(eBook PDF) Explorations: Conducting Empirical

Research in Canadian Political Science 3rd

Canadian Edition install download

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-explorations-
conducting-empirical-research-in-canadian-political-science-3rd-
canadian-edition/

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebooksecure.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebooksecure.com
to discover even more!

(eBook PDF) The Fundamentals of Political Science

Research 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-fundamentals-of-
political-science-research-3rd-edition/

(eBook PDF) Beginning Research in Political Science by

Carolyn Forestiere

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-beginning-research-in-
political-science-by-carolyn-forestiere/

(eBook PDF) Qualitative Research in Action: A Canadian

Primer 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-qualitative-research-in-
action-a-canadian-primer-3rd-edition/

(eBook PDF) Conducting Research: Social and Behavioral

Science Methods 2nd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-conducting-research-
social-and-behavioral-science-methods-2nd-edition/
(eBook PDF) The Fundamentals of Political Science
Research 2nd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-fundamentals-of-
political-science-research-2nd-edition/

(eBook PDF) Biological Science, Third Canadian Edition

3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-biological-science-
third-canadian-edition-3rd-edition/

(eBook PDF) Statistics A Tool for Social Research 3rd

Canadian Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-statistics-a-tool-for-
social-research-3rd-canadian-edition/

(eBook PDF) Digging Deeper: A Canadian Reporter's

Research Guide 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-digging-deeper-a-
canadian-reporters-research-guide-3rd-edition/

(Original PDF) Sociology in Action 3rd Canadian Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-sociology-in-
action-3rd-canadian-edition/
 Third Edition

Explorations
Conducting Empirical Research
in Canadian Political Science

Loleen Berdahl & Keith Archer

Berdahl__i-xii_FM.indd 1 14-12-05 11:34 AM

 viii Contents

Measures for Ordinal-Level Data 315

Measures for Interval-Level Data 323
Summary: Bivariate Relationships 324
Adding a Third Variable to the Bivariate Relationship 324
Contingency Tables with Control Variables 327
Working as a Team 331
Self-Study 333
Notes 333

Chapter 17 Multivariate Analysis: An Introduction to the Deep End of

the Pool 334
Destination 334
The Standard Error of the Estimate 340
t-Tests and F-Ratios for Interval-Level Relationships 343
Calculating the t-Statistic and Conducting a Significance Test with
Our Five-Case Example 345
Multiple Regression Analysis 349
Predicting Attitudes toward Party Leaders: Assessments of Stephen
Harper 352
Block Recursive Models of Voting Behaviour 355
Working as a Team 358
Self-Study 359
Note 359

Chapter 18 Writing the Report 360

Destination 360
The Audience 361
Constructing an Argument 362
Components of the Research Report 363
The Abstract or Executive Summary 364
Introduction 365
Literature Review 365
Research Design 367
Presentation of Findings 368
Discussion 369
Conclusions 370
References 370
The Final Polish 370
Working as a Team 371
Self-Study 371

Glossary 372
References 385
Index 395

Berdahl__i-xii_FM.indd 8 14-12-05 11:34 AM

 Preface
Many students in political science, and in the social sciences generally, try to avoid research
methods courses because they dislike or even fear math. Some resent being confronted with
the very thing that they had designed their undergraduate program to avoid. Others are
simply anxious about their ability: “Will this be the course that kills my GPA?”
To paraphrase former American president F.D. Roosevelt, you have nothing to fear but
fear itself. If you can add, subtract, multiply, divide, and plug numbers into simple equations,
you are as ready as you need to be. The content of this text is primarily conceptual. Our goal
is to give you the tools required to think clearly about research issues in political science, to
understand both the power and limitations of quantitative data. The math is there, but it is
there as a form of conceptual understanding more than as a form of calculation.
Some contemporary research methods books shy away from mathematical computations
altogether, recognizing that most students will be working with computer-based statistical
packages that will effortlessly do the calculations for them. However, it is our belief that some
hands-on familiarity helps students to acquire greater conceptual confidence. Statistical tests
and measures can be difficult to understand in the abstract; thus, we will provide simple illus-
trations to allow you to work through the basic formulas. Furthermore, online video tutor-
ials (indicated by ) will guide you through such topics as variables, IBM® SPSS® Statistics
software (“SPSS”), and measures of association. We do not expect that you will abandon
computer-based programs in favour of pencil and paper but that you will have some first-
hand experience with the statistical terminology you will encounter in your own reading and
research. You will be more comfortable with this terminology if you have had this opportunity.
In the chapters to come, we will take you through the steps involved in empirical
research. How should you conceptualize a research problem? What evidence, or data, should
you bring to bear on the problem? How do you measure the concepts you wish to address?
How do you describe the research findings? What statistical tests might be used? Under
what ethical guidelines should you operate? We will also engage you in the text material via
“Apply Your Understanding” boxes, which allow you to test your own thinking and compre-
hension. These activities are not meant to be formal exercises with right and wrong answers
but to invite you to think about the material and to apply it in familiar situations. The same
objectives guide the discussion and study questions at the end of each chapter.
Throughout the text, we will bring real data into play through “Expand Your Knowledge”
boxes. These sections are real-life illustrations frequently drawn from the kinds of surveys
and reports that you encounter daily in newspapers and on television. Others, and per-
haps the more important, come from the political science and social science literature. Our
objective in both cases is the same: to illustrate how empirical research methods can be
used to enrich and expand our understanding of the political world and, in some cases, to
illustrate how mistakes can be made.

Berdahl__i-xii_FM.indd 9 14-12-05 12:06 PM

 x Preface

There is, then, an applied character to the text. But this approach should not imply an
avoidance of normative issues. We recognize that an interest in the shoulds and oughts of
politics is what draws many students into political science. We also recognize that normat-
ive questions cannot be reduced to empirical questions; knowing how the world is does not
tell us how it should be. At the same time, a great deal of normative debate in politics and
political science employs empirical evidence and understanding. Should there be seat-belt
laws? Prohibition of smoking in public places? Controls on violence in television program-
ming? Limitations on campaign spending in federal or provincial elections? Our answers to
such questions partially depend on assumptions about empirical effects. Thus, a nuanced
empirical understanding of the political world is a means to a richer normative debate and
not a way of avoiding such discussion.
While this text emphasizes the benefits of using the scientific method in understanding
and evaluating the empirical—or observable—world, it is also important to remain mindful
of the method’s limitations, particularly as they relate to the social sciences. Although the
scientific method purports to be a way of understanding the world on the basis of observ-
able facts, we will show that, at times, these facts are a matter of dispute. There are many
possible reasons to explain different perceptions of reality, and these will be introduced and
explored throughout the text.
Underlying this assumption about the importance of empirical understanding is the
reality that research skills are essential in the contemporary labour market. An ability to
design, conduct, and, more commonly, assess empirical research is no longer a frill; it is rap-
idly becoming a necessity. Research literacy is as essential to today’s job market as literacy was
to the job market of earlier generations. We are convinced that, of all the courses you take,
research methods courses are the most immediately relevant to getting and keeping a job.
Finally, we would like to emphasize the thematic intent of the book’s title, Explorations.
It is not our intent to give the last word on empirical research methodology, for the field is
rich, vast, and complex. We hope to open some doors, to provide you with a rough under-
standing of empirical research in political science. Our aim is to equip you with both the
basic skills you need to handle research material and an appreciation of the strengths and
weaknesses of empirical research. The text, then, is no more than a preliminary exploration.
The destinations identified for each chapter are not final but are way stations on what, for
many readers, will undoubtedly become a much longer journey. For others, we trust that
you will find the exploration interesting and helpful as you continue to run up against polit-
ical issues and debates throughout your life.
A number of people assisted in the writing of this new edition. We thank the anonymous
reviewers and the following who took time to comment on the manuscript: Kelly Blidook,
Memorial University of Newfoundland; Elizabeth Bloodgood, Concordia University; Jason
Roy, Wilfrid Laurier University; and Ruben Zaiotti, Dalhousie University.
We thank Roger Gibbins for his work as co-author on the first edition and for support-
ing our revision of the text. We also extend our appreciation to Martin Gaal (University

