Research Design and Implementation
Berlin Graduate School of Social Sciences (BGSS) — Summer Semester 2026
| Term: | Summer Semester 2026 | Time: | Tuesdays, 10-11:30 (s.t.) |
| Office hours: | please make an appointment by email | Seminar room: | Universitätsstraße 3b, Raum 407 |
| E-mail: | felix.haass@hu-berlin.de | Level: | PhD |
| Course no.: | tbd. | Language: | German/English |
| First session: | 28.04.2026 | Moodle: | tbd. |
Course description
This course is aimed at PhD students developing a research proposal or dissertation design in the social sciences. The first four sessions work through the core building blocks of a research proposal — the question, the contribution to the literature, and the theory and its implications. Session 5 is dedicated to reviews and feedback. Sessions 6 and 7 turn to matching design to theory, first through quantitative and then through qualitative approaches. The remainder of the semester is organized as a writing workshop: independent writing time with optional office hours, and a final session in which participants present and discuss their proposals with the group.
Course structure
The overarching goal is to support each participant in producing a workable research proposal by the end of the term. Exact structure will adapt flexibly to participants’ needs and backgrounds.
The preliminary plan is as follows: Sessions 1–4 are substantive and combine assigned readings with short exercises that incrementally build toward a complete proposal. Session 5 covers reviews and feedback. Sessions 6 and 7 take up matching design to theory — first quantitative, then qualitative approaches. Sessions 8–11 are writing sessions: we will not meet as a group, and I will offer office hours by appointment for participants who want individual feedback. In session 12, participants present their proposals and receive structured feedback from the group.
Assignments
The course is participation only. Successful participation includes:
- Completion of short in-class and take-home exercises during the substantive sessions
- Presentation of a full research proposal (ca. 5–10 pages; 15–20 min) in the final session
- Regular attendance and a short written status update on proposal progress
- Providing written or oral feedback to other participants
Part I: Substantive sessions
Session 1 (28.04.2026) — Welcome & expectations
Agenda:
- Introductions: who is here, at what stage of the PhD, working on what?
- Expectations: what do participants want to get out of the course?
- Adapting the syllabus to participants’ needs
No Readings
Session 2 (05.05.2026) — How to write a good research proposal
Topics:
- What is a research proposal for? Audience, genre, and constraints.
- The anatomy of a strong proposal: puzzle, question, contribution, design, feasibility.
- Going from broad framing to a narrow, answerable question.
- Why “societal relevance” and “scientific relevance” are two different arguments.
Task (prepared before the session): Based on the readings, prepare a short paragraph on your project that does two things:
- Moves from the broadest possible framing to a precise research question.
- Explains why it matters in two versions: one for your grandmother (societal relevance, no jargon) and one for your supervisor (scientific relevance => don’t go into too much detail as we will refine framing).
Bring a printed or digital copy — we will swap paragraphs in class.
Readings:
- Schmitter, Philippe C. 2002. “The ‘Ideal’ Research Proposal.”
- Kelsky, Karen. 2015. The Professor Is In: The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.D. Into a Job. New York: Three Rivers Press. Chapter: “Foolproof Grant Writing.”
- Head, Keith. “The Introduction Formula.”
- Little, Andrew. 2016. “Three Templates for Introductions to Political Science Articles.”
Further reading (optional):
- Przeworski, Adam, and Frank Salomon. 1998. “On the Art of Writing Proposals.”
- Schmitter, Philippe C. 2008. “The Design of Social and Political Research.” Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences, pp. 263–295.
- Blattman, Chris. 2012. “PhD Students: Writing an NSF Application.”
- King, Gary. n.d. “How to Write a Dissertation.”
Session 3 (12.05.2026) — Academic networking
Topics:
- What is a network and what is it good for?
- Different types of networks (intellectual, supportive, professional, mentoring).
- How to make friends at conferences 101.
Readings:
- Kim, Seo-Young Silvia, Hannah Lebovits, and Sarah Shugars. 2022. “Networking 101 for Graduate Students: Building a Bigger Table.” PS: Political Science & Politics 55 (2): 426–428.
- Holman, Mirya. 2023. “On Conferences and Connections.” Aggressive Winning Scholars Newsletter, Substack.
- Gupta, Devashree, and Israel Waismel-Manor. 2006. “Network in Progress: A Conference Primer for Graduate Students.” PS: Political Science & Politics 39 (3): 485–490.
Session 4 (19.05.2026) — Theory: implications & additional questions
Topics:
- Generating observable implications, sub-questions, mechanisms, and additional evidence. A theory that only predicts the one outcome you already observed is not doing any work.
- Theories don’t need to be correct to be useful — they need to generate testable claims.
