This study explores the dynamic relationship between science, numbers and politics. What can scientific evidence realistically do in and for politics? The volume contributes to that debate by focusing on the role of “numbers” as a means by which knowledge is expressed and through which that knowledge can be transferred into the political realm. Based on the assumption that numbers are constantly being actively created, translated, and used, and that they need to be interpreted in their respective and particular contexts, it examines how numbers and quantifications are made ‘politically workable’, examining their production, their transition into the sphere of politics and their eventual use therein. Key questions that are addressed include: In what ways does scientific evidence affect political decision-making in the contemporary world? How and why did quantification come to play such an important role within democratic politics? What kind of work do scientific evidence and numbers do politically?

In this history of the social and human sciences in Mexico and the United States, Karin Alejandra Rosemblatt reveals intricate connections among the development of science, the concept of race, and policies toward indigenous peoples. Focusing on the anthropologists, sociologists, biologists, physicians, and other experts who collaborated across borders from the Mexican Revolution through World War II, Rosemblatt traces how intellectuals on both sides of the Rio Grande forged shared networks in which they discussed indigenous peoples and other ethnic minorities. In doing so, Rosemblatt argues, they refashioned race as a scientific category and consolidated their influence within their respective national policy circles. Postrevolutionary Mexican experts aimed to transform their country into a modern secular state with a dynamic economy, and central to this endeavor was learning how to "manage" racial difference and social welfare. The same concern animated U.S. New Deal policies toward Native Americans. The scientists' border-crossing conceptions of modernity, race, evolution, and pluralism were not simple one-way impositions or appropriations, and they had significant effects. In the United States, the resulting approaches to the management of Native American affairs later shaped policies toward immigrants and black Americans, while in Mexico, officials rejected policy prescriptions they associated with U.S. intellectual imperialism and racial segregation.

In spite of decades of research on toxicants, along with the growing role of scientific expertise in public policy and the unprecedented rise in the number of national and international institutions dealing with environmental health issues, problems surrounding contaminants and their effects on health have never appeared so important, sometimes to the point of appearing insurmountable. This calls for a reconsideration of the roles of scientific knowledge and expertise in the definition and management of toxic issues, which this book seeks to do. It looks at complex historical, social, and political dynamics, made up of public controversies, environmental and health crises, economic interests, and political responses, and demonstrates how and to what extent scientific knowledge about toxicants has been caught between scientific, economic, and political imperatives. Soraya Boudia is Professor of Science, Technology, and Innovation Studies at the University of Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée. Her scholarly work focuses on the transnational government of technological and health environmental risks. She has co-edited a special issue of History and Technology, "Risk and risk Society in Historical Perspective" (2007), and Toxicants, Health and Regulations Since 1945 (Pickering & Chatto, 2013), both with Nathalie Jas. Nathalie Jas is a Senior Researcher at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA). A historian and a STS scholar, her scholarly work analyses the intensification of agriculture and its social, environmental, and health effects. She has co-edited a special issue of History and Technology, "Risk and risk Society in Historical Perspective" (2007), and Toxicants, Health and Regulations Since 1945 (Pickering & Chatto, 2013), both with Soraya Boudia.

In politics, you begin by asking theoretically interesting questions. Sometimes statistics can help answer those questions. When it comes to applied statistics, students shouldn’t just learn a vast array of formula—they need to learn the basic concepts of statistics as solutions to particular problems. Peter Galderisi demonstrates that statistics are a summary of how to answer the problem: learn the math but only after learning the concepts and methodological considerations that give it context. With this as a starting point, Understanding Political Science Statistics asks students to consider how to address a research problem conceptually before being led to the appropriate formula. Throughout, Galderisi looks at problems through a lens of "observations and expectations," which can be applied to myriad statistical techniques, both descriptive and inferential. This approach links the answers researchers get from their individual data analysis to the research designs and questions from which these analyses are derived. By emphasizing the underlying logic of statistical analysis for greater understanding and drawing on applications and examples from political science (including law), the book illustrates how students can apply statistical concepts and techniques in their own research, in future coursework, and simply as an informed consumer of numbers in public discourse. The following features help students master the material: Legal and Methodological sidebars highlight key concepts and provide applied examples on law, politics, and methodology; End-of-chapter exercises allow students to test their mastery of the basic concepts and techniques along the way; A Sample Solutions Guide provides worked-out answers for odd-numbered exercises, with all answers available in the Instructor’s Manual; Key Terms are helpfully called out in both Marginal Definitions and a Glossary; A Companion Website (www.routledge.com/cw/galderisi) with further resources for both students and instructors; A diverse array of data sets include subsets of the ANES and Eurobarometer surveys; CCES; US Congressional district data; and a cross-national dataset with political, economic, and demographic variables; and Companion guides to SPSS and Stata walk students through the procedures for analysis and provide exercises that go hand-in-hand with online data sets.

