GOVT 329: Chinese-American Relations Department of Government & International Affairs Sweet Briar College Professor Spencer D. Bakich [email protected] Spring 2013 Wednesdays, 1:30-4:00 Location: Pannell 202

Office Hours: M/W. 12-1:00, Gray Hall 211

By far, the most consequential international relationship in the 21st century is, and will continue to be, that between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China. Understanding the nature of that relationship (cooperative, competitive, or something in between) is of the utmost importance, as is the complex and difficult task of explaining why the relationship is the way it is. This class is dedicated to both tasks. In terms of its content, this course examines Sino-American relations along different dimensions: military-security, regionalsecurity and alliances, economic, domestic political, and grand strategic. In terms of its theoretical orientation, the approaches that we will consider are varied, although the course’s theoretical content is, to a considerable extent, implicit. If there are any embedded theoretical biases in the syllabus, they are most likely in favor of realism’s pessimism (having said that, liberal and constructivist approaches will be given their due). Ultimately, this course is an opportunity for us to explore different components of this monumentally important strategic relationship in a systematic and rigorous fashion. Required texts: Thomas J. Christensen, Worse Than a Monolith: Alliance Politics and Problems of Coercive Diplomacy in Asia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011). Competitive Strategies for the 21st Century: Theory, History, and Practice, Thomas G. Mahnken, ed. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2012). (Hereafter CS21) Aaron L. Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, American and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia (New York: W. W. Norton, 2011). Tangled Titans: The United States and China, David Shambaugh, ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013). (Hereafter TT) Additional readings marked with an (*) Course Requirements Your performance will be assessed according to three criteria: 1. Attendance and participation are required and expected (20% of the final grade) 2. Completion of an analytic book review, due via email on March 27. (30% of the final grade) 1

3. Completion of a research paper, due via email on May 8. On April 3, a research paper prospectus detailing the topic, likely argument, and preliminary bibliography will be due via email (research outline: 10% of final grade; research paper: 40% of the final grade). Further details will be provided. Please note the attachments to this syllabus which contain guidance for research and writing an original scholarly paper. My policy for late assignments is firm: assignments are discounted two letter grades if not submitted electronically by the due date and time noted on the assignment, followed by one letter grade for each subsequent 24 hour period, except in cases of documented personal medical or personal family emergencies. Grading criteria:  “A” denotes excellent command of readings and lectures, incisive analytical faculty, as well as mature and independent judgment.  “B” denotes good command of readings and lectures, good analytical faculty and good judgment. (Note that a “B” is a good grade for the instructor.)  “C” denotes significant deficiencies in at least one of the criteria (i.e., readings, lectures, analysis and judgment).  “D” and “F” denote significant deficiencies in more than one of these criteria. The bottom line: if you desire an A in this course, then you should do all you can to “own” all of the material assigned and presented. I strongly recommend that you form study groups with your peers, dedicate a substantial portion of your week to the readings assigned, prepare questions to ask in class pertaining to any concepts/issues that remain unclear, and be fully engaged during class discussions.

1/23: Introduction to class America and China: Theoretical and Historical Foundations 1/30—Thinking About Sino-American Relations *Henry Kissinger, On China, (New York: Penguin, 2011), ch. 1. Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, “The Evolution of U.S.-China Relations,” in TT. David Shambaugh, “Tangled Titans: Conceptualizing the U.S.-China Relationship,” in TT. *Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell, “How China Sees America: The Sum of Beijing's Fears,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 91, No. 5 (September/October 2012).

