Reading 3 (p, 93-158)

Question 1

3 misconceptions about RQs

Answer 1

1. RQ initiates the research process, BUT it also plays a continuing role
2. it is NOT straightforward to formulate a RQ
3. RQs are NOT only relevant to quantitative research

Question 2

6 reasons why formulating RQ should be the first step of the research process

Answer 2

1. It forces you to get clear about what you want to know.
2. requirement that the RQ is relevant in the real world -> ensurance the answer will contribute to knowledge about important issues
3. By requiring that it addresses an issue of significance to the field of politics, it ensures that your answer in some way contributes to, rather than merely reproduces, existing
   knowledge.
4. It organizes, and is the basis for, everything else that follows.
5. It focuses and narrows your search for information.
6. It enables you to decide what to include and what to exclude from your research.

Question 3

general/broad outline of research components

Answer 3

1. the question (what you want to know + why it is relevant (rationale for pursuing research))
2. literature (existing literature answers, positive elements and determine what is necessary to better answer)
3. your answer (theoretical framework (what is to be studied + hypotheses + how to proof …) + what is the rationale for defining this domain for the study (spatial/termporal domain)
4. data and sources (what data + what sources)

Question 4

RQ definition

• question
• rationale

Answer 4

question that:

• has significance for a topic or issue relating to the subject matter of the field (specific interest -> broader issue or area)
• is researchable (= sufficiently focused + free of errors from reasoning that might generate false answers)
• has not yet been answered definitively (= you have to locate your research within the framework of existing literature = LITERATURE REVIEW)

*RQs can also be methodological, conceptual or theoretical

! RQ contains: question + rationale for pursuing it (establishing rationale by showing it is significant and how/why it is not yet definitively defined)

Question 5

literature survey

Answer 5

surveying articles on a topic, looking at what questions they ask, what areas there are etc.

• aim = to compile a starting bibliography on a narrower aspect of the general topic that interests you
• it helps focus your interest and search for a question

guideline

1. look for a general introduction/overview on the broad topic, look at its bibliography (+ when in library you can do a neighborhood search: looking at books surrounding your book) + USE THE JSTOR database or the Web of Science
2. look for survey or ‘state of knowledge’-type sources (give you a broad overview)
3. look at specific source in a bibliography and at that books bibliography
4. read the literature you have compiled + think about its strengths and weaknesses and how to extend or correct it

use keywords (e.g. search for behavio* (this will include both English and American spelling))

Question 5

finding RQs

Answer 5

research topics (statement) = through observation real-world problems

RQ = through literature
two caveats literature = avoid questions that are politically insignificant + don’t have a too accepting frame of mind (be analytical: ask questions, be respectful and sceptical)
- Geddes: reading literature stimulates indignation, annoyance and irritation (previous research not always good quality) rather than allows you to look for gaps

survey the literature - it helps focus your interest and search for a question
- aim = to compile a starting bibliography on a narrower aspect of the general topic that interests you

*you can use sites of fellowships and grant programs, they often describe precise research issues or questions

Question 6

how to formulate a RQ

• Research vase

Answer 6

often: first idea is either significant but not specific enough to be researchable OR that is researchable, but not yet connected to a more general, significant area of interest

research vase = general structure research projects:

1. broad top = large question that engages a broad theoretical perspective or area of inquiry (= SIGNIFICANCE + RATIONALE for your question)
2. narrow middle = narrower, more specific question that can be addressed through conducting research (= RESEARCHABLE)
3. broad base = researcher reflects on the conclusions of the research + how it contributes to our understanding/knowledge

e.g. ‘Is the US winning the war on terror?’ is significant, but not researchable in this form (top of vase question) -> ‘what has been the impact of the securitization of Muslim charities in Eqypt since 9/11?’ is a narrow middle of the vase question

Question 7

kind of RQs

Answer 7

imp. to choose the right type: to make sure that what your question really asks what you want to know

• descriptive question = characteristics of something or of how it works or behaves
• explanatory question = causes of something
• predictive question = future outcome of current conditions or trends
• prescriptive question = the things that can be done to bring about some outcome
• normative questions = what is best, just, right, or preferable, and what ought to be done to bring about

Question 8

descriptive questions

Answer 8

• concerned with the characteristics of something + how it works or behaves
• often ask: who, what, where, when
• interested in connections or relations between two or more variables (asks what the relation is)

!they need to be not easily resolved to make them research questions

e.g. ‘When did the take-off to indutrial development occur in England?’ or ‘Have the foreign policies of EU member states become Europeanized?’

