Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:44:29.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reflection, Reflection: A Comment and Modest Proposal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Walter J. Stone*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder, Political Research Quarterly

Extract

Several important areas of agreement in the King-Herrnson debate suggest that a broad consensus exists on the desirability of changing disciplinary practice and norms governing the collection and release of original data. After reading both essays, I am convinced that both Gary King and Paul Herrnson would agree that (1) Collecting and organizing political science data is often a costly enterprise that requires a substantial commitment of valued resources, including money, time, and expertise.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1995

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.)

Footnotes

1.

Thanks to Ron Rapoport and Mike Ward for their helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References

Stone, Walter J.,Rapoport, Ronald B., and Atkeson, Lonna Rae. 1995. “A Simulation Model of Presidential Nomination Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 39:135–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Steenbergen, Marco R. 1995. “Computational Experiments in Electoral Behavior,” typescript, SUNY, Stony Brook, and forthcoming in Political Judgment: Structure and Process, Lodge, Milton and McGraw, Kathleen, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ward, Michael D., and Cohen, Jordin S. 1995. “Replication by Any Other Name is … Research.” Presented at the Annual Meetings of the International Studies Association, Chicago.Google Scholar