2

2/6—Realism, Liberalism, and Strategic Competition G. John Ikenberry, “The Rise of China, The United States, and the Future of the Liberal International Order,” in TT. Ashley J. Tellis, “U.S.-China Relations in a Realist World,” in TT. Thomas G. Mahnken, “Thinking about Competitive Strategies,” in CS21. Stephen Peter Rosen, “Competitive Strategies: Theoretical Foundations, Limits, and Extensions,” in CS21. Bradford A. Lee, “Strategic Interaction: Theory and History for Practitioners,” in CS21. Barry D. Watts, “Barriers to Acting Strategically: Why Strategy Is So Difficult,” in CS21. Bilateral Security Dynamics: Military Doctrine and Strategic Competition 2/13—Chinese Developments: Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) Christopher P. Twomey, “The Military Security Relationship,” in TT. *Robert S. Ross, “China’s Naval Nationalism: Sources, Prospects, and the U.S. Response.” International Security, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Fall 2009), pp. 46–81. *Christopher D. Yung, “Sinica Rules the Waves? The People’s Liberation Army Navy’s Power Projection and Anti-Access/Area Denial Lessons from the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict,” in Andrew Scobell, David Lai, and Roy Kamphausen, eds., Chinese Lessons from Others Peoples’ Wars (Carlisle, PA : Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2011), pp. 75-114. *Thomas G. Mahnken, “China's Anti-Access Strategy in Historical and Theoretical Perspective,” Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 34, no. 3 (June 2011), pp. 299-323. 2/20—American Developments: “The Pivot” and “Air-Sea Battle” Debates Strategically Reorienting Toward the Pacific *Hillary Clinton, “America’s Pacific Century,” Foreignpolicy.com, November 2011. 11 pages. *David W. Barno, Nora Bensahel, Travis Sharp, "Pivot but Hedge: A Strategy for Pivoting to Asia While Hedging in the Middle East," Orbis, vol.56, no. 2 (2012), pp. 158-176. Air-Sea Battle *Greg Jaffe, “U.S. Model for a Future War Fans Tensions with China and Inside Pentagon,” The Washington Post (1 August 2012). *Andrew F. Krepinevich, “Strategy in a Time of Austerity: Why the Pentagon Should Focus on Assuring Access,” Foreign Affairs (November/December 2012) 9 pages. *Admiral Jonoathan Greenert, “Sea Change: The Navy Pivots to Asia,” Foreignpolicy.com, 14 November 2012. *General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF & Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, USN, "Air-Sea Battle: Promoting Stability in an Era of Uncertainty," The American Interest (February 20, 2012).

3

*Douglas C. Peifer, "China, the German Analogy, and the New AirSea Operational Concept," Orbis, vol. 55, no. 1 (2011), pp 114-131. *Raoul Heinrichs, “America’s Dangerous Battle Plan,” The Diplomat (August 17, 2011). 2/27—Chiniese-American Military Strategic Interaction *Dean Cheng, “Chinese Lessons from the Gulf Wars,” in Andrew Scobell, David Lai, and Roy Kamphausen, eds., Chinese Lessons from Others Peoples’ Wars (Carlisle, PA : Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2011), pp. 153-201. James R. Holmes, “The State of the U.S.-China Competition,” in CS21. Jacqueline Newmyer Deal, “China’s Approach to Strategy and Longer-Term Competition,” in CS21. James P. Thomas and Evan Braden Montgomery, “Developing a Strategy for a Long-Term SinoAmerican Competition,” in CS21. *Robert S. Ross, “The Problem With the Pivot: Obama’s New Asia Policy is Unnecessary and Counterproductive,” Foreign Affairs (November/December 2012) 10 pages. Regional Security Dynamics: The Security dilemma, Coercive Diplomacy, & Alliance Politics 3/6—China and the U.S. in Asia Today Avery Goldstein, “U.S.-China Interactions in Asia,” in TT. Shelley Rigger, “Taiwan in U.S.-China Relations,” in TT. *David Shambaugh, "China Engages Asia: Reshaping the Regional Order," International Security, vol. 29, no. 3 (Winter 2004/2005), pp. 64-99. *Thomas J. Christensen, "Fostering Stability or Creating a Monster? The Rise of China and U.S. Policy toward East Asia," International Security, vol. 31, no. 1 (Summer 2006), 81-126. Book Review assignment circulated 3/13—No class: spring break 3/20—Allicances and Coercive Diplomacy: the Korean War and its aftermath Thomas J. Christensen, Worse Than a Monolith, chs. 1-4. 3/27—Alliances and Coercive Diplomacy: from the Sino-Soviet Split to the Present Thomas J. Christensen, Worse Than a Monolith, chs. 5-8. Book Review due