Question 9

explanatory questions

Answer 9

• what is causing or has caused….
• why does something exist or why has it happened?
• connects dependent variable (outcome to be explained), and independent variable (factors that are connected to the outcome)
• WHY QUESTIONS

interested in connections or relations between two or more variables (asks why a relationship exists rather than what relation exists (descriptive))

descriptive e.g. = what proportion of males and females say they would vote for A or B?
explanatory e.g. = why do more women say they will vote for A?

Question 10

box 4.8 page 112

Answer 10

look at it

Question 11

unanswerable RQs

• fallacies

Answer 11

researchable questions are:

• narrow or specific enough to permit empirical investigation
• formulated in a way that asks what you are really interested in answering
• doesn’t contain fallacies that would generate false answers or conclusions
• possible within your ability (you need to have access to time and resources/data)

most common fallacies =
1. ‘begs’ another question (e.g.: why is A the worst form of B? begs the question if A is the worst form of B)
2. presents a false dichotomy (e.g. Plato: Totalitian or Democrat? whilst he might be neither)
3. fictional questions (asks about a fictional event, e.g. would A have decided B if A was still in office then?) = not answerable empirically
4. metaphysical questions (attempt to resolve non-empirical questions by empirical means, e.g. was A inevitable/unavoidable/inescapable?)
5. is a tautology (e.g. was George W. Bush unsuccesful because he was moving against the tide of history? (we cannot know if he was moving against the tide of history except for the fact that he was unsuccessful, so it asks: was he unsuccesful because he was unsuccesful?))

Question 12

literature review
function

Answer 12

= discussion of the best literature on your question in a way that shows how a reasoned analysis of its strengths and weaknesses leads naturally to a consideration of what you propose to do as a contribution to resolving the question

(*there is always literature, if you can’t find it think more ‘top of the vase’)

• demonstrates ability to engage analytically with politics, lets people hear your voice, your reasoning etc.

dual function

1. explaining why and to what extent a definitive answer does not yet exist (third requirement RQ)
2. prepares the ground for the elaboration of your own argument (by asking: what are positive and weak elements of existing literature + what needs to be done)

Question 13

how to develop a literature review
- 3 stages

Answer 13

1. read (analytically, be critical and ask questions), follow leads to other promising books and articles
2. summarize the literature: bring some organization to the literature by summarizing and breaking it down (identify major themes, issues, arguments, positions, perspectives that highlight major points of contact and division)
   *this guides you to step 3, e.g. it leads to questions as: what are the gaps, how can this be applied (elsewhere etc.)
3. write the literature review: a discussion of the best research and writing on your question organized in a way that sets the stage, and helps to make the case, for your own argument

Question 14

ground rules to write literature reviews

Answer 14

1. it should develop an ‘argument’ about the literature (begin with a statement of that argument and use evidence to back it up, defend your interpretation of the material with evidence)
2. it’s not an annotated bibliography: organize your discussion around ideas, themes, theories, or issues
3. number of sources depends on how many you need to persuasively demonstrate the argument of your literature review
4. address the best arguments, whether you agree with them or not (don’t downplay opposing views + don’t go after a weak opponent, don’t overlook strong opponents)
5. use types of sources that are logical with your topic + are reliable
6. select only the most important points in each source
7. process, organize material thoroughly

Question 15

step 1 and 2 of the research process

Answer 15

1. the formulation of a research question
2. developing a hypothesis or argument

Question 16

3 basic requirements to answers of RQs

Answer 16

1. answer needs to be appropriate to the type of question asked
2. it needs to contribute to collective knowledge in a particular field of study
3. it must be clearly and fully specified (in regard to: factors or elements you think must be considered to answer the question + how you think these elements are related to one another) = hypotheses

Question 17

hypothesis

Answer 17

reasoned, clearly specified hunch or expectation with which you begin your research

= a hunch, assumption, suspicion, assertion, or idea about a phenomenon, relationship, or situation with which research begins

! in the research process as concrete steps, it is among the first, in practice the process is circuitous, scientists often don’t start with formulating hypotheses

!!you need to provide a rationale for your hypothesis (explain how it is derived from theory = provide a theoretical framework)

'’A hypothesis articulates the contours and logic of the investigation.’’

