sample research paper in political science

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Political Science

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you to recognize and to follow writing standards in political science. The first step toward accomplishing this goal is to develop a basic understanding of political science and the kind of work political scientists do.

Defining politics and political science

Political scientist Harold Laswell said it best: at its most basic level, politics is the struggle of “who gets what, when, how.” This struggle may be as modest as competing interest groups fighting over control of a small municipal budget or as overwhelming as a military stand-off between international superpowers. Political scientists study such struggles, both small and large, in an effort to develop general principles or theories about the way the world of politics works. Think about the title of your course or re-read the course description in your syllabus. You’ll find that your course covers a particular sector of the large world of “politics” and brings with it a set of topics, issues, and approaches to information that may be helpful to consider as you begin a writing assignment. The diverse structure of political science reflects the diverse kinds of problems the discipline attempts to analyze and explain. In fact, political science includes at least eight major sub-fields:

American politics examines political behavior and institutions in the United States.
Comparative politics analyzes and compares political systems within and across different geographic regions.
International relations investigates relations among nation states and the activities of international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and NATO, as well as international actors such as terrorists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multi-national corporations (MNCs).
Political theory analyzes fundamental political concepts such as power and democracy and foundational questions, like “How should the individual and the state relate?”
Political methodology deals with the ways that political scientists ask and investigate questions.
Public policy examines the process by which governments make public decisions.
Public administration studies the ways that government policies are implemented.
Public law focuses on the role of law and courts in the political process.

What is scientific about political science?

Investigating relationships.

Although political scientists are prone to debate and disagreement, the majority view the discipline as a genuine science. As a result, political scientists generally strive to emulate the objectivity as well as the conceptual and methodological rigor typically associated with the so-called “hard” sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics). They see themselves as engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions. Based on these revelations, they attempt to state general principles about the way the world of politics works. Given these aims, it is important for political scientists’ writing to be conceptually precise, free from bias, and well-substantiated by empirical evidence. Knowing that political scientists value objectivity may help you in making decisions about how to write your paper and what to put in it.

Political theory is an important exception to this empirical approach. You can learn more about writing for political theory classes in the section “Writing in Political Theory” below.

Building theories

Since theory-building serves as the cornerstone of the discipline, it may be useful to see how it works. You may be wrestling with theories or proposing your own as you write your paper. Consider how political scientists have arrived at the theories you are reading and discussing in your course. Most political scientists adhere to a simple model of scientific inquiry when building theories. The key to building precise and persuasive theories is to develop and test hypotheses. Hypotheses are statements that researchers construct for the purpose of testing whether or not a certain relationship exists between two phenomena. To see how political scientists use hypotheses, and to imagine how you might use a hypothesis to develop a thesis for your paper, consider the following example. Suppose that we want to know whether presidential elections are affected by economic conditions. We could formulate this question into the following hypothesis:

“When the national unemployment rate is greater than 7 percent at the time of the election, presidential incumbents are not reelected.”

Collecting data

In the research model designed to test this hypothesis, the dependent variable (the phenomenon that is affected by other variables) would be the reelection of incumbent presidents; the independent variable (the phenomenon that may have some effect on the dependent variable) would be the national unemployment rate. You could test the relationship between the independent and dependent variables by collecting data on unemployment rates and the reelection of incumbent presidents and comparing the two sets of information. If you found that in every instance that the national unemployment rate was greater than 7 percent at the time of a presidential election the incumbent lost, you would have significant support for our hypothesis.

However, research in political science seldom yields immediately conclusive results. In this case, for example, although in most recent presidential elections our hypothesis holds true, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected in 1936 despite the fact that the national unemployment rate was 17%. To explain this important exception and to make certain that other factors besides high unemployment rates were not primarily responsible for the defeat of incumbent presidents in other election years, you would need to do further research. So you can see how political scientists use the scientific method to build ever more precise and persuasive theories and how you might begin to think about the topics that interest you as you write your paper.

Clear, consistent, objective writing

Since political scientists construct and assess theories in accordance with the principles of the scientific method, writing in the field conveys the rigor, objectivity, and logical consistency that characterize this method. Thus political scientists avoid the use of impressionistic or metaphorical language, or language which appeals primarily to our senses, emotions, or moral beliefs. In other words, rather than persuade you with the elegance of their prose or the moral virtue of their beliefs, political scientists persuade through their command of the facts and their ability to relate those facts to theories that can withstand the test of empirical investigation. In writing of this sort, clarity and concision are at a premium. To achieve such clarity and concision, political scientists precisely define any terms or concepts that are important to the arguments that they make. This precision often requires that they “operationalize” key terms or concepts. “Operationalizing” simply means that important—but possibly vague or abstract—concepts like “justice” are defined in ways that allow them to be measured or tested through scientific investigation.

Fortunately, you will generally not be expected to devise or operationalize key concepts entirely on your own. In most cases, your professor or the authors of assigned readings will already have defined and/or operationalized concepts that are important to your research. And in the event that someone hasn’t already come up with precisely the definition you need, other political scientists will in all likelihood have written enough on the topic that you’re investigating to give you some clear guidance on how to proceed. For this reason, it is always a good idea to explore what research has already been done on your topic before you begin to construct your own argument. See our handout on making an academic argument .

Example of an operationalized term

To give you an example of the kind of rigor and objectivity political scientists aim for in their writing, let’s examine how someone might operationalize a term. Reading through this example should clarify the level of analysis and precision that you will be expected to employ in your writing. Here’s how you might define key concepts in a way that allows us to measure them.

We are all familiar with the term “democracy.” If you were asked to define this term, you might make a statement like the following:

“Democracy is government by the people.”

You would, of course, be correct—democracy is government by the people. But, in order to evaluate whether or not a particular government is fully democratic or is more or less democratic when compared with other governments, we would need to have more precise criteria with which to measure or assess democracy. For example, here are some criteria that political scientists have suggested are indicators of democracy:

Freedom to form and join organizations
Freedom of expression
Right to vote
Eligibility for public office
Right of political leaders to compete for support
Right of political leaders to compete for votes
Alternative sources of information
Free and fair elections
Institutions for making government policies depend on votes and other expressions of preference

If we adopt these nine criteria, we now have a definition that will allow us to measure democracy empirically. Thus, if you want to determine whether Brazil is more democratic than Sweden, you can evaluate each country in terms of the degree to which it fulfills the above criteria.

What counts as good writing in political science?

While rigor, clarity, and concision will be valued in any piece of writing in political science, knowing the kind of writing task you’ve been assigned will help you to write a good paper. Two of the most common kinds of writing assignments in political science are the research paper and the theory paper.

Writing political science research papers

An introduction
A problem statement
A discussion of methodology
A literature review
A description and evaluation of your research findings
A summary of your findings

Here’s a brief description of each component.

In the introduction of your research paper, you need to give the reader some basic background information on your topic that suggests why the question you are investigating is interesting and important. You will also need to provide the reader with a statement of the research problem you are attempting to address and a basic outline of your paper as a whole. The problem statement presents not only the general research problem you will address but also the hypotheses that you will consider. In the methodology section, you will explain to the reader the research methods you used to investigate your research topic and to test the hypotheses that you have formulated. For example, did you conduct interviews, use statistical analysis, rely upon previous research studies, or some combination of all of these methodological approaches?

Before you can develop each of the above components of your research paper, you will need to conduct a literature review. A literature review involves reading and analyzing what other researchers have written on your topic before going on to do research of your own. There are some very pragmatic reasons for doing this work. First, as insightful as your ideas may be, someone else may have had similar ideas and have already done research to test them. By reading what they have written on your topic, you can ensure that you don’t repeat, but rather learn from, work that has already been done. Second, to demonstrate the soundness of your hypotheses and methodology, you will need to indicate how you have borrowed from and/or improved upon the ideas of others.

By referring to what other researchers have found on your topic, you will have established a frame of reference that enables the reader to understand the full significance of your research results. Thus, once you have conducted your literature review, you will be in a position to present your research findings. In presenting these findings, you will need to refer back to your original hypotheses and explain the manner and degree to which your results fit with what you anticipated you would find. If you see strong support for your argument or perhaps some unexpected results that your original hypotheses cannot account for, this section is the place to convey such important information to your reader. This is also the place to suggest further lines of research that will help refine, clarify inconsistencies with, or provide additional support for your hypotheses. Finally, in the summary section of your paper, reiterate the significance of your research and your research findings and speculate upon the path that future research efforts should take.

Writing in political theory

Political theory differs from other subfields in political science in that it deals primarily with historical and normative, rather than empirical, analysis. In other words, political theorists are less concerned with the scientific measurement of political phenomena than with understanding how important political ideas develop over time. And they are less concerned with evaluating how things are than in debating how they should be. A return to our democracy example will make these distinctions clearer and give you some clues about how to write well in political theory.

Earlier, we talked about how to define democracy empirically so that it can be measured and tested in accordance with scientific principles. Political theorists also define democracy, but they use a different standard of measurement. Their definitions of democracy reflect their interest in political ideals—for example, liberty, equality, and citizenship—rather than scientific measurement. So, when writing about democracy from the perspective of a political theorist, you may be asked to make an argument about the proper way to define citizenship in a democratic society. Should citizens of a democratic society be expected to engage in decision-making and administration of government, or should they be satisfied with casting votes every couple of years?

In order to substantiate your position on such questions, you will need to pay special attention to two interrelated components of your writing: (1) the logical consistency of your ideas and (2) the manner in which you use the arguments of other theorists to support your own. First, you need to make sure that your conclusion and all points leading up to it follow from your original premises or assumptions. If, for example, you argue that democracy is a system of government through which citizens develop their full capacities as human beings, then your notion of citizenship will somehow need to support this broad definition of democracy. A narrow view of citizenship based exclusively or primarily on voting probably will not do. Whatever you argue, however, you will need to be sure to demonstrate in your analysis that you have considered the arguments of other theorists who have written about these issues. In some cases, their arguments will provide support for your own; in others, they will raise criticisms and concerns that you will need to address if you are going to make a convincing case for your point of view.

Drafting your paper

If you have used material from outside sources in your paper, be sure to cite them appropriately in your paper. In political science, writers most often use the APA or Turabian (a version of the Chicago Manual of Style) style guides when formatting references. Check with your instructor if they have not specified a citation style in the assignment. For more information on constructing citations, see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial.

Although all assignments are different, the preceding outlines provide a clear and simple guide that should help you in writing papers in any sub-field of political science. If you find that you need more assistance than this short guide provides, refer to the list of additional resources below or make an appointment to see a tutor at the Writing Center.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Becker, Howard S. 2007. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article , 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cuba, Lee. 2002. A Short Guide to Writing About Social Science , 4th ed. New York: Longman.

Lasswell, Harold Dwight. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Scott, Gregory M., and Stephen M. Garrison. 1998. The Political Science Student Writer’s Manual , 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Turabian, Kate. 2018. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, Dissertations , 9th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Request new password
Create a new account

Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to Inquiry, Structure, and Methods

Student resources, welcome to the sage edge site for writing a research paper in political science ..

The SAGE edge site for Writing a Research Paper in Political Science , Fourth Edition by Lisa A. Baglione offers a robust online environment you can access anytime, anywhere, and features an impressive array of free tools and resources to keep you on the cutting edge of your learning experience.

Even students capable of writing excellent essays still find their first major political science research paper an intimidating experience. Crafting the right research question, finding good sources, properly summarizing them, operationalizing concepts and designing good tests for their hypotheses, presenting and analyzing quantitative as well as qualitative data are all tough-going without a great deal of guidance and encouragement. Writing a Research Paper in Political Science breaks down the research paper into its constituent parts and shows students what they need to do at each stage to successfully complete each component until the paper is finished. Practical summaries, recipes for success, worksheets, exercises, and a series of handy checklists make this a must-have supplement for any writing-intensive political science course.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Lisa A. Baglione for writing an excellent text and creating the materials on this site.

For instructors

Access resources that are only available to Faculty and Administrative Staff.

Want to explore the book further?

Order Review Copy

Request new password
Create a new account

Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to Inquiry, Structure, and Methods

Student resources, welcome to the companion website.

Want your students to write their first major political science research paper with confidence? With this book, they can. Author Lisa Baglione breaks down the research paper into its constituent parts and shows students precisely how to complete each component. The author provides encouragement at each stage and faces pitfalls head on, giving advice and examples so that students move through each task successfully. Students are shown how to craft the right research question, find good sources and properly summarize them, operationalize concepts, design good tests for their hypotheses, and present and analyze quantitative and qualitative data. Even writing an introduction, coming up with effective headings and titles, presenting a conclusion, and the important steps of editing and revising are covered with class-tested advice and know-how that’s received accolades from professors and students alike. Practical summaries, recipes for success, worksheets, exercises, and a series of handy checklists make this a must-have supplement for any writing-intensive political science course.