4

Chinese-American Economic Relations 4/3—Impacts of the Global Financial Crisis Charles W. Freeman III, “The Commercial and Economic Relationship,” in TT. *Daniel W. Drezner, "Bad Debts: Assessing China's Financial Influence in Great Power Politics," International Security, vol. 34, no. 2 (Fall 2009), pp. 7–45. *Joseph S. Nye, “American and Chinese Power After the Financial Crisis,” The Washington Quarterly, vol. 33., no. 4 (2010), pp. 143-153. *Aaron L. Friedberg, "Implications of the Financial Crisis for the US–China Rivalry," Survival, vol. 52, no. 4 (2010), pp. 31-54. Paper Prospectus and initial bibliography due Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy 4/10—How the Public Matters in China, America, and Allied States Robert Sutter, “Domestic American Influences on U.S.-China Relations,” in TT. Yufan Hao, “Domestic Chinese Influences on U.S.-China Relations, in TT. *Il Hyun Cho, "Democratic Instability: Democratic Consolidation, National Identity, and Security Dynamics in East Asia," Foreign Policy Analysis, vol. 8, no. 2 (April 2012), pp. 191-213. *Peter Trubowitz and Jungkun Seo, “The China Card: Playing Politics with Sino-American Relations,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 127, no. 2 (2012), pp. 189-211. Grand Strategic Competition in Asia 4/17—America’s Grand Strategic Approach Aaron L. Friedberg, Struggle for Mastery in Asia, chs. 1-4 4/24—China’s Grand Strategic Approach Aaron L. Friedberg, Struggle for Mastery in Asia, chs. 5-9. The Future of Sino-American Relations 5/1—Power and Aspirations of Order Wu Xinbo, “Chinese Visions of the Future of U.S.-China Relations,” in TT. Harry Harding, “American Visions of the Future of U.S.-China Relations,” in TT. *Michael Beckley, “China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure,” International Security, vol. 36, no. 3 (Winter 2011/2012), pp. 41-78. *Randall L. Schweller and Xiaoyu Pu, “After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of U.S. Decline,” International Security, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Summer 2011), pp. 41-72. 5/8—Final Papers Due by 5:00 pm.

5

A Quick and Dirty Guide to Theoretical Thinking First, a few observations pertaining to the nature of our intellectual endeavor are in order. Our ultimate intellectual goal is to reach a sophisticated understanding of the causes of important social phenomena (specifically, political phenomena at the domestic and international levels). Toward that end, we will use theory to simplify an exceedingly complex social world. Establishing causation (i.e., explaining a relationship between two things) requires disciplined thinking. Disciplined thinking is a skill honed through intellectual exercise and practice. How best to explain important social phenomena? Paradigms are a useful place to start. Paradigms are orienting schools of thought, or broad perspectives pertaining to how the world works. They organize foundational concepts and the logical connections among them. Paradigmatic distinction is determined by the particular ontology, or world view, adopted by the proponents of a given school of thought. Typically, paradigms contain a core set of assumptions and first principles. In terms of their utility, paradigms serve as guides to the conduct of normal, variable-centered, investigations into the social world. In short they serve as the generators of theories. For example, in the field of International Relations, the most prominent paradigms are: realism (which focuses on power and competition), liberalism (which examines how international and domestic institutions can lead to greater levels of interdependence and cooperation), and constructivism (which places actors’ identities at the center of analysis). Paradigms give rise to theories. Theories consist of admixtures of: independent variables (primary causal factors), intervening variables (parameters, or boundary conditions, that can mediate cause and effect), causal mechanisms (the processes that serve as the sinews connecting cause and effect), and dependent variables (the outcomes that we want to explain). Theories structure the variables and causal mechanisms in a logically consistent fashion. The ultimate purpose of theories is to generate hypotheses. Ideally, theoretical statements can and should be rendered as a causal diagram (where  implies cause, and + implies conjunction): For example, a theoretical statement with an independent variable, an intervening variable, one causal mechanism, and one dependent variable can be represented as: IV +IntV  CM  DV. More or less elaborate theories will translate into more or less detailed causal diagrams. Hypotheses are ideas that are amenable to testing, the evaluation of a proposed relationship against the empirical record. Well-crafted hypotheses are simple statements of cause and effect: if X is present, then Y will result. Hypotheses stand as the bridge between our theories and the empirical world. They must be concise and, critically, they must be able to be falsified. Methods are the procedures that the scholar adopts to evaluate the strength of the derived hypotheses, or the extent to which the empirical record confirms or falsifies the hypotheses. 6

Note: the word “prove” was not used in the previous sentence. Social scientists cannot prove anything; the social world is either too complex, contains elements of stochasticity (i.e., randomness), or both, thus rendering impossible our ability to conclude that our theories constitute proofs. Generally, there are three types of methods available to scholars: quantitative (statistical), qualitative (comparative historical case studies), and fuzzy sets (a combination of the two that focuses on evaluating “causal clusters”). Methodology entails: criteria for the operationalization and measurement of our variables; structures for controlling for extraneous, hidden, or “lurking” variables; and suggestions pertaining to the types of data and/or cases that scholars should seek to test their hypotheses. Once we have established our paradigmatic orientation, constructed our theories, derived our hypotheses, and adopted a particular set of methods, the final step is to assess how well our explanation fares against both the empirical record and existing explanations. Recall, our objective is knowledge creation. This is where epistemology is considered. For most political scientists, the preferred epistemological approach is “Lakatosian” (named after Imre Lakatos, a prominent philosopher of science). Generically, we want to know, first, if the empirical world falsifies or contradicts our expectation; and second, how much more of the empirical world is explained by our theory vis-a-vis a rival theory. Confidence in our preferred theory emerges only with empirical confirmation, and the ability to explain more of the social world than can extant theories.

7

The Nuts and Bolts of Evaluating Political Science Research1 In order both facilitate your assessment of political science research (actually, all social science research) and to provide you with general guidance in designing your own research projects, consider the following set of questions. You should be able to answer each of these clearly and concisely. Moreover, these questions will allow you to more accurately flesh-out your causal diagrams. 1. What is the central question(s) of the book and/or article?   

Why is it important (theoretically and in terms of policy)? What is being explained (what is the dependent variable and how does it vary)? How does this phenomenon present a puzzle (how does the question generate new knowledge)?

2. What is the central answer?      

What is doing the explaining (what are the independent variables and how do they vary)? What are the hypotheses (what is the relationship between independent and dependent variables)? What are the causal mechanisms (why and how are the independent and dependent variables so related? What assumptions does the theory make? (Considering the school of thought from which the theory is derived might assist you in answering this question.) Is the theory falsifiable in concept? What does this explanation add to our understanding of the question?

3. What are the possible alternative explanations?   

What assumptions does the author make about the direction of causality? What other explanations might there be for the phenomenon of study, and to what degree do they conflict with the central answer? Could the hypothesized relationships have occurred by chance?

4. Why are the possible alternative explanations wrong?  

What is the logical structure of the alternative explanations, and how does it relate to the preferred explanation? To what degree does the preferred argument have greater or less explanatory power than the existing arguments?

5. How do the empirical conclusions relate to the theory?   

How confident are you about the theory in light of the evidence? How widely do the conclusions generalize (what might be the limitations of the study)? What does the provisionally accepted or revised theory say about questions of broader importance?

1

Amended from Hein Goemans, “Questions to consider in formulating and evaluating social science research,” University of Rochester, 2008.