Task (prepared before the session): For your research question, generate as many observable implications or sub-research questions as you can — aim for at least ten. Don’t filter. We will sort them together in class.
Readings:
- King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Chapter on observable implications (excerpts distributed).
- Healy, Kieran. 2017. “Fuck Nuance.” Sociological Theory 35 (2): 118–127.
- Clarke, Kevin A., and David M. Primo. 2007. “Modernizing Political Science: A Model-Based Approach.” Perspectives on Politics 5 (4): 741–753. (theories as maps)
Further reading (optional):
- Snidal, Duncan. 2004. “Formal Models of International Politics.” In Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, edited by Detlef F. Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, 227–264. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Session 5 (26.05.2026) — Reviews & feedback
Topics:
- How to write a review.
- How to receive (and decide on) review invitations.
- How to respond to reviewers on your own work.
Readings:
- Lo, Adeline, and Jonathan Renshon. 2022. “How to Be a Good Discussant.”
- Blattman, Chris. 2010. “The Discussant’s Art.” Blog post.
- Miller, Beth, Jon Pevehouse, Ron Rogowski, Dustin Tingley, and Rick Wilson. 2013. “How to Be a Peer Reviewer: A Guide for Recent and Soon-to-Be PhDs.” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (1): 120–123.
- PLOS (Public Library of Science). 2020. “How to Write a Peer Review.” Resource guide.
Session 6 (02.06.2026) — Matching design to theory: quantitative approaches
Topics:
- Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) as a framing for design choices.
- Starting from the question: what kind of design do I need to answer this question, and what kind of data do I need to run that design?
- Trade-offs: internal vs. external validity, depth vs. breadth, identification vs. relevance.
Task (prepared before the session): Draft a 1–2 page research design sketch: (a) your question and main hypothesis, (b) the observable implications from session 4 you want to test, (c) a plausible data source or research setting, (d) the biggest feasibility constraint you currently face.
Readings:
- Spirling, Arthur, and Brandon M. Stewart. 2025. “What Good Is a Regression? Inference to the Best Explanation and the Practice of Political Science Research.” The Journal of Politics 87 (4): 1587–1599.
- Samii, Cyrus. 2016. “Causal Empiricism in Quantitative Research.” The Journal of Politics 78 (3): 941–955.
- Samii, Cyrus. 2024. “Methodologies for ‘Political Science as Problem Solving’.” In The Oxford Handbook of Engaged Methodological Pluralism in Political Science, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Dino P. Christenson, and Valeria Sinclair-Chapman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Session 7 (09.06.2026) — Matching design to theory: qualitative approaches
Topics:
- TBA
Readings:
- TBA
Part II: Writing sessions & office hours
No group meetings during these weeks. Use the slot to work on your proposal. I will hold office hours on the regular course slot and by appointment — please email to book a time.
| Date | Session |
|---|---|
| 16.06.2026 | Session 8 — writing / no meeting — office hours by appointment |
| 23.06.2026 | Session 9 — writing / no meeting — office hours by appointment |
| 30.06.2026 | Session 10 — writing / no meeting — office hours by appointment |
| 07.07.2026 | Session 11 — writing / no meeting — office hours by appointment |
Part III: Proposal discussion
Session 12 (14.07.2026) — Discussion of proposals
Each participant presents their full proposal (15–20 min) followed by structured feedback from the group and instructor. Attendance at this session is optional but strongly encouraged.
General advice
A curated selection of resources that might help you write your proposal and, later, your dissertation. You don’t need to read all of them — pick what works for you. They sometimes disagree.
How to write a PhD / proposal
- “PhD Paper Writing Guide.” Practical advice on structuring PhD-level papers.
- Dunleavy, Patrick. 2003. Authoring a PhD: How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral Thesis or Dissertation. Palgrave Macmillan.
How to write well
- De Vries, Catherine. “Respect the Marble.” Substack.
- Pinker, Steven. 2014. The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. Viking.
- Sood, Gaurav. No date. “On Writing.”
- Strunk, William, and Elwyn B. White. 2009. The Elements of Style. 4th ed. Longman.
- Zinsser, William. 2006. On Writing Well. Harper Perennial.
- Zinsser, William. 2009. “Writing English as a Second Language.” The American Scholar.
How to present academic papers
- Healy, Kieran. 2018. “Making Slides.”
- Rainey, Carlisle. No date. “Thoughts on Talks.”
How to write scientific articles
- Ecarnot, F., M.-F. Seronde, R. Chopard, F. Schiele, and N. Meneveau. 2015. “Writing a Scientific Article: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners.” European Geriatric Medicine 6 (6): 573–579.
- Niehaus, Paul. 2019. “Doing Research.”