Berdahl__i-xii_FM.indd 10 14-12-05 11:34 AM

 Preface xi

of Saskatchewan), Erick Lachapelle (Université de Montréal) Alexandre Morin-Chassé

(Université de Montréal), Natasja Treiberg (Athabasca University), Linda Trimble
(University of Alberta), and Jared Wesley (University of Alberta and University of Manitoba)
for their contributions to the third edition. Finally, we thank our respective families for
their support during the revision process: Troy, Katie, and Zoë Berdahl; Lisa Hurst-Archer
and Justin, Alison, Ben, Will, and Isaiah Archer; and Caitlin, Jeff, and Kaia Montgomery.

Berdahl__i-xii_FM.indd 11 14-12-05 11:34 AM

Berdahl__i-xii_FM.indd 12 14-12-05 11:34 AM
 PART I
Conducting Political Science Research

Many of you will be enrolled in your first common to refer to the discipline and the
course in political science research meth- university or college department as polit-
ods. Some of you might even be coming ical science. Chapter 1 considers what such
to this course, and this book, with a sense a label implies for the ways people in this
of trepidation about the math involved in academic discipline gain knowledge and
political science research. Many of the stu- understanding of their subject matter. In
dents we’ve taught have expressed such Chapter 2 we differentiate between quant-
concerns. So, let’s be frank about this mat- itative and qualitative approaches to polit-
ter at the outset. This book introduces a ics, which are both valid and useful. We
number of techniques that can be used emphasize the quantitative approach but
to assess the strength of relationships expressly consider qualitative approaches
between variables, and we often represent in several chapters.
these relationships by using quantitative The discussion then turns to applying
data. This approach means that we will be the scientific method to the study of polit-
counting and grouping people’s responses ics. In Chapter 3, we ponder the role that
to assess how strongly one characteristic theory plays in our empirical models and
is related to another. To help summarize examine the degree to which we can use
these relationships, a number of statistical quantitative methods to identify causal
techniques—based on mathematical for- relationships in politics. This chapter also
mulas—are introduced. introduces the idea of testing hypotheses
This book, therefore, includes some as a way of conducting empirical research
math. However, political science research and identifies a number of alternative
involves much more than conducting tests models for such hypothesis-testing.
of the relationships between variables. We Chapters 4 and 5 raise the question of
begin with a broader discussion of the use how political scientists define concepts in
of the scientific approach in studying polit- the research and how such concepts are
ics. Many of you are enrolled in a course in “operationalized” as variables that can
a department of political science. Although be measured. The language used in polit-
a couple of generations ago such a depart- ical science research must be precise so
ment might have been called political eco- that, when a term is used to describe a
nomy or simply politics, today it is more phenomenon, there is as little confusion

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 1 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 2 PART I | Conducting Political Science Research

or disagreement as possible regarding These chapters set the stage for the
the meaning of that term. As we’ll see, more detailed discussions in Part II, con-
achieving this goal is more difficult than it cerning research design and data collec-
might seem. tion, and Part III, focused on data analysis.
This part concludes with Chapter 6, The goal is to ensure that you understand
a discussion of ethics as it relates to con- each stage of the research process and, by
ducting research on human beings. Such following the steps outlined throughout
research requires that subjects be treated the text, become more informed con-
with respect and dignity and that a num- sumers of political science research. You
ber of safeguards be in place to ensure will begin to develop tools to conduct your
compliance with such an expectation. own projects as well.

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 2 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 CHAPTER 1
The Scientific Approach
to Politics

Destination
By the end of this chapter, you should be able to

• state the distinction between normative and empirical analysis;

• explain the idea of science in political science;
• outline the basic postulates of science;
• describe the general methodology of science as applied to the more specific
study of politics; and
• discuss some of the limitations and critiques of the scientific method.

One of the goals of an undergraduate education, and particularly of a course in research

methods in the social sciences, is to help students think critically, by which we mean to
reject arguments unless they are accompanied by sufficiently compelling evidence. Critical
thought involves weighing and evaluating the merits of evidence marshalled in support
of an argument. Researchers ask whether they understand the evidence and interpret its
implications in the same way that others do. If the evidence is found wanting, either because
it fails to provide sufficiently strong support or because it does not bear directly on the
argument, the argument can be rejected. Thus, the ways in which we perceive and interpret
evidence are two key aspects of critical thought.

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 3 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 4 PART I | Conducting Political Science Research

An aim of the scientific approach to politics is to use critical thought as a guide to our
perceptions of the political world. Boldly stated, the scientific study of politics attempts to
provide a method whereby observations of the political world can be relatively independent
of the observer. Stated more cautiously, it can help in determining when and why political
perceptions differ.
Not surprisingly, this book takes the view that pursuing the goals of scientific analysis is
worthwhile. Yet we accept the premise that most political research falls far short of the goal
of providing similar observations and interpretations of political reality. A good deal of our
attention will be focused on understanding why political scientists so often disagree about
so many of the most fundamental questions of politics. This discord does not mean that our
understanding of politics has not progressed. On the contrary, much knowledge has been
gained. In some areas of political science, including the study of voting, elections, and polit-
ical belief systems, the scientific approach has so transformed both political practice and
research that they are unrecognizable from earlier generations. Nonetheless, the scientific
approach to politics is not a simple template that can be applied holus-bolus to any political
problem or research question. Its application requires detailed and careful attention from
students and researchers alike.
An example of a divisive issue may help illustrate the role of the scientific approach.
One of the most common features of political life in advanced industrial democracies is the
persistence of female underrepresentation in legislative assemblies. In the 2011 Canadian
general election only 76 of the 308 people (24.7 per cent) elected to the House of Commons
were women. Hence, the fact that women are underrepresented in legislatures can scarcely
be disputed. Far more controversial are the explanations that account for this finding. Some
argue that women are underrepresented out of choice, that they are less inclined than men
to seek elective public office. This explanation can be broken down into the following
propositions: (1) women and men are socialized to have different preferences and/or (2)
women and men have different responsibilities throughout the life cycle that, for instance,
place a greater onus on women for child-rearing and thereby allow men to engage in other
activities, including participating in political parties and seeking election. Another possible
explanation is the systematic bias against strong women candidates that may exist in polit-
ical parties. That is to say, the parties may present barriers that make it difficult for female
candidates to win nominations for office, particularly in highly competitive ridings.
Which of these three explanations for the underrepresentation of women in legis-
latures is the most accurate and informative?1 The answer is important because it can have
profound implications for public policy. If female underrepresentation is caused mainly by
the parties systematically excluding women, the solution (assuming one believes, as we do,
that this is a problem) may be quite different than if it stems largely from gender-specific
differences in either the life cycle or socialization. (Each of these explanations may contain
a partial truth about the causes of differences in political representation.) The key feature of
the scientific approach to politics is that it requires the formulation of testable hypotheses

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 4 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 Chapter 1 | The Scientific Approach to Politics 5

(see p. 59–60) and the marshalling of empirical data that can confirm or fail to confirm the
hypotheses. It provides a way of applying empirical data to normative questions and public
policy debates.

