Introduction Richard F. Fenno, Jr. has undoubtedly made some of the biggest contributions to political science that society has ever seen. With that being said, Bernhard and Sulkin have also contributed to the field of political science in some sense with things such as innovation in analytics and equations, quantitative data, along with their knack of coming up with new legislative styles, and identifying the styles of lesser-known legislators. They did have some strengths but overall the more in depth the article was examined, the harder and it became to read and the less valid their study seemed to be, compared to the works read in class. Moreover, Bernhard and Sulkin showed more weaknesses than strengths, including: not being personable
…show more content…
It’s hard to compare a mere flawless example of pronounced political science in that of Home Style to a rough draft study that contrasts almost every idea that we have gone over. Fenno distinguishes himself by making his research and writings unlike anything that was ever done or anything that could ever be replicated, whereas Bernhard and Sulkin created a study that a statistics major could reiterate more accurately than that of a political scientist. Fenno talked to MCs on a personal level to see from their perspective on where they felt they allocated time and resources the most and why they chose to do so. Bernhard and Sulkin used a computer to compile data, form an equation, use some statistics that the average person probably doesn’t know, to start a study that Fenno himself implies is ridiculous. Fenno states, “There is no way that a political scientist could infer the perceptual differences from census data (Fenno, 4).” This statement alone from Home Style, separates Fenno’s study from that of Bernhard and …show more content…
Unlike Bernhard and Sulkin, Fenno goes into great detail on multiple occasions what these allocations of resources and time actually mean instead of throwing them onto a table that is hard to interpret. Basically their entire study seems to only focus on these fifteen allocations of resources and time, which happen in Washington and nothing else. Fenno’s book Home Style describes his research on MCs in their home environments unlike Bernhard and Sulkin who base their study completely on activities in
It’s hard to compare a mere flawless example of pronounced political science in that of Home Style to a rough draft study that contrasts almost every idea that we have gone over. Fenno distinguishes himself by making his research and writings unlike anything that was ever done or anything that could ever be replicated, whereas Bernhard and Sulkin created a study that a statistics major could reiterate more accurately than that of a political scientist. Fenno talked to MCs on a personal level to see from their perspective on where they felt they allocated time and resources the most and why they chose to do so. Bernhard and Sulkin used a computer to compile data, form an equation, use some statistics that the average person probably doesn’t know, to start a study that Fenno himself implies is ridiculous. Fenno states, “There is no way that a political scientist could infer the perceptual differences from census data (Fenno, 4).” This statement alone from Home Style, separates Fenno’s study from that of Bernhard and …show more content…
Unlike Bernhard and Sulkin, Fenno goes into great detail on multiple occasions what these allocations of resources and time actually mean instead of throwing them onto a table that is hard to interpret. Basically their entire study seems to only focus on these fifteen allocations of resources and time, which happen in Washington and nothing else. Fenno’s book Home Style describes his research on MCs in their home environments unlike Bernhard and Sulkin who base their study completely on activities in