A complete, professional resource for writing an effective paper in all subfields of political science, Diane Schmidt’s 25th anniversary edition provides students with a practical, easy-to-follow guide for writing about political ideas, events, policies, passions, agendas, and processes. It offers additional formats and guidelines focusing on the growing use of social media and the need for professional communication in blogs, tweets, forums, media sites, lectures on demand, and postings on websites. A collection of student papers shows students how to write well for better grades. After reading Writing in Political Science students will know how to: choose and narrow a research topic; formulate a research agenda; quickly locate reputable information online; execute a study and write up findings; use the vocabulary of political science discourse; follow the criteria used to evaluate student assignments when writing; apply writing skills to an internship, civic engagement project, or grant proposal; and manage and preserve achievements for career development. New to the Fifth Edition Locating Research Materials: Updated links to all sources, expansion of appropriate sources to include mobile sources available through tweets, blogs, forums, and other informal communication; expansion of tools to include database searching; use of smart phone technology; and evaluation of source reliability to include commercial sources, Wikipedia, media sites, social media, and lectures on demand. Creating Evidence: Evaluating data sources on the web including government databases, non-profits, and special interest/commercial data; and using collaborative forms of data collection. Includes a new section on Memorandums of Conversations (MEMCON), essential in recent political controversies. Manuscript Formatting and Reference Styles: Updated examples of citing internet sites, blogs, forums, lectures on demand, and YouTube. Format/Examples: Updated exam-writing treatment to include on-line, e-learning, open-book exams, media applications examples using YouTube and online media; restored legal briefs treatment; revised proposal examples; revised PowerPoint instructions to include diversity considerations; expanded formula for standard research papers to include wider disciplinary treatment, expanded communication techniques, format and examples of appropriate posting for social media and organizational websites, expanded internship treatment, inclusion of needs-assessment format and examples. Career Development: Restoration of 3rd edition chapter and expansion of professional portfolio building including vitae, resume, cover letters, letters of intent, statement of purpose, and skills/competency discussions. Updated citations for changes in The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition, 2017 and The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 8th Edition, 2016.

Why we don't live in a post-truth society but rather a myside society: what science tells us about the bias that poisons our politics. In The Bias That Divides Us, psychologist Keith Stanovich argues provocatively that we don't live in a post-truth society, as has been claimed, but rather a myside society. Our problem is not that we are unable to value and respect truth and facts, but that we are unable to agree on commonly accepted truth and facts. We believe that our side knows the truth. Post-truth? That describes the other side. The inevitable result is political polarization. Stanovich shows what science can tell us about myside bias: how common it is, how to avoid it, and what purposes it serves. Stanovich explains that although myside bias is ubiquitous, it is an outlier among cognitive biases. It is unpredictable. Intelligence does not inoculate against it, and myside bias in one domain is not a good indicator of bias shown in any other domain. Stanovich argues that because of its outlier status, myside bias creates a true blind spot among the cognitive elite--those who are high in intelligence, executive functioning, or other valued psychological dispositions. They may consider themselves unbiased and purely rational in their thinking, but in fact they are just as biased as everyone else. Stanovich investigates how this bias blind spot contributes to our current ideologically polarized politics, connecting it to another recent trend: the decline of trust in university research as a disinterested arbiter.

In this work, three historians of ideas examine the forms taken in nineteenth-century Britain to develop a 'science of politics'.

Combining political-economic, sociological, and historical approaches, Professor Guston provides a coherent new framework for analyzing the changing relationship between politics and science in the United States. After World War II, the "social contract for science" assumed that the integrity and productivity of research were automatic; a belief that endured for four decades. But in the 1980s, cases of misconduct in science and flagging economic performance broke the trust between politics and science. New "boundary organizations" were created to mend the relationship between scientists and politicians.

Discusses the state of the field of Political Science. This book talks about the usefulness of rational choice theory; the ethical limits of pluralism; the use (and misuse) of empirical research; the divorce between political theory and empirical science; and the connection between political science scholarship and political struggles. a "Making Political Science Matter" brings together a number of prominent scholars to discuss the state of the field of Political Science. In particular, these scholars are interested in ways to reinvigorate the discipline by connecting it to present day political struggles. Uniformly well-written and steeped in a strong sense of history, the contributors consider such important topics as: the usefulness of rational choice theory; the ethical limits of pluralism; the use (and misuse) of empirical research in political science; the present-day divorce between political theory and empirical science; the connection between political science scholarship and political struggles, and the future of the discipline. This volume builds on the debate in the discipline over the significance of the work of Bent Flyvbjerg, whose book "Making Social Science Matter" has been characterized as a manifesto for the Perestroika Movement that has roiled the field in recent years

“A compelling case for transforming how research methods are taught to undergraduate students of political science.” —London School of Economics Review of Books Each year, tens of thousands of students who are interested in politics go through a rite of passage: they take a course in research methods. Many find the subject to be boring or confusing, and with good reason. Most of the standard books on research methods fail to highlight the most important concepts and questions. Instead, they brim with dry technical definitions and focus heavily on statistical analysis, slighting other valuable methods. This approach prevents students from mastering the skills they need to engage more directly and meaningfully with a wide variety of research. With wit and practical wisdom, Christopher Howard draws on more than a decade of experience teaching research methods to transform a typically dreary subject and teach budding political scientists the critical skills they need to read published research more effectively and produce better research of their own. The first part of the book is devoted to asking three fundamental questions in political science: What happened? Why? Who cares? In the second section, Howard demonstrates how to answer these questions by choosing an appropriate research design, selecting cases, and working with numbers and written documents as evidence. Drawing on examples from American and comparative politics, international relations, and public policy, Thinking Like a Political Scientist highlights the most common challenges that political scientists routinely face, and each chapter concludes with exercises so that students can practice dealing with those challenges.