Critical Review Paper Option

From the course syllabus:

“Critical reviews (1) draw one or more argument(s) from a (the) book(s), (2) make one or more original argument(s) extending, modifying, or challenging the author’s arguments, (3) elaborate and demonstrate the logical soundness of your extension, modification, or critique and (4) explain how one could evaluate your new arguments empirically. (2) and (3) are the keys. These are not full research papers, so you need not present thorough evidence for their arguments, an exemplary anecdote or two will do. You must, minimally, describe what evidence would weigh for your theory and what against. That is, you must at least describe the empirical research that would be necessary to evaluate your argument(s). If your argument(s) is (are) correct, what would we expect to see under what conditions—what patterns should the comparative-historical record exhibit? Observing what sorts of things under what conditions would count against your argument(s)?”

The goal of this paper is for you to take an argument and think with it. Our course texts contain a series of interlocking arguments and propositions about many of the same variables. Quite often, though, the authors test only a small part of the argument, in a spatially and temporally constrained manner. Your job is to select some part of that web of arguments, and do one of several things with it to advance how we think about it—to stretch the web of arguments, if you will.

One option is to look for extensions of the arguments. If the author argues the theory holds true for one set of cases or events, are there additional cases or types of events which should also be explained by that theory? Why should the theory also explain these? Be specific. What characteristics of the initially predicted events does your proposition share? Do the same actors control (or benefit from) both sets of events? Are there additional predictions we can make about observable implications of the theory, now that we’ve extended some part of it? You might choose to argue that we can extend the temporal (or spatial) frame, or that under different institutional constraints the same theory might produce a pattern looking like x, or that the same theory makes arguments about events or behaviors within the author’s own data frame that the author does not otherwise consider. Or, you might choose a totally different extension.

A second option involves modifying the theory. If a theory was designed to explain behavior in, e.g., a presidential system, does it work just as well in a parliamentary one? What might have to change about the nature of the behavior predicted? Is there perhaps a variable missing from the author’s theory that limits when its predictions will be accurate, or that limits when/where the theory might be expected to apply? What might have to change to make predictions about cases where government control over the economy is less certain (as in developing states), or where the political system is still in flux (as in transitional democracies)?

Related to this second option is the possibility of challenging an author’s argument. Do the arguments of our authors contradict one another? Are there certain [institutional, political, structural, etc.] situations in which the theories should be expected to apply, but in which they systematically seem to fail? Are there constraints or conditions operating in today’s economies or polities which reduce the ability of policymakers to act as the theories predict?

This paper will require close attention to the course texts. You will need to provide a concise summary of the author’s original theory and findings before presenting your proposals, and to do this in a small space you will need to have a very solid grasp on exactly what the theory does and does not cover, say, and do. I am happy to consult with you on substantive or methodological implications of the texts’ arguments, and to help you explore your own ideas about possible extensions, modifications, and challenges. You do not need a background in economics to do this paper, nor do you need extensive knowledge of different countries. Look for your strengths and work with them.

Once you’ve made your theoretical stretch, you then need to suggest how we might determine whether your argument is supported by the evidence. While you do not need to provide extensive evidence, you should have at least one or two brief anecdotes illustrating your claims which suggest your argument is actually capturing some aspect of reality. You should also spend a few paragraphs discussing what kinds of evidence would support your argument, and what kinds of evidence would not. With which variable(s) is your theoretical stretch concerned, and what values does your stretch predict the variable(s) will take? How might we measure those values—i.e., what things/events/behaviors should a scholar who wanted to test your theory examine to assign values to your variables? Can your stretch provide additional arguments about the relationships we should expect between some of the variables?

You are encouraged to draw on substantive knowledge gained in other courses (in and out of Political Science) to produce both your theoretical extension and your evidence. As always, you are not limited to English-language sources; depending on the argument you wish to make, you may need to consult sources in the languages spoken by the types of countries to which you wish to extend the theories. The usual standards for academic credibility of sources and appropriate citation apply. I am happy to recommend credible sources in French and German; recommendations for other languages can be provided with a little advance notice.

What you should NOT do in this paper is simply summarize the theoretical arguments of the book(s), either alone or in relation to one another. You should make a concerted effort to go beyond the textbooks and think for yourself. You should also avoid basing an entire argument on a single episode or case. Yes, the German federal elections of 1966 were fought primarily over exchange rate policy; this does not suggest that we need to modify all our theories of election behavior to accommodate pro-appreciation and pro-depreciation forces. You should have some evidence to suggest your proposed stretch applies beyond a single country and also beyond a single event or time period.

Back to the General Guidelines.

Back to the 343 Home Page.