Question 18

confirmatory research

Answer 18

begins with a hypothesis and uses observations to test it

Question 19

exploratory research

Answer 19

begins with question and perhaps a basic proposition

probes plausibility against various types of data

generates a hypothesis as a conclusion rather than as a preliminary to conducting the research itself

proces = preliminary hunch -> investigation -> more concrete hypothesis

Question 20

working hypothesis

Answer 20

an operational hunch about what you expect to find

Question 21

research process vs research presentation

Answer 21

research process is often not linear, rather it is often circuitous

research presentation should be arranged carefully, systematically, clearly and logically:

• RQ -> relevant literature -> hypotheses -> procedures and methods -> findings -> conclusions -> implications

Question 22

what type of answers does your question require?

Answer 22

• explanatory question = X is caused by Y / … because …
• predictive questions = this will occur / is most likely to occur (generalization from understanding of current or past events)
• descriptive questions = (hypothesis describes what we think is most relevant to focus our research on)
• prescriptive questions = to achieve X, we must Y (based on pro-con analysis of options
• normative question = argument or proposition about how it ought to be

Question 23

descriptive hypothesis

• interpretive hypothesis

Answer 23

descriptive hypothesis = a set of characteristics that we expect to find in some relationship to each other in a given case
- e.g. X has A, B and C or behaves in D, E, F

interpretive hypothesis = a type of descriptive hypothesis that meaningfully describes something as something else
- e.g. we can best see/interpret this as that, X is part of Y, X can be interpreted as Y

Question 24

theory
+ good theory

Answer 24

an attempt to make sense of the complexity of the world / a hypothesis that has withstood repeated tests and has been found to have considerable explanatory power

*always a skeleton of the real world: only looks at a portion of the real world, a few variables (that are related + important) + has simplifying assumptions

*theory ensures that contributions to knowledge are cumulative

good theory =

• parsimonous = attemtps to explain as much as possible with as little as possible
• is generizable

Question 25

theory, proposition and hypothesis

Answer 25

3 different stages in the development of an idea

1. proposition: a hunch or guess that two or more variables are related
2. hypothesis: proposition put forward for an investigation = more precise (+ stated in a way that it can be proven right or wrong)
3. theory:

Question 26

Robert Merton - grand theory vs theoriesof the middle-range

Answer 26

on the basis of difference in scope and level of generizability

• grand theory = all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all observed uniformities (he argues that grand theory offers no basis for an empirical social science)
• theories of the middle-range = theories that attempt to understand and explain a limited aspect of social life, a more restricted domain or set of social phenomena (explanations can be verified through empirical research and perhaps systematized into theoretical systems of larger scope)

Question 27

how can we distinguish different types of theories?

Answer 27

• difference in scope
• difference in level of generizability
• difference in analytical process that links theory and research (deduction (theory guides research) vs induction (theory is the outcome of research))
• nature of the questions they address : empirical vs normative

e.g.
Robert Merton: grand theory vs theories of middle-range
grounded theory: inductive (collecting data, allow concepts and categories to emerge from them (hypotheses are developed through interaction of theoretical elements and data))

Question 28

where do hypotheses come from?

Answer 28

• critical analysis of strengths and weaknesses of existing theory and previous research relevant to a given question or problem -> idea of what is right/wrong -> answer/argument gradually develops = proposition
• proposition -> hypothesis = define factors and relations more precisely

existing literature can help devel0p your own hypothesis:

1. applying existing theory to a case to which it has not previously been applied furthers knowledge by further testing or refining the theory
2. using variables already identified in the literature, but combine them in a new way to make sense of a particular case (e.g. analysing several causes for war in general theories about war, applied to WW1)

Question 29

(theoretical framework)

Answer 29

the logic, story, or set of assumptions that connects your key factors or elements of some theory or explanatory approach to each other

Question 30

how to investigate hypotheses?

Answer 30

1. hypothesis testing with evidence (confirmatory research) = deductive
2. hypothesis-generating (exploratory research: produces findings that can be used in the development of theory) = inductive

Question 31

Hypothesis-generating research

Answer 31

begins with a question and perhaps a basic proposition, examines a set of cases, and comes up with a more specific set of propositions. Hypothesis-generating or exploratory research is inductive, in that the researcher observes a phenomenon in order to generate questions or hypotheses for subsequent research.

