The institutional approach to the study of the presidency focuses on the presidency as an institution. Examines the roles and responsibilities of the president, with an emphasis on the structures and process of the presidency. This approach is useful for evaluating what presidents do in a systematic way; however, institutional studies of the presidency often emphasize the role of institutions and processes at the expense of individual characteristics such as ideology, power, and personality. Institutional studies are typically case studies or involve quantitative analysis methods. More recently, presidential research has begun to focus on how the presidency is institutionalized. Prior to the work of Ragsdale and Theis (1997), studies of the presidency primarily focused on how presidents differ in terms of personality, leadership, and decision making, but generally did not consider the possibility that the office might create systematic similarities between the presidents. Ragsdale and Theis (1997) used OLS regression to determine which factors influenced the institutionalization of the presidency. They found that national government activity, measured by social welfare and defense spending, has the greatest impact on institutionalization. The effect of congressional activity is more limited, and differences between individual presidents have little effect on levels of institutionalization (Ragsdale and Theis 1997). Moe (2009) also advocates for an institutional approach to studying the presidency that omits personal factors and focuses on a simple, parsimonious methodology. Moe argues against Neustadt's approach that presidential success is based almost entirely on personal characteristics, and argues that studies of presidential behavior often... middle of paper... are guaranteed to create portraits of each person's individual personality president. and conduct a case study on Reagan. In conclusion, there are several methods and approaches to studying the presidency. All of these approaches contribute in some way to the study of the presidency and increase our understanding of the president, his behavior, his power, and the institution of the presidency itself. However, I believe that future presidential research in political science should focus on a more systematic and scientific approach. While historical studies and case studies are useful for understanding specific presidents, they are not necessarily useful for understanding the presidential institution in general. I think future research should focus on an institutional approach that also considers personal characteristics that represent important aspects of presidential power.