Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:58:42.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Graduate Advising in Experimental Research Groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2018

James N. Druckman ,
Adam J. Howat  and
Kevin J. Mullinix
James N. Druckman
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Adam J. Howat
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Kevin J. Mullinix
Affiliation:
Appalachian State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Survey and laboratory experiments are increasingly common in political science. Investment in experimental data collection comes with costs and benefits, particularly for graduate students and advisers. This article describes a set of institutionalized procedures we have adopted with the goal of capitalizing on the advantages that come with experimental research. This includes requiring planning documents, holding research-group meetings, and centralizing data collection. We conclude by discussing the limitations of our approach, ultimately highlighting the need for more disciplinary conversation about how to best structure research groups to produce quality research and advising.

Type
Articles
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 620 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

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

REFERENCES

Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20 (3): 351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, Toby, and Druckman, James N.. 2015. “Counteracting the Politicization of Science.” Journal of Communication 65: 745–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busby, Ethan C., Druckman, James N., and Fredendall, Alexandria. 2017. “The Political Relevance of Irrelevant Events.” Journal of Politics 79 (1): 346–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2015. “Merging Research and Undergraduate Teaching in Political Behavior Research.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48 (1): 53–7.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Fein, Jordan, and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2012. “A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability.” American Political Science Review 106 (2): 430–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Lynn Hennessy, Cari, St.Charles, Kristi, and Weber, Jonathan. 2010. “Competing Rhetoric over Time: Frames Versus Cues.” Journal of Politics 72 (1): 136–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur. 2012. “Experimenting with Politics.” Science 335: 1177–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fugate, Gregory A., Jaramillo, Patricia A., and Preuhs, Robert R.. 2001. “Graduate Students Mentoring Graduate Students: A Model for Professional Development.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (1): 132–3.Google Scholar
Key, Ellen. 2016. “How Are We Doing? Data Access and Replication in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (2): 268–72.Google Scholar
King, Gary, and Sands, Melissa. 2015. “How Human-Subjects Research Rules Mislead You and Your University, and What to Do About It.” Harvard University: Working Paper.Google Scholar
Klar, Samara, and Piston, Spencer. 2015. “The Influence of Competing Appeals on Individual Donations.” Journal of Public Policy 2: 171–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna, and Levine, Adam Seth. 2014. “Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 1: 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J. 2011. “The Role of Protocol in the Design and Reporting of Experiments.” Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Experimental Section 2: 6–10.Google Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J. 2015. “The Multiple Roots of Credibility.” The Political Methodologist 23: 11–15.Google Scholar
Lin, Winston, and Green, Donald P.. 2016. “Standard Operating Procedures: A Safety Net for Pre-Analysis Plans.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (3): 495–500.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Elman, Colin. 2014. “Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (1): 19–42.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2002. “Experimental Methods in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 5: 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullinix, Kevin J. 2016. “Partisanship and Preference Formation: Competing Motivations, Elite Polarization, and Issue Importance.” Political Behavior 38 (2): 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullinix, Kevin J., Leeper, Thomas J., Druckman, James N., and Freese, Jeremy. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2 (2): 109–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, Brian A., et al. 2015. “Promoting an Open Research Culture.” Science 348: 1422–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald. 2016. “The Rise of Experimentation in Political Science.” In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource, ed. Scott, Robert A., 1–11. Stanford, CA: Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences.Google Scholar
Simonsohn, Uri. 2013. “Just Post It: The Lesson from Two Cases of Fabricated Data Detected by Statistics Alone.” Psychological Science 24 (10): 1875–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M. 1995. “Evaluation Standards for a Slow-Moving Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 28 (3): 464–7.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M. 2011. “The Logic and Design of the Survey Experiment: An Autobiography of a Methodological Innovation.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, ed. Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, 102–14. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Druckman et al. supplementary material

Druckman et al. supplementary material 1

Download Druckman et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 331.9 KB