Normative and Empirical Analysis

The goal of all political analysis is to advance our knowledge and understanding of the polit-
ical world. There are two dominant forms of political analysis: normative and empirical.
Normative analysis, the realm of political theory and philosophy, is prescriptive in nature
and addresses how society and political life should be. Because it entails the discussion
of ideals, this form of political analysis is infused with value judgments and preferences.
Normative discussions invoke convictions and feelings, things that are terribly important
but difficult to measure and observe empirically in day-to-day life. In addition, people bring
different values, priorities, and moral perspectives to their observations, which creates dis-
agreements about the “truth” of normative statements. For example, both sides of the capital
punishment debate are presented as fact in statements such as “It is wrong to kill anyone,
even murderers” and “It is wrong to allow those who take life to continue life.” The position
that one sees as true depends upon one’s own values and beliefs; the distinction is normat-
ive, not factual. We can identify normative analysis by the use of value-laden terms such as
good, bad, right, wrong, should, must, and ought. Many political debates concern normative
issues because people often disagree about what ends should be sought and the best means
for reaching them.
The second branch of political analysis is empirical research. Empirical political
analysis is descriptive in nature; the goal is to describe and to explain the political world
as it is rather than as it should be. Whereas normative analysis is self-consciously value
based, empirical research purports to be more fact based. Factual evidence is gathered
from the physical and social worlds; unless a phenomenon can be observed (experienced
through the senses), it cannot be considered admissible evidence (Singleton et al. 1988, 31).
Knowledge obtained from methods other than observation—such as faith, intuition, or
common sense—is not considered empirical knowledge. This statement is not meant to
discredit other ways of knowing but to emphasize the distinction between empirical and
non-empirical knowledge.
Empiricism requires observation and therefore measurement. Empirical facts must
be independently observed and agreed upon by many people. This quality is known as
intersubjectivity. How one observes an event is ultimately subjective—as those who have
witnessed a car accident can attest, there are often two, three, or even six sides to every story.
By requiring that more than one person observe and give a similar account of the event,
we are able to increase objectivity. Intersubjectivity also requires that more than one obser-
vation occur; in the scientific process this practice is known as replication. Researchers
seek out evidence that confirms the findings of other researchers, thus checking the latter’s

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 5 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 6 PART I | Conducting Political Science Research

observations. The more people who observe a phenomenon and the more times it is
observed, the more willing we are to accept it as fact. An empirical statement does not
indicate preferences or values but presents observable facts.
A key issue for empirically based research is the degree to which facts exist independently
of the observer. Witnesses to an accident quite literally perceive things very differently. With
the attendant legal and financial implications of an event such as a traffic accident, it may be

Expand Your Knowledge

Normative and Empirical Approaches to Democracy: Robert Dahl

An interesting example of the difference between the normative and empirical

approaches to political analysis is seen in the work of Robert Dahl, who devoted
much of his long academic career to the study of democracy. Initially, he worked
as an empiricist, seeking to explain how democracy works. In Who Governs? (1961),
Dahl explored the distribution of power in New Haven, Connecticut. He found that,
although power appears to be concentrated in political elites, interest groups have
great influence on the decisions elites make, leaving government to act more as a
referee between conflicting interests than as a powerful decision-maker with interests
of its own. Dahl assumed that all relevant social interests could form groups to lobby
the government and that all groups have political weight. From these assumptions, he
concluded that democratic politics is not elite dominated.
The idea that democracy is a contest among numerous groups and “potential”
groups is asserted by the pluralist school, which has been challenged empirically on
many fronts. Critics include public choice theorists, who argue that not all interests are
equally likely to form lobby groups, and neo-Marxists, who argue that powerful corporate
interests have greater status than non-economic elites in the battle between interests.
Two decades later, the normative component of Dahl’s writing emerged more
clearly. In Democracy and Its Critics (1989), Dahl distinguishes between the ideal and
practice of democracy. He defines political orders based on democratic practices—
such as free elections, inclusive suffrage, freedom of expression, and representative
government—as polyarchies rather than as democracies. Polyarchy can be empirically
observed: if a country has democratic institutions, it is a polyarchy. Dahl reserves the
word democracy for the ideal toward which all polyarchies strive, the system under
which liberty and self-development flourish. He writes (1989, 322):

In my view, neither political equality nor the democratic process is justified

as intrinsically good. Rather, they are justified as the most reliable means for
protecting and advancing the good and interests of all persons subject to
collective decisions. . . . [Political equality is] an essential means to a just dis-
tribution of freedom and to fair opportunities for self-development.

Thus, Dahl’s later work clearly makes normative judgments: liberty is good and,
given that democracy is the best means to liberty, democracy should be pursued.

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 6 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 Chapter 1 | The Scientific Approach to Politics 7

in the interest of those concerned to observe things differently: neither driver wishes to be
charged with a traffic offence nor have his or her insurance premiums rise. There may be an
incentive, either conscious or unconscious, for perceptions of reality to be distorted.
Some researchers regard this particular example of “fact” filtering as generalizable in
perceptions of the social and political world. In this view, facts are not completely objective,
but perceptions of fact are influenced or mediated by the social and political context of the
observer. To the extent that this statement is true, it may be difficult to fully separate facts
and values or the empirical and normative aspects of the study of politics.
There are other ways in which normative and empirical analysis overlap in the study
of politics. Empirical research is used to question the conclusions of normative analysis,
and normative analysis often employs empirical facts in its arguments. Consider envir-
onmental debates. Environmentalists state empirical facts—changing climate conditions,
endangered species—before stating normative positions: we should reduce emissions, clean
up the oceans, and so on. Similarly, opposition to the environmental movement’s normative
positions contains appeals to empirical fact. Julian Simon (1995, 11) strongly asserts, “Every
measure of material and environmental welfare in the United States and in the world has
improved rather than deteriorated . . . there is every scientific reason to be joyful about
the trends in the conditions of the Earth.” Some of the most contentious environmental
debates occur when there is no concrete, agreed-upon empirical evidence. For instance,
do harp seals really deplete cod stocks? Is the global temperature increasing, or are we just
witnessing short-term fluctuations around a constant norm? Is it safer to transport bitumen
from the Alberta oil sands to the west coast of British Columbia by rail or by a dedicated
oil pipeline? While this text is concerned with empirical research, you should note how
frequently empiricism is used in normative debates.

