midterm 1 Flashcards
6 steps of the research process
- forming a question
- reviewing relevant literature
- advancing a hypothesis
- constructing a theoretical framework
- defining concepts, variables and relationships
- creating a research design
empirical vs. normative and how they interact
empirical- research what is
normative- research what ought to be
they cross paths because empirical is shaped by normative thinking and normative is validated by empirical evidence
positivism
ontological- there is no difference between the natural and social world
epistemology- we can gain an objective understanding of the social world through observation
methodology- we can find law-like generalizations that the social world runs on
historical context of positivism
behavioral revolution- was the application of positivism and empiricism to the field of political research, and encouraging researchers to go beyond stats and numbers (i.e voting) there an objective way through application of methods to understand the behaviour of individuals.
classical vs. logical positivism
- used in positivism
- classical-> inductive looks “in” to answer questions about the world, goes from a specific case to making a generalization
- logical-> deductive, is looking to a general theory to explain a specific hypothesis
Popper argument against inductive reasoning
observation is limited so therefore we can’t make generalizations without having observed everything, but we can falsify and confirm laws; black swan; stick to logical reasoning
how do we use deductive reasoning to find general laws
deductive-nomological model: something can be explained when attached to a law like generalization; deducing from a theory to explain a particular event
hypothetico-deductive model: treating a law-like generalization like a hypothesis and testing it to verify the law; deduce a hypothesis from a law and test it.
scientific realism
ontological- the social and natural world is the same
methodology- you learn about society through observable and unobservable
methodology- causality; for unobservable, we look at their observable outcomes
causality in scientific realism
they focus on causality to explain unobservable vairalbes
what is causal mechanism
- the system or process by which an effect is produced
3 types of causal mechanisms
- environment- social is influenced by external forces
- cognitive- changes in human’s perceptions
- relational- interpersonal connections among people
what is the structure-agency problem
how do we relate individuals to instiutions; is society deducible to individuals or are individuals part of a bigger collective; which avenue should analysis take; individual or institutions
how do you verify theories of unobservable phenomena
‘interference to best explanation’- which every has the best explanation/justification is the right one.
interpretivism
ontological- the social world and the natural world are two separate entities, and the social world doesn’t exist independent of our perception s
epistemology- can’t use the same methods used in the natural science because they don’t apply
methodology- we understand human behaviour through interpretation and finding meaning behind action
argument of interpretivists
brute data isn’t enough, you need to interpret and look the believes, values and meanings taking place behind the action
posivitivism vs. interpretivism
both use the hypothetic- deductive model
can we have separate facts and values in social science; max weber
max weber- you can have separate questions of fact (because it is different from knowing the facts of something and knowing the value), in this way researchers can focus on questions of fact.
at the same time it is impossible because values influence virtually every aspect of research process
can avoid this by fact and value mixing by stating which was made by observation, logical deduction and empirical analysis- here we make references to values without making value judgements
can we have separate facts and values in social science; Ernest Nagel
one way to diminish the effects of influence of value is recognizing that you have a bias, in order to combat it you have to acknowledge its existence
different influences of value
- enthography-> getting so immersed in the community you are studying, you identify with them and loose your sense of objective judgement
- Rosenthal effect-> expectations of the researcher affect the conclusions of the observation
- Heinseberg effect-> people change their behaviour when being watched.
- self-fulfilling prophecy-> telling people about the theory which makes them act the way the theory suggests
- values within social science research->
Thomas Kuhn value argument
nothing is without value or bias, even researchers have an agreed upon way to conduct research and fall into a norm (society encourages conformity): the cycle: pre-science (fact finding/no paradigm), turns into normal science, a crisis comes which starts a new paradigms, and leads to a new norm)
Imre Lakatos reaction ot Kuhn’s agrument
Kuhn doesn’t recognize the rational and methodology involved in research and boils it down to mob-mentality. Lakatos says that there is a method: there is a core of info that scientists agree not to challenge (negative heuristic), and that those are the basis of the foundation then the questions around the core they question, change as necessary (positive heuristic)
3 criteria for a good research question
it is significant, it is researchable, has not yet been answered
how to find a research question
- look for wholes in existing argument
- look for topics that are in debates (politically significant)
- survey literature for other questions that have been asked in that field
- research grants suggest research questions
research vase
reps. different parts of the research process and question formulation
top- a broad question or topic relating to the subject
middle- specific researchable question
bottom- conclusion of the research question and what it tells us about the roader question or topic
types of questions
you have to make sure your asking the questions you want answers to
- descriptive question: characteristics of something and how to works
- explanatory question: causes of something, what caused it and why something exists or happened
- predictive question: future outcomes of current conditions
- normative question: what ought to be done to bring about certain outcomes
characteristics of unanswerable questions
- they beg other questions
- present a false dichotomy
- ask about fictional events
- are metaphysical
- are tautology
what are the functions of a literature review
- explains why a definite answer to your question doesn’t exist
- sets the stage for your own argument
what are the stages of a literature review
- analysis of the literature
- summarizing the literature
- what still needs to be done