8

Guidelines for Writing a Political Science Research Paper Writing a scholarly paper involves contributing something original to a scholarly topic. This may be examining the influence of a variable that has not been used before, questioning causal mechanisms that have been posited by others, reversing the causal arrow, or otherwise looking at a particular phenomenon in a new way. While there is no set method for writing a good research paper, there are more and less effective ways of doing it. Your research paper should address the criteria below. 1. What is the central question or puzzle you are addressing, and what is your proposed answer? Both of these should be stated upfront, so that the reader knows what the scope of your project is and what to expect. This is also where you answer the “so what?” question-‐ that is, why is this important for us to understand? Why should we care about what you discover? Note, because this section addresses both the questions you ask, and the answers you give, it is usually a good idea to write it last. 2. What have others said about it? The literature review places your research topic in the context of scholarly work that has come before and establishes its intellectual merit. Here you will discuss the books, journal articles, reports and other work that have been published on the question which you are examining. You need NOT include everything that has ever been written on the subject. Only scholarship that fits into the following three categories should be discussed in your paper: the most important works on the topic (foundational works or studies that have redefined the field should definitely be included); the most recent scholarship on the topic (“recent” is relative, but typically what has been published in the last ten years or so is considered current); and finally, the research that is most relevant to your particular question (there may be a lot published about a general question, but only a small subset of it usually addresses the particular aspect in which you are interested). This is not just an exercise in summarizing: you also need to discuss what each work’s contribution is and its weaknesses and shortcomings, pointing out how they build on one another by supporting or challenging previous arguments and findings. This part of your paper should serve as a natural springboard for the elaboration of your argument (i.e., there should be a natural progression from what came before to what you are bringing to the understanding of the topic). The literature review’s ultimate purpose is to explain why you have not chosen certain approaches to explain the outcome of the cases you are considering. 3. Detail the nuts and bolts of your argument. What do you propose as an explanation for the topic that you are examining? What are the independent, intervening, and dependent variables that entail your explanation? What are the hypothesized relationships among the variables that you will explore? Why do you think your explanation is a good or better explanation than what came before? Note, this is the place where you clearly lay out the logic of your adopted theory. 4. Carry out your analysis‐ show how your theory fits with your data. This should definitely be the longest section of your paper. Specifically, you should detail the nature of the independent, intervening, and dependent variables and explain how well (and why) the causal variables explain the outcome variables. Importantly, you should provide reasons why your preferred explanation is superior to the alternatives you considered in your literature review above.

9

5. Conclude by evaluating the usefulness of your theory. In light of your findings, how would you rate its explanatory power? Does it do a good job of explaining your case(s)? Are there some aspects of your case(s) that remain unresolved? This section should constitute the remainder of the paper. Paper Prospectus Guidelines A paper prospectus should contain the following five sections. The more detailed the prospectus, the easier it will be to carry out your research and writing. 1) Proposed topic A description of the subject that you intend to investigate, and the general state of opinion regarding this topic. 2) Research Question In a couple of sentences—no more—detail the question that you want to answer. These are the lines you will fall back on when I ask you, "What is your paper is all about?" The question must be just that—a live question, not a rhetorical one, and one which must have at least two, and preferably more plausible answers to it. 3) Outline An outline of each of the main segments of the paper, especially sections 2, 3, and 4 in the Guidelines on the previous page. The purpose of the outline is to show the logical components into which you have divided your subject. If you have done the job properly the links between these sections should require little explanation. 4) Tentative Bibliography A listing of the scholarly books and articles, news reporting, and (if necessary) commentary pertaining to your research topic. A good tentative bibliography include a brief statement as to what the source argues and how it is useful to you. Tentative bibliographies are, of course, works in progress and should be continuously updated as your research progresses. 5) Research design Describe (1) the sources you will examine (statistical and/or documentary; primary and/or secondary); (2) the methodology you will employ; and (3) your time table for completion of research and writing.

