Comments on: My thesis and my blog http://polemarchus.net/2009/06/my-thesis-and-my-blog/ A blog about political science and politics Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:44:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: sverrebm http://polemarchus.net/2009/06/my-thesis-and-my-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-905 sverrebm Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:44:13 +0000 http://polemarchus.net/?p=393#comment-905 No, I wasn't aware, and it isn't in the ever-increasing pile of books on my desk. Thanks for the tip, I will be sure to look it up! No, I wasn’t aware, and it isn’t in the ever-increasing pile of books on my desk. Thanks for the tip, I will be sure to look it up!

]]> By: LFC http://polemarchus.net/2009/06/my-thesis-and-my-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-902 LFC Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:48:09 +0000 http://polemarchus.net/?p=393#comment-902 I wrote a comment and erased it by mistake. Short version: Just in case you aren't aware of it (though you probably are), Nancy Rosenblum's recent book <i>On the Side of the Angels</i>, subtitled 'a defense of parties and partisanship,' may have some relevance to what you are doing. I haven't read it but I think there was an online forum about it a while ago on Jacob T. Levy's blog. It's also no doubt been widely reviewed. I wrote a comment and erased it by mistake. Short version: Just in case you aren’t aware of it (though you probably are), Nancy Rosenblum’s recent book On the Side of the Angels, subtitled ‘a defense of parties and partisanship,’ may have some relevance to what you are doing. I haven’t read it but I think there was an online forum about it a while ago on Jacob T. Levy’s blog. It’s also no doubt been widely reviewed.

]]> By: sverrebm http://polemarchus.net/2009/06/my-thesis-and-my-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-662 sverrebm Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:37:44 +0000 http://polemarchus.net/?p=393#comment-662 You understood my intentions pretty good. One of the things I try to address is the philosophical and normative nature of deliberation literature. Empirical research is sorely lacking, imho a reason why it is not taken seriously enough by "mainstream" political science. The relation between II and III, as you suggest, is to make a quantitative comparison to test the hypothesis. The results will surely be far from decisive, but the main goal is to show a method that might with more data give sufficient results to support the hypothesis. With the current state of research on deliberation, such methods are yet largely untried and theoretical. You understood my intentions pretty good. One of the things I try to address is the philosophical and normative nature of deliberation literature. Empirical research is sorely lacking, imho a reason why it is not taken seriously enough by “mainstream” political science.

The relation between II and III, as you suggest, is to make a quantitative comparison to test the hypothesis. The results will surely be far from decisive, but the main goal is to show a method that might with more data give sufficient results to support the hypothesis. With the current state of research on deliberation, such methods are yet largely untried and theoretical.

]]> By: LFC http://polemarchus.net/2009/06/my-thesis-and-my-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-626 LFC Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:30:31 +0000 http://polemarchus.net/?p=393#comment-626 As I think I've mentioned before, I am not very familiar with the literature on deliberation so I'm afraid I won't be able to offer much in the way of substantive comment. Just based on reading the outline, however, I would raise a question about the relation of parts II and III. In part II you're going to argue that "we can expect" political parties to have a deleterious effect on deliberation. So is this going to be a hypothesis-testing exercise in which you hypothesize in pt. II that political parties are "bad" for deliberation and then proceed to test this hypothesis (not definitively, no doubt, but test it after a fashion) in pt.III? Or have I missed the point? The outline sounds ambitious, btw, which is not necessarily a criticism. And it sounds like you're going to draw on both normative and empirical theory (if i can use that distinction) as well as data, which is all to the good, at least imho. As I think I’ve mentioned before, I am not very familiar with the literature on deliberation so I’m afraid I won’t be able to offer much in the way of substantive comment. Just based on reading the outline, however, I would raise a question about the relation of parts II and III. In part II you’re going to argue that “we can expect” political parties to have a deleterious effect on deliberation. So is this going to be a hypothesis-testing exercise in which you hypothesize in pt. II that political parties are “bad” for deliberation and then proceed to test this hypothesis (not definitively, no doubt, but test it after a fashion) in pt.III? Or have I missed the point?
The outline sounds ambitious, btw, which is not necessarily a criticism. And it sounds like you’re going to draw on both normative and empirical theory (if i can use that distinction) as well as data, which is all to the good, at least imho.

]]>