“Stephen Van Evera’s Guide to Methods makes an important contribution toward improving the use of case studies for theory development and testing in the social sciences. His trenchant and concise views on issues ranging from epistemology to specific research techniques manage to convey not only the methods but the ethos of research. This book is essential reading for social science students at all levels who aspire to conduct rigorous research.”–Alexander L. George… More >>
Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science
This book is not a guide to methods, but a guide to how to write an under-grad paper. It is nothing like Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, which IS a real guide to methods. If you already know what is a theory (e.g. as opposed to a non-causal statement) and how to write a paper reasonably well (i.e. without making silly mistakes of omission or commissin) then you do not need this book. If you do not, you might usefully use this book – BUT DO NOT CONFUSE IT WITH A GUIDE TO METHODS.
Rating: 1 / 5
In this book Mr. Van Evera introduces the reader to the gospel of arrow diagraming, in which all political science theories must be drawn as letters, representing variables, with arrows (representing causality) connecting them. Thus, to quote Van Evera, “a theory that cannot be arrow-diagrammed is not a theory and needs reframing to become a theory.” Thus, by his measure, much of the poli sci “theories” are not theories at all. So what are GOOD theories, for van Evera, besides those that are easily arrow-diagramed?
Theories are general statements that describe and explain the causes or effects of classes of phenomena. They are composed of causal laws or hypotheses, explanations, and antecedent conditions. Explanations are also composed of causal laws or hypotheses, which are in turn composed of dependent and independent variables. A good theory has 7 characteristics: it has large explanatory power (importance, explanatory range, applicability), and is parsimonious, satisfying, clearly framed, falsifiable, explains important phenomena, and has “prescriptive richness.”
In short, the book might teach newbies a thing or two about methodological rigor and research design, but is certainly no model of sophistication. In fact, the book is a perfect example of why American political “science” is sometimes mocked by the rest of the academic world.
Rating: 2 / 5
Van Evera’s book is simple, to be sure, but not simplistic; a prior reviewer’s gibes at the notion of flow-charting a theory, with arrows, are a bit off the mark. As the reviewer notes, a theory designates a causal relationship. If so — no matter what its other “good” points (parsimony, explanatory reach, etc) — you can draw that causal relationship between the various independent variables and the dependent variable they help to explain. You can even draw it with arrows.
In general this book is recommended for 1st or 2nd year political science graduate students, and useful for advanced undergraduates (who will only care about the 1st 100 pages or so). It is clear and eminently practical. Other reviewers are right to imply there is little here in the way of philosophy of science in the broadest sense. But that merely makes this book a complement, not a substitute, to more esoteric explorations of the topic.
Rating: 4 / 5