10

Citation Quick Guide As stated above, the purpose of political science research is the contribution of something original to a scholarly topic. It is critical to recognize that your contribution will build upon the work of others. Thus, proper research situates itself in a vast body of existing literature. It is of the utmost importance that you cite everything that you use to construct and evaluate your argument. When in doubt, cite your work. Failing to cite your work is intellectually dishonest (it is called plagiarism). Furthermore, failing to cite your work is the quickest way for people to ignore your argument. The following is an acceptable set of criteria for scholarly citations.2 “N” refers to the style of footnotes. “B” refers to the style of bibliographical entries. The first usage of a source should be cited in a footnote as indicated below. Succeeding uses may be footnoted in an abbreviated form: Author(s) last name, page. Book: One author N: 1. Wendy Doniger, Splitting the Difference (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 65. B: Doniger, Wendy. Splitting the Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Book: Two authors N: 6. Guy Cowlishaw and Robin Dunbar, Primate Conservation Biology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 104–7. B: Cowlishaw, Guy, and Robin Dunbar. Primate Conservation Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Book: Three or more authors N: 13. Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 262. B: Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Book: Editor, translator, or compiler instead of author N: 4. Richmond Lattimore, trans., The Iliad of Homer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 91–92. B: Lattimore, Richmond, trans. The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Book: Editor, translator, or compiler in addition to author N: 16. Yves Bonnefoy, New and Selected Poems, ed. John Naughton and Anthony Rudolf (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 22. B: Bonnefoy, Yves. New and Selected Poems. Edited by John Naughton and Anthony Rudolf. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

2

The Chicago Manual of Style Online, “Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide,” University of Chicago Press, http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html.

11

Book: Chapter or other part of a book N: 5. Andrew Wiese, “‘The House I Live In’: Race, Class, and African American Suburban Dreams in the Postwar United States,” in The New Suburban History, ed. Kevin M. Kruse and Thomas J. Sugrue (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 101–2. B: Wiese, Andrew. “‘The House I Live In’: Race, Class, and African American Suburban Dreams in the Postwar United States.” In The New Suburban History, edited by Kevin M. Kruse and Thomas J. Sugrue, 99–119. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Book: Chapter of an edited volume originally published elsewhere (as in primary sources) N: 8. Quintus Tullius Cicero. “Handbook on Canvassing for the Consulship,” in Rome: Late Republic and Principate, ed. Walter Emil Kaegi Jr. and Peter White, vol. 2 of University of Chicago Readings in Western Civilization, ed. John Boyer and Julius Kirshner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 35. B: Cicero, Quintus Tullius. “Handbook on Canvassing for the Consulship.” In Rome: Late Republic and Principate, edited by Walter Emil Kaegi Jr. and Peter White. Vol. 2 of University of Chicago Readings in Western Civilization, edited by John Boyer and Julius Kirshner, 33–46. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Originally published in Evelyn S. Shuckburgh, trans., The Letters of Cicero, vol. 1 (London: George Bell & Sons, 1908). Book: Preface, foreword, introduction, or similar part of a book N: 17. James Rieger, introduction to Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), xx–xxi. B: Rieger, James. Introduction to Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, xi–xxxvii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Book published electronically If a book is available in more than one format, you should cite the version you consulted, but you may also list the other formats, as in the second example below. If an access date is required by your publisher or discipline, include it parenthetically at the end of the citation, as in the first example below. N: 2. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds., The Founders’ Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/ (accessed June 27, 2006). B: Kurland, Philip B., and Ralph Lerner, eds. The Founders’ Constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/. Also available in print form and as a CDROM. Journal article: Article in a print journal N: 8. John Maynard Smith, “The Origin of Altruism,” Nature 393 (1998): 639. B: Smith, John Maynard. “The Origin of Altruism.” Nature 393 (1998): 639–40. Journal article: Article in an online journal If an access date is required by your publisher or discipline, include it parenthetically at the end of the citation, as in the fourth example below. N: 33. Mark A. Hlatky et al., "Quality-of-Life and Depressive Symptoms in Postmenopausal Women after Receiving Hormone Therapy: Results from the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study 12