Question 32

Components of a hypothesis:

Answer 32

• Independent variable = factor thought to influence/affect/cause the dependent variable (always comes before the dependent variable)
• Dependent variable = outcome that we wish to understand
• Statement about the relationship between the variables = association/correlation/co-variance (relation in a way that changes in one occur together with changes in the other) vs causality

Question 33

Variables (meaning) + constant

Answer 33

Concept or factor that can vary, change, or assume different values or characteristics (values/options of the variables must be mutually exclusive: e.g. country can’t both be rich and poor at the same time)

Constant = factor that is not thought to vary in the context of the research, is not capable of contributing to variation in the outcome

*often the relation between two variables is affected by an intervening variable

Question 34

Types of variables

Answer 34

Independent variable = factor thought to influence/affect/cause the dependent variable (always comes before the dependent variable)
- we call it independent because we don’t care about what caused this variable to be this way

Dependent variable = outcome that we wish to understand,
-dependent because we hypothesize that it depends upon or is caused by variation in an independent variable variable

Intervening variable = variable that affects the relation between two other variables

• Moderator variable = intervening variable that affects the relationship between the dependent and independent variables by producing an interaction effect
• Mediating variable = variable that transmits the effects of the independent variable to the dependent variable (necessary for the independent variable to influence the dependent variable)

Question 35

Relationships between variables

Answer 35

Two different kind of relationships:

• association/correlation (vary together in a linear fashion)/co-variance(alleged cause varies with the supposed effect): relation in a way that changes in one occur together with changes in the other
• causality: change in A leads to change in B (4 conditions to establish causality = cause/independent variable is prior to the effect + they are correlated or co-vary + there is a (plausible) causal mechanism/process that links the variables + the correlation is not spurious or a coincidence)

Variables can be positively related: change in the same direction (higher A comes with higher B)

Variables can be negatively related: change in A leads to opposite change in B (more A comes with less B)

Question 36

Causality

Answer 36

change in A leads to change in B

4 conditions to establish causality :

• cause/independent variable is prior to the effect +
• they are correlated or co-vary
• there is a (plausible) causal mechanism/process that links the variables
• the correlation is not spurious or a coincidence

Two different notions of causality:

1. determinsitic = if A than always/inevitably B
2. probablistic = if A, than maybe/sometimes/probably B

Question 37

illustration: Lenin’s explanation of WW1

Answer 37

‘Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism’ - Lenin 1916

hypothesis: WW1 = consequence of intense imperialist rivalry (states secured external markets and investment outlets abroad to prevent socialist revolution at home (making it more likely in 3d world))
- source = Marx theory: contradictions of capitalism would lead inevitably to revolutionary crisis
- dependent variable = war in the era of monopoly capitalism
- independent variable = economic stagnation
- relation = 2 intervening variables: imperialist expansion when there is economic stagnation + availability of territory
- negative relationships: availability of territory and expansion + availability of territory and likelihood of war

economic stagnation (independent) -> more expansion -> less available territory -> war (dependent)

Question 38

empirical vs normative research

Answer 38

• empirical = real world questions that can be answered with empirical (observation) data
• normative = questions concerned about what is best, just, right or preferable in society can be answered with argumentative discourse

! distinction is overdrawn/exagerated : can we separate fact/value + in broad they develop answers to RQ in the same way

!! often people say political theorists don’t use methods, but they DO, they often don’t reflect on them

Question 39

normative questions

Answer 39

tendency to think it has two types:

1. questions in which principles, ideals and concepts are the primary focus -> philosophical methods (logic conceptual analysis, categorization)
2. questions that involve evaluating and criticizing substantive political, social, and economic practices and institutions -> uses empirical inquiry and data + analytical philosophy -> can have same methods as empirical research

Question 40

two positions on normative political theory

Answer 40

• goal is to arrive at a coherent ideal (helps practical understanding: allows us to measure the distance between the ideal and the real world)
• (aim is to clarify underlying basic principles or arguments): ideal is constrained by what is possible, we need to integrate theory with a consideration of its implications and likely outcomes for the real political world (so: need both to look at facts and value)

Question 41

normative hypothesis

Answer 41

advances, for further discussion, analysis and investigation, an argument or suggestive proposition about what ought to be

!! they don’t require a dependent and independent variable
- still normative questions are concerned with demonstrating relations (e.g. Y is the best form of X)