Apply Your Understanding

Normative and Empirical Statements
Identify the following statements as either normative or empirical:
1. Seat belt usage decreases automobile-related fatalities.
2. Seat belt usage ought to be mandatory.
3. Democracy is the best system of government available.
4. Democratic systems, on average, have better human rights records.
5. In terms of demographic weight, women are severely underrepresented
in legislatures.
6. The electoral system should be changed to ensure a more representative
legislature.
In assessing these statements, note the impact that specific words can make. In
the fifth statement, does the addition of the adverb severely affect your categor-
ization of the statement as normative or empirical? Can better in statement four
be evaluated in empirical terms, or is it inherently normative?

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 7 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 8 PART I | Conducting Political Science Research

What Is Science?
At its root, science is a set of rules that help us understand the world around us. The rules
describe how we know, not what we know. Science is a method for acquiring knowledge
rather than the knowledge itself. We would call something science not because of the sub-
ject that was being studied but because of the way in which it was being studied. If a study is
done according to the rules of science, it is science. The scientific method consists of formu-
lating hypotheses about the causal relationship between variables and empirically testing
the hypotheses. The goal is to ensure that many observers, acting independently, will make
similar observations and draw similar conclusions about the cause-and-effect relationship.

Natural and Social Sciences

By understanding science as a method of gaining knowledge, we can extend the application
of the scientific method beyond the natural sciences of physics, chemistry, and the like to
include the social science areas of human interactions in social relations. This expansion
has given rise to the development of social scientific research in the areas of anthropology,
archaeology, economics, political science, sociology, and others. (Whether psychology is a
natural or social science depends upon the branch of the discipline.) As we will see, apply-
ing the scientific method to social relations brings with it a number of attendant prob-
lems, some related to science generally and others more specific to studying people. While
researchers need to be aware of these limitations, they usually find that the advantages of
the scientific approach far outweigh its disadvantages.
One significant difference between much of the research in the natural versus social
sciences is the amount of control that the researcher has over the research setting. The
laboratory, a site for highly controlled experiments, remains a mainstay of much research
in the natural sciences. As a result, researchers have a high degree of success in isolating
the few variables selected for study. In the social sciences, by contrast, the laboratory is
replaced for the most part by field research, whether through survey research, participant
observation, focus group analysis, or other methods. These methods, which we will dis-
cuss in later chapters, provide a variety of ways to attempt to control for extraneous
factors, but in general they are less efficient in doing so than are controlled laboratory
experiments. The result is that alternative independent variables may confound the ana-
lysis. However, as we discuss in Chapter 11, there is a growing interest within political
science in the use of experimental approaches. In this field, experimental treatments are
sometimes isolated.
A second difference between the natural and social sciences is the level of agreement
within the scientific communities about the meaning and measurement of concepts. For
example, physicists share a common understanding of such terms as mass, density, heat, and
speed. According to Thomas Kuhn (1962) in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, such

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 8 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 Chapter 1 | The Scientific Approach to Politics 9

agreement characterizes mature sciences, enabling the progression from one paradigm (a
framework for understanding) to another. By contrast, the social sciences are characterized by
considerable disagreement over the definition and measurement of key terms. Disagreement
persists—and perhaps always will—over the definition of terms such as democracy, effective
representation, and social class (a topic explored in more detail in Chapters 4 and 5).
A third difference between the two branches of science is the degree of determinacy of
the results. In the natural sciences, the goal is to derive laws of behaviour. In the social sci-
ences, the presence of human agency—free choice—means that outcomes are never com-
pletely determined. Instead of deriving laws of behaviour, the social sciences use probability
in stating the generalized form of causal relationships. The discipline tends to use probabil-
istic statements such as “Young people are less likely than the middle-aged to participate in
politics” rather than deterministic phrases such as “Young people participate less in politics
than do the middle-aged.”
Despite these differences, the scientific method has a number of features that make
it an attractive epistemology, or approach to knowledge. One strength is that it attempts
to remove, or at least to minimize, the effect of the observer on the observed. Two people
working independently of each other to explore a given topic and using the same methodo-
logy under similar conditions should perceive the same result. In this respect, the scientific
method begins with the assumption that no single observer is uniquely suited to perceive
the real world in ways that are denied to all others. Because of the independence of res-
ults from observers, no observer is inherently better able to acquire scientific knowledge.
This principle points to the central place that replication has in science. If the results of a
scientific study cannot be independently verified, they are not accepted as an addition to
that area’s body of knowledge. Therefore, it is essential that results of scientific research
are reported in ways that enable others to verify them through repeated testing of the
empirical relationships.
A second strength of the scientific approach results from its orientation toward cause
and effect. In all scientific research, there is some outcome or set of outcomes that one
wishes to explain. This outcome, or effect, must be clearly stated and defined. There must
also be at least a minimal amount of variance to be explained. In other words, there must
be some change over time or across space or differences in outcome patterns across cases
in the sample. We could not explain, for example, why people voted (voter turnout) in an
election if everyone voted because there is no variance in electoral participation to explain.
The causes of voting (or non-voting) could be examined only if a comparative referent was
introduced by including a set of non-voters in the database.
The task of the research then becomes one of finding which characteristics cause
people (or cases) to vary in outcome. Research will usually involve testing the strength of
alternative causes of an outcome. Continuing with the example of the likelihood of voting,
we could speculate that education may be a factor that affects turnout: people with a higher
level of education are more likely to vote than those with lower education. This idea is called

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 9 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 10 PART I | Conducting Political Science Research

a research hypothesis. We are proposing (hypothesizing) that increased education leads to

an increased tendency to vote. At the outset of the research we do not know whether or not
this hypothesis is true. But for a variety of reasons (other research that we have read, our
personal experience, our intuition), we believe that it may be. However, there will be other
probable or at least possible causes of voting turnout that we wish to examine. An alternat-
ive hypothesis here is that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote than people
with lower incomes. Still another is that people who are more interested in politics are more
likely to vote than those who have no such interest.
Each of these hypothesized causes of voting focuses on the characteristics of individu-
als. If we were using cross-national data, different characteristics of the political system
could be used to explain differences in turnout. We might hypothesize that voting is more
likely in those systems that minimize the costs of voting, such as those that register voters
automatically. In addition, the perceived closeness of the race, the frequency of elections,
and the differences between political parties or between governing coalitions could lead
to differences in turnout rates. By highlighting the importance of the cause-and-effect struc-
ture of research hypotheses, the scientific approach ensures that research remains targeted
at evaluating alternative causes of phenomena and rejecting those that are less powerful.
A third strength of the scientific approach is that it can be used to explain and predict
events or outcomes. The approach assumes that there is an order and a structure to the real
world and that, through a careful application of the methods of science, the order can be
known and understood. This assumption of patterned behaviour, based on relationships
of cause and effect, implies that we can gain knowledge of the present and, through that
knowledge, predict future behaviours or events. Both the explanations of present events and
the predictions about the future are themselves subject to further empirical verification.
Finally, the scientific approach tries to draw lawlike generalizations about the real world.
Our understanding of specific events or outcomes, although useful in its own right, is of
greater value to the extent that it reveals a more enduring quality about relationships among
phenomena. It may be highly useful to know what effect, if any, the mortgage-lending prac-
tices of Canada’s banks had on the country’s housing market stability during the 2008 eco-
nomic downturn, but it is even more useful to know the general effect of lending practices
on housing market health. Does the effect of Canada’s bank mortgage lending practices in
2008 hold across time? Across countries and different economic systems? This impulse to
generalize is a core feature of the scientific project. The lawlike generalizations are formu-
lated as theories; we will explore theory development in Chapter 3.
The scientific method is often referred to as positivism. The principles underlying the
positivist approach in social science can be traced back to eighteenth-century sociologist
Auguste Comte (Neuman 1994, 58). Positivism is based on empiricism and determinism:
it is believed that almost everything can be objectively measured (empiricism) and that
every event has an explanation or a cause (determinism). From a positivist perspective,
the goal of research is to separate the researcher from the world being examined, to gather

