The Running Dog of Methodolgy
The Running Dog, a metaphor or insult?
The Running Dog is a reading group with a focus on applied statistical methodology, computational and formal modeling. The group is sponsored by Brad Jones and Kyle Joyce in the Department of Political Science at UC-Davis. For each meeting, some articles will be selected by various members of the group for reading and discussion. The intent of the group is to have focused discussion on a focused topic, with an eye toward applied research. Articles may be drawn from any scientific domain. The assumption with the Running Dog is that we are all students; no one is the “teacher.” Or to quote a Korean insult, we are all “zou gou”…which translates into “lackey” with the literal translation being “running dog.”
We will meet every other Thursday beginning at 3:30 in Room 273. Figure on meeting about an hour culminating with a trip to 3rd and U for refreshments to those interested. I will post the readings on this website in advance of the meetings.
WEEK 1: Jan. 15: Stereotype Model and Some Extensions
1. M. Lunt. “Prediction of ordinal outcomes when the association between
predictors and outcome differs between outcome levels” 2005. Statistics in Medicine
2. T.R. Johnson. “Discrete Choice Models for Ordinal Response Variables: A Generalization of the Stereotype Model.” 2007. Psychometrika.
WEEK 2: Jan. 29: The Rule of Three and Related Topics
1. C. Achen. 2002. “Toward a New Methodology: Microfoundations and ART.” Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.
2. C. Achen. 2005. “Let’s Put Garbage-Can Regressions and Garbage-Can Probits Where They Belong.” CMPS. 22: 327—339.
Suggested Background (very useful for this week):
J. Ray. 2005. “Constructing Multivariate Analyses of Dangerous Dyads.” CMPS. 22: 277—292.
J. R. Oneal and B. Russett. 2005. “Rule of Three, Let it Be? When More Reality is Better.” CMPS. 22: 293—310.
K. A. Clarke. 2005. “The Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research.” CMPS. 22: 341—352.
WEEK 3: Feb. 12: Matching Methods and Causal Inference
1. Morgan, S. and Harding D. 2006. “Matching Estimators of Causal Effects.” Sociological Methods and Research. 35: 1—60.
2. Gilligan, M. and E.J. Sergenti. 2008. “Do UN Interventions Cause Peace? Using Matching to Improve Causal Inference.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science. (Note I have a manuscript draft PDF I downloaded from Gilligan’s website; I cannot access PDF from QJPS. If someone can, please send it to me.
Jasjeet. S. 2008. “The Neyman-Rubin Model of Causal Inference and
Estimation Via Matching Methods.” In The
This is not available on-line; a
hardcopy is in an envelope outside my office door. You may photocopy this. Also, Jas has a pre-publication copy on
his website, though it differs from what appears in the
WEEK 4: Feb. 26: Experimental Approaches to Causal Inference
Note: Rose McDermott will be in the department next week giving some talks/workshops on experimental methods. In anticipation of her visit, we’ve identified some readings relevant to the topic. Also, I will soon post R. Morton’s chapter from the Oxford Handbook either on-line or make it available for photocopy.
1. McDermott, R. 2002. “Experimental Methods in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science. 4: 31—61.
2. Tomz, M. and R.P. Van Houweling. 2008. “Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice.” American Political Science Review. 3: 303—318.
3. Bianco, W. et al. 2008. “The Constrained Instability of Majority
Rule: Experiments on the Robustness of the
Uncovered Set.” Political Analysis. 16: 115—137.
4. Tomz. M. 2007. “Domestic Audience Costs in
International Relations: An Experimental Approach.” International Organizations. 61: 821—840.
PDF of article