Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:47:16.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fostering Theoretical Thinking in Undergraduate Classes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2007

Mark Souva
Mark Souva
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How should educators teach students to make better theoretical arguments, that is, an argument that is logical and fruitful? Logical thinking is about making valid deductions from a set of premises and avoiding fallacies. Fruitful thinking involves making an argument that fits reality. Theoretical thinking, then, emphasizes building a sound argument with relevant and interesting empirical implications. In this way, theoretical thinking complements the more common educational mantra of teaching students to think critically, which tends to focus on the detection of fallacies or other flaws in an argument. Emphasizing detection instead of construction, however, limits the development of analytical and independent thinking. To better teach the range of thinking skills most educators want their students to acquire calls for a focus on the understanding and construction of theoretical arguments, and this calls for greater emphasis on learning at least a basic system of logic.I thank Eric Hoffmann, Bob Jackson, Will Moore, Jeff Staton, and the reviewers for many helpful comments on earlier drafts. All remaining errors are my responsibility.

Type
THE TEACHER
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , July 2007 , pp. 557 - 561
Copyright
© 2007 The American Political Science Association

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

Achen, Christopher, and Duncan Snidal. 1989. “Rational Deterrence Theory and Comparative Case Studies.” World Politics 41 (2): 143–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 2003. Principles of International Politics, 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, T. C. 1965. “The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.” Science 148 (3671): 754–9.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” American Political Science Review 88 (3): 577–92.Google Scholar
Gensler, Harry. 2001. Introduction to Logic. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel. 1993. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72 (3): 22–8.Google Scholar
Johnson, Janet B., and Richard A. Joslyn. 1995. Political Science Research Methods, 3rd edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lagerlund, Henrik. 2004. “ Medieval Theories of the Syllogism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, spring 2004 edition, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2004/entries/medieval-syllogism/.Google Scholar
Lave, Charles, and James March. 1993 [1975]. An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Leamer, Edward E. 1983. “Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics.” American Economic Review 73: 31–44.Google Scholar
Leamer, Edward E. 1985. “Sensitivity Analyses Would Help.” American Economic Review 75: 308–13.Google Scholar
Leblanc, Jill. 1998. Thinking Clearly: A Guide to Critical Reasoning. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Little, Daniel. 1998. Microfoundations, Method, and Causation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Little, Daniel. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Loehle, C. 1990. “A Guide to Increased Creativity in Research—Inspiration or Perspiration?” BioScience 40: 123–9.Google Scholar
March, James G. 1994. A Primer on Decision Making. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Most, Benjamin, and Harvey Starr. 1984. “International Relations Theory, Foreign Policy Substitutability, and Nice Laws.” World Politics 36 (3): 383–406.Google Scholar
Platt, John R. 1964. “Strong Inference.” Science 146: 347–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1968. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 2nd edition. New York: Harper Torchbook.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. 1999. “Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War.” International Organization 53 (2): 233–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shively, W. Phillips. 1998. The Craft of Political Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Smith, Robin. 2006. “ Aristotle's Logic.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, winter 2006 edition, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2006/entries/aristotle-logic/.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Zinnes, Dina. 1980. “Three Puzzles in Search of a Researcher.” International Studies Quarterly 24 (3): 315–42.Google Scholar