In this Third Edition of Writing a Research Paper in Political Science , updated sample research topics come from American government, gender studies, comparative politics, and international relations. Examples of actual student writing show readers how others "just like them" accomplished each stage of the process.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Lisa Baglione for writing an excellent text and developing the ancillaries on this site.

For instructors

Access resources that are only available to Faculty and Administrative Staff.

Want to explore the book further?

Order Review Copy

Technical Support
Find My Rep

Writing a Research Paper in Political Science A Practical Guide to Inquiry, Structure, and Methods

Lisa A. Baglione - Saint Joseph's University, USA
Description

New to the Fourth Edition:

A non-causal research paper woven throughout the text offers explicit advice to guide students through the research and writing process.
Updated and more detailed discussions of plagiarism, paraphrases, "drop-ins," and "transcripts" help to prevent students from misusing sources in a constantly changing digital age.
A more detailed discussion of “fake news” and disinformation shows students how to evaluate and choose high quality sources, as well as how to protect oneself from being fooled by bad sources.
Additional guidance for writing abstracts and creating presentations helps students to understand the logic behind abstracts and prepares students for presentations in the classroom, at a conference, and beyond.
A greater emphasis on the value of qualitative research provides students with additional instruction on how to do it.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

Supplements

“ Writing a Research Paper in Political Science is a helpful research and writing guide for students from various disciplines and undergraduate levels.”

“Lisa A. Baglione’s book is a highly accessible resource to help undergraduate students transition from writing about politics to writing about empirical political science research.”

“With clarity and compassion, Lisa A. Baglione leads undergraduates step by step through the morass of empirical research.”

“ Writing a Research Paper in Political Science is an essential text for every political science major.”

This is an engaging and well written book that seems geared to the level of the course - students writing their senior capstones.

Excellent, in-depth review of how to do a research paper. Perfect for learning objectives of my course.

too focused on political science, not a good fit for urban planning.

NEW TO THIS EDITION:

A non-causal research paper woven throughout the text offers explicit advice to guide students through the research and writing process.
Updated and more detailed discussions of plagiarism, paraphrases, “drop-ins,” and “transcripts” help to prevent students from misusing sources in a constantly changing digital age.
A more detailed discussion of “fake news” and disinformation shows students how to evaluate and choose high quality sources, as well as how to protect oneself from being fooled by bad sources.
Additional guidance for writing abstracts and creating presentations helps students to understand the logic behind abstracts and prepares students for presentations in the classroom, at a conference, and beyond.
A greater emphasis on the value of qualitative research provides students with additional instruction on how to do it.

KEY FEATURES:

End-of-chapter recipes for annotated bibliographies, literature reviews, thesis formation, and more guides students step-by-step as they navigate common issues when composing a research paper.
Practical summaries , located at the end of each chapter, guide students towards their goals.
Sample material from student papers help illustrate in detail how students can craft and revise their content.
A natural progression of chapter topics guides students from finding a research question and distilling arguments, to revision and proper citation.

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters.

CHAPTER 1: So You Have to Write a Research Paper

CHAPTER 3: Learning Proper Citation Forms, Finding the Scholarly

For instructors

Select a purchasing option.

Shipped Options:

BUNDLE: Van Belle, A Novel Approach to Politics 6e (Paperback) + Baglione, Writing a Research Paper in Political Science 4e (Paperback)

POLSC101: Introduction to Political Science

Research in political science.

This handout is designed to teach you how to conduct original political science research. While you won't be asked to write a research paper, this handout provides important information on the "scientific" approach used by political scientists. Pay particularly close attention to the section that answers the question "what is scientific about political science?"

If you were going to conduct research in biology or chemistry, what would you do? You would probably create a hypothesis, and then design an experiment to test your hypothesis. Based on the results of your experiment, you would draw conclusions. Political scientists follow similar procedures. Like a scientist who researches biology or chemistry, political scientists rely on objectivity, data, and procedure to draw conclusions. This article explains the process of operationalizing variables. Why is that an important step in social science research?

Defining politics and political science

Political scientist Harold Laswell said it best: at its most basic level, politics is the struggle of "who gets what, when, how". This struggle may be as modest as competing interest groups fighting over control of a small municipal budget or as overwhelming as a military stand-off between international superpowers. Political scientists study such struggles, both small and large, in an effort to develop general principles or theories about the way the world of politics works. Think about the title of your course or re-read the course description in your syllabus. You'll find that your course covers a particular sector of the large world of "politics" and brings with it a set of topics, issues, and approaches to information that may be helpful to consider as you begin a writing assignment. The diverse structure of political science reflects the diverse kinds of problems the discipline attempts to analyze and explain. In fact, political science includes at least eight major sub-fields:

American politics examines political behavior and institutions in the United States.
Comparative politics analyzes and compares political systems within and across different geographic regions.
International relations investigates relations among nation-states and the activities of international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and NATO, as well as international actors such as terrorists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multi-national corporations (MNCs).
Political theory analyzes fundamental political concepts such as power and democracy and foundational questions, like "How should the individual and the state relate?"
Political methodology deals with the ways that political scientists ask and investigate questions.
Public policy examines the process by which governments make public decisions.
Public administration studies the ways that government policies are implemented.
Public law focuses on the role of law and courts in the political process.

What is scientific about political science?

Investigating relationships

Although political scientists are prone to debate and disagreement, the majority view the discipline as a genuine science. As a result, political scientists generally strive to emulate the objectivity as well as the conceptual and methodological rigor typically associated with the so-called "hard" sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics). They see themselves as engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions. Based on these revelations, they attempt to state general principles about the way the world of politics works. Given these aims, it is important for political scientists' writing to be conceptually precise, free from bias, and well-substantiated by empirical evidence. Knowing that political scientists value objectivity may help you in making decisions about how to write your paper and what to put in it.

Political theory is an important exception to this empirical approach. You can learn more about writing for political theory classes in the section "Writing in Political Theory" below.

Building theories

Collecting data

Clear, consistent, objective writing

Since political scientists construct and assess theories in accordance with the principles of the scientific method, writing in the field conveys the rigor, objectivity, and logical consistency that characterize this method. Thus political scientists avoid the use of impressionistic or metaphorical language, or language which appeals primarily to our senses, emotions, or moral beliefs. In other words, rather than persuade you with the elegance of their prose or the moral virtue of their beliefs, political scientists persuade through their command of the facts and their ability to relate those facts to theories that can withstand the test of empirical investigation. In writing of this sort, clarity and concision are at a premium. To achieve such clarity and concision, political scientists precisely define any terms or concepts that are important to the arguments that they make. This precision often requires that they "operationalize" key terms or concepts. "Operationalizing" simply means that important – but possibly vague or abstract – concepts like "justice" are defined in ways that allow them to be measured or tested through scientific investigation.

Fortunately, you will generally not be expected to devise or operationalize key concepts entirely on your own. In most cases, your professor or the authors of assigned readings will already have defined and/or operationalized concepts that are important to your research. And in the event that someone hasn't already come up with precisely the definition you need, other political scientists will in all likelihood have written enough on the topic that you're investigating to give you some clear guidance on how to proceed. For this reason, it is always a good idea to explore what research has already been done on your topic before you begin to construct your own argument. (See our handout on making an academic argument.)

Example of an operationalized term

To give you an example of the kind of "rigor" and "objectivity" political scientists aim for in their writing, let's examine how someone might operationalize a term. Reading through this example should clarify the level of analysis and precision that you will be expected to employ in your writing. Here's how you might define key concepts in a way that allows us to measure them.

We are all familiar with the term "democracy". If you were asked to define this term, you might make a statement like the following: "Democracy is government by the people". You would, of course, be correct – democracy is government by the people. But, in order to evaluate whether or not a particular government is fully democratic or is more or less democratic when compared with other governments, we would need to have more precise criteria with which to measure or assess democracy. Most political scientists agree that these criteria should include the following rights and freedoms for citizens:

Freedom to form and join organizations
Freedom of expression
Right to vote
Eligibility for public office
Right of political leaders to compete for support
Right of political leaders to compete for votes
Alternative sources of information
Free and fair elections
Institutions for making government policies depend on votes and other expressions of preference

By adopting these nine criteria, we now have a definition that will allow us to measure democracy. Thus, if you want to determine whether Brazil is more democratic than Sweden, you can evaluate each country in terms of the degree to which it fulfills the above criteria.

What counts as good writing in political science?

While rigor, clarity, and concision will be valued in any piece of writing in political science, knowing the kind of writing task you've been assigned will help you to write a good paper. Two of the most common kinds of writing assignments in political science are the research paper and the theory paper.

Writing political science research papers

Your instructors use research paper assignments as a means of assessing your ability to understand a complex problem in the field, to develop a perspective on this problem, and to make a persuasive argument in favor of your perspective. In order for you to successfully meet this challenge, your research paper should include the following components: (1) an introduction, (2) a problem statement, (3) a discussion of methodology, (4) a literature review, (5) a description and evaluation of your research findings, and (6) a summary of your findings. Here's a brief description of each component.

Before you can develop each of the above components of your research paper, you will need to conduct a literature review. A literature review involves reading and analyzing what other researchers have written on your topic before going on to do research of your own. There are some very pragmatic reasons for doing this work. First, as insightful as your ideas may be, someone else may have had similar ideas and have already done research to test them. By reading what they have written on your topic, you can ensure that you don't repeat, but rather learn from, work that has already been done. Second, to demonstrate the soundness of your hypotheses and methodology, you will need to indicate how you have borrowed from and/or improved upon the ideas of others.

Writing in political theory

Earlier, we talked about how to define democracy empirically so that it can be measured and tested in accordance with scientific principles. Political theorists also define democracy, but they use a different standard of measurement. Their definitions of democracy reflect their interest in political ideals – for example, liberty, equality, and citizenship – rather than scientific measurement. So, when writing about democracy from the perspective of a political theorist, you may be asked to make an argument about the proper way to define citizenship in a democratic society. Should citizens of a democratic society be expected to engage in decision-making and administration of government, or should they be satisfied with casting votes every couple of years?

Drafting your paper

If you have used material from outside sources in your paper, be sure to cite them appropriately in your paper. In political science, writers most often use the APA or Turabian (a version of the Chicago Manual of Style) style guides when formatting references. Check with your instructor if he or she has not specified a citation style in the assignment. For more information on constructing citations, see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing the original version of this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout's topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find the latest publications on this topic. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial.

Becker, Howard S. 1986. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Cuba, Lee. 2002. A Short Guide to Writing about Social Science , Fourth Edition. New York: Longman.

Lasswell, Harold Dwight. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How . New York, London: Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc.

Scott, Gregory M. and Stephen M. Garrison. 1998. The Political Science Student Writer's Manual , Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Turabian, Kate L. 1996. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers , Theses, and Dissertations, Sixth Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Library Hours Servicios in Español Databases Research Guides Get Help My Account CCC Home myClackamas
myClackamas
Research Guides
Servicios in Español
CCC Library
Social Sciences, Human Services + Criminal Justice

Political Science

APA (7th ed.) resources
Course Reserves (textbooks)
Article databases and eJournals
eBook databases
Streaming video databases
CCC Library Catalog
Search tips and strategies

APA 7th edition manual

Apa 7 citation examples, missing elements - apa 7, apa 7 paper formatting basics, apa 7 document templates, more apa 7th ed. resources.

Job and career resources
Writing resources

This guide will introduce you to APA 7 citations, both for the References page of your paper and in-text citations. It is offered in multiple file formats below.

Citation Examples - APA 7 - Word Document
Citation Examples - APA 7 - PDF

This guide will tell you exactly what to do if your resource is missing a citation element. Can't find the author, publication date, page numbers, or something else? Use this guide to find out what to do! This guide is offered in multiple formats below.

Missing Elements - APA 7 - Word Document
Missing Elements - APA 7 - PDF
Typed, double-spaced paragraphs.
1" margins on all sides.
Align text to the left.
Choose one of these fonts: 11-point Calibri, 11-points Arial, 10-point Lucida Sans Unicode, 12-point Times New Roman, 11-point Georgia, 10-point Computer Modern.
Include a page header (also known as the "running head") at the top of every page with the page number.
APA papers are broken up into sections. Check with your instructor for their expectations.
In general, headings and title are centered.

APA 7th edition recognizes two kinds of paper formats - student papers (undergraduate students) and professional research papers (graduate students and professionals). At Clackamas CC, you will use the student paper formatting conventions.

You don't have to format a paper from scratch! Download this APA-formatted document template as a Word document or Google document. Save it, erase the existing text, and type your text right into the template. Learn how to format a paper in APA format by reading the contents of the template. The References page has been formatted with hanging indents.

