Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:18:19.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction to the Special Issue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

John Aldrich  and
James Alt
John Aldrich
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Box 90204, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0204. e-mail: [email protected]
James Alt
Affiliation:
Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences, Harvard University, 34 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This special issue is devoted to original articles that reflect recent progress in one of the most exciting developments in Political Science, the National Science Foundation's (NSF) initiative called Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models (EITM). This initiative reflects the ideas and hard work of the Political Science team there, Jim Granato and Frank Scioli, backed up by the contributions of an EITM panel that assembled at NSF in July 2001, some of whose observations we mention below. The challenge set by the EITM program is straightforward: to improve our theoretical work so that it yields more testable hypotheses and to improve our methodological work so that testing is made more effective and informative about theories. It is hard to object to this, but it also turns out to be hard to meet fully. The EITM initiative contains several components designed to close the gap between theoretical derivation and empirical test. This issue represents one component, presenting some of the most innovative work in the discipline on the current research frontier in EITM.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 4: Special Issue on Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models , Autumn 2003 , pp. 309 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2003 

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.)

References

Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar, Shanto. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1997. The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., and Morton, Rebecca. 2002. “Formal Theory Meets Data.” In Political Science: State of the Discipline, ed. Katznelson, Ira and Milner, V. New York: Norton, pp. 784–804.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Cederman, Lars-Erik. 2003. “Modeling the Size of Wars: From Billiard Balls to Sandpiles.” American Political Science Review 97:135–150.Google Scholar
Clinton, Josh, and Meirowitz, Adam. 2001. “Agenda-Constrained Legislator Ideal Points and the Spatial Voting Model.” Political Analysis 9:242–259.Google Scholar
Dawes, Robyn M., Orbell, John M., Simmons, Randy T., and Alphons, J. van de Kragt, C. 1986. “Organizing Groups for Collective Action.” American Political Science Review 80:117–185.Google Scholar
The Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models Report. Transcripts of EITM Workshop, 7 September to 7 October 2001. (Available from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/polisci/eitmreport.htm#.) Google Scholar
Hurwitz, Jon, and Peffley, eds, Mark. 1998. Perception Prejudice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R. 1987. News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kollman, Kenneth, Miller, John H., and Page, Scott E. 1998. “Political Parties and Electoral Landscapes.” British Journal of Political Science 28:139–158.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1990. “Information and Elections: Retrospective Voting and Rational Expectations.” In Information and Democratic Processes, eds. Ferejohn, John and Kuklinski, James. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 281–312.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Palfrey, Thomas R. 1992. “An Experimental Study of the Centipede Game.” Econometrica 60:803–836.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Palfrey, Thomas R. 1998. “Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games.” Experimental Economics 1:9–41.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curt S. 1999. “Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 93:279–298.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Grob, Douglas B. 1996. “Innovations in Experimental Design in Attitude Surveys.” Annual Review of Sociology 22:377–399.Google Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., Hutchings, Vincent L., and White, Ismail K. 2002. “Cues That Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 96:75–90.Google Scholar