the endo fo the course).
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.
Title | Weighting | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Final assignment | 40% | 30 | 1.2 | 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 12, 1, 4, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16 |
Participation | 10% | 10 | 0.4 | 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 12, 2, 5, 6, 9, 16 |
Research proposal outline. Question and hypotheses. | 25% | 20 | 0.8 | 14, 11, 12, 1, 4, 2, 5, 7, 9 |
Review on qualitative methodologies | 25% | 20 | 0.8 | 15, 14, 13, 11, 12, 4, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 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:
Use of Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity
In this course, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies is restricted to non-generative functions. Students are allowed to use AI only as a support tool for linguistic and stylistic corrections, code review and optimization, initial idea generation (brainstorming), or occasional summaries of their own texts. The use of AI for writing texts, completing assignments, conducting literature reviews, or automatically solving graded tasks is strictly prohibited. Students must always indicate whether they have used AI tools, specify which ones, and reflect, when required, on how they influenced the final output. Any improper, undeclared, or generative use of AI will be considered a breach of academic integrity and may result in partial or full penalization of the grade, or more serious academic sanctions in severe cases.
According to academic regulations, any irregularity that significantly alters the grade of an assessment (such as plagiarism, cheating, or unauthorized AI use) will result in a 0 for that activity. In case of repeated offenses, the final grade for the course will also be 0.
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.
No software required.
Please note that this information is provisional until 30 November 2025. You can check it through this link. To consult the language you will need to enter the CODE of the subject.
Name | Group | Language | Semester | Turn |
---|---|---|---|---|
(TEm) Theory (master) | 1 | English | first semester | morning-mixed |