IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v90y1996i03p605-618_20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Lustick, Ian S.

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Lustick, Ian S., 1996. "History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(3), pages 605-618, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:03:p:605-618_20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400207181/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jørgen Møller, 2016. "Composite and Loose Concepts, Historical Analogies, and the Logic of Control in Comparative Historical Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(4), pages 651-677, November.
    2. Jack S. Levy, 2008. "Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(1), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Kravtsova, Maria & Libman, Alexander, 2023. "Historical family structure as a predictor of liberal voting: Evidence from a century of Russian history," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 47(2).
    4. de Aguiar, Thereza R.S. & Freire, Fatima de Souza, 2017. "Shifts in modes of governance and sustainable development in the Brazilian oil sector," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 701-710.
    5. Yannis Karagiannis, 2016. "The Origins of the Common Market: Political Economy vs. Hagiography," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 233-248, March.
    6. Ian S. Lustick & Philip E. Tetlock, 2021. "The simulation manifesto: The limits of brute‐force empiricism in geopolitical forecasting," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), June.
    7. Jørgen Møller & Svend-Erik Skaaning, 2021. "The Ulysses Principle: A Criterial Framework for Reducing Bias When Enlisting the Work of Historians," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 103-134, February.
    8. Metin M. Coşgel & Boğaç A. Ergene, 2014. "The selection bias in court records: settlement and trial in eighteenth-century Ottoman Kastamonu," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 67(2), pages 517-534, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:03:p:605-618_20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.