BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//pretalx//conferences.acspri.org.au//2020//talk//AUVZWK
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:AEST
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20000326T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=3;UNTIL=20050326T170000Z
TZNAME:AEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20060402T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=4;UNTIL=20060401T170000Z
TZNAME:AEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20070325T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=4SU;BYMONTH=3;UNTIL=20070324T170000Z
TZNAME:AEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20080406T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=4
TZNAME:AEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20000827T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=4SU;BYMONTH=8;UNTIL=20000826T170000Z
TZNAME:AEDT
TZOFFSETFROM:+1000
TZOFFSETTO:+1100
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20011028T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=10;UNTIL=20071027T170000Z
TZNAME:AEDT
TZOFFSETFROM:+1000
TZOFFSETTO:+1100
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20081005T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=10
TZNAME:AEDT
TZOFFSETFROM:+1000
TZOFFSETTO:+1100
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:pretalx-2020-AUVZWK@conferences.acspri.org.au
DTSTART;TZID=AEST:20201202T154500
DTEND;TZID=AEST:20201202T160000
DESCRIPTION:Historical institutionalism (HI) is often regarded as the least
  rigorous and the more tautological of the ‘new institutionalisms’\, but
  this reputation is undeserved. I argue that HI\, when viewed as a method 
 for\, rather than a theory of\, examining institutional stasis and change\
 , can provide a rigorous approach to process tracing that is useful in exa
 mining the impact of institutional legacies on contemporary political issu
 es. Famous HI scholars\, including Kathleen Thelen\, suggest that systemat
 ic approaches to comparative temporal analyses can help to overcome the sh
 ortcomings of the inductive method in comparative politics. While for Karl
  Popper the inductive method is\, in effect\, hopeless in its scientific u
 tility\, my contention is that the nature of the social sciences means tha
 t falsifiability is\, for the most part\, a bridge too far for comparative
  political research. Plausibility\, as opposed to falsifiability\, can be 
 achieved using systematic HI processes that are more sophisticated than si
 mply rummaging through the past to find evidence that supports a given hyp
 othesis. In this seminar\, I aim to present a method that is not only usef
 ul in conducting comparative political analysis over time\, but that can a
 lso address some of the inevitable shortcomings inherent in the conduct of
  inductive\, comparative political science research by providing a systema
 tic and rigorous system of process tracing over time.
DTSTAMP:20260912T200524Z
LOCATION:Zoom Breakout Room 2
SUMMARY:Using historical institutionalism as a method for qualitative proce
 ss tracing in comparative politics - Dr Michael de Percy FCILT
URL:https://conferences.acspri.org.au/2020/talk/AUVZWK/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR