Department Of Political Science PhD In Political Science
Department of Political SciencePhD in Political ScienceComprehensive Examination GuidebookContentsPages 2-3:Examination Overview and General DirectionsPages 4-10:Reading ListsPage 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 9Page 11-13:Page 11Page 12Page 12Page 12Page 13-MethodologyAmerican GovernmentComparative PoliticsInternational RelationsPublic PolicySample Questions for Written ExaminationMethodologyAmerican GovernmentComparative PoliticsInternational RelationsPublic Policy
EXAMINATION OVERVIEW AND GENERAL DIRECTIONSDoctoral students sit for the comprehensive examination at the conclusion of all required coursework,or during their last semester of coursework. Students will ideally take their exams during the fifthsemester in the program, but no later than their sixth semester. Advanced Entry students are stronglyencouraged to take their exams during their fourth semester, but no later than their fifth semester. Thecomprehensive examination is a written exam based on the literature and research in the relevant fieldof study and on the student’s completed coursework in that field.Petitioning to Sit for the ExaminationYour first step is to petition to participate in the examination. Use the Department’s graduate petitionform and include the following information:1) general statement of intent to sit for a comprehensive examination,2) proposed primary and secondary fields areas (see below), and3) a list or table listing all graduate courses completed along with the faculty instructor for thecourse and the grade earnedThis petition should be completed early in the registration period for when the student plans to sit forthe exam.All examinees must select a primary and secondary field from the following list: American GovernmentComparative PoliticsInternational Relations Public PolicyMethodsAfter your petition is submitted, the director of the PhD program, Professor Mai’a Cross, will set up aninitial meeting with students who will be taking the exam the following semester to discuss the processand provide advice on studying. Although there are reading lists and sample questions later in thisbooklet, students are encouraged to meet with various members of the faculty who may suggest otherreadings and questions that will help each student focus on areas of potential weakness.RegistrationOnce your petition has been approved, you must register for POLS 8960, Qualifying ExaminationPreparation, for the semester you are taking the comprehensive exam. This constitutes full-timeregistration. Except for special circumstances approved by the Department and the Graduate School, nocourses should be taken during the semester when you are sitting for your comprehensiveexaminations.The ExaminationThe examination is offered in the fall semester and the spring semester. The exam will generally bescheduled in the second week of November and third week in March. The exam takes place over twodays, one day for each subfield, and lasts approximately 5 hours in duration: 9am to 2:30pm with arequired 30-minute break for lunch and one other short break. It consists of a total of three questionsfor each sub-field. Some sub-fields will be divided into sections, and students will have a choice of onequestion from each section. Other sub-fields will simply have a single list of questions, and students2 Page
may choose any three to answer. Students must avoid repetition in their three essays, i.e. no portion ofthe writing that appears in one answer should appear in the same way in another essay.The exam must be typed on a computer in Renaissance Park. Students do not have access to notes orother material during the exam. The written portion of the exam is reviewed considering the thefollowing criteria: 1) knowledge of the literature; 2) effective communication; 3) synthesis of majorthemes in the literature; 4) application of theoretical and methodological concepts to current politicalpolicies and problems; and 5) independent thought beyond the literature.The exam is not in and of itself graded, though it is assessed by a committee of faculty. If thatassessment is positive, the student proceeds to the dissertation proposal stage. If a student fails theexam, the student will be notified in writing of the failure and that the student has one more chance tore-take it, with the date determined at the discretion of the graduate program director. If the studentfails twice, the student shall be dismissed from the PhD program.After Passing the ExaminationA dissertation is required of all PhD Candidates. Once a PhD student has successfully defended his or herdissertation proposal, he or she has reached candidacy, and has five years to complete and defend thedissertation. Additionally, once degree candidacy is attained, registration must be continuous untilgraduation requirements have been met.For each of the first two semesters that a doctoral candidate is working on a dissertation the studentmust register for POLS 9990: Doctoral Dissertation. For each semester beyond the first two semesters,the student must register for POLS 9996: Doctoral Dissertation Continuation until the dissertation isapproved by the Graduate School and is submitted to the University Library. Students do not register forPOLS 9990 or POLS 9996 during the summer, unless that is when the defense is scheduled.Please see the graduate program office or the Department website for general information on preparingyour dissertation proposal. This proposal is to be completed within six months after reaching doctoralcandidacy and is written in close collaboration with faculty on your dissertation committee. For detailedinformation on guidelines, rules, and regulations on the proper submission of a completed dissertationplease see the Graduate School Submission guide on this web encement/thesis guidelines/.3 Page
COMPREHENSIVE EXAM READING LISTSUpdated — Fall 2019The comprehensive exams consists of three questions per sub-field, covering two sub-fields over twoseparate days.Please note, students should review the most recent syllabi of the respective field seminars and,if necessary, consult with the instructor for that course. The required readings in these seminarsare an important starting point for reviewing the literature. The readings listed below constitutethe other major source for reviewing the literature. In addition, relevant writings by faculty inthe Department might also be consulted. This list will be updated 14.15.16.Adcock, Robert and David Collier. 2001. “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitativeand Quantitative Research,” American Political Science Review 95 (3): pp. 529-546.Angrist, Joshua D., and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist'scompanion. Princeton university press, 2008.Barabási, A.L., 2016. Network science. Cambridge university press.Berg, Bruce L. 2006. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.Bennett, Andrew, and Jeffrey T. Checkel, eds. Process tracing. Cambridge University Press, 2015.Brady, Henry and David Collier, editors. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, SharedStandards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Carlson, James M. and Hyde, Mark S. 2003. Doing Empirical Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (orJohnson & Reynolds et al.)Cramer, Duncan and Howitt, Dennis. 2004. The Sage Dictionary of Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Dunning, Thad. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences. A Design-Based Approach. New York:Cambridge University Press (2012)Easley, David, and Jon Kleinberg. Networks, crowds, and markets. Vol. 8. Cambridge: Cambridgeuniversity press, 2010.Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. and Shaw, L.L. (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.Fairclough, Norman and Isabela Ietcu Fairclough. Political Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge(2012).Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design inComparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.George, Alexander and Andrew Bennett. Case Studies and Theory Development in the SocialSciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (2004), Chapter 4.Gerber, A.S. and Green, D.P., 2012. Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. WWNorton.Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress (2007)4 Page
17. Goodin, Robert E. and Klingermann, Hans-Dieter, eds. 1996. A New Handbook of Political Science.New York: Oxford University Press.18. Imai, Kosuke. Quantitative social science: An introduction. Princeton University Press, 2017.19. James, Gareth, et al. An introduction to statistical learning. Vol. 112. New York: springer, 2013.20. Johnson, Janet B. and Reynolds, H. T. 2004. Political Science Research Methods. 5th ed. Washington,DC: CQ Press. (or Carlson & Hyde)21. Jones, Gerald E. 2000. How to Lie with Charts. Lincoln, NE: Authors Choice Press.22. Kapiszewski, Diana, Lauren M. MacLean and Benjamin L. Read. Field Research in Political Science.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press (2014).23. King, Gary; Keohane, Robert O. and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Science Inquiry: ScientificResearch Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.24. Kreps, David M. Game theory and economic modelling. Oxford University Press, 1990.25. Krippendorff, Karl. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage(2013).26. Lander, Jared P. R for everyone: advanced analytics and graphics. Pearson Education, 2014.27. Lazer, D. and Radford, J., 2017. Data ex machina: introduction to big data. Annual Review ofSociology, 43, pp.19-39.28. Lieberman, Evan. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research,”American Political Science Review 99, 3: 435-45229. Lynch, Scott M. Introduction to applied Bayesian statistics and estimation for social 43.44.45.Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.MacLean, Lauren Morris. Informal Institutions and Citizenship in Rural Africa. (New York, NY:Cambridge University Press, 2010Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the SocialSciences. New York: Cambridge University Press (2003)Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Morgan, Stephen L., and Christopher Winship. Counterfactuals and causal inference. CambridgeUniversity Press, 2015.Mosley, Layna, ed. Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press (2013).Mutz, Diana C. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton: Princeton University Press (2011)Nardi, Peter M. 2003. Doing Survey Research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Pearl, Judea, Madelyn Glymour, and Nicholas P. Jewell. Causal inference in statistics: A primer. JohnWiley & Sons, 2016.Perecman, Ellen and Sara Curran, eds. A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays &Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2006).Pollock, Philip. 2005. The Essentials of Political Analysis. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry. 1982. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. Malibar, FL:Krieger.Ragin, Charles C. 1992. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and QuantitativeStrategies. Berkley: University of California Press.Rochefort, David A., ed. 2006. Quantitative Methods in Practice: Readings from PS. Washington, DC:CQ Press.Rubin, Herbert J. and Irene S. Rubin. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2012).Salganik, M.J., 2017. Bit by bit: social research in the digital age. Princeton University Press.Salkind, Neil. 2006. Exploring Research. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.5 Page
46. Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,” American Political ScienceReview: 1033-105347. Schatz, Edward, ed. Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power.48.49.50.51.52.53.Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2010)Shadish, W., T. Cook and D. Campbell. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs forGeneralized Causal Inference. Wadsworth Cenage LearningShoemaker, Pamela J.; Tankard, James W., and Lasorsa, Dominic L. 2003. How to Build Social ScienceTheories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dawn Teele, ed. Field Experiments and Their Critics: Essays on the Uses and Abuses ofExperimentation in the Social Sciences. New Haven: Yale University Press (2014)Vogt, W. Paul. 2005. Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide for the SocialSciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Yanow, Dvora and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, eds. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Methods andthe Interpretive Turn, 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe (2014).Yin, Robert K. 2002. Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.AMERICAN GOVERNMENTAmerican Political Thought and Development (Political Theory, Framing, ConstitutionalDevelopment, Federalism)1. Beer, Samuel H. 1993. To Make a Nation: The Rediscovery of American Federalism. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press.2. Dahl, Robert. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.3. Federalist Papers4. Kersch, Ken. 2004. Constructing Civil Liberties: Discontinuities in the Development of AmericanConstitutional Law. Cambridge University Press.5. Peterson, Paul E., Barry Rabe, and Kenneth Wong. 1986. When Federalism Works. Washington, DC:Brookings.6. Rakove, Jack. 1996. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Vintage.7. Rosenthal, Alan. 2008. Engines of Democracy: Politics and Policymaking in State Legislatures. CQPress.8. Walker, David. 1995. The Rebirth of Federalism. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.9. Whittington, Keith. 1999. Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and Constitutional Meaning.Harvard University Press.American Political Institutions (Congress, Presidency, Courts, Bureaucracy, Parties, InterestGroups, Media)1. Aldrich, John. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.2. Arnold, Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.3. Bailey, Michael A. and Forrest Maltzman, 2011. The Constrained Court: Law, Politics, and theDecisions Justices Make. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.4. Burns, Samuel H. 2009. Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of theSupreme Court. Penguin.6 Page
5. Canon, Bradley and Charles Johnson. 1999. Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact, 2d ed. CQPress.6. Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller, 2008. The Party Decides: PresidentialNominations Before and After Reform. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.7. Cox, Gary W. and Mathew McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House.Berkeley: University of California Press.8. Drutman, Lee. 2015. The Business of America is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized andPolitics Became More Corporate. New York: Oxford University Press.9. Edwards, George. 1989. At the Margins: Presidential Leadership of Congress. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.10. Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.11. Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.12. Fiorina, Morris. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.13. Gormley, William T., Jr. and Steven Balla. 2012. Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability andPerformance, 2d ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.14. Howell, William G. 2013. Thinking about the Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.15. Kernell, Samuel. 1997. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership, 3rd ed. Washington,DC: CQ Press.16. Light, Paul. 1997. The Tides of Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.17. Maisel, L. Sandy and Jeffrey M. Berry. The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties andInterest Groups. Oxford University Press.18. Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.19. Meier, Ken. 1985. Regulation: Politics, Bureaucracy, and Economics. New York: St. Martins Press.20. Milkis, Sidney M. 1993. The Presidents and the Parties: the Transformation of the American PartySystem Since the New Deal. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.21. Neustadt, Richard. 1990. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents.4th ed. New York: The FreePress.22. O’Brien, David M. 2008. Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics. Norton.23. Prior, Marcus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy How Media Choice Increases Inequality in PoliticalInvolvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press.24. Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.25. Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy inAmerica. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.26. Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: UnequalPolitical Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.27. Segal, Jeffrey and Harold Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. CambridgeUniversity Press.28. Sinclair, Barbara. 2016. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress, 5thed. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.29. Skowronek, Stephen. 1993. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to GeorgeBush. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.30. Sparrow, Bartholomew H. 1999. Uncertain Guardians: The News Media as a Political institution.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.31. Sundquist, James L. 1983. The Dynamics of the Party System. Washington, DC: Brookings.7 Page
32. Weaver, R. Kent and Rockman, Bert A. 1993. Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in theUnited States and Abroad. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.33. Whittington, Keith. 2007. The Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, theSupreme Court and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History. Princeton University Press.34. Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York:Basic Books.American Political Processes and Behavior (Campaigns, Elections, Voting, Polarization, PublicOpinion, Public Policy)1. Brader, Ted. 2006. Campaigning for Hearts and Minds. University of Chicago Press.2. Binder, Sarah A. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock.Washington DC:Brookings Institution Press, 2003.3. Canes-Wrone, Brandice. 2006. Who Leads Whom? Presidents, Policy, and the Public. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.4. Campbell, Angus, Philip Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald Stokes. 1976. The American Voter.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.5. Carmines, Edward and Stimson, James. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation ofAmerican Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.6. Conland, Timothy, Paul Posner, and David Beam. 2014. Pathways of Power: The Dynamics ofNational Policymaking. Georgetown University Press.7. Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics” in David Apter, ed. Ideologyand Discontent. New York: Free Press.8. Erikson, Robert S., M. MacKuen, and J. Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity, Cambridge University Press.9. Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.10. Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven:Yale University Press.11. Grossman, M. and D. Hopkins. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group-Inte
6 Page 46.Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,” American Political Science Review: 1033-1053 47. Schatz, Edward, ed. Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the St
RE Peter, PhD, FRSC (and Dean of Science) MA Pickard, PhD EE Prepas, PhD LJ Reha-Krantz, PhD (AHFMR Scientist) . G Goss, PhD GW Owttrim, PhD DB Pilgrim, PhD VL St Louis, PhD PW Wong, PhD Faculty Service Officer II . RC Unrau, PhD BA Watson, PhD Fa
finkelstein,michael william heidger,paul m jew,jean y kawai,masataka longo,frank j pantazis,nicholas j richenbacher,wayne e . bs md ba phd bs ms phd bs phd bs md mscd dds bs ms phd bs md phd mba bs phd bs ma phd ba ms phd phd md dsc bs ms phd . lucero,joseph william magboul,magboul m a przybyl,jaroslaw szymon schulz-stubner,sebastian h w
Lillian Gelberg, MD Neal Halfon, MD David Hayes-Bautista, PhD Ronald Hays, PhD Felicia Hodge, PhD Robert Kaplan, PhD Clifford Ko, MD Gerald F. Kominski, PhD Mark Litwin, MD, PhD Carol Mangione, MD Marvin Marcus, DDS Vicki Mays, PhD Alex Ortega, PhD, MPH John Peabody, MD Thomas H. Rice, PhD Lisa Rubenstein,
Melpe J. Cavales, PhD Pejie C. Santillan, PhD Partner Institution Ronald M. Quileste Physical Education Angeles University Foundation Jennifer P. Santillan, PhD Jonar T. Martin, PhD Joel G. Tubera, PhD Philippine Normal University-Manila Lordinio A. Vergara, PhD Salve A. Favila, PhD Science De La Salle University - Manila Voltaire C. Mistades, PhD
Law Management LLM, MSL, SJD Management MBA, PhD Management Analytics MMA Management & Professional Accounting MMPA Planning MScPl, PhD Political Science MA, PhD Public Policy MPP School and Clinical Child Psychology MA, PhD Social Justice Education MA, MEd, EdD, PhD Social Work MSW, PhD Sociology MA, PhD Teaching MT Urban Design MUD COMBINED .
SAU PhD Maths Questions Papers Contents: SAU PhD Maths Que. Paper-2014 SAU PhD Maths Que. Paper-2015 SAU PhD Maths Que. Paper-2016 SAU PhD Maths Que. Paper-2017 SAU PhD Maths Que. Paper-2018 SAU PhD Maths
Daniel H. Levin, PhD [G] 1966 David E. Levin, PhD 1984 Petra Anne Levin, PhD 1996 Tera C. Levin, PhD 2015 Jedd F. Levine, MD 1983 Dr. Laurence Levine 1963 Reuben Levisohn, PhD 1965 Daniel J. Lew, PhD 1990 Alfred S. Lewin, PhD 1979 James Bryan Lewis, PhD 1971 J
Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, PhD Karen Meneses, PhD Michelle Y. Martin, PhD Mona Fouad, MD Yufeng Li, PhD Bradford E. Jackson, PhD Kelly Kenzik, PhD Xuelin Li, PhD Richard Taylor, DNP Aras Acemgil, MBA Carol Chambless, BFA Nedra Lisovicz, PhD, MPH Valeria Pacheco-Rubi, MBA Karina I. Halil