Download & edit: APA Word document template Microsoft Word document template to save a copy of and type into. To edit it, save a copy to your desktop or Clackamas Office 365 account. Includes tips on how to format a paper in APA. Last updated Feb. 2020.
Download & edit: Pages document template If you need this template in Pages, email [email protected]
View Only: Sample APA student paper (7th ed.) This sample student paper includes descriptions of indentations, margins, headers, and other formatting conventions (APA, 2020).
APA Style (APA.org) APA's site answers all the basic questions about APA 7th edition and gives sample "student" and "professional" papers. This will help you with document format, in-text citations, the References list, and various stylistics.
<< Previous: Search tips and strategies
Next: Job and career resources >>
Last Updated: Apr 16, 2024 10:34 AM
URL: https://libguides.clackamas.edu/political-science

Research Topics & Ideas: Politics

100+ Politics-Related Research Ideas To Fast-Track Your Project

Political science research topics and ideas

Finding and choosing a strong research topic is the critical first step when it comes to crafting a high-quality dissertation or thesis. If you’ve landed on this post, chances are you’re looking for a politics-related research topic , but aren’t sure where to start. Here, we’ll explore a variety of politically-related research ideas across a range of disciplines, including political theory and philosophy, comparative politics, international relations, public administration and policy.

NB – This is just the start…

The topic ideation and evaluation process has multiple steps . In this post, we’ll kickstart the process by sharing some research topic ideas. This is the starting point, but to develop a well-defined research topic, you’ll need to identify a clear and convincing research gap , along with a well-justified plan of action to fill that gap.

If you’re new to the oftentimes perplexing world of research, or if this is your first time undertaking a formal academic research project, be sure to check out our free dissertation mini-course. Also, be sure to sign up for our free webinar that explores how to find a high-quality research topic from scratch.

Overview: Politics-Related Topics

Political theory and philosophy
Comparative politics
International relations
Public administration
Public policy
Examples of politics-related dissertations

Topics & Ideas: Political Theory

An analysis of the impact of feminism on political theory and the concept of citizenship in Saudi Arabia in the context of Vision 2030
A comparative study of the political philosophies of Marxism and liberalism and their influence on modern politics
An examination of how the Covid-19 pandemic affected the relationship between individual freedom and collective responsibility in political philosophy
A study of the impact of race and ethnicity on French political philosophy and the concept of justice
An exploration of the role of religion in political theory and its impact on secular democracy in the Middle East
A Review of Social contract theory, comparative analysis of the political philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau
A study of the concept of the common good in political philosophy and its relevance to the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe
An examination of the relationship between political power and the rule of law in developing African countries
A study of the impact of postmodernism on political theory and the concept of truth, a case study of the US
An exploration of the role of virtue in political philosophy and its impact on the assessment of moral character in political leaders

Topics & Ideas: Comparative Politics

A comparative study of different models of federalism and their impact on democratic governance: A case Study of South American federalist states
The impact of ethnic and religious diversity on political stability and democracy in developing countries, a review of literature from Africa
An analysis of the role of civil society in promoting democratic change in autocratic regimes: A case study in Sweden
A comparative examination of the impact of globalization on political institutions and processes in South America and Africa.
A study of the factors that contribute to successful democratization in authoritarian regimes, a review of the role of Elite-driven democratization
A comparison of the political and economic systems of China and India and their impact on social development
The impact of corruption on political institutions and democracy in South East Asia, a critical review
A comparative examination of the impact of majoritarian representation (winner-take-all) vs proportional representation on political representation and governance
An exploration of Multi-party systems in democratic countries and their impact on minority representation and policy-making.
A study of the factors that contribute to successful decentralization and regional autonomy, a case study of Spain

Research Topic Kickstarter - Need Help Finding A Research Topic?

Topics & Ideas: International Relations

A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of diplomacy and military force in resolving international conflicts in Central Africa.
The impact of globalization on the sovereignty of nation-states and the changing nature of international politics, a review of the role of Multinational Corporations
An examination of the role of international aid organizations in promoting peace, security, and development in the Middle East.
A study of the impact of economic interdependence on the likelihood of conflict in international relations: A critical review of weaponized interdependence
A comparative analysis of the foreign policies of the EU and the US and their impact on international stability in Africa
An exploration of the relationship between international human rights and national sovereignty during the Covid 19 pandemic
A study of the role of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO)s in international politics and their impact on state behaviour
A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of international regimes in addressing global challenges such as climate change, arms control, and terrorism in Brazil
An examination of the impact of the rise of BRICS on the international system and global governance
A study of the role of ideology in shaping the foreign policies of states and the dynamics of international relations in the US

Free Webinar: How To Find A Dissertation Research Topic

Tops & Ideas: Public Administration

An analysis of the impact of digital technology on public administration and the delivery of public services in Estonia
A review of models of public-private partnerships and their impact on the delivery of public services in Ghana
An examination of the role of civil society organizations in monitoring and accountability of public administration in Papua New Guinea
A study of the impact of environmentalism as a political ideology on public administration and policy implementation in Germany
An exploration of the relationship between public administration and citizen engagement in the policy-making process, an exploration of gender identity concerns in schools
A comparative analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration, decentralisation and pay and employment reform in developing countries
A study of the role of collaborative leadership in public administration and its impact on organizational performance
A systematic review of the challenges and opportunities related to diversity and inclusion in police services
A study of the impact of corrupt public administration on economic development and regional growth in Eastern Europe
An exploration of the relationship between public administration and civil rights and liberties, including issues related to privacy and surveillance, a case study in South Korea

Topics & Ideas: Public Policy

An analysis of the impacts of public policy on income inequality and poverty reduction in South Sudan
A comparative study of the effectiveness of legal and regulatory, economic and financial, and social and cultural instruments for addressing climate change in South Korea
An examination of the role of interest groups in shaping public policy and the policy-making process regarding land-use claims
A study of the impact of globalization on the development of public policies and programs for mitigating climate change in Singapore
An exploration of the relationship between public policy and social justice in tertiary education in the UAE
A comparative analysis of the impact of health policies for the management of diabetes on access to healthcare and health outcomes in developing countries
Exploring the role of evidence-based policymaking in the design and implementation of public policies for the management of invasive invertebrates in Australia
An examination of the challenges and opportunities of implementing educational dietary public policies in developing multicultural countries
A study of the impact of public policies on urbanization and urban development in rural Indonesia
An exploration of the role of media and public opinion in shaping public policy and the policy-making process in the transport industry of Malaysia

Examples: Politics Dissertations & Theses

While the ideas we’ve presented above are a decent starting point for finding a politics-related research topic, they are fairly generic and non-specific. So, it helps to look at actual dissertations and theses to see how this all comes together.

Below, we’ve included a selection of research projects from various politics-related degree programs to help refine your thinking. These are actual dissertations and theses, written as part of Master’s and PhD-level programs, so they can provide some useful insight as to what a research topic looks like in practice.

We, the Righteous Few: Immoral Actions of Fellow Partisans are Judged as Less Possible (Varnam, 2020)
Civilizing the State: Civil Society and the Politics of Primary Public Health Care Provision in Urban Brazil (Gibson, 2012)
Political regimes and minority language policies: evidence from Taiwan and southeast Asia (Wu, 2021)
The Feminist Third Wave: Social Reproduction, Feminism as Class Struggle, and Contemporary Women’s Movements (Angulo, 2019)
The Politics of Immigration under Authoritarianism (Joo, 2019)
The politics of digital platforms: Sour Dictionary, activist subjectivities, and contemporary cultures of resistance (Okten, 2019)
Vote choice and support for diverse candidates on the Boston City Council At-Large (Dolcimascolo, 2022)
The city agenda: local governance and national influence in the policy agenda, 1900-2020 (Shannon, 2022)
Turf wars: who supported measures to criminalize homelessness in Austin, Texas? (Bompiedi, 2021)
Do BITs Cause Opposition Between Investor Rights and Environmental Protection? (Xiong, 2022)
Revealed corruption and electoral accountability in Brazil: How politicians anticipate voting behavior (Diaz, 2021)
Intersectional Solidarity: The Political Consequences of a Consciousness of Race, Gender and Sexuality (Crowder, 2020)
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Coalitional Representation of Latinxs in the U.S. House of Representatives (Munoz, 2019)

Looking at these titles, you can probably pick up that the research topics here are quite specific and narrowly-focused , compared to the generic ones presented earlier. In other words, to create a top-notch research topic, you must be precise and target a specific context with specific variables of interest . In other words, you need to identify a clear, well-justified research gap.

Get 1:1 Help

If you’re still feeling a bit unsure about how to find a research topic for your dissertation or research project, check out our Topic Kickstarter service below.

You Might Also Like:

Topic Kickstarter: Research topics in education

Interesting thesis.

I really appreciate your work which will greatly help me rethink on my topic

Please how can I get the full thesis?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Print Friendly

Research Paper

Category: political science research paper examples.

We have collected almost 100 example papers on the most important political science research paper topics . This collection of political science research paper examples highlights the most important topics, issues, questions, and debates that any student obtaining a degree in this field ought to have mastered. The purpose is to provide students in political science with an authoritative reference source that will help their research paper writing efforts with far more detailed information than short essays.

View sample Public Policy Research Paper. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of political science research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Also, chech our custom research proposal writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

I. Introduction

Academic writing, editing, proofreading, and problem solving services, get 10% off with 24start discount code, ii. public administration as a foundation for the study of public policy, iii. open-systems administration, iv. stages models of public policy, v. agenda setting, vi. policy formulation and adoption, vii. decision-making models and policy formulation and adoption, viii. implementation, ix. evaluation, x. alternative models in the study of public policy, xi. future directions.

Policy studies emerged as an important focus in political science in the 1970s. In 1969, David Easton (1969), president of the American Political Science Association, was frustrated with the trend in political science research to study narrow questions that lent themselves to the quantitative methods expected by the behavioral movement. Thus, he called for a postbehavioral revolution where political scientists would study the most important political problems of the day even when quantitative methodologies could not be employed. Easton’s call served as a catalyst for policy research that sought to explain and predict policy patterns as well as to evaluate the relative impact of various types of policy solutions.

This research paper discusses a variety of approaches to the study of public policy and shows how the public administration and public policy subfields are closely related and at times intertwined. At the time of Easton’s call for relevance, the public administration subfield had declined as a prominent subfield in the discipline. The behavioral movement had prevailed in expectations for quantitative research, and public administration had not moved toward a grand theory or wed itself to quantitative methods. However, it had gravitated toward more policy-relevant models and concepts that were important foundations for the emerging field of public policy.

One of the policy subfield’s great advantages for those interested in government and politics is its interdisciplinary and holistic focus. Research is broad ranging and borrows heavily from the work of neighboring subfields and other academic disciplines. This can be found in its use of ideas such as systems theory, plural and elite models, subsystems concepts, and decision-making research.

Over the last four decades, a number of strands of policy research have developed as the subfield has matured. This research paper uses the policy stages framework to organize most of the literature discussed. However, a few of the newer policy frameworks follow this discussion in the alternative models and future directions sections of this research paper.

Policy and administration studies have many areas of overlapping interest. Michael Nelson (1977) suggested that the popularity of policy studies was temporal and it was more a modified version of public administration than a new subfield. A close study shows that the two fields do have substantial overlap, and a review of public administration literature is important to one’s understanding of public policy.

American scholarly attention to public administration dates back to the late 1800s when Woodrow Wilson (1887) wrote his classic essay calling for the development of a career public service. An increase in the professionalism of government administration was necessary to meet the increasing quantity and complexity of government activities. He encouraged comparative study of administration and argued that since administration is distinct from politics, the United States could examine administrative practices of European monarchies without fear of undermining its democratic form of government.

Wilson’s work was written around the same time that the path-breaking German sociologist Max Weber conducted his seminal studies on bureaucracy. Weber (1946) and Wilson (1887) each posited principles of efficiency, centralized authority, hierarchical structures, educated workers, and application of expertise to administration. Weber saw the development of bureaucracy as a natural corollary to modern government and asserted that its rule-driven decisions supported the rule of law and egalitarian values of democracy. The classical model of administration was further developed by scholars who participated in the scientific management and principles schools of administration. Scholars such as Luther Gulick, Frederick Taylor, and Leonard White reinforced the view of bureaucracy as a rational, efficient, hierarchical machine. This paradigm contributed to the sense that administration and policy were conducted in separate spheres and that organizations were controlled by the administrator at the top of the organization’s hierarchy. A careful reading of the early scholars, especially Wilson and Weber, shows that they realized the line between policy and politics was not as distinct as later scholars’ attributions. Wilson (1887) discussed the need for public opinion to be a guide for administrators but also stated that administrators should have some discretionary authority. Weber (1946) cautioned that bureaucrats would use their wealth of information and knowledge to their advantage, observed that bureaucrats were likely to categorize specialized information as official secrets, and warned that an authoritative monarch would be powerless opposite an administrative expert.