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 10 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 Chapter 1 | The Scientific Approach to Politics 11

measurable evidence with which to test hypotheses, and to build theories on the basis of the
observed empirical tests. Furthermore, the expectation is that other researchers, observing
the world independently, can arrive at the same conclusion. The postulates of science (dis-
cussed in the next section) are extrapolations of these positivist principles.
Positivism is sometimes contrasted with interpretivism. The fundamental principle of
interpretivism is that it is not possible, and may not even be desirable, to try to separate the
observer from his or her observations. This perspective holds that human beings infuse the
world with meaning; therefore, it is not reasonable to expect that independent observers
would perceive events in an identical manner. In contemporary social science research, the
different perspectives brought through the positivist and interpretivist approaches can be
seen in the differences between the quantitative and qualitative approaches. These methods
are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

Summary: Strengths of the Scientific Method

1. It attempts to minimize the effect of the observer on the observed.
2. It directs our attention to the dynamics of cause and effect.
3. It can be used both to explain and to predict.
4. It seeks lawlike generalizations that can be applied to the political world across
time and space.

Expand Your Knowledge

Postmodernism

The assertion that the effects of the observer on the observed can be minimized is
hotly contested by the proponents of postmodernism. The underlying premise of
postmodernism is that reality is socially constructed and that the observer cannot be
separated from what he or she purports to see. Furthermore, not only will one con-
struction of the world differ from another, but there is also no method (and certainly
no scientific method) that enables us to determine which perspective is accurate or
correct. Indeed, postmodernism calls into question such notions as “accurate” or “cor-
rect”; the perspective that prevails will be the one backed by those with power. In this
sense, power defines the nature of reality.
Postmodernism has had a dramatic impact on the arts, cultural studies, the
humanities, and the social sciences. Although the tenets of postmodernism are hotly
contested, they should be taken into account by anyone hoping to be conversant with
contemporary political and cultural dialogue. For an excellent conceptual introduc-
tion, see Pauline Marie Rosenau’s Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights,
Inroads, and Intrusions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 11 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 12 PART I | Conducting Political Science Research

Postulates of Science
The scientific method asserts that knowledge can best be acquired by following certain
rules or sets of rules that can lead to the formulation of lawlike generalizations about the
social and political world. This methodology is predicated on certain beliefs (postulates)
about nature and how nature can be known. If we do not accept these beliefs, the scientific
method becomes less compelling. In an ironic twist, the method cannot be used to test these
postulates. Although this foundational paradox has led some to reject the scientific meth-
od’s validity, others are prepared to accept, or at least to turn a blind eye to, this incongruity
and to judge the usefulness of scientific research by its output.
We find that all empirical research is premised on the following six postulates (see
Nachmias and Nachmias 1987, 6–9):
1. Nature is orderly. Earlier we discussed the characteristic feature of scientific research
as centring on cause-and-effect relationships. Such an orientation has meaning only when
one accepts the belief that natural phenomena are ordered in causal sequences. The belief
that everything has a cause, that nothing is random, is known as determinism, a term intro-
duced in the previous section. In some aspects of our lives, a belief in the ordered sequencing
of events is non-controversial. For example, in baseball we know that a home run ball results
from the force of its impact with a baseball bat, which causes the ball to travel over the fence.
The scientific method can be used when nature is ordered in such a way, and applying the
method to social and political reality implies a belief in a similar type of ordering. It suggests
that people do not protest at random and that revolutions do not occur by chance alone. In
short, political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours are not random occurrences.
This postulate does not imply that all people respond identically when faced with sim-
ilar situations, for we know that this is not the case. (One of the reasons for variation may
be that people experience similar situations in dissimilar ways; thus, one could say that the
situations differ.) Nonetheless, use of the scientific method in political science implies a
belief in the causal ordering of social and political reality, even if our understanding of that
ordering is extremely limited at this time.
2. We can know nature. The belief that nature is orderly is devoid of empirical implic-
ations if the order cannot be revealed to us. Consequently, science postulates that, through
a rigorous application of the scientific method, the pattern of natural phenomena can be
revealed. This belief implies that no one has a privileged position in the search for know-
ledge. An awareness of the pattern assumed by a causal relationship does not spring from
one’s special gifts of perception nor is the structure of reality divinely revealed. Instead,
knowledge about nature is available in equal measure to everyone. Furthermore, such
knowledge results from an application of the scientific method, not from the observer’s
personal characteristics. Some may use that method with greater precision, insight, or cre-
ativity than others, but it is ultimately the method itself that reveals the patterned structures
of natural and social phenomena.

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 12 14-12-05 10:50 AM

 Chapter 1 | The Scientific Approach to Politics 13

3. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. This third postulate of science is based on the

assumption that our awareness of the world around us can be one of two types: we can be
ignorant about that reality or about the underlying causes of that reality, or we can under-
stand them correctly and have knowledge of them. Ignorance of reality is a recipe for super-
stition about cause and effect and an invitation to paralysis in the face of social problems.
Science’s position is that it is always preferable to have a correct understanding of nature
than to misunderstand it. Part of the reason for this stance is that, if one wishes to alter the
present or future reality, one must at a minimum understand how that might be achieved. A
political strategist could increase her party’s standing in the electorate only if she correctly
understands why people support one party over another.
A further reason for the superiority of knowledge over ignorance is the belief that
knowledge and understanding can be ends in themselves. Knowledge is important because
it is instrumental in helping us solve problems and because we believe that knowledge is
desirable in and of itself. A greater understanding of our world and environment, be it
social, political, physical, intellectual, or otherwise, is believed to be part of being human.
4. Natural phenomena have natural causes. Another way of describing the fourth pos-
tulate is to say that those aspects of social and political reality that we can perceive can be
explained by other things that we can perceive. The postulate holds that attitudes and beha-
viour in the natural world are not produced by supernatural, or spiritual, forces. Once again,
all observers can equally observe the natural world as well as the causal influences within it.
As Agent Scully, from the 1990s television series The X-Files, observed: “Nothing happens
in contradiction to nature, only in contradiction to what we know of it” (Carter, 1996).
If it is true that all natural phenomena have natural causes, one might ask, “Why have we
not been able to isolate these causes more completely and strengthen our lawlike generaliz-
ations?” The reasons for the limited success in this area are complex and will be discussed at
many places throughout this book. It should only be noted at this point that one of the most
important reasons concerns problems of measurement and measurement error. There are
some aspects of the natural world that cannot be measured very accurately or reliably; thus,
their linkage to social and political behaviour remains highly underdeveloped. In other cases,
our knowledge is simply too incomplete. DNA’s importance in the inheritance of physical
characteristics is well known. But we do not know the degree to which one’s attitudinal and
behavioural characteristics are transmitted through DNA. Is there a genetic link in the devel-
opment of political ideologies, participatory strategies, or aggressive behaviour? We do not
know because essential research has not yet been completed, although it has begun. Political
scientist James Fowler (2006) and his team are researching genetics and voting behaviour. As
Scientific American (2007) reports, “Their analysis of voting histories for 326 identical and
196 fraternal twins suggests that genetics was responsible for 60 percent of differences in vot-
ing turnout between twin types, with the rest coming from environmental or other factors.”
A second question that arises from the postulate of natural phenomena having nat-
ural causes is the role of spirituality in the uncovering of nature. Does one have to be an

