The da-rt Initiative in US Political Science: Debates on a Transparency and Data Access Policy

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español (España))
Published: Dec 30, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/fcpys.2448492xe.2019.235.63168

Main Article Content

Enzo Lenine
Universidade da Integração Internacional da Lusofonia Afro-Brasileira (UNILAB-Malês), Brasil. Correo electrónico: <lenine@unilab.edu.br>. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5280-4252.
Melina Mörschbächer
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Correo electrónico: <melina.ufrgs@gmail.com>. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5428-5804.

Abstract

Methodological debates in the American political science scholarship have deepened throughout the last decades, marked by the Perestroika Movement and its response to theoretical and methodological preferences in the
discipline in the US and the more recent attempt to implement the Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT) initiative. DA-RT has awakened distinct positions among qualitative and quantitative researchers, having established a new venue for debate over the meanings of science, transparency and the profession of political scientist itself. In this context, we attempt to offer a panorama of the discourses on the methodological debate generated by da-rt, as well as its potential effects in Latin American Political Science.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Lenine, E., & Mörschbächer, M. (2018). The da-rt Initiative in US Political Science: Debates on a Transparency and Data Access Policy. Revista Mexicana De Ciencias Políticas Y Sociales, 64(235). https://doi.org/10.22201/fcpys.2448492xe.2019.235.63168

Citas en Dimensions Service

Author Biographies

Enzo Lenine, Universidade da Integração Internacional da Lusofonia Afro-Brasileira (UNILAB-Malês), Brasil. Correo electrónico: <lenine@unilab.edu.br>. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5280-4252.

ENZO LENINE es profesor de la Universidad de la Integración Internacional de la Lusofonía Afrobrasileña (UNILAB-Malês) y doctor en Ciencia Política por la Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Entre sus trabajos más relevantes para el estudio de la epistemología y metodología de la disciplina destacan: “Three decades of the International Political Science Review (IPSR): A methodological map of ipsr articles” (International Political Science Review, 2018), “Críticas à teoria da escolha racional e hierarquias de conhecimento na ciência política” (Revista Brasileira de Informação Bibliográfica em Ciências Sociais, 2018)
y “Ambiguidade como estratégia? Pluralismo, dogmatismo e coesão comunitária na apsa” (Anales de ALACIP, 2013).

Melina Mörschbächer, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Correo electrónico: <melina.ufrgs@gmail.com>. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5428-5804.

MELINA MÖRSCHBÄCHER es doctora en Ciencia Política por la Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Entre sus trabajos más relevantes para el estudio de la epistemología
y metodología de la disciplina destacan: “Three decades of the International Political Science Review (IPSR): A methodological map of ipsr articles” (International Political Science Review,
2018) y “Contribuições e desafios do institucionalismo histórico na ciência política contemporânea” (Revista Brasileira de Informação Bibliográfica em Ciências Sociais, 2017).

References

Almond, Gabriel A. (1998) “Political science: The history of the discipline” en Goodin, Robert E. y Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.) A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxforf University Press, pp. 50-96.

Ansell, Ben y David Samuels (2016) “cps editors’ response to da-rt Symposium” Comparative Politics Newsletter, 26 (1): 52-54.

APSA (2012) A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science (Second Edition, Revised 2012) [en línea]. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. Disponible en: http://www.apsanet.org/portals/54/Files/Publications/apsaEthicsGuide2012.pdf [Consultado 18 de enero de 2018].

APSR (2016) “Notes from the editors” American Political Science Review, 100 (1): III-IX.

Arrow, Kenneth J. (1953) Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Avritzer, Leonardo; Milani, Carlos y Maria do Socorro Braga (2016) A ciência política no Brasil. São Paulo: FGV.

Bagehot, Walter (2001) The English Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baquero, Sergio Ángel y Juan Carlos Rico Noguera (2013) “Trazos para una decolonización de la teoría política” Crítica Contemporánea. Revista de Teoría Política (3): 1-20.

Baquero, Sergio Ángel y Fredy Andrés Barrero Escobar (2013) “Apuntes sobre los principales debates disciplinares de la teoría política” Estudios Políticos (43): 39-57.

