走狗
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.
Itinerary:
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.
Suggested
background:
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.
5:
423—450.
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.
3. Sekhon,
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