Berdahl_1-_136_Ch1-6_Prt1.indd 13 14-12-05 10:50 AM

Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 “I hope, Peter, you are not going to make trouble,” said Alfred
Clinton, to whom, with others, this was addressed.
“What makes you wish that?” demanded Peter. “The master ain’t
nothin’ to you.”
“He is going to teach me,” said Alfred, “and I want to profit by his
instructions.”
“He ain’t fit to teach,” said Peter Groot, contemptuously.
“Why isn’t he?”
“I could lick him with one hand.”
“I don’t know about that. But even if you could, that doesn’t prove
that he can’t teach, does it?”
“He isn’t big enough to keep order.”
“Are you going to be disorderly?”
“I guess I won’t trouble him, if he don’t trouble me,” said Peter.
“What do you mean?”
“If he don’t interfere with me, I won’t interfere with him. I ain’t
goin’ to be ordered round by a feller I can lick.”
“He won’t ask anything unreasonable of you,” said Alfred.
“He’d better not,” said Peter Groot, significantly.
“Of course, he will expect us to obey him as the teacher.”
“You kin obey him if you want to; I’m goin’ to do as I please.”
“Why haven’t you done that with Mr. Barclay, Peter?”
“Because he’s stronger than I am.”
It will be seen from this conversation that Peter’s ideas as to the
relation between teacher and scholar were very rudimentary. The
“master,” to him, was the embodiment of sufficient physical force to
keep in due subjection the unruly elements under him, and it was
perfectly legitimate for a scholar to refuse obedience unless the one
who required it was able to enforce the demand.
There was still another scholar who attracted the notice of Walter.
This was a young man of twenty, who stood six feet in his stockings.
He towered above Walter by several inches, and our hero was
tempted to laugh when he reflected that he was about to assume
the position of teacher to one so far his superior in age and size.
However, he felt reassured by the expression of Phineas Morton,
which, though heavy, was friendly and good-natured. He might not
be a very active friend, but it did not seem likely that he would do
anything to annoy the teacher.
“Well, Mr. Howard,” said Barclay, as they were walking home,
“what are your first impressions of the scholars?”
“Rather confused,” said Walter, laughing. “I have got the names
and faces of all mixed up together, and can hardly tell one from the
other.”
“That was my first experience; but I soon learned to distinguish
them.”
“There was one I particularly liked.”
“I can guess who you mean--Alfred Clinton.”
“Yes; he seemed to me very intelligent and attractive.”
“You will find him both. He has more talent than any other
scholar.”
“How old is he?”
“Fourteen. His mother is a widow, and I suspect she has a hard
time to get along. You noticed that Alfred was poorly dressed?”
“No, I did not notice that. I only looked at his face.”
“He does errands out of school and whatever work he can find, in
order to assist his mother. I wish he might have a college education.
It was at my suggestion that he commenced Latin, and he does
better in it than any of his class. I am sure you will enjoy teaching
him.”
“Do you think I shall enjoy Peter Groot?” asked Walter, with a
smile.
“I don’t think you will. He is neither a model scholar nor a model
boy. To tell the truth, I am more afraid he will give you trouble than
any other boy.”
“Did he trouble you?”
“He was impudent to me the second day, and I knocked him over.
After that, he gave me much less trouble.”
“So he needs to be conquered into good behavior?” said Walter.
“It’s about so.” And Barclay looked at our hero with a natural
doubt whether he would be able to cope with the troublesome
scholar.
“Does Peter know anything about boxing?” asked Walter, who
understood what was brewing in the mind of his companion.
“Nothing at all. Do you?”
“I have a fair knowledge of it. Peter may be a little stronger, but if
worst comes to worst, I think I am a match for him.”
“I am glad to hear it, Mr. Howard, for I suspect he will give you a
chance to display your science upon him.”
“I wouldn’t undertake to encounter the big fellow--what is his
name?”
“Phineas Morton. He won’t require it. If he finds you are a good
teacher, he will stand by you.”
“Then I am not afraid. John Wall probably isn’t very friendly, but I
am not afraid of him.”
“You needn’t fear open violence from him. If he works against
you, it will be in an underhand way.”
 “At any rate, the die is cast; I have agreed to take the school, and
I shall do what I can to succeed.

“‘In battle I’ll fall, or in death be laid low,

With my face to the field, and my feet to the foe.’”

Barclay laughed.
“If you undertake it in that spirit,” he said, “I think you will
succeed. At any rate you have my best wishes.”
 CHAPTER XI

TWO POETS.

Miss Melinda Athanasia Jones devoted herself during the day to the
composition of a poem to be read to the guests whom she expected
in the evening. She wanted to produce a good impression upon
them. Her vocation, so she thought, was that of an authoress. She
had sent several poems to the Atlantic Monthly and Harper’s
Magazine at various times, but with singular unanimity both
periodicals had “respectfully declined” them all. Melinda understood
the reason well enough.
“It is because I am a Western literati,” she exclaimed to her
brother, with a lofty contempt for grammar. “If I were a Boston or
New York literati, they would be glad to get my productions.”
“I reckon you’re right, Melindy,” said her brother Ichabod. “Why
don’t you have your perductions, as you call ’em, mailed in Boston or
New York? You could send ’em to somebody there.”
“Thank you, I wouldn’t stoop to the subterfuge,” said Melinda,
reciting melodramatically:

“Breathes there a girl with soul so dead,

Who never to herself hath said,
Wisconsin is my native State?”