By the mid-1900s, many administration scholars challenged the classical model and its primary attention to structure, formal rules, and hierarchy within a single organization. Instead, open-systems scholars discussed the influence of other systems on the political system and how changes in the environment required organizations to adapt. Philip Selznick (1949) in his study, TVA and the Grass Roots, revealed how significantly local grassroots organizations and interests can affect an agency implementing public policy. He showed how organizations have to consider threats from external organizations and interests. One strategy to lessen or neutralize the threat was co-optation. Organizations incorporated dissident parties either formally or informally into their decision-making structures. These representatives provided increased legitimacy by expanding the perspectives that made up the decision-making body. Ideally, the representative also communicated information favorably back to the external group. When necessary, agency officials changed policy requirements to reduce external hostility to their programs. Since these policy changes occurred without participation of elected officials, a more positive view of co-optation suggested that it increased the level of democratic participation at the local level. Selznick’s contributions to an understanding of the important role of external influences, implementation, and intergovernmental complexity have been significant contributions to the study of public policy.

In addition, the open-systems model encouraged thinking about organizations as organisms rather than human machines. Thus, to understand organizations, scholars need to study both formal and informal elements rather than rely on the overwhelming emphasis that the classical model places on formal structures. Chester Barnard (1938) posited that executives and scholars must seek to understand an organization’s people, customs, myths, and values as much as the organization’s structure and rules.

The open-systems model of administration continues to contribute to policy scholarship. It helps to show that policies are not self-implementing and that the administrative variable has an independent impact on the effectiveness of programs. Policy scholars are still coming to terms with the nexus of formal and informal elements of the policy process, and the institutional and constructivist scholars are currently building on the insights of Barnard and others.

As the public policy subfield was developing, it relied heavily on case studies that permitted holistic examination of a single policy. These case studies suggested important generalizations about the policy process that extended the focus of policy scholars to include the examination of the political and administrative processes that preceded and followed formal adoption of policy. Very early in the subfield, a stages heuristic became the dominant model. The stages model typically identified agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, policy implementation, and policy evaluation as the sequential processes of the model (Anderson, 1975; Jones, 1970). Theoretical case studies of the stages contributed to increased understanding of the policy process, especially in the areas of agenda setting, implementation, and evaluation, which had previously received less attention from political scientists than policy formulation and adoption. As useful as the stages heuristic was in organizing the policy subfield, it fell prey to intense criticism for a variety of reasons: no causal theory, insufficient research guidance, too little multistage research, insufficient hypothesis generation, imprecise prediction, and too much linearity (Sabatier, 1991). However, it should be noted that even the scholars who were most closely associated with developing the model clearly indicated that the stages often were not distinct in actual practice and their order and characteristics could be quite varied (Anderson; Jones).

More than four decades later, the stages heuristic continues to anchor a substantial amount of policy research. The processes involved in getting the attention of the government, building coalitions of support, navigating the formal processes of policy adoption, crafting implementation, and modifying the policy over time continue to be essential elements of policy study even for those who are employing other, newer approaches.

Studies of agenda setting have tried to discern why some issues are given serious attention by government and others are not. Even among those that do receive serious attention, the question arises as to why some issues move quickly to reach agenda status and others take much longer. Thus, policy scholars sought to delineate the circumstances that make it more or less likely for a problem to be recognized and attended to by public officials.

Cobb and Elder (1975) observed the variation in the ability of groups to gain access to public officials and argued that this access influenced whether an issue was elevated to the formal agenda of a governmental entity. By the time public policy became a serious subfield, the importance of differential access to public officials had already been explored by the work of Schattschneider (1960). His work drew attention to the uneven participation in governmental decisions. His findings, that business interests and upper classes dominated public policy participation, flew in the face of the traditional pluralists’ claims of policy openness. It also elevated examination of how governmental leaders moved some issues onto the agenda and blocked others. Two years later, another pivotal study added to this point by developing the concept of “nondecisions” and arguing that the blocking of certain issues from advancing onto the agenda is an important type of policy power that needs to be studied even if it is difficult to observe (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962). Bachrach and Baratz assert that disadvantaged groups are less likely to demand change when existing policies benefit widely accepted and powerful interests.

How a problem is defined affects whether and how public officials address it. Schattschneider (1960) was a very early voice in discussing this dimension of the policy process in his delineation of public versus private problems. To gain legitimacy and thereby earn a spot on the agenda, issues needed to be defined as public problems. When issues were judged to be inappropriate for governmental attention, there was little chance that the issue would move beyond a private issue (Eyestone, 1978). Problem-definition research also placed perception and belief systems within the study of policy. Symbolic interactionists in sociology made the foundational contribution to this approach, arguing that human beings act on the basis of meanings they attach to things rather than on factual, objective definitions. This emphasis has found new energy in work by Stone (1988) and more recent scholars using the constructivist approach (Schneider & Sidney, 2009).

The multiple streams model articulated by Kingdon (1984) is sometimes given status as an independent approach to policy studies. It examines three separate streams of activity: problems, policies, and politics. These three dimensions of the policy process progress relatively independently of one another but occasionally couple, usually as a result of a policy entrepreneur who senses the opportunity to connect a problem with a policy proposal. When the political timing is right, the entrepreneur will push the coupled problem and solution through the policy window. Speed is important since the policy window of opportunity usually does not stay open long. Thus, agenda setting is intimately tied to an available solution and a political opportunity. This model is an excellent example of how public administration has contributed to the policy subfield since it is an adaptation of the so-called garbage can model advanced by three public administration scholars in their analysis of organizational processes and choice (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972).

Kingdon (1984) heightened the importance of politically capable individuals who he termed policy entrepreneurs. Policy entrepreneurs are opportunists who take advantage of crises or unanticipated events to push their policy proposals. Or they might take advantage of existing coalitions and work to soften up key policy communities. Another strategy is to modify the definition of the problem in order to take advantage of potential support to successfully push the proposal through the window. Ultimately, the entrepreneur is most successful when he or she is able to take advantage of political events or the national mood to promote a good idea that is technically feasible, consistent with core values, fiscally tolerable, and politically acceptable. However, there are many instances where issues fail to achieve or retain agenda status. Reasons for this include financial cost, lack of acceptance by the public or policy elites, opposition of powerful interests, and dominance of other issues (Kingdon).

Policy formulation focuses on the drafting and consideration of proposals by an attentive policy community while policy adoption refers to the passage of the proposal through the formal institutions that have the authority to adopt the policy. This part of the larger policy cycle received the most scholarly attention prior to the development of the policy subfield. It is closely associated with the institutions of government and is typically considered the key decision in the policy process.

In the multiple streams model, it is evident that the first three stages of the policy cycle—agenda setting, formulation, and adoption—take place more or less concurrently. Policy formulation itself focuses on the cognitive analysis and politics of designing a statute or other type of policy decision. The issue of rationality was a major focus of administration scholars in the middle of the 20th century. However, the debate between those arguing for rationality and against it continues. Today, rational choice theorists argue that a rational choice model is the best heuristic for studying, understanding, and predicting the outcomes of policy participants (Ostrom, 2007). The competing view is that scholars need to analyze language and political calculation to better understand the formulation and adoption processes (Allison, 1971; Halperin, 1974; Kingdon, 1984; Schneider & Sidney, 2009; Stone, 1988).

Many models incorporate both rational and political elements. Perhaps this is because the process itself incorporates both rational and political elements. Using a bounded rationality approach, policy analysts develop policy options, predict impacts, and oversee evaluation studies. But on the other side of the equation, political brokers approach the political landscape strategically, using data and analysis as well as other tactics to secure majorities at each stage in the adoption process.

One of the areas of greatest interest to policy scholars is the advocacy and policy design role of executive-legislative-interest group networks. Early scholars of political science advanced a number of models related to interest groups. One of the most noteworthy was David Truman (1951), who concluded that significant interests would organize to influence policies of concern to them. According to Truman and other pluralists, government’s role was often one of facilitating and legitimating group compromise. In addition, pluralists suggested that executive agencies often participated in the bargaining, protecting their interests similar to any other group.

Additional models of executive-legislative-interest group relations preceded the development of the policy subfield and more have been created since. All of these models include groups inside and outside of government and portray coalition formation organizing around a specific policy interest. Numerous terms have been assigned to these models, including iron triangles, subgovernments, policy subsystems, issue networks, policy monopolies, and advocacy coalitions. Each of these versions of policy communities assumes the importance of relationships among actors interested in the policy issue. These models are not exclusively used in the American political context. They have been broadly applied to research in multiple political systems by scholars in many disciplines. In the context of the United States, however, these policy communities thrive in part as a result of the decentralized and fragmented structure of its political institutions. Given the inability of the president and Congress as a whole to be informed and active participants on all issues, those issues that are not receiving widespread public attention and news coverage tend to be left to communities of people who have a deep interest in the specialized policy area.

In the 1960s, these communities were thought to be very stable relationships. In several case studies, the relationships were analyzed to be so stable that they were referred to as iron triangles (Cater, 1959). This conveys a pejorative view of the activity largely because the relationships among the governmental entities in the triangle and the interest groups were characterized as closed. New interests who wanted to communicate a competing set of demands and proposals were not acknowledged. Freeman (1955), in his studies of Indian affairs, showed how these policy subsystems brought stability to a policy area by bridging the executive and legislative branches with key interest groups. Each of these entities needed good relationships with the other two to enhance the likelihood of advancing its institutional and policy goals. This mutual dependence meant that once the subsystem emerged, its accommodations became the basis for determining which issues were placed on the agenda and which ones were not. These patterns of accommodation could be broken up by changes in committee leadership, widespread media attention to an issue in the policy area, or presidential interest. Once the visible interest in the policy topic waned, the subsystem political dynamic was likely to reemerge.

Hugh Heclo (1978) viewed the relationship between policy and administration as a vitally important one, especially as the role of government grew. He suggested that in the search for iron triangles, scholars sought to discover an exceptionally powerful and autonomous executive-legislative-interest group cluster of actors who dominated policy making by policy area. In the process, he believed that policy scholars ignored the more open and more commonly existing webs of people he referred to as issue networks. Issue networks are composed of those who are knowledgeable about the issue in terms of substantive knowledge as well as the history of its policy twists and turns. Policy knowledge is more heavily emphasized in this model, and it is the primary means through which additional participants can join this fluid web of relationships. In addition to being more fluid and episodic than subgovernments, issue networks, as shared-knowledge groups, have more points of view and conflicts than the iron triangle and subsystem frameworks. As aspects of the policy debate change, so do participants in the network. Thus, iron triangles and subsystems may still exist in some policy areas at some points in time, but the more typical pattern is one of a looser, increasingly complex kaleidoscope of policy (Heclo, 1978; Meier, 1985; Sabatier, 1991). For administrators and legislators, it provides a less stable and less predictable arrangement but one that permits greater maneuverability as well since these skilled politicians have the potential to split, expand, and recombine the many segments of the issue network. The irony of the issue network is that, when compared with iron triangles, it expands the number of participants involved, thereby making policymakers contend with more conflict among multiple points of view. It also accepts that involvement in the policy process is contingent on a greater understanding of the increased complexities of the policy area. Heclo (1978) suggests that this pattern of knowledge-based participation may actually increase the cynicism of the general public as the gap between activists and the public expands.

Heclo’s (1978) work was a pivotal change in the subfield’s orientation toward the nature and behavior of policy participants. Since Heclo, numerous scholars have articulated a variety of more diverse webs of policy participants, from Meier’s (1985) regulatory subsystem to Sabatier’s (1988) advocacy coalition framework. In the final analysis, though, whether one uses a looser, more episodic network or a more centralized and stable subsystem, the general public has virtually no role in any of the models. Given the level of specialized learning necessary to truly engage in the conversation among participants in the policy process, the general public’s role is minimal unless the issue somehow ignites widespread interest.

