Department of Political Science

Feet of Clay? How to Review Political Science Papers that Make Use of the Work of Historians

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Feet of Clay? How to Review Political Science Papers that Make Use of the Work of Historians. / Møller, Jørgen.

In: PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 53, No. 2, 01.04.2020, p. 253-257.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Møller, Jørgen. / Feet of Clay? How to Review Political Science Papers that Make Use of the Work of Historians. In: PS: Political Science & Politics. 2020 ; Vol. 53, No. 2. pp. 253-257.

Bibtex

@article{c7221bb721674adfa4ce3eb254a5cd8a,
title = "Feet of Clay?: How to Review Political Science Papers that Make Use of the Work of Historians",
abstract = "Political scientists increasingly enlist the work of historians but they often treat this work in a nonchalant or superficial way, which makes their evidentiary record questionable. It follows that we need to check the validity of the interpretation of historians' work in review processes. This article argues that enlisting historians as reviewers is not the answer. Instead, it proposes four simple criteria that can be used to flag situations in which the use of historians' work as empirical evidence is unconvincing. The general purpose of the article is to increase awareness about what is at stake when political scientists base empirical analysis on evidence gathered by historians.",
author = "J{\o}rgen M{\o}ller",
year = "2020",
month = apr,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S1049096519001586",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "253--257",
journal = "PS: Political Science & Politics",
issn = "1049-0965",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Feet of Clay?

T2 - How to Review Political Science Papers that Make Use of the Work of Historians

AU - Møller, Jørgen

PY - 2020/4/1

Y1 - 2020/4/1

N2 - Political scientists increasingly enlist the work of historians but they often treat this work in a nonchalant or superficial way, which makes their evidentiary record questionable. It follows that we need to check the validity of the interpretation of historians' work in review processes. This article argues that enlisting historians as reviewers is not the answer. Instead, it proposes four simple criteria that can be used to flag situations in which the use of historians' work as empirical evidence is unconvincing. The general purpose of the article is to increase awareness about what is at stake when political scientists base empirical analysis on evidence gathered by historians.

AB - Political scientists increasingly enlist the work of historians but they often treat this work in a nonchalant or superficial way, which makes their evidentiary record questionable. It follows that we need to check the validity of the interpretation of historians' work in review processes. This article argues that enlisting historians as reviewers is not the answer. Instead, it proposes four simple criteria that can be used to flag situations in which the use of historians' work as empirical evidence is unconvincing. The general purpose of the article is to increase awareness about what is at stake when political scientists base empirical analysis on evidence gathered by historians.

U2 - 10.1017/S1049096519001586

DO - 10.1017/S1049096519001586

M3 - Journal article

VL - 53

SP - 253

EP - 257

JO - PS: Political Science & Politics

JF - PS: Political Science & Politics

SN - 1049-0965

IS - 2

ER -