“Good!” said her brother. “When did you make up them verses?”
 “They are not mine,” confessed Melinda. “They are by Byron.”
“Are they, now? He was a smart feller, wasn’t he?”
“He was an inspired poet, Ichabod; but you wouldn’t understand
him. He soars into the realms of the evanescent.”
“Does he? Then I guess I couldn’t. I ain’t much on soarin’.”
At half-past seven o’clock a knock was heard at the door of
Melinda’s boudoir.
“Ichabod, open the door,” she said.
Her brother obeyed the command. As Barclay and Walter entered
the room, they beheld their fair hostess seated at the center table,
with a volume of poems resting on her lap, while one hand
supported her forehead, the elbow resting on the table. She had
practiced this attitude during the afternoon before a looking-glass,
and considered it effective.
She lifted her eyes slowly, appearing wrapt in meditation.
“Pardon my pensive preoccupation,” she said, rising and greeting
her guests. “I was communing with Milton. Do you often commune
with him, Mr. Barclay?”
“I haven’t had much time for that lately, Miss Jones. My friend
here is more poetical than I am.”
“Indeed, Mr. Howard, I am glad to hear that. You and me will be
congenial.”
“You flatter me, Miss Jones,” said Walter, looking sober, but
wanting to laugh.
“Do you ever provoke the muse, Mr. Howard?” asked Melinda, who
probably meant invoke.
“Sometimes,” said Walter. “I hear you are an authoress.”
“A little of one,” said Melinda, modestly.
“I hope you will favor us by reading something of your own.”
 “Indeed, Mr. Howard,” said Melinda, with affected bashfulness, “I
should be afraid to submit my careless productions to gentlemen of
such literary taste. I did indeed throw off a few rhymes to-day, but---
-”
“We shall be glad to hear them, Miss Jones. Perhaps, after you
have read them, my friend, Mr. Howard, will read something.”
“Oh, that will be delightful! In that case I cannot refuse. Ichabod,
will you bring me that portfolio from the desk?”
Her brother, whom Melinda was in the habit of ordering around,
complied with his sister’s request.
Melinda drew out a sheet of note paper and unfolded it.
“I hope, Mr. Howard, you will not be severe upon my verses. They
were written this afternoon, in a fit of inspiration. You will see that
they reveal my too susceptible soul. I am subject to fits----”
“Why, Melinda,” broke in her brother, “you never told me you had
fits?”
“To fits of lonely contemplation,” continued Melinda, looking
severely at her brother, “and it was in one of these that I penned the
following stanzas.”
Melinda cleared her throat, and read as follows, in an impressive
voice:
 “Oh, lay me to sleep in the deep, deep sea,
For my life is dark and drear;
Or give me the wings to soar aloft,--
I am tired of living here.

“I feel that I am not understood;

My thoughts are far too deep
For the common crowd, who only care
To eat and drink and sleep.

“My soul walks through the world alone,

Where it e’er must sadly roam.
Pining for congenial company
In some celestial home.

“I wreathe my face in hollow smiles,

And people think me glad;
They cannot see my aching heart,
For I am ever sad.

“Then lay me to sleep in the deep, deep sea;

For my life is dark and drear;
Or give me wings to soar aloft,--
I am tired of living here.”

“It takes Melinda to string off the rhymes,” said Ichabod, who took
his sister at her own valuation, and firmly believed her to be a
genius. “She writes ’em just as easy!”
“Do you share her talent, Mr. Jones?” asked Walter, gravely.
“Me? I couldn’t write poetry if you was to pay me ten dollars a
line. I shouldn’t want to, either, if I’d got to feel as Melinda says she
does in them verses she just read.”
“It is the penalty of a too-sensitive soul. Surely you have had such
feelings, Mr. Howard. I am afraid you were not favorably impressed
by my poor verses.”
 This she said, anxious to draw out expressions of admiration.
“The lines are very smooth, Miss Jones,” said Walter, “but I cannot
say I ever have quite such feelings. I am of a cheerful temperament,
and my muse would not soar to such lofty heights as yours.”
“I envy you, Mr. Howard,” said Melinda, with a sigh. “I wish my
muse were not so thoughtful and contemplative. Have you not some
poem you could read us? Mr. Barclay says you are a poet.”
“I am afraid Mr. Barclay has spoken without authority.”
“Come, Mr. Howard, you must read Miss Jones the verses you
wrote this afternoon.”
“What! Were you, too, provoking the muse, Mr. Howard?” asked
Melinda, with eager interest.
“I am afraid I was,” said Walter, gravely, choosing to understand
the young lady’s words literally.
In fact he had written a few verses, at Mr. Barclay’s suggestion,
“for the fun of it,” in order to contribute his quota to the feast of
reason expected in the evening.
“But I hope you will excuse my reading it,” he added, with affected
bashfulness.
“Indeed I will not. Mr. Barclay, help me to persuade Mr. Howard.”
Walter finally yielded, as he intended to do all the while, but on
condition that Mr. Barclay would read the poem. This being
accepted, Barclay read, with appropriate emphasis, the following
verses, which were modeled after a song found in a small collection
of minstrel verses in Walter’s possession:
 “Around the little cottage
Waved fields of golden grain
And in it lived my heart’s delight,--
My Sophronisba Jane.

“It was an humble cottage,

But peace and comfort reign
Within the pleasant homestead
Of Sophronisba Jane.

“Her cheeks were like red apples,

Her dress of neat de laine;
She was an artless maiden,
Was Sophronisba Jane.

“You cannot find in far-off climes,

In Italy or Spain,
A girl that’s half so charming
As Sophronisba Jane.

“And if I were a monarch,

Instead of humble swain,
I still would seek to win the love
Of Sophronisba Jane.”

“How sweet!” murmured Melinda. “Indeed you are a true poet, Mr.
Howard.”
“Thank you,” said Walter, who had hard work not to laugh,
knowing himself what ridiculous rubbish his verses were.
“By Jove! that’s my style of poetry,” said Mr. Jones, energetically.
“I like that better than yours, Melindy.”
“Oh, it don’t compare with your sister’s, Mr. Jones,” said Walter,
modestly. “It doesn’t soar to such lofty heights.”
 “Now, Mr. Howard, I think it excellent,” said Miss Jones, who was
delighted at the praise of her own production. “I cannot expect all to
be so contemplative as I am. My muse loves to dwell alone in
primeval solitude. Yours seeks the woodland glade.”
“You have expressed the difference admirably, Miss Jones,” said
Barclay, gravely. “Mr. Jones and myself unluckily cannot soar with
you and Mr. Howard. We can only look on in silent admiration.”
“Do you often indite verses, Mr. Howard?” asked Melinda. “I hope
you will show me all your productions.”
“I seldom write, Miss Jones. Whenever I do, I shall be sure to ask
your critical opinion of my verses.”
But it is unnecessary to detail the rest of the conversation. Later in
the evening some nuts, apples and raisins were passed around, to
which Melinda did full justice, notwithstanding her unsatisfied
longings and the solitude of her soul.
 CHAPTER XII

LED BY A BOOTBLACK.

