Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T15:43:01.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Ian S. Lustick
Ian S. Lustick*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social scientists who use history as a laboratory for theory development use the work of historians to construct background narratives which can then be coded according to theoretically relevant categories. Yet, virtually no attention has been paid to how these historical monographs are to be chosen. On most periods and themes of interest available accounts differ, not only substantively but also with respect to the implicit theories and conceptual frameworks used to establish salience or produce commonsensical explanations. Unself-conscious use of historical monographs thus easily results in selection bias. Social scientists are bound to be more attracted to and convinced by accounts that accord with the expectations about events contained in the concepts they deploy and the theories they seek to test. Consideration of recent developments in historiographical theory supports the argument that responsible techniques for using historical sources are available, but they require understanding the extent to which patterns within historiography, rather than “History,” must be the direct focus of investigation and explanation. Such an approach has the added advantage of helping to generate historically based studies where observations or cases outnumber variables.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 605 - 618
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aminzade, Ronald, n.d. “What Is Historical about Historical Sociology?” Chicago: Wilder House Working Paper No. 6.Google Scholar
Ankersmit, Frank R. 1989. “Historiography and Postmodernism.” History and Theory 28(2):137–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, Joyce, Hunt, Lynn, and Jacob, Margaret. 1994. Telling the Truth about History. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Bann, Stephen. 1981. “Towards a Critical Historiography: Recent Work in Philosophy of History.” Philosophy 56(07):365–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Harry Elmer. 1937. A History of Historical Writing. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Barraclough, Geoffrey. 1979. Main Trends in History. New York: Holmes and Meier.Google Scholar
Bryant, Joseph M. 1994. “Evidence and Explanation in History and Sociology.” British Journal of Sociology 45(03):3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Peter. 1992. History and Social Theory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Burger, Thomas. 1987. Max Weber's Theory of Concept Formation: History, Laws, and Ideal Types. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Mildred. 1942. The English Yeoman under Elizabeth and the Early Stuarts. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cantor, Norman F. 1991. Inventing the Middle Ages: The Lives, Works, and Ideas of the Great Medievalists of the Twentieth Century. New York: W. Morrow.Google Scholar
Caporaso, James A. 1995. “Research Design, Falsification, and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide.” American Political Science Review 89(06):457–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, David. 1995. “Translating Quantitative Methods for Qualitative Researchers: The Case of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 89(06):461–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. 1994. The Idea of History, ed. van der Dussen, Jan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comte, Auguste. 1974. The Positive Philosophy. New York: AMS Press.Google Scholar
Cooke, A. B., and Vincent, John. 1974. The Governing Passion: Cabinet Government and Party Politics in Britain 1885–86. New York: Harper and Row Press.Google Scholar
Danto, Arthur. 1985. Narration and Knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dehio, Ludwig. 1962. The Precarious Balance: Four Centuries of the European Power Struggle. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Dosse, François. 1994. New History in France: The Triumph of the Annales, trans. Conroy, Peter V.. Urbana. University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Dray, W. H. 1984. “Conflicting Interpretations in History: The Case of the English Civil War.” In Hermeneutics: Questions and Prospects, ed. Shapiro, Gary and Sica, Alan. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Dunne, Thomas John. 1975. “Ireland, England, and Empire: The Ideologies of British Political Leadership.” Ph.D. diss. Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Dunne, Thomas John. 1987. “Responses to Gladstonian home rule and land reform.” Irish Historical Studies 25(11):432–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elton, G. R. 1967. The Practice of History. London: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1991. “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science.” World Politics 43(01):169–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, Samuel E. 1974. “State-building, State Boundaries and Border Control.” Social Science Information 13(August–October):79–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, Samuel E. 1975. “State- and Nation-Building in Europe: The Role of the Military.” In The Formation of National States in Western Europe, ed. Tilly, Charles. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, David. 1973. “Max Weber and the Objectivity of Social Science.” History and Theory 13(1):1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Leon J. 1976. Historical Knowing. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A. 1991. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goldthorpe, John H. 1991. “The Uses of History in Sociology: Reflections on Some Recent Tendencies.” British Journal of Sociology 42(06):211–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldthorpe, John H. 1994. “The Uses of History in Sociology—A Reply.” British Journal of Sociology 45(03):55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottschalk, Louis, ed. 1963. Generalization in the Writing of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hamer, D. A. 1969. “The Irish Question and Liberal Politics, 1886–1894.” Historical Journal 12(3):511–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Nicky. 