Barrientos del Monte, Fernando (2013) “La ciencia política en América Latina. Una breve introducción histórica” Convergencia: Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 20 (61): 105-133.

Beckwith, Karen (2015) “State, academy, discipline: Regendering political science” PS: Political Science & Politics, 48 (3): 445-449.

Breuning, Marijke y John Ishiyama (2016) “Implementing da-rt in the American Political Science Review” Comparative Politics Newsletter, 26 (1): 54-57.

Bulcourf, Pablo; Gutiérrez Márquez, Enrique y Nelson Cardozo (2015) “Historia y desarrollo de la ciencia política en América Latina: Reflexiones sobre la constitución del campo de estudios” Revista de Ciencia Política, 35 (1): 179-199.

Carsey, Thomas M. (2014) “Making da-rt a reality” ps: Political Science & Politics, 47 (1): 72-77.

Caterino, Brian y Sanford Schram (2006) “Introduction: Reframing the debate” en Schram, Sanford y Brian Caterino (eds.) Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method. Nueva York: New York University Press, pp. 1-16.

Chang, Andrew C. y Philip Li (2015) Is economics research replicable? Sixty published papers from thirteen journals say “usually not”. Washington: Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Finance and Economics Discussion Series). DOI: http://dx.doi.

org/10.17016/feds.2015.083.

Cox, Gary (1999) “The empirical content of rational choice theory: A reply to Green and Shapiro” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11 (2): 147-169.

Dafoe, Allan (2014) “Science deserves better: The imperative to share complete replication files” ps: Political Science & Politics, 47 (1): 60-66.

DA-RT (2014) The Journal Editors’ Transparency Statement [en línea]. Data Access and Research Transparency. Disponible en: https://www.dartstatement.org/2014-journal-editors-statement-

jets [Consultado 18 de enero de 2018].

Dowding, Keith (2016) The Philosophy and Methods of Political Science. Londres: Palgrave.

Easton, David (1962) “Introduction: The current meaning of ‘behavioralism’ in political science” en Charlesworth, James C. (ed.) The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science. Filadelfia: The American Academy of Political Science, pp. 8-25.

Elman, Colin y Diana Kapiszewski (2014) “Data access and research transparency in the qualitative tradition” ps: Political Science & Politics, 47 (1): 43-47.

Elman, Colin y Arthur Lupia (2016) “DA-RT: Aspirations and anxieties” Comparative Politics Newsletter, 26 (1): 44-52.

Farr, James (1995) “Remembering the revolution: Behavioralism in American political science” en Farr, James; Dryzek, John S. y Stephen T. Leonard (eds.) Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198-224.

Farr, James (2003) “Political science” en Porter, Theodore M. y Dorothy Ross (eds.) The Modern Social Sciences, vol. 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 306-328.

Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006) “A Perestroikan straw man answers back: David Laitin and phronetic political science” en Schram, Sanford y Brian Caterino (eds.) Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method. Nueva York: New York University

Press, pp. 56-85.

Fujii, Lee Ann (2016) “The dark side of da-rt” Comparative Politics Newsletter, 26 (1): 25-27.

Garcé, Adolfo y Cecilia Rocha Carpiuc (2015) “La ciencia política en Uruguay: Entre la profesionalización, la partidización y en fantasma del ‘Movimiento Perestroika’” Revista de Ciencia Política, 35 (1): 121-144.

George, Alexander L. y Andrew Bennett (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Ghergina, Sergiu y Alexia Katsanidou (2013) “Data availability in political science journals” European Political Science, 12 (3): 333-349.

Gintis, Herbert (2009) Game Theory Evolving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goertz, Gary y James Mahoney (2012) A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Golder, Matt y Sona N. Golder (2016) “Letter from the editors” Comparative Politics Newsletter, 26 (1): 2-24.

Gooding, Robert y Hans-Dieter Klingemann (1998) “Political science: The discipline” en Gooding, Robert y Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.) A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-49.

Green, Donald y Ian Shapiro (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gunnel, John (2006) “The founding of the American Political Science Association: Discipline, profession, political theory, and politics” The American Political Science Review, 100 (4): 479-486.

