Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-28T02:55:12.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching Latin American Politics at American Universities: A Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2022

Henry C. Kenski
Henry C. Kenski*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the spring of 1973, the author conducted a survey of political scientists teaching Latin American politics at American colleges and universities. The intention was to collect and disseminate information on (1) the techniques used in teaching Latin American politics, (2) the books assigned most frequently to students, (3) the identification of political systems most frequently emphasized in the classroom, and (4) the current level of student interest in the politics of Latin America. In addition to these data, information was gathered on those who teach in the area—i.e., how many have done field research, in which countries do they have the most expertise, and which approaches to political development do they find useful in teaching Latin American politics.

Type
Research Reports and Notes
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 1975 , pp. 89 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 by Latin American Research Review

References

Notes

1. On the methodology of the mail questionnaire see Delbert C. Miller, Handbook of Research and Social Measurement (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1970), pp. 76-77; Julian L. Simon, Basic Research Methods in Social Science: The Art of Empirical Investigation (New York: Random House, 1969), p. 249; and Claire Selltiz, Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, Stuart W. Cook, Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967), pp. 241-42.

2. For a broad survey of Latin American Studies Programs (degrees offered and program content—Spanish language and literature, history, economics, and geography as well as political science—based on catalog analysis) see Martin C. Needler and Thomas W. Walker, “The Current Status of Latin American Studies Programs,” LARR, 6: 1: 119-39 (Spring 1971).

3. Biographical Directory 1973 (Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association, 1973), pp. 551-54.

4. Thirteen percent of all respondents wrote that their courses were so oriented to conceptual approaches rather than country analysis that it was impossible to identify countries that were particularly emphasized. Hence they were not included in the “systems emphasized in course” part of this table. Also, Guyana, Trinidad, and Surinam each received one mention. Since this percentage was less than 1 percent, they were not included in the table.

5. See Herbert M. Blalock, Jr., Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960), pp. 317-19. Dennis J. Palumbo points out that the more laborious Kendall tau procedure is often preferred to Spearman, as a high number of ties in rankings inflates the correlation coefficient produced by the latter. See Dennis J. Palumbo, Statistics in Political Behavioral Science (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969, p. 168. In order to guard against such an artificial inflation of the correlation coefficient due to a high number of ties in the ordinal scales, the correction formula recommended by Yeomans for Spearman's Rho has been adopted. See K. A. Yeomans, Applied Statistics: Statistics for the Social Scientist (2 vols. : Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1968), 1, pp. 304-305.

6. The surveys referred to are both by Henry C. Kenski and Margaret Gorgan Kenski, Teaching African Politics at American Universities: A Survey (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona, Institute of Government Research, 1974) and Teaching Political Development and Modernization at American Universities: A Survey (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Institute of Government Research, 1974). Further data comparisons by field that will appear in the text rely on these surveys, also conducted in May 1973. The political development/modernization population consisted of courses on development that were primarily conceptual or cross-national in focus.

7. Ibid.

8. A list of assigned readings was also compiled by Henry A. Dietz and Abraham F. Lowenthal, “Some Notes on the Teaching of Latin American Politics in the United States,” Teaching Political Science, 1: 1: 85 (October 1973). There is overlap between the list presented here and that of Dietz and Lowenthal, but there are also differences. The Kenski list is more comprehensive and systematic due to the survey of a much larger population teaching in the area. On the Dietz-Lowenthal survey procedure see pp. 83-84 of their article.

9. Slight was defined as less than 10.0 percent; substantial was defined as 10.0 percent or more.