1994. “John Goldthorpe and the Relics of Sociology.” British Journal of Sociology 45(03):31–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1968. “Explanatory Models.” In Readings in The Philosophy of the Social Science, ed. Brodbeck, May. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hintze, Otto. 1975. “Military Organization and State Organization” and “The Formation of States and Constitutional Development: A Study in History and Politics.” In The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze, ed. Gilbert, Martin. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hobart, Michael E. 1989. “The Paradox of Historical Constructionism.” History and Theory 28(1):43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iggers, Georg G. 1984. New Directions in European Historiography. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Iggers, Georg G. 1983. The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, T. A. 1988. Gladstone, Whiggery and the Liberal Party. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Kansteiner, Wulf. 1993. “Hayden White's Critique of the Writing of History.” History and Theory 32(3):273–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kee, Robert. 1982. Ireland: A History. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughlin, James. 1986. Gladstone, Home Rule, and the Ulster Question 1882–1893. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lustick, Ian S. 1985. State Building Failure in British Ireland and French Algeria. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California.Google Scholar
Lustick, Ian S. 1993. Unsettled States, Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, Maurice. 1938. The Problem of Historical Knowledge: An Answer to Relativism. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
Mann, Michael. 1994. “In Praise of Macro-Sociology: A Reply to Goldthorpe.” British Journal of Sociology 45(03):37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, Peter. 1978. The Discipline of Popular Government: Lord Salisbury's Domestic Statecraft, 1881–1902. Sussex, UK: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Raymond. 1993. “Objectivity and Meaning in Historical Studies: Toward a Post-Analytic View.” History and Theory 32(1):25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeland, David C. 1961. The Achieving Society. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLemore, Lelan. 1984. “Max Weber's Defense of Historical Inquiry.” History and Theory 23(3):277–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mink, Louis O. 1987a. “The Autonomy of Historical Understanding.” In Louis O. Mink: Historical Understanding, ed. Fay, Brian, Golob, Eugene O., and Vann, Richard T.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mink, Louis O. 1987b. “Narrative Form as a Cognitive Instrument.” In Louis O. Mink: Historical Understanding, ed. Fay, Brian, Golob, Eugene O., and Vann, Richard T.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mink, Louis O. 1987c. “On the Writing and Rewriting of History.” In Louis O. Mink: Historical Understanding, ed. Fay, Brian, Golob, Eugene O., and Vann, Richard T.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Barrington. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Mouzelis, Nicos. 1994. “In Defence of ‘Grand’ Historical Sociology.” British Journal of Sociology 45(03):31–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, Andrew P. 1991. “Telling It Like It Was: Historical Narratives on Their Own Terms.” History and Theory 30(2):120–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, Bruce D. 1994. War and the Rise of the State: The Military Foundations of Modem Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald. 1995. “The Role of Theory and Anomaly in Social-Scientific Inference.” American Political Science Review 89(06):467–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Gary, and Sica, Alan, eds. 1984. Hermeneutics: Questions and Prospects. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1984. “Emerging Agendas and Recurrent Strategies.” In Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, ed. Skocpol, Theda. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1995. In Kohli, Atul, et al., “The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics: A Symposium.” World Politics 48(10):1–49.Google Scholar
Smelser, Neil. 1959. Social Change in the Industrial Revolution. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
The Social Sciences in Historical Study: A Report of the Committee on Historiography. 1954. Social Science Research Council Bulletin No. 64.Google Scholar
Spencer, Herbert. 1904. An Autobiography. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Spencer, Herbert. [1861] 1911. Essays in Education. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Stone, Lawrence. 1979. “The Revival of the Narrative: Reflections on a New Old History.” Past & Present 85(11):3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tawney, R. H. 1912. The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Tawney, R. H. 1941. “The Rise of the Gentry.” Economic History Review 11(1):1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theory and Practice in Historical Study. 1946. Social Science Research Council Bulletin No. 54.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1985. “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.” In Bringing the State Back In, ed. Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Den Braembussche, A. A. 1989. “Historical Explanation and Comparative Method: Towards a Theory of the History of Society.” History and Theory 28(4):1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. Shils, Edward A. and Finch, Henry A.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
White, Hayden. 1973. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
White, Hayden. 1987. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Zolberg, Aristide. 1980. “Strategic Interactions and the Formation of Modern States: France and England.” International Social Science Journal 32(4):687–716.Google Scholar