In the early literature on decision making, rationality was elevated to a normative standard. Operations research during World War II contributed to an expectation for clear, measureable objectives, extensive research, and, ideally, evaluation of choices based on evidence. The rational-comprehensive model that emerged ideally required the clarification and prioritizing of objectives, followed by identifying a comprehensive range of options for achieving the ranked objectives, analyzing the capacity of each option to maximize ranked objectives, and choosing the alternative that best achieves the objective at the least cost. This model has continued to retain its normative appeal, but scholars have repeatedly shown that actual decisions are not made this way. Lindblom (1959) argued that the model breaks down in its first step since people find it exceedingly difficult to agree on the relative priorities of values and goals. In the public realm, policymakers must wrestle with conflicting values among the various participants involved. Even the thinking of a single participant often includes conflicting and unresolved priorities among values. Thus, these values are not usually clarified and rank ordered prior to designing a policy. Therefore, policies often embody conflicting values. Lindblom suggested that most policy is made following a process of successive limited comparisons. Analysis is truncated to a few feasible alternatives that are incrementally different from existing practice, and choice is made based on which option receives consensual support. Pluralistic preferences and bargaining processes fit the incremental model well. Furthermore, this model can be expanded to a more intentional and strategic process for achieving substantial change since it is usually easier to achieve several successive incremental changes in policy over several years rather than attempting to secure support for major change in the first instance.

One of the most important contributors to the theories of decision making is Nobel prize winner Herbert Simon (1957). He argued that there are many reasons that rational-comprehensive models are not possible. First, information is lacking and people are not likely to be able to identify all possible alternatives. Second, the ability to accurately predict the outcomes of the many possible alternative choices is unlikely. And third, humans do not have the cognitive capacity to know and remember all that is required by the comprehensive model. Given these limitations, human beings accept what Simon terms satisficing. Under this approach to decision making, it is only necessary to find a solution that meets goals at an acceptable level rather than an optimal level.

Graham Allison’s (1971) classic work analyzing the Cuban missile crisis shows how three different models of decision making each lead to very different explanations of the crisis. His rational actor model can be compared to Simon’s bounded rationality model in that the goal is to choose the alternative that advances the national interest. The rational actor model assumes that nations function as centralized unitary actors where policy choices are made to maximize the national interest. Allison uses chess analogies to emphasize the strategic elements of the choice equation. Thus, the language of the model is of an optimizing effort, but the model recognizes the knowledge limitations and additional uncertainties that constrain choice. The advantages of this model are that it is simplified and stabilizes dramatically the information one needs to make choices. Morton Halperin (1974) emphasizes that given the number of bureaucratic departments and bureaucrats involved in decision making, it is difficult to confirm the unitary actor assumption of the model. The rational actor model assumes that all policymakers agree on the interpretation of the national interest. Halperin argued that this level of unity on what constitutes the national interest is rare in American history. One period followed World War II when the emergence of the cold war and the fear of communism solidified views of the national interest. This type of consensus also emerged for a short period after September 11, 2001.

Allison’s (1971) second model examines governmental decision making as a function of the output of organizations. The organizational process model, which borrows heavily from public administration literature, argues that organizations serve as the primary actors in governmental decision making. Given their hierarchy and centralization, each organization functions in a unified manner alongside other organizations. Under this model, analysts need to consider the outputs of multiple organizations. These outputs are the result of standard operating procedures, and organizational choices are in line with Lindblom’s model of incrementalism. The best predictor for what organizations will produce in the future is to examine the status quo. Importantly, organizational decisions and behaviors are influenced by existing routines and values of the organization.

The third model Allison (1971) advanced was the bureaucratic politics or governmental politics model. This model is probably the one most closely attributed to Allison since it was the most original of the three. Under the governmental politics model, there are numerous individual participants who influence governmental choices and behaviors. Government decisions are more resultants rather than choices since decisions are a combination of actions by numerous participants in the process. Many of the participants become part of the process as a result of an organizational affiliation that they have, and they often take actions based on the values and objectives of their organization using the action channels their organizations provide them. As each of the participants takes actions advancing their personal and organizational interests, they may be involved in overt bargaining with other participants. Equally often, though, participants are inclined to take the actions permitted by their position in the system. The governmental decision is really the interaction and summation of all of these independent decisions rather than coordinated intention. Obviously, this model of decision making is not based on a single set of organizational or national values. Pluralistic values and actions dominate the process.

Just as public administration scholarship was important to the understanding of agenda setting, it also plays a central role in formulation and adoption processes. Both the subsystem and network approaches and the decision-making approaches rely heavily on public administration literature and concepts. The level of bureaucratic participation in policy making becomes even more the focus of policy making in the implementation of public policy.

Implementation includes the administrative activities that convert a statute or other authoritative policy into a functioning program. Traditionally, implementation was characterized as a simple process of following the directives in the statute, administrative rule, executive order, or court ruling. Since early studies assumed that this took place without much delay or discrepancy from the policy’s intent, relatively little attention was paid to this process prior to the emergence of public policy as a subfield.

One study that stands out for being well ahead of the development of the policy subfield was sociologist Phillip Selznick’s (1949) study of the Tennessee Valley Authority. This case study is one of the few studies that provided guidance to the complexity of implementation and the degree to which the contours of a policy could be significantly altered based on the decisions of implementers. Since his study focused on organizations as organic systems that adapt to their external environment, his findings created an awareness of how external forces cause policies adopted in Washington to be altered in the field. Selznick showed how organizations were dependent on local support and how local opposition from powerful groups generated adaptations in policy.

Selznick’s (1949) study also challenged the traditional top-down view of implementation. Under the traditional top-down framework, bureaucrats function as instruments of the policymakers and respond to the command and control of those above them in a process similar to hierarchical lines of authority in a bureaucratic organization. However, scholars soon realized that implementation processes were much more complex and evolutionary than initially thought. Numerous studies showed that implementation was not faithful to the original plan for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, statutes and other formal policies often did not communicate with 100% clarity. There were gaps, overlaps, and contradictions. Thus, even if a bureaucrat was willing to function as a Weberian machine, it was typically the case that bureaucrats had to make significant decisions throughout the process of designing implementation. Even Woodrow Wilson (1887), whose work contributed to the policy–administration dichotomy framework, realized that all administrators operated with some discretion. Although the policy–administration dichotomy was successfully characterized by the public administration literature as unrealistic, policy scholars assumed the concept in their top-down implementation models until sufficient implementation case studies accumulated to convince most that the paradigm was inaccurate. Although there are still a variety of approaches to the study of implementation, most would agree that statutes are altered at least to some extent in the process of implementation. Policies are not self-implementing.

Another complexity in the implementation process that affects whether implemented programs align with statutes is that many national programs are carried out at the state and local levels, which dramatically increases the number of policy actors involved. This increase in the number of decision points creates huge difficulties for timely implementation and necessary communication and coordination. Pressman and Wildvasky (1973) masterfully show that as the number of participants and decision points increase, the likelihood of accurate implementation declines. Two-way interaction models were a reaction to the inadequacies of the top-down models. Bardach (1977) and Lipsky (1979) posit that statutes and other authoritative decisions made by policy-makers interact with decisions of implementers to create the actual policy. As implementers work through the issues of how to carry out the statute, they make choices that modify the policy. In addition, “street level” bureaucrats make use of discretionary authority as they engage in the day-to-day work of public policy. Accepting that implementation is an interactive process rather than a command and control hierarchy dictated by legislators focuses attention on the distance between a policy as originally designed or passed and the policy as implemented.

Majone and Wildavsky (1984) take the interactive model one step further in their work “Implementation as Evolution.” It posits that having the implementing agency modify the original policy design may actually produce beneficial results relative to the original goals of the statute. For example, if the original statute makes assumptions about cause and effect that are inaccurate, then having implementing bureaucrats modify the policy through implementation strategies would be a positive step as long as the changes they are making are in line with a commitment to the objectives and impacts the policy was supposed to produce. Both the implementation as evolution and the other two-way interaction approaches make it obvious how important it is to have agencies that are committed to the policy objectives.

Building on the work of all of these scholars, Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) develop a synthetic conceptual framework to guide implementation studies as part of the larger policy process. They assert that it is necessary to examine the statute or other formal policy statement to assess its clarity of objectives, accuracy of causal assumptions, and effectiveness of decision rules provided to the implementing agencies. In addition, the researcher must appraise the sufficiency of financial resources, the specificity of the authority relationships, and formal access by outsiders. Variables beyond the statute and outside the implementing agency are also emphasized, including socioeconomic conditions, media attention, public and constituency group support, enthusiasm of higher level public authorities, and the commitment and skill of agency leaders. In addition to internal and external variables, there is also a recognition that implementation success is affected by the difficulty of the problem and the degree of change being sought.

Given the potential for significant adjustments to policy to occur as a result of implementation decisions, a diachronic approach of studying policies over a decade or more is recommended. Without a long-term view, the ability to understand the evolution of policy as it occurs in implementation will be incomplete.

Most stage models of public policy end with evaluation, the systematic assessment of the policy’s impact. Importantly, policies need to be examined for both intended and unintended consequences. Evaluations are completed by the implementers themselves and by external policy analysts. Internal evaluations conducted by the implementing agency have the benefit of getting those who work with the policy on a day-to-day basis to recognize problems and propose solutions. Evaluations by outside analysts tend to bring external perspectives to the process and may possess increased legitimacy from the perspective of elected officials. One trend in the last several decades is for more ideologically affiliated think tanks to publish external policy analyses. These are usually provided with a particular point of view and thus do not necessarily offer the benefits of other external evaluations.

Distinctions should also be made between the evaluation of policy outputs and policy outcomes. Analysis of outputs draws attention to whether the administrative processes are in place through such measures as number and types of clients served. Outcomes refer to whether the policy is achieving desired results on policy goals as well as other unintended impacts.

For policy scholars, impact and outcome studies have received more interest than output studies. Scholars have also sought to understand how policy analysis leads to revisions, transformation, or termination of policies by elected officials. As could be seen in the previous discussion of implementation, revision of policy is often ongoing from the beginning of implementation decisions. However, most stage models have viewed evaluation as isolated from implementation and as more associated with the judgments of policy-impact recommendations for policy revisions. There is a tendency for this stage to look something like the feedback loop of the political systems model.

Systematic policy analysis grew as an important part of the policy process during the 1960s as government attempted to apply economic theory to policy making. Cost–benefit analysis, operations research, and various program performance measures incorporated in budgeting processes were primary tools of the effort. Thus, this part of the policy process is most closely associated with rational models of decision making. It was not unusual for program evaluation and periodic reporting to be statutorily required to assist in legislative oversight and budgeting processes. As the national government expanded the number of large domestic programs, along with detailed prescriptions and administration, collected evidence mounted that the programs were not achieving their lofty goals. Accountability continues as a common refrain today, but the capacity to systematically evaluate programs and to redesign them with effective performance measures has not been as easy or as successful as hoped. Once again, it is possible to see the tension between expectations for rational decision making as the vehicle for better policies and the reality that suggests there are significant human and organizational limitations to rationality. Even when systematic analysis is required, the uncertainty surrounding appropriate measures and the interpretation of results make evaluation as much politics as science.

Deborah Stone (1988), one of the leading critics of rational models of public policy, advanced a concept she termed policy paradox. She argued that politicians typically have dual goals: policy objectives and political objectives. Furthermore, she observed that analysis itself is political since it is rife with framing, definitions, and interpretations. Political participants frequently articulate an argument that on its face appears linear and rational but on closer examination appears constructed to achieve a political purpose. She offered the concept of political reasoning, rather than rational decision making, to understand the struggles of policy communities competing over which ideas, policy definitions, and corresponding solutions will prevail.

A closely related facet of the evaluation literature is the attention given to the use of knowledge generated through policy analysis. Generally, scholars have concluded that knowledge is not the most important dimension of policy decisions. Politics and the limitations of human and organizational capacity intervene (Simon, 1957). Even when decision makers seek information to help make policy, it is frequently questioned, interpreted in different ways, expensive, and incomplete. Although many write very pessimistically about the lack of use of policy knowledge, Carol Weiss (1977) argued that policy knowledge has been successfully used to identify problems, reconsider policy strategies, and provide an enlightenment function. Through the enlightenment process, information accumulates and causes policymakers to redefine the problem, retroactively make sense of why programs did not succeed, or readjust policy objectives to more realistic levels. Finally, policy knowledge is more likely to be used when it is timely and when participants see strategic benefit in doing so.

In 1991, Paul Sabatier criticized the stages heuristic and challenged the field to develop better models. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) put forward an alternative heuristic referred to as the advocacy coalition framework. They suggested that the stages model is too simplistic given the number of participants, institutions, and influences in the policy process. In their more complex model, they incorporate governmental and nongovernmental institutions, external conditions and events, and the multiples webs of these entities that align or compete with each other to influence policy. Furthermore, whereas the stages heuristic signals that policy follows a linear process, the advocacy coalition framework sees policies as nonlinear and rarely terminating. Multiple policies affecting the policy domain overlap and affect one another, as do policy implementations at multiple levels of government. Researchers who study a policy arena for several decades will observe policy adaptations and eventually significant change. This occurs because of learning on the part of the participant coalitions that may compete over preferences based on different resources and belief systems. However, the advocacy coalition framework posits that the most substantial changes in policy are more likely to come from external events and conditions than from policy learning. To be able to witness this, scholars must be prepared to follow a policy area for several decades since advocacy coalitions tend to be relatively stable. Some scholars (Lester & Stewart, 2000) see the advocacy coalition framework as a development within evaluation research that could be incorporated within the stages model, but Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) claim that the model provides an important and enhanced alternative model.