While Walter is anticipating commencing his duties as teacher on

Monday morning, we leave him awhile to chronicle the adventures of
Joshua Drummond, his distant relative. Readers of “Strong and
Steady” will call to mind that he was the son of Jacob Drummond, of
Stapleton, a country shopkeeper, with whom Walter passed a few
weeks shortly after his father’s death. Mr. Drummond was thoroughly
a mean man, and, though his son was now eighteen years of age,
allowed him only twenty-five cents a week for spending-money.
When Joshua asked for more, he told him he might go to work in a
shoeshop, or in his own store, though in the latter case he only
agreed to pay him fifty cents. But work was not what Joshua
wanted. He thought that, as a rich man’s son, he was entitled to a
liberal allowance without working at all. He was willing, nevertheless,
to take a situation in the city, being anxious to see life, as he termed
it.
Finally, seeing no other way to compass his desire, Joshua opened
his father’s strong box with a key which he had found, and
abstracted from it fifty dollars in gold, and a five-twenty government
bond for five hundred dollars, excusing himself for the theft by the
specious reasoning that it was only taking in advance what would be
his some day.
Thus provided, he secretly left the house, and took the train for
New York, saying to himself, in exultation, as he took his seat at the
car window, “Now I am going to see life.”
 Joshua felt immensely wealthy with the proceeds of the robbery,
amounting, at the price of bonds, to over six hundred dollars.
Accustomed to the paltry sum of twenty-five cents a week, never
having had in his possession more than a dollar at a time, and
seldom that, it is not surprising that he should have regarded six
hundred dollars as a small fortune. He knew nothing of the city and
its dangers. He had an idea that he should easily get a situation in a
week or two, which time he proposed to spend in seeing life.
When he reached New York, he left the depot and went out into
the street. He felt bewildered. The change from the quiet streets of
Stapleton to the thronged avenues of the great city was very great,
and he hardly knew whether he stood on his head or his heels. But
he realized, with a thrill of exultation, that he was in the city of
which he had so often dreamed. He felt that a new page was to be
turned over in his life, and that his future would be much more
brilliant than his past.
Joshua knew nobody in the city except Sam Crawford. His first
desire was to find out where Sam lived. Sam he was accustomed to
regard as a personage of a good deal of importance. But how to find
him--that was the question. He knew that Sam was a clerk in a shoe
store on Eighth avenue, but where that avenue was he had not the
least idea.
While he was standing outside the depot in some perplexity,
wondering how far off Sam’s store was, he was accosted by a sharp-
looking bootblack, whose hands indicated his profession.
“Shine yer boots, mister?”
Joshua was not reckless in his expenditures, and he inquired,
cautiously, “How much do you ask?”
“Twenty-five cents,” said the bootblack.
“Twenty-five cents!” exclaimed Joshua, aghast, reflecting that the
sum asked represented what hitherto had been his entire weekly
allowance.
 “Well,” said the bootblack, “seein’ you’re from the country, I’ll call
it twenty cents.”
“What makes you think I’m from the country?” asked Joshua,
quite unconscious of his rustic air.
“I saw you git off the cars,” said the bootblack, not caring to
offend a possible customer by commenting on his verdant
appearance.
“Yes,” said Joshua, satisfied; “I came from the country this
morning. I don’t know much about the city. I’ve got a friend here.
He is in a store in Eighth avenue. His name is Sam Crawford. Do you
know him?”
“Know Sam Crawford? In course I do,” said the bootblack, who
had never heard the name before. “I black his boots every mornin’.”
“Do you?” asked Joshua, brightening up.
“Yes. He always gives me twenty cents. He wouldn’t go round with
no such lookin’ boots as yours. They ain’t respectable here in the
city.”
Joshua believed all this. He was not yet accustomed to the “ways
that are dark and tricks that are vain” of city street Arabs, and he
decided to have his boots blacked notwithstanding the price, which
he could not help regarding as very steep. He was anxious to
conform, as speedily as possible, to city fashions, and, if it was not
respectable to walk about in unpolished boots, he decided to have
them blacked, so that his friend Sam might not feel ashamed of him
when he came into his store.
“I guess I’ll have my boots blacked,” he said. “Can’t you take less
than twenty cents?”
“That’s the regular price, fixed by the city gov’ment,” protested the
bootblack. “If I was to take less, I’d have my license took away.”
“Do you have a license?” asked Joshua, with curiosity.
“In course I do.”
 “Have you got it here?”
“No, I’ve got it to home, along with my gold valooables. I had to
pay fifty dollars for it.”
“That’s high, isn’t it?” asked Joshua, who was gathering valuable
information with great rapidity.
“Yes, it is; but then, you see we have to support the gov’ment.”
Meanwhile the mendacious young bootblack was vigorously
employed upon Joshua’s boots. He had a hard job. They were made
of cow-hide, for Jacob Drummond was not in the habit of spending
much for the outfit of his son, and they had never been well
polished since they were new. At length, however, they were
polished, and certainly were greatly improved by the process,
though in shape they would hardly have been taken for the work of
a fashionable city bootmaker.
“There,” said the young Arab, surveying his work complacently,
“now they look respectable.”
“They do look better than they did,” Joshua was compelled to
admit. He drew out twenty cents from his vest pocket and handed it
to the boy.
“Is it far to Sam Crawford’s store?” he asked.
“About two miles,” was the answer.
“Could I find the way easy?”
“Yes; all you’ve got to do is to go up Madison avenue till you get
to the Battery. Go round it; then cross Madison square, keepin’ the
Astor House on your left hand. Turn into the Bowery at Trinity
Church; then cross over to Twenty-seventh street. Go up Twenty-
seventh street six blocks till you get to A. T. Stewart’s store; then
take a short cut to Eighth avenue, and there you are.”
These false and absurd directions were delivered with great
volubility by the bootblack; but it is needless to say that they made a
very confused impression upon the mind of Joshua, who felt more
bewildered and helpless than before.
“I don’t know any of those places,” he said. “I am afraid I couldn’t
find the way.”
“Maybe you couldn’t. I know a man who was two days findin’ a
place only a mile off. If he’d paid a dollar to somebody that knew the
way he’d been all right.”
This put a new idea into Joshua’s mind.
“If you’ll show me the way to Sam Crawford’s, I’ll give you fifty
cents,” he said.
“That’s too little,” said the boy. “I couldn’t neglect my business so
long for that. I should lose money.”
“How much do you want?”
“A dollar. It’s worth a dollar to go so fur. I might lose half a dozen
shines.”
The boy would have stood out for a dollar but for the fact that
another bootblack had come up--one of his rivals in business--and
he was afraid he might offer to go for less. Accordingly he hastened
to strike a bargain.
“All right,” said he. “Hand over your money.”
“Wait till I get there,” said Joshua, cautiously.
“Payment in advance,” said the young Arab. “That’s the way they
do business in the city.”
Joshua drew out seventy-five cents, and placed them in his hand.
“Follow me, mister,” said the young conductor. “I guess I won’t go
the way I told you. I’ll take a short cut,” he added.
The bootblack led Joshua by a pretty direct course to Eighth
avenue. It was a considerable walk, and to Joshua an interesting
one. As he noted block after block of elegant buildings he felt elated
to think that his home was from henceforth to be in the great city.
Some time or other, when his father had forgiven him, he would go
back to Stapleton, and show off the same city airs which had so
impressed him in the case of Sam Crawford. He was rather alarmed
when he came to cross Broadway, and came near being run over by
a passing omnibus.
“Look out, mister,” said his young guide, “or you’ll get knocked
into a cocked hat. Folks is in such a hurry here that they don’t stop
to pick up dead bodies.”
Arrived in Eighth avenue, the bootblack, who had cunningly
managed to find out Sam Crawford’s business, pointed to the first
shoe store they reached, and said, “That’s the place.”
“Does Sam Crawford work there?”
“In course he does. You jest go in, and you’ll see him at the back
of the store.”
Joshua went in, never dreaming that he had been deceived.
Meanwhile his guide took to his heels with the money he had
extracted from Joshua by false pretenses.
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about testbank and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebooksecure.com