Hall, Peter A. (2016) “Transparency, research integrity and multiple methods” Comparative Politics Newsletter, 26 (1): 28-31.

Hindmoor, Andrew y Brad Taylor (2015) Rational Choice. Londres: Palgrave.

Hinich, Melvin y Michael C. Munger (2003) Teoría analítica de la política. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Hochschild, Jennifer L. (2003) “Editor’s note: Introduction and observations” Perspectives on Politics, 1 (1): 1-4.

Htun, Mala (2016) “da-rt and the social conditions of knowledge production in political science” Comparative Politics Newsletter, 26 (1): 32-36.

Isaac, Jeffrey C. (2014) “Restructuring the social sciences? A reflection from the editor of Perspectives on Politics” ps: Political Science & Politics, 47 (2): 279-283.

Isaac, Jeffrey C. (2015) “For a more public political science” Perspectives on Politics, 13 (2): 269-283.

Ishiyama, John (2014) “Replication, research transparency, and journal publications: Individualism, community models, and the future of replication studies” ps: Political Science & Politics, 47 (1): 78-83.

Jackson, Patrick T. (2006) “A statistician strikes out: In defense of genuine methodological diversity” en Schram, Sanford y Brian Caterino (eds.) Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method. Nueva York: New York University Press,

pp. 86-97.

King, Gary (2014) “Restructuring social science: reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science” ps: Political Science & Politics, 47 (1): 165-173.

King, Gary; Keohane, Robert O. y Sidney Verba (1994) Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kirkpatrick, Evron M. (1962) “The impact of the behavioral approach on traditional political science” en Ranney, Austin (ed.) Essays on the Behavioral Study of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 1-29.

Leite, Fernando y Adriano Codato (2013) “Autonomização e institucionalização da ciência política Brasileira: o papel do sistema Qualis-capes” Revista de Discentes de Ciência Política da ufscar, 1 (1): 1-21.

Lupia, Arthur y George Alter (2014) “Data access and research transparency in the quantitative tradition” PS: Political Science & Politics, 47 (1): 54-59.

Lupia, Arthur y Colin Elman (2014) “Openness in political science: Data Access and Research Transparency” ps: Political Science & Politics, 47 (1): 19-42.

Lynch, Marc (2016) “Area studies and the cost of prematurely implementing da-rt” Comparative Politics Newsletter, 26 (1): 36-39.

Mahoney, James y Kathleen Thelen (2010) “A theory of gradual institutional change” en Mahoney, James y Kathleen Thelen (eds.) Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-37.

McDermott, Rose (2014) “Research transparency and data archiving for experiments” PS: Political Science & Politics, 47 (1): 67-71.

Monroe, Kristen R. (2005) Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Moravcsik, Andrew (2014) “Transparency: The revolution in qualitative research” PS: Political Science & Politics, 47 (1): 48-53.

Pachirat, Timothy (2015) “The tyranny of light” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research Newsletter, 13 (1): 27-31.

Parkinson, Sarah Elizabeth y Elisabeth Jean Wood (2015) “Transparency in intensive research on violence: Ethical dilemmas and unforeseen consequences” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research Newsletter, 13 (1): 22-27.

Pierson, Paul (2004) Politics in Time. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ravecca, Paulo (2010) “La política de la ciencia política: Ensayo de introspección disciplinar desde América Latina Hoy” Revista América Latina (9): 173-210.

Ravecca, Paulo (2014) “Our discipline and its politics. Authoritarian political science: Chile 1979-1989” Revista de Ciencia Política, 35 (1): 145-178.

Rocha Carpiuc, Cecilia (2013) “¿Hacia una hegemonía del ‘modelo mainstream norteamericano’?” Enfoques de la Ciencia Política en América Latina (2000-2012) Biblioteca CLACSO [en línea]. Disponible en: http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/becas/20131021110757/

rocha_informefinal.pdf [Consultado el 18 de enero de 2018].

Ross, D. (1991) The Origins of American Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sartori, Giovanni (2004) “¿Hacia dónde va la ciencia política?” Política y Gobierno, 11 (2): 349-354.

Schram, Sanford (2006) “Return to politics: Perestroika, phronesis, and post-paradigmatic political science” en Schram, Sanford y Brian Caterino (eds.) Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method. Nueva York: New York University Press, pp. 17-32.

Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine (2006) “Conundrums in the practice of pluralism” en Schram, Sanford y Brian Caterino (eds.) Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method. Nueva York: New York University Press, pp. 209-221.

Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine y Dvora Yanow (2016) “Legitimizing political science or splitting the discipline? Reflections on DA-RT and the policy-making role of a professional association” Politics & Gender, 12 (11): 1-19.

Shapiro, Ian; Smith, Rogers y Tarek Masoud (2004) “Introduction: Problems and methods in the study of politics” en Shapiro, Ian; Smith, Rogers y Tarek Masoud (eds.) Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-18.

Shepsle, Kenneth A. (2010) Analyzing Politics. Londres: Norton & Company Publisher.

Shih, Victor (2015) “Research in authoritarian regimes: Transparency tradeoffs and solutions” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research Newsletter, 13 (1): 20-22.

Sibley, Mulford (1962) “The limitations of behavioralism” en Charlesworth, James (ed.) The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science. Filadelfia: The American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp. 51-71.

Sil, Rudra; Castro, Guzmán y Anna Calasanti (2016) “Avant-garde or dogmatic? DA-RT in the mirror of the social science” Comparative Politics Newsletter, 26 (1): 40-43.

Skocpol, Theda (1985) “Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research” en Evans, Peter B.; Rueschemeyer, Dietrich y Theda Skocpol (eds.) Bringing the State Back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-41.

Soares, Gláucio Ary Dillon (2005) “O calcanhar metodológico da Ciência Política no Brasil” Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas (48): 27-52.

Somit, Albert y Joseph Tanenhaus (1967) The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Teele, Dawn Lagan y Kathleen Thelen (2017) “Gender in the journals: Publications patterns in political science” ps: Political Science & Politics, 50 (2): 433-447.

Thelen, Kathleen y Sven Steinmo (1992) “Historical institutionalism in comparative politics” en Steinmo, Sven; Thelen, Kathleen y Frank Longstreth (eds.) Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-32.

Thomson Reuters (2017) Journal Citation Reports [en línea]. Disponible en: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLivejcr/jcrGroup/jcrOverview.html [Consultado el 18 de enero de 2018].

Tolleson-Rinehart, Sue y Susan J. Carroll (2006) “Far from ideal: The gender politics of political science” American Political Science Review, 100 (4): 507-513.

Torres-Ruiz, Antonio y Paulo Ravecca (2014) “The politics of political science and toxic democracies: A hemispheric perspective” Crítica Contemporánea. Revista de Teoría Política (4): 107-136.

Wilson, Woodrow (1963) Governo constitucional nos Estados Unidos. São Paulo: Ibrasa.

Yashar, Deborah J. (2016) “Editorial trust, gatekeeping, and unintended consequences” Comparative Politics Newsletter, 26 (1): 57-64.

Licencia Creative Commons
La Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales publicada por la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional.
Basada en una obra en http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rmcpys/

La RMCPyS autoriza a sus colaboradores que suban una copia de sus trabajos publicados en sus webs personales o en cualquier repositorio de acceso abierto, siempre y cuando se mencione específicamente a la Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales como fuente original de procedencia, citando el año y número del ejemplar respectivo y añadiendo el enlace a la página web donde este órgano editorial puede ser consultado in toto, de manera abierta y gratuita en: <www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rmcpys>.


Las y los lectores tienen libertad para:
Compartir, copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato.
El licenciante no puede revocar estas libertades en tanto usted siga los términos de la licencia.
De acuerdo con los siguientes términos:

  • Atribución: la/el lector/a debe reconocer el crédito de una obra de manera adecuada, proporcionar un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que tiene el apoyo del licenciante o lo recibe por el uso que hace.
  • No comercial: la/el lector/a no puede hacer uso del material con fines comerciales.
  • Si se mezcla, transforma o se desarrolla a partir de la obra licenciada, no se permite la distribución del material modificado.

Cargos por gestión de artículos
La Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales NO cobra tarifas por recibir, procesar o publicar los artículos (Article Processing Charge [APC]) enviados por los autores.