(HERS) Trial," Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 5 (2002), http://jama.amaassn.org/issues/v287n5/rfull/joc10108.html#aainfo. B: Hlatky, Mark A., Derek Boothroyd, Eric Vittinghoff, Penny Sharp, and Mary A. Whooley. "Qualityof-Life and Depressive Symptoms in Postmenopausal Women after Receiving Hormone Therapy: Results from the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Trial." Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 5 (February 6, 2002), http://jama.amaassn.org/issues/v287n5/rfull/joc10108.html#aainfo. Popular magazine article N: 29. Steve Martin, “Sports-Interview Shocker,” New Yorker, May 6, 2002, 84. B: Martin, Steve. “Sports-Interview Shocker.” New Yorker, May 6, 2002. Newspaper article Newspaper articles may be cited in running text (“As William Niederkorn noted in a New York Times article on June 20, 2002, . . . ”) instead of in a note or an in-text citation, and they are commonly omitted from a bibliography or reference list as well. The following examples show the more formal versions of the citations. N: 10. William S. Niederkorn, “A Scholar Recants on His ‘Shakespeare’ Discovery,” New York Times, June 20, 2002, Arts section, Midwest edition. B: Niederkorn, William S. “A Scholar Recants on His ‘Shakespeare’ Discovery.” New York Times, June 20, 2002, Arts section, Midwest edition. Book review N: 1. James Gorman, “Endangered Species,” review of The Last American Man, by Elizabeth Gilbert, New York Times Book Review, June 2, 2002, 16. B: Gorman, James. “Endangered Species.” Review of The Last American Man, by Elizabeth Gilbert. New York Times Book Review, June 2, 2002. Thesis or dissertation N: 22. M. Amundin, “Click Repetition Rate Patterns in Communicative Sounds from the Harbour Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena” (PhD diss., Stockholm University, 1991), 22–29, 35. B: Amundin, M. “Click Repetition Rate Patterns in Communicative Sounds from the Harbour Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena.” PhD diss., Stockholm University, 1991. Paper presented at a meeting or conference N: 13. Brian Doyle, “Howling Like Dogs: Metaphorical Language in Psalm 59” (paper presented at the annual international meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature, Berlin, Germany, June 19–22, 2002). B: Doyle, Brian. “Howling Like Dogs: Metaphorical Language in Psalm 59.” Paper presented at the annual international meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature, Berlin, Germany, June 19–22, 2002. Web site Web sites may be cited in running text (“On its Web site, the Evanston Public Library Board of Trustees states . . .”) instead of in an in-text citation, and they are commonly omitted from a bibliography or reference list as well. The following examples show the more formal versions of the citations. If an access 13

date is required by your publisher or discipline, include it parenthetically at the end of the citation, as in the second example below. N: 11. Evanston Public Library Board of Trustees, “Evanston Public Library Strategic Plan, 2000–2010: A Decade of Outreach,” Evanston Public Library, http://www.epl.org/library/strategic-plan-00.html. B: Evanston Public Library Board of Trustees. “Evanston Public Library Strategic Plan, 2000–2010: A Decade of Outreach.” Evanston Public Library. http://www.epl.org/library/strategic-plan-00.html (accessed June 1, 2005). Weblog entry or comment Weblog entries or comments may be cited in running text (“In a comment posted to the Becker-Posner Blog on March 6, 2006, Peter Pearson noted . . .”) instead of in a note or an in-text citation, and they are commonly omitted from a bibliography or reference list as well. The following examples show the more formal versions of the citations. If an access date is required by your publisher or discipline, include it parenthetically at the end of the citation, as in the first example below. N: 8. Peter Pearson, comment on “The New American Dilemma: Illegal Immigration,” The BeckerPosner Blog, comment posted March 6, 2006, http://www.becker-posnerblog.com/archives/2006/03/the_new_america.html#c080052 (accessed March 28, 2006). B: Becker-Posner Blog, The. http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/.

14