Another model of note is the punctuated-equilibrium framework (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993). This model is similar to the advocacy coalition model in terms of the need to look at policy over long periods of time since most policy follows incremental change and relatively stable patterns over many years before incurring major change. Major punctuations occur in the context of changed beliefs among the policy community and often a new venue for implementation. Once implemented, equilibrium is reestablished, and the policy arena goes back to a lengthy period of stability. The punctuated-equilibrium model also draws attention to the importance of institutions since they tend to help ingrain the results of the dominant coalition and to resist pressures for change.

Elinor Ostrom (2007) and many others articulate a preference for a model of institutional rational choice. This model builds on the discipline’s traditional emphasis on institutional structures and rules. Ostrom argued that institutions should be defined as rules, norms, and strategies that characterize entities with repeated processes. Rules dictate who has advantages in the pursuit of policy preferences and frequently determine who the major players are in the policy. This model also examines the hierarchical ordering of rules. Thus, constitutional rules influence options for players at other levels of policy choice all the way down to the operational, day-to-day decisions of policy actors. Rules can take the form of formal, written provisions or can be norms based on shared understandings by participants or guides that individuals develop to direct their own behaviors. These working rules help to provide stability in the midst of uncertainty. Once the study of levels and types of rules is achieved, the researcher can make probabilistic predictions using rational choice analysis. This model brings attention back to the formal versus informal distinction that was made by administration scholars many decades earlier.

One must ask whether any of the models will rise to a position of dominance in the near future. Given that scholars agree that the policy process is complex and patterns of human behavior are varied, the search for a dominant, robust, parsimonious model is unlikely to be successful. This effort is also exacerbated by the number of contributing disciplines to the subfield. Frustration over this situation is also likely to continue. Perhaps Kenneth Meier (2009) captures it best when he complains that there are so many models, their ability to guide research is analogous to the interstate highway system’s ability to guide a vacation. A more positive point of view may come from the realization that there is a lot of overlap among the various models. For example, the advocacy coalition framework, stages framework, punctuated equilibria model, and the institutional rational choice model all describe the importance of institutional structures, political brokers, external influences, and shared meanings.

Looking at policy processes more holistically and studying policies over the long term to incorporate evolution and change are recent trends in policy research that are likely to continue in the future. The role of beliefs and the processes leading to shared meanings also appear to be increasing in importance (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). It remains to be seen whether future studies integrate policy and public administration models. The literature of the two subfields has numerous parallels. Very few policies can be implemented without the significant involvement of an administrative system. The fact that the same policy can produce such different results across different implementing subunits (e.g., states, counties, or schools) suggests that agencies and individuals make a huge difference. Leadership styles and administrative cultures may offer vital insight to explaining the variation (Hicklin & Godwin, 2009; Robichau & Lynn, 2009).

Given the large number of models and participating disciplines, the methodologies employed in the subfield will continue to range from qualitative to quantitative. The quantitative methods employed in large-N comparative studies and some evaluation studies are likely to continue, as are the more qualitative methods of case studies and language analysis approaches. This is not necessarily a negative. As Easton (1969) argued in his call for a postbehavioral revolution, the important objective is to be relevant even if it means sacrificing the quantitative methods called for in the behavioral movement. Thus, a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures is likely to continue to characterize the policy subfield.

Bibliography:

Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
Anderson, J. (1975). Public policy making. New York: Praeger. Bachrach, P. S., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947-952.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). Functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baumgartner, B. D., & Jones, F. R. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cater, D. (1959). The fourth branch of government. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1975). Issue creation and agenda building. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Cases in public policy making (pp. 10 21). New York: Praeger.
Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
Easton, D. (1953). The political system. New York: Knopf. Easton, D. (1969). The new revolution in political science. American Political Science Review, 63, 1051-1061.
Eyestone, R. (1978). From social issues to public policy. New York: Wiley.
Freeman, J. L. (1955). The political process: Executive bureau legislative committee relations. New York: Random House.
Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds). (1937). Papers on the science of administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.
Halperin, M. H. (1974). Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87-124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Hicklin, A., & Godwin, E. (2009). Agents of change: The role of public managers in public policy. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 13-20.
Jones, C. O. (1970). An introduction to the study of public policy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kingdon, J.W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
Lester, J. P., & Stewart, J. (2000). Public policy: An evolutionary approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 78-88.
Lipsky, M. (1979). Street level bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Majone, G., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation as evolution. In J. L. Pressman & A. Wildavsky (Eds.), Implementation (3rd ed., pp. 163-180). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mazmanian, D. H., & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Meier, K. J. (1985). Regulation: Politics, bureaucracy & economics. New York: St. Martin’s.
Meier, K. J. (2009). Policy theory, policy theory everywhere: Ravings of a deranged policy scholar. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 5-12.
Nelson, M. (1977, September). What’s wrong with political science? Washington Monthly, 9(7), 12-20.
Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional rational choice. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 21-64). Boulder: CO: Westview Press.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ranney, A. (1968). The study of policy content: A framework of choice. In A. Ranney (Ed.), Political science and public policy (pp. 3 21). Chicago: Markham.
Rivlin, A. M. (1971). Systematic thinking for social action. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Robichau, R. W., & Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2009). The implementation of public policy: Still the missing link. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 21-36.
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2), 129-168.
Sabatier, P. A. (1991, June). Political science and public policy. PS: Political Science & Politics, 24(2), 143-147.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1997). Social constructions in the study of public policy. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 189-211). New York: Guilford Press.
Schneider, A., & Sidney, M. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal, 37, 103-120.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Simon,H. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: Wiley.
Stone, D.A. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Taylor, FW. (1911). Scientific management. New York: Harper & Row.
Truman, D. (1951). The governmental process. New York: Knopf.
Weber, M. (1946). Bureaucracy. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds. & Trans.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, C. H. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531-546.
White, L. D. (1926). Introduction to the study of public administration. New York: Macmillan.
Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197-222.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

sample research paper in political science

Ask Yale Library

My Library Accounts

Find, Request, and Use

Help and Research Support

Visit and Study

Explore Collections

Political Science Subject Guide: Literature Reviews

Political Science
Books & Dissertations
Articles & Databases
Literature Reviews
Senior Essay Resources
Country Information

More Literature Review Writing Tips

Thesis Whisperer- Bedraggled Daisy Lay advice on writing theses and dissertations. This article demonstrates in more detail one aspect of our discussion

Books on the Literature Review

What is a literature review?

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. [...] In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries."

(from "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Writing It," http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Strategies for conducting your own literature review

1. Use this guide as a starting point. Begin your search with the resources linked from the political science subject guide. These library catalogs and databases will help you identify what's been published on your topic.

2. What came first? Try bibliographic tracing. As you're finding sources, pay attention to what and whom these authors cite. Their footnotes and bibliographies will point you in the direction of additional scholarship on your topic.

3. What comes next? Look for reviews and citation reports. What did scholars think about that book when it was published in 2003? Has anyone cited that article since 1971? Reviews and citation analysis tools can help you determine if you've found the seminal works on your topic--so that you can be confident that you haven't missed anything important, and that you've kept up with the debates in your field. You'll find book reviews in JSTOR and other databases. Google Scholar has some citation metrics; you can use Web of Science ( Social Sciences Citation Index ) for more robust citation reports.

4. Stay current. Get familiar with the top journals in your field, and set up alerts for new articles. If you don't know where to begin, APSA and other scholarly associations often maintain lists of journals, broken out by subfield . In many databases (and in Google Scholar), you can also set up search alerts, which will notify you when additional items have been added that meet your search criteria.

5. Stay organized. A citation management tool--e.g., RefWorks, Endnote, Zotero, Mendeley--will help you store your citations, generate a bibliography, and cite your sources while you write. Some of these tools are also useful for file storage, if you'd like to keep PDFs of the articles you've found. To get started with citation management tools, check out this guide .

How to find existing literature reviews

1. Consult Annual Reviews. The Annual Review of Political Science consists of thorough literature review essays in all areas of political science, written by noted scholars. The library also subscribes to Annual Reviews in economics, law and social science, sociology, and many other disciplines.

2. Turn to handbooks, bibliographies, and other reference sources. Resources like Oxford Bibliographies Online and assorted handbooks ( Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics , Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior , etc.) are great ways to get a substantive introduction to a topic, subject area, debate, or issue. Not exactly literature reviews, but they do provide significant reference to and commentary on the relevant literature--like a heavily footnoted encyclopedia for specialists in a discipline.

3. Search databases and Google Scholar. Use the recommended databases in the "Articles & Databases" tab of this guide and try a search that includes the phrase "literature review."

4. Search in journals for literature review articles. Once you've identified the important journals in your field as suggested in the section above, you can target these journals and search for review articles.

5. Find book reviews. These reviews can often contain useful contextual information about the concerns and debates of a field. Worldwide Political Science Abstracts is a good source for book reviews, as is JSTOR . To get to book reviews in JSTOR, select the advanced search option, use the title of the book as your search phrase, and narrow by item type: reviews. You can also narrow your search further by discipline.

6. Cast a wide net--don't forget dissertations. Dissertations and theses often include literature review sections. While these aren't necessarily authoritative, definitive literature reviews (you'll want to check in Annual Reviews for those), they can provide helpful suggestions for sources to consider.

<< Previous: News
Next: Senior Essay Resources >>
Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 12:55 PM
URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/politicalscience

Site Navigation

P.O. BOX 208240 New Haven, CT 06250-8240 (203) 432-1775

Yale's Libraries

Bass Library

Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library

Classics Library

Cushing/Whitney Medical Library

Divinity Library

East Asia Library

Gilmore Music Library

Haas Family Arts Library

Lewis Walpole Library

Lillian Goldman Law Library

Marx Science and Social Science Library

Sterling Memorial Library

Yale Center for British Art

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

@YALELIBRARY

image of the ceiling of sterling memorial library

Yale Library Instagram

Accessibility Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Giving Privacy and Data Use Contact Our Web Team

Political Science

Undergraduate sample research topics.

Students in the Department of Political Science at Western Michigan University will want to review these sample research topics when selecting their own research topic.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Office of Independent Counsel
A Study on Equitable Water Provision in Latin America
Affirmative Action: National Origin Minorities
Aid to the Health-Related Sector: The United States, Japan, and Germany
An Assessment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
An Evaluation of International Law as Applied to Genocide from Nuremberg to the Balkans
Celebrity Influence on Political Campaigns
Children Soldiers in Africa
Development of a Constitutional Right of Privacy
Educational Outcomes in Michigan: A Lack of Focus and Context
Effectiveness of Rape Shield Laws
Globalization and the Anti-Globalization Movement
Legislative Redistricting in Illinois for 2002
Mexico, Corporate Globalization and the Media
Mexico's Changing Political Party System
Nature Within the City: The Greenway Movement and the Transformation of Urban Form
Pretextual Automobile Stops and the Fourth Amendment
Public Education and Religious Establishment
Racial Profiling in post 9/11 United States Content Regulation in Broadcasting
Religious Exercise in Public Schools: Continuing Debate
Rights and Their Progression from State to Federal Policy: The Case of the Disability Rights Movement
Sexual Harassment: Comparative Legal Analysis
Squatter Settlements in Post-Apartheid South Africa
Stereotypes Between American and Arab-Americans in the United States
Telecommunications Policy in China
The "Political Question" Doctrine and Reapportionment
The Austrian Freedom Party in 2000
The Debt Crisis in Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
The Effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement
The Equal Rights Amendment: Why Controversy Ensured its Defeat
The Evolution (and Devolution) of Affirmative Action Initiatives
The 14th Amendment and Privacy
The Influence of the Antislavery Movement, Republican Ideology, and Federalism on the 14th Amendment
The Lemon Test and the Religious Establishment Clause
The Patriot Act: Security/Rights Issues in Historical Perspective
The Political Economy of the Micro-Island Nations of the Caribbean: The Impact of Tourism on Caribbean Culture, Environment and Society
The Supreme Court and Reproductive Rights
The Supreme Court and Sexual Preference
Title IX and Collegiate Athletic Opportunities
Truth Commissions and Civil Society
U.S.-Japanese Trade Policy: A Defense of Limited Unilateralism
Weapons of the Weak and the Chinese Occupation of Tibet
Women and Equal Pay: An Assessment of Differences in Universities
Women, Identity and Political Activism During the Allende Regime in Chile

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Undergraduate
Honors Thesis

Award Winning Theses

The following theses are recent examples of outstanding work:.

Avery Goods: "An Inconvenient Group: The Effect of Motivated Messages on Climate Change Attitudes and Behaviors of Skeptic Audiences" 2019 Janda Prize Winner for Best Honors Thesis
Joshua Varcie: "The Artificial Incumbency Advantage: How Bipartisan Redistricting Schemes Protect Incumbents" 2019 Janda Prize Honorable Mention for Distinguished Honors Thesis
Benjamin Alan Weinberg: " Ballot Challenge: Explaining Voting Rights Restrictions in 21st-Century America" 2018 Janda Prize Winner for Best Honors Thesis
Logan Scott Peretz: "How Hillary May Have Lost the White House: The Electoral Effects of Presidential Campaign Visits in 2016" 2018 Janda Prize Honorable Mention for Distinguished Honors Thesis
Aaron Gordon: "An Empirical Appraisal of the Liberty of Contract" 2017 Janda Prize Winner for Best Honors Thesis
Hayley Hopkins: "Restrict the Vote: Disenfranchisement as a Political Strategy" 2017 Janda Prize Winner for Best Honors Thesis
Matthew Gates: "Ideological Basis for the Gay Rights Movement" 2017 Janda Prize Honorable Mention for Distinguished Honors Thesis
Elena Barham: "Passing the Buck: World Bank Anti-Corruption Reform and the Politics of Implementation" 2016 Janda Prize Winner for Best Honors Thesis
Remy Smith: "Inherently Unequal: The Effects of Equal Representation on Senate Policy Outcomes" 2016 Janda Prize Honorable Mention for Distinguished Honors Thesis
Laura Rozier: "The Media, the Innocent, and the Public: A Nuanced Look at Exonerations and Public Opinion of the Death Penalty" 2015 Janda Prize Winner for Best Honors Thesis
Kaitlyn Chriswell: “Cross-cutting cleavages: Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, Terra Lliure, and the centrality of networks” , 2014 Janda Prize Winner for Best Honors Thesis
Jordan Fein: "Searching for Health Care Reform: Studying Media Coverage and Framing Public Opinion of the 2009-2010 Health Care Debate" , 2011 Janda Prize Winner for Best Honors Thesis
Dylan Lewis: “Unpaid Protectors: Volunteerism and the Diminishing Role of Federal Responsibility in the National Park Service” , 2011 Janda Prize Honorable Mention for Distinguished Honors Thesis
Benjamin Zhu: “Resource Distribution in Post‐PRI Mexico: De‐Politicized or Re‐Politicized?” , 2011 Senior Marshall for Distinguished Honors Thesis
Ben Armstrong: “Ne Touche Pas Ma Constitution: Pressures and Presidential Term Limits” , 2011 Barry Farrell Prize for Academic Achievement
Jeffrey Paller: “Where are the people? The Relationship between Government and Civil Society in South Africa” , 2006 Janda Prize Co-Winner for Best Honors Thesis
Samir Mayekar: “The Piquetero Effect: Examining the Argentine Government’s Response to the Piquetero Movement” , 2006 Janda Prize Co-Winner for Best Honors Thesis

Janda PRIZE for DISTINGUISHED Honors Thesis REcipients

The Kenneth F. Janda Prize for Distinguished Honors Thesis in Political Science is awarded annually for the best undergraduate Honors thesis of the year.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Political Science Research Paper Sample

How to balance the tension between the state and the market. Develop three strategies which developing countries can adopt to balance state/market relations in the context of globalisation. draw on three contending theoretical perspectives of international

Related Papers

Reco A.K. Alleyne

The paper looks at the tension between the state and the market, and how it has been proven to be caused naturally. It will explore how globalization has made this further possible.

Economy of Ukraine

Alex Sharov

State, market and globalization are three concepts, the interrelation and influence of which can be traced throughout almost the entire period of their existence. It is possible that, according to some anthropologists, in primitive societies the economy was not based on market relations, but the formation of market institutions is impossible without protection from the government (state or at least quasi-state) and even more so without direct creative intervention of the state. At the same time, however, it should be borne in mind that in the context of globalization there are ongoing changes both in the essence of the state and in the tasks that it must solve. Sometimes there are allegations of erosion or extinction of the nation-state, which are not yet true. Of course, the political and economic development of society makes its adjustments, but functions such as protection from economic aggression, legislative provision of fair competition, participation in large projects that ca...

Time and again we are reminded that capitalism is more about competiveness and its advantages than ownership. Critics say that what we find today is not planning for people but planning for capital. Does this auger well for India " s faster and more inclusive growth? That way even in the classical capitalist growth theory does not preclude petering of growth. State activity then is necessary to make " stationary state " a state of activity if not of growth. There is entry for " state in the market " .The " State " has evolved, so has its functions, the latter often overlapping. The changes have been more in " domain " than in " direction " in general. From the era of laissez faire to state socialism and then to neo-liberalism, in every phase and every reform, " market " has been the crux of the matter. Again from non-interventionist, free market policy to public distribution and to the present privatisation bogey and further to the need for market/globalisation management, the debate goes on.While some pay eulogy to the market pointing out state failure, others hail the government (state) pointing out the market failure. That means the solutions lie in finding the right balance between the state and the market which is precisely what China and India are trying to do now. Although the debate " state versus market " per se is an old one, the recent changes in the international political economy have deepened the debate. More generally, the trends of the past decade have generated considerable debate about the role of knowledge, transnational corporations (TNCs), and multilateral institutions as vehicles for promoting growth and development. While the virtues of economic globalisation and the liberal market-oriented ideology continue to reign, evidence abounds of an increasing unease with the effects of unbridled market forces. In India for instance, besides the visible ills of globalisation (and/or marketization) including ecological imbalance, the perceived ones also have made the both the central and state governments to go in for more and more safety nets and public programmes like food security, job guarantee, direct cash transfer etc., in the name of market regulation.The present paper while considering some theoretical insights to the debate, tries to make a conscious decision to seek modern expressions of the major perspectives, viz., liberalism, economic nationalism, and structuralism. We also try to examine how – as Geoffrey Underhill feels – state and market make up a matrix or a " condominium " , i.e. " an integrated ensemble of governance " in order to move in a more welfare-oriented and redistributive direction. The limitations of the study: need to consider the complex situations in the functions of all the layers of the government in a federal setup , and the viewpoints of all the stakeholders, citizens, corporates etc., to focus upon the new trends in citizen centric governance.

Roe Goddard

Zafer Yilmaz

Jorge Bateira

This article summarises the main arguments of a critical literature that radically questions the neoclassical economic theory of state-market relations and identifies the fundamental methodological weaknesses of this school of thought. As an alternative, it presents an interpretation of the methodology on which Original Institutionalism, the political economy movement launched by Thorstein Veblen, is based. The article proposes an understanding of the economy and markets as emerging institutions, reflecting a metaphysics of social systems that views the latter as complex, self-organised and interactive processes. The state-market relationship is analysed in light of this institutional interactivity. Highlighting the co-evolution of state and market, the article attributes a central role to industrial policy in economic development processes.

COURSE DESCRIPTION: The course aims to provide an in-depth coverage of the political economy of globalization and development with a particular focus on emerging powers and their changing role in the global political economy. The first part of the part of the course will cover broader debates on Northern and Southern varieties of capitalism, states and markets in development, the relationship between democracy and development. The second part of the course will focus explicitly on individual BRICS and near BRICS. Particular attention will be paid to the respective developmental strategies as well as similarities and contrasts in the regional and global roles of China, India, Brazil and Russia. Finally, the course will consider the role of emerging powers in the context of global governance. The role of emerging powers is investigated in the context of the global economic crisis and their influence on the future course of development in the " global South " .

RELATED PAPERS

Anwaar Mustafa

Pauline Heine

Alexander Ryzhenkov

Physical Review B

C. McConville

Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research

Gökhan Çakmak

Nard Bennas

EJNMMI Research

severine debiais

Social Support, Well-being, and Teacher Development

Bick Har Lam

Geological Magazine

Xuejian Zhu

World applied sciences journal

Marlise Loura

Circulation

ILHAMSYAH ILHAMSYAH

Experimental and Theoretical NANOTECHNOLOGY

Mustafa. R. Al-Shaheen

Journal of the Neurological Sciences

Anita Burrell

Majid Taghizadeh

Kevin Daniel Rozo

Karol Milenca Soto Diaz

Vira Auliyah

M. Tommerdahl

Stein Oluf Kristiansen

M.Hafis Jakala

M Hafis Jakala

Revista latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud

Maria Elena Rivera Heredia

WSEAS transactions on applied and theoretical mechanics

Giovanni Cannata

Heat Transfer Engineering

Muhammad Jamil

Revealed: the ten research papers that policy documents cite most

Dalmeet Singh Chawla 0

Dalmeet Singh Chawla is a freelance science journalist based in London.

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

G7 leaders gather for a photo at the Itsukushima Shrine during the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan in 2023

Policymakers often work behind closed doors — but the documents they produce offer clues about the research that influences them. Credit: Stefan Rousseau/Getty

When David Autor co-wrote a paper on how computerization affects job skill demands more than 20 years ago, a journal took 18 months to consider it — only to reject it after review. He went on to submit it to The Quarterly Journal of Economics , which eventually published the work 1 in November 2003.

Autor’s paper is now the third most cited in policy documents worldwide, according to an analysis of data provided exclusively to Nature . It has accumulated around 1,100 citations in policy documents, show figures from the London-based firm Overton (see ‘The most-cited papers in policy’), which maintains a database of more than 12 million policy documents, think-tank papers, white papers and guidelines.

“I thought it was destined to be quite an obscure paper,” recalls Autor, a public-policy scholar and economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. “I’m excited that a lot of people are citing it.”

The most-cited papers in policy

Economics papers dominate the top ten papers that policy documents reference most.

Data from Sage Policy Profiles as of 15 April 2024

The top ten most cited papers in policy documents are dominated by economics research. When economics studies are excluded, a 1997 Nature paper 2 about Earth’s ecosystem services and natural capital is second on the list, with more than 900 policy citations. The paper has also garnered more than 32,000 references from other studies, according to Google Scholar. Other highly cited non-economics studies include works on planetary boundaries, sustainable foods and the future of employment (see ‘Most-cited papers — excluding economics research’).

These lists provide insight into the types of research that politicians pay attention to, but policy citations don’t necessarily imply impact or influence, and Overton’s database has a bias towards documents published in English.

Interdisciplinary impact

Overton usually charges a licence fee to access its citation data. But last year, the firm worked with the London-based publisher Sage to release a free web-based tool that allows any researcher to find out how many times policy documents have cited their papers or mention their names. Overton and Sage said they created the tool, called Sage Policy Profiles, to help researchers to demonstrate the impact or influence their work might be having on policy. This can be useful for researchers during promotion or tenure interviews and in grant applications.

Autor thinks his study stands out because his paper was different from what other economists were writing at the time. It suggested that ‘middle-skill’ work, typically done in offices or factories by people who haven’t attended university, was going to be largely automated, leaving workers with either highly skilled jobs or manual work. “It has stood the test of time,” he says, “and it got people to focus on what I think is the right problem.” That topic is just as relevant today, Autor says, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence.

Most-cited papers — excluding economics research

When economics studies are excluded, the research papers that policy documents most commonly reference cover topics including climate change and nutrition.

Walter Willett, an epidemiologist and food scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, thinks that interdisciplinary teams are most likely to gain a lot of policy citations. He co-authored a paper on the list of most cited non-economics studies: a 2019 work 3 that was part of a Lancet commission to investigate how to feed the global population a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet by 2050 and has accumulated more than 600 policy citations.

“I think it had an impact because it was clearly a multidisciplinary effort,” says Willett. The work was co-authored by 37 scientists from 17 countries. The team included researchers from disciplines including food science, health metrics, climate change, ecology and evolution and bioethics. “None of us could have done this on our own. It really did require working with people outside our fields.”

Sverker Sörlin, an environmental historian at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, agrees that papers with a diverse set of authors often attract more policy citations. “It’s the combined effect that is often the key to getting more influence,” he says.

Has your research influenced policy? Use this free tool to check

Sörlin co-authored two papers in the list of top ten non-economics papers. One of those is a 2015 Science paper 4 on planetary boundaries — a concept defining the environmental limits in which humanity can develop and thrive — which has attracted more than 750 policy citations. Sörlin thinks one reason it has been popular is that it’s a sequel to a 2009 Nature paper 5 he co-authored on the same topic, which has been cited by policy documents 575 times.

