Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:01:17.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparative Reasoning in the Undergraduate Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2009

George Gavrilis
Affiliation:
University of Texas-Austin
Mona El-Ghobashy
Affiliation:
Barnard College

Abstract

One of the greatest challenges we face as political scientists is to teach undergraduates how to think comparatively. This article proposes a number of practical, easily adaptable exercises that many of us can incorporate in our teaching to turn curious undergraduates into smart social scientists who think comparatively about the world.

Type
The Teacher
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.)

References

Baldez, Lisa. 2002. Why Women Protest: Women's Movements in Chile. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, Staci L. 2005. “Re-Gaining the Student's Perspective in the Classroom: A Sabbatical Adventure.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38: 769–70.Google Scholar
Belanger, Marc. 2004. “From Political Science Back to Politics: Learning to Teach Intro to Comparative Politics.” PS: Political Science & Politics 37: 9599.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Doyle, Arthur Conan. 2001. The Sign of the Four. London: Penguin Books. First published 1890 by Spencer Blackett.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1991. “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science.” World Politics 43: 169–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbard. 1990. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get.” Political Analysis 2: 131–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, V.A., and Barton, J.H.. 1986. Thinking on Paper. New York: William Morrow and Company.Google Scholar
King, Gary, and Zeng, Langche. 2006. “The Dangers of Extreme Counterfactuals.” Political Analysis 14: 131–59.Google Scholar
Kuran, Timur. 1991. “Now out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989.” World Politics 44: 748.Google Scholar
Kurzer, Paulette. 2003. “Studying Democracy and Teaching Classics: What Is Happening in the Field of Comparative Politics?Perspectives on Politics 1: 373–78.Google Scholar
Lave, Charles A., and March, James G.. 1975. An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Lim, Timothy. 2005. Doing Comparative Politics: An Introduction to Approaches and Issues. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Michels, Robert. 1962. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
O'Leary, Rosemary. 2002. “Advice to New Teachers: Turn it Inside Out.” PS: Political Science & Politics 35: 9192.Google Scholar
Powner, Leanne. 2006. “Teaching the Scientific Method in the Active Learning Classroom.” PS: Political Science & Politics 39: 521–24.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Bonchek, Mark S.. 1997. Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.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: 293–96.Google Scholar