Although policy citations don’t necessarily imply influence, Willett has seen evidence that his paper is prompting changes in policy. He points to Denmark as an example, noting that the nation is reformatting its dietary guidelines in line with the study’s recommendations. “I certainly can’t say that this document is the only thing that’s changing their guidelines,” he says. But “this gave it the support and credibility that allowed them to go forward”.

Broad brush

Peter Gluckman, who was the chief science adviser to the prime minister of New Zealand between 2009 and 2018, is not surprised by the lists. He expects policymakers to refer to broad-brush papers rather than those reporting on incremental advances in a field.

Gluckman, a paediatrician and biomedical scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, notes that it’s important to consider the context in which papers are being cited, because studies reporting controversial findings sometimes attract many citations. He also warns that the list is probably not comprehensive: many policy papers are not easily accessible to tools such as Overton, which uses text mining to compile data, and so will not be included in the database.

The top 100 papers

“The thing that worries me most is the age of the papers that are involved,” Gluckman says. “Does that tell us something about just the way the analysis is done or that relatively few papers get heavily used in policymaking?”

Gluckman says it’s strange that some recent work on climate change, food security, social cohesion and similar areas hasn’t made it to the non-economics list. “Maybe it’s just because they’re not being referred to,” he says, or perhaps that work is cited, in turn, in the broad-scope papers that are most heavily referenced in policy documents.

As for Sage Policy Profiles, Gluckman says it’s always useful to get an idea of which studies are attracting attention from policymakers, but he notes that studies often take years to influence policy. “Yet the average academic is trying to make a claim here and now that their current work is having an impact,” he adds. “So there’s a disconnect there.”

Willett thinks policy citations are probably more important than scholarly citations in other papers. “In the end, we don’t want this to just sit on an academic shelf.”

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00660-1

Autor, D. H., Levy, F. & Murnane, R. J. Q. J. Econ. 118 , 1279–1333 (2003).

Article Google Scholar

Costanza, R. et al. Nature 387 , 253–260 (1997).

Willett, W. et al. Lancet 393 , 447–492 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Steffen, W. et al. Science 347 , 1259855 (2015).

Rockström, J. et al. Nature 461 , 472–475 (2009).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

We must protect the global plastics treaty from corporate interference

World View 17 APR 24

UN plastics treaty: don’t let lobbyists drown out researchers

Editorial 17 APR 24

Smoking bans are coming: what does the evidence say?

News 17 APR 24

CERN’s impact goes way beyond tiny particles

Spotlight 17 APR 24

The economic commitment of climate change

Article 17 APR 24

Last-mile delivery increases vaccine uptake in Sierra Leone

Article 13 MAR 24

FACULTY POSITION IN PATHOLOGY RESEARCH

Dallas, Texas (US)

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern Medical Center)

Postdoc Fellow / Senior Scientist

The Yakoub and Sulzer labs at Harvard Medical School-Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Columbia University

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital

Postdoc in Computational Genomics – Machine Learning for Multi-Omics Profiling of Cancer Evolution

Computational Postdoc - Artificial Intelligence in Oncology and Regulatory Genomics and Cancer Evolution at the DKFZ - limited to 2 years

Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg (DE)

German Cancer Research Center in the Helmholtz Association (DKFZ)

Computational Postdoc

The German Cancer Research Center is the largest biomedical research institution in Germany.

PhD / PostDoc Medical bioinformatics (m/f/d)

The Institute of Medical Bioinformatics and Systems Medicine / University of Freiburg is looking for a PhD/PostDoc Medical bioinformatics (m/w/d)

Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Württemberg (DE)

University of Freiburg

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Political typology quiz.

Notice: Beginning April 18th community groups will be temporarily unavailable for extended maintenance. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Where do you fit in the political typology?

Are you a faith and flag conservative progressive left or somewhere in between.

Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if it isn’t exactly right.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

IMAGES

(PDF) Political Science Research Paper Sample
Political Science Paper Sample
(PDF) The case survey method and applications in political science
🌱 Example of a political science research paper. Free Political Science
Political Science Research Paper Example : How the Great Recession Was
Intro Political Science Research Paper Example

VIDEO

MA Political Science Part 2 Past Papers University of Sargodha || UOS Past Papers 2021 and 2022
Sample Paper ,+2 Political Science for March 2023 PSEB Exam, with solutions
Political Science Class 12 Official Model Paper 2024 Bihar Board
POLITICAL SCIENCE (CSS/ PMS) || Lecture -1 || Lecture By CSP
POLITICAL SCIENCE (CSS/ PMS) || Lecture -2 || Lecture By CSP
ANALYSIS OF University of Hyderabad- MA POLITICAL SCIENCE PAPER- 2021

COMMENTS

PDF A Guide to Developing and Writing Research Papers in Political Science
The Six Parts of a Research Paper. A research paper in political science typically has 6 parts: (1) Introduction, (2) Literature review, (3) Theory, (4) Research Design, (5) Analysis, and (6) Conclusion/ Discussion. While papers do vary in their construction, that variation usually finds a way to embrace these 6 parts.
Political Science Research Paper
This sample political science research paper features: 6600 words (approx. 22 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 30 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help.
Writing a Political Science Research Paper
The research paper is thus only one type of political science paper. It is, however, a type that has quite specific components and requirements. The Thesis Statement The most important and most challenging task for students writing a research paper is developing a thesis. A thesis is a non-trivial, contestable, specific claim about political ...
Research & Politics: Sage Journals
Research & Politics. Research & Politics (RAP) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal, which focusses on research in political science and related fields through open access publication of the very best cutting-edge research and policy analysis. View full journal description. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
PDF Planning and Writing an Analytical Empirical Paper in Political Science
Planning and Writing an Empirical Political Science Paper 2 but with which you disagree. Locate at least one or two of these rival theories and specify them because, generally speaking, your paper will be stronger if you do both of the following two things: (1) show that your theory fits well with the facts, and
Political Science
Writing political science research papers. Your instructors use research paper assignments as a means of assessing your ability to understand a complex problem in the field, to develop a perspective on this problem, and to make a persuasive argument in favor of your perspective. In order for you to successfully meet this challenge, your ...
Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to
Welcome to the SAGE edge site for Writing a Research Paper in Political Science.The SAGE edge site for Writing a Research Paper in Political Science, Fourth Edition by Lisa A. Baglione offers a robust online environment you can access anytime, anywhere, and features an impressive array of free tools and resources to keep you on the cutting edge of your learning experience.
Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to
In this Third Edition of Writing a Research Paper in Political Science, updated sample research topics come from American government, gender studies, comparative politics, and international relations. Examples of actual student writing show readers how others "just like them" accomplished each stage of the process. Acknowledgements
PDF HOW TO WRITE A POLITICAL SCIENCE PAPER
WRITING and STYLE. • Paragraph structure: first sentence, logical order, stitching paragraphs to make the paper flow (i.e. transition words). • Remember your thesis and find supports for all its components. • Use formal language, avoid colloquial language. • Proof-read.
Writing a Research Paper in Political Science
Practical summaries, recipes for success, worksheets, exercises, and a series of handy checklists make this a must-have supplement for any writing-intensive political science course. New to the Fourth Edition: A non-causal research paper woven throughout the text offers explicit advice to guide students through the research and writing process.
PDF Writing in Political Science
A good political science paper will identify a "puzzle" or interesting question, in response to which you make a clear, concise argument that is supported by well-chosen, relevant evidence. ... More advanced students will be expected to write research papers, and all students are likely to have to read them, so it is important that you ...
POLSC101: Research in Political Science
Research in Political Science. This handout is designed to teach you how to conduct original political science research. While you won't be asked to write a research paper, this handout provides important information on the "scientific" approach used by political scientists. Pay particularly close attention to the section that answers the ...
800 Political Science Research Paper Topics
Political Science Research Paper Topics. This page provides a comprehensive list of political science research paper topics, carefully curated to assist students pursuing studies in the field of political science. Covering a wide array of categories, these topics offer a wealth of options for research and exploration.
Research Guides: Political Science: APA (7th ed.) resources
APA 7 paper formatting basics. Typed, double-spaced paragraphs. 1" margins on all sides. Align text to the left. Choose one of these fonts: 11-point Calibri, 11-points Arial, 10-point Lucida Sans Unicode, 12-point Times New Roman, 11-point Georgia, 10-point Computer Modern. Include a page header (also known as the "running head") at the top of ...
100+ Research Topics In Politics (+ Free Webinar)
Here, we'll explore a variety of politically-related research ideas across a range of disciplines, including political theory and philosophy, comparative politics, international relations, public administration and policy. NB - This is just the start…. The topic ideation and evaluation process has multiple steps.
Political Science Research Paper Examples
We have collected almost 100 example papers on the most important political science research paper topics. This collection of political science research paper examples highlights the most important topics, issues, questions, and debates that any student obtaining a degree in this field ought to have mastered. The purpose is to provide students ...
Public Policy Research Paper
Public Policy Research Paper. View sample Public Policy Research Paper. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of political science research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help.
PDF How to Write a Political Science Research Proposal
2) The Literature Review. • Focus on scholarly (peer-reviewed) sources: instructors will usually provide guidelines to let you know the minimum number of books and peer-reviewed articles. • The lit review is both the hardest and easiest part of a research proposal. o It's easiest in the sense that it's pretty easy to do a search on ...
Political Science Subject Guide: Literature Reviews
The Annual Review of Political Science consists of thorough literature review essays in all areas of political science, written by noted scholars. The library also subscribes to Annual Reviews in economics, law and social science, sociology, and many other disciplines. 2. Turn to handbooks, bibliographies, and other reference sources.
Undergraduate Sample Research Topics
Students in the Department of Political Science at Western Michigan University will want to review these sample research topics when selecting their own research topic. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Office of Independent Counsel. A Study on Equitable Water Provision in Latin America. Affirmative Action: National Origin Minorities.
Award Winning Theses
The Kenneth F. Janda Prize for Distinguished Honors Thesis in Political Science is awarded annually for the best undergraduate Honors thesis of the year. Student name. Year. Kelly Miller. 2022. Andrew Myers (Honorable Mention) 2022. Julian Freiberg. 2021.
Political Science Research Paper Sample
See Full PDFDownload PDF. International Political Economy - The Tension between the State and the Market. 2014 •. Reco A.K. Alleyne. The paper looks at the tension between the state and the market, and how it has been proven to be caused naturally. It will explore how globalization has made this further possible.
Structure of Research Article Abstracts in Political Science: A Genre
The "Discussion" move includes "optional" concluding "step" that states implications and suggestions for further research. Successful political science RA abstracts may include one of the following three-move patterns (a) I-P-M-R-D, (b) I-P-M-R, or (c) I-P-R-D as they occurred in more than 50% of the investigated political science ...
Revealed: the ten research papers that policy documents cite most
Journal of Political Economy. 1986. ... the research papers that policy documents most commonly reference cover topics including climate change and nutrition. ... One of those is a 2015 Science ...
Political Typology Quiz
About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions.

Political Science

Defining politics and political science

What is scientific about political science?

Building theories

Collecting data

Clear, consistent, objective writing

Example of an operationalized term

What counts as good writing in political science?

Writing political science research papers

Writing in political theory

Drafting your paper

Works consulted

Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to Inquiry, Structure, and Methods

Acknowledgements

For instructors

Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to Inquiry, Structure, and Methods

Acknowledgements

For instructors

You are here

Writing a Research Paper in Political Science A Practical Guide to Inquiry, Structure, and Methods

Supplements

Preview this book

For instructors

POLSC101: Introduction to Political Science

Political Science

APA 7th edition manual

Research Topics & Ideas: Politics

Overview: Politics-Related Topics

Topics & Ideas: Political Theory

Topics & Ideas: Comparative Politics

Topics & Ideas: International Relations

Tops & Ideas: Public Administration

Topics & Ideas: Public Policy

Examples: Politics Dissertations & Theses

Get 1:1 Help

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Research Paper

I. Introduction

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Political Science Subject Guide: Literature Reviews

More Literature Review Writing Tips

Books on the Literature Review

What is a literature review?

Strategies for conducting your own literature review

How to find existing literature reviews

Site Navigation

Yale's Libraries

Political Science

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Award Winning Theses

Janda PRIZE for DISTINGUISHED Honors Thesis REcipients

Political Science Research Paper Sample

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Revealed: the ten research papers that policy documents cite most

The most-cited papers in policy

Interdisciplinary impact

Most-cited papers — excluding economics research

Broad brush

Related Articles

FACULTY POSITION IN PATHOLOGY RESEARCH

Postdoc Fellow / Senior Scientist

Postdoc in Computational Genomics – Machine Learning for Multi-Omics Profiling of Cancer Evolution

Computational Postdoc

PhD / PostDoc Medical bioinformatics (m/f/d)

Quick links

Regions & Countries

Where do you fit in the political typology?

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS