9/15/2015
panel content inner
READ BELOW AND THEN CLICK THE TITLE ABOVE ("Week 2 - Sep 14...") TO ENTER THIS WEEK'S LEARNING MODULE.
** Note that Lab Sessions start this week. For this first lab session, we will do the first lession in the lab software workbook
. ***
*In this week's material and in class we familiarize ourselves with the framework and process of empirical research in the social sciences.
The process proceeds...
1.
from Research Questions, to
2.
Concepts in those Questions, to
3.
Theories involving those Concepts, to
4.
Hypotheses implied by our Theories, to
5.
Variables used to measure the Concepts in our Hypotheses, to
6.
Statistical Analysis using those Variables, to
7.
Interpretation and Communication of that Analysis
Read that list again. Almost all of you will have had a good foundation for steps 1 through 5 in POLI110.
The key objective this week is to understand each of these elements and the sequence that is followed in most social science.
This week you review the steps from Defining Research Questions through to understanding the meaning and role of Variables in answering
those questions.
This is harder than it seems. And it will be a little different here, with a view to actual statistical analysis, than it was in POLI110.
We will work through examples to make sure you can see the steps.
The primary example, that we will discuss in class, is a very serious and prominent piece of empirical political science that looks at the causes
of income inequality and the causes of redistribution in advanced industrial democracies. Meaning, why countries differ on how much they
share the wealth!
In our first class this week you will critique research questions that you and others have written. In so doing, you will figure out how to ask
good empirical political science questions. We'll also identify concepts in those questions. We'll see how they've done this in the first example
article (Bradley).
In our second class we'll mostly look at what you've put in a collaborative spreadsheet and see how it's done in the Bradley article.
WE WILL USE LEARNING CATALYTICS ON WEDNESDAY, so make sure you're there with your account set up.
Our first goal is to fully understand the separate elements along the path from questions to answers in social science.
The textbook goes through these steps in Chapter 1. You should make sure you read it and really get the definition of each of the steps in
that process.
To do that, and for the rest of the term, you should go through these modules on Connect with the Textbook beside you. Sorry, that doesn't
work too well on the bus.
Things you should be able to accomplish when you have mastered this week's material:
https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/courses/WS.UBC.DBL.PRODUCTION.101/userscripts/compile/index.html#
1/6
9/15/2015
panel content inner
Compose a research question that might be answered using quantitative methods
Distinguish between normative questions and empirical questions. Similarly, distinguish between normative theories
and causal theories about the empirical world.
Identify and apply the components of a good causal theory about politics
Derive testable hypotheses from a causal theory
Write clear and concise hypothesis statements.
Identify the concepts discussed in a theory or research question.
Distinguish between conceptual definitions of a concept and a operationalization of the concept.
The first step in empirical research is to clearly define your Research Question
The textbook briefly introduces research questions in section 2.2 (there is no discussion of research questions in 1st Edition
of the textbook) . This is a really important step that is probably unfamiliar to you. The authors of the textbook probably
didn't want to call them 'research questions' because you will naturally think of 'research questions' like what you know as
'essay topics'. That's NOT what we mean by research questions for the kind of empirical political science we're covering in
this course.
For us, a research question is a question about how the world works that speaks to patterns and relationships across a set
of cases (like people or countries or time periods). Research questions are empirical, not normative. That means a
descriptive or causal question, not one about what is 'good' or what we 'should' do. And they're not strictly historical,
either.
For instance, we might wonder: why there are military coups in some countries and not others, or why some
countries have close to 50% female legislators while others have hardly any women in the legislature. And our answers are
not just a history of each of those countries, separately.
Look at the first sentence in the abstract of this article (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.14682478.2007.00495.x/full). And then finish reading the abstract, because this is a good example of what we're training you to
do in this course.
An empirical social science research question directs us to better understanding the patterns of facts about something
political scientists don't fully understand yet. Usually, it's about evaluating the relative impact of various possible causes on
some political outcome that varies across a set cases or time periods. A research question directs us to learning more about
something we genuinely don't know, not assembling an argument to support a position we take at the outset.
It is important to distinguish these kinds of descriptive and causal questions from normative questions like: "Should
governments recognize same-sex unions?" or "Should we support a basic minimum income program?"
Instead of talking about questions, the textbook concentrates on causal theories to explain a phenomenon of interest. The
phenomenon of interest is something you want to learn about that isn't just one event or historical process; something
general like civil war or minority rights or political participation. It's something you can imagine happening at multiple times
and places. Most often, having a 'phenomenon of interest' implies that you are curious about it and have a question that
can be answered by gathering data on more than a few cases where there's variation in what has happened. A causal
theory is a proposition that when some thing is higher or lower (or, present or not present), that phenomenon of interest
we care about will change to be higher or lower too. Like, say, the proposition that when countries institute a formal bill or
charter of rights that includes gender equality, those countries will then have lower levels of violence against women, all
else equal. That's a causal proposition, and it would normally be accompanied by a somewhat richer theoretical account of
why the cause would lead to the consequence.
The research questions we're talking about are fairly big and general. Things like:
Does the presence of peacekeeping forces reduce conflict?
https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/courses/WS.UBC.DBL.PRODUCTION.101/userscripts/compile/index.html#
2/6
9/15/2015
panel content inner
What are the causes of variation in the level of women's representation in national legislatures?
What political institutions promote economic growth?
What are the causes that lead some citizens to vote and others not to vote?
Do new social media really fuel democratic revolutions?
What are the causes of the varying levels of redistribution in advanced democratic countries?
What are the conditions that lead to success for Green parties?
What is the relationship between countries' natural resource endowments and their propensity for civil conflict?
The list is endless. Have a look at the list in Table 2.1 of the textbook (2nd Ed.)
Now, you won't always have research questions quite this big, but you get the idea... These are NOT about one historical
event or the current situation in one political jurisdiction. The key point is that answers to these questions will involve
comparing multiple occurrences of comparable political phenomena. And the comparison will usually involve comparing
them on the outcomes (the dependent variable you are asking the question about) AND on multiple potential causes
(independent variables).
One more thing, you'll notice that the example questions above are one of two types. Each question either 1) simply
identifies an outcome and asks about the factors that affect the outcome (e.g. What are the conditions that lead to success
for Green parties) or 2) identifies both the outcome and a specific potential cause (e.g. Does the presence of peacekeeping
forces reduce conflict)? Both types of questions are appropriate for empirical research. In some cases we are interested
primarily in the relationship between two things (like "does performance in leaders' debates affect election outcomes") and
in other cases we just have a particular outcome in mind and are curious about any/all possible causes ("what factors affect
a party's election results"). As we will discuss later on, we usually deal with both types of questions in the same way since
identifying the unique effect of one factor (like leader's debates) requires us to account for other factors that might be
related (like candidate charisma or attractiveness or policy expertise).
From this module have you got the idea that you should read the screen and have the textbook alongside. I'll ask you to go
back and forth a fair bit. Like I'm guiding you through the textbook.
With a research question in hand, the next step in the research process usually involves identifying a causal theory that
might offer an answer to our question.
The textbook spends all of Chapter Two on causal theories (Read chapter 2 now). It's important to understand that although
a theory can often be summarized with a statement like "X causes Y", good theory will have a much richer account of HOW
X causes Y. (An aside: X and Y here are just place holders for two phenomena we think are related. No math yet! So one
example of X causes Y could be 'citizens' exposure to people of different ethnic backgrounds causes less anti-immigrant
resentment'.)
OK, I was just saying that good theories explain how X causes Y. This is illustrated in the textbook examples of "The Puzzle
of Turnout" and "The Rules Usually Matter". Theories provide detail on the exact mechanisms by which X causes Y so that if
we notice that X and Y are associated, we can then use more detailed measurements to see if the theory really gets the
causes right. It is possible that X and Y are associated, but for some other reason that is not part of the theory. The
knowledge that X and Y are associated only helps us understand the political world and predict outcomes if we know how X
causes Y. Social science theories often begin with assumptions about how people behave and then follows them out logically
to specify how something causes something else.
Now here's an online exercise, after reading chapter 2:
1. Go to the shared spreadsheet at http://bit.ly/1OOWZKN (http://bit.ly/1OOWZKN) . Across the top are: Research
Question | Theory | Define one key Concept | Hypothesis | Variable 1 | Variable 2. For now, we'll only use Research
Question and Theory. Notice that there are two examples in there already, at the top. These are unedited responses
provided by last year's 380 students in class. You have the luxury of seeing this beforehand and filling it in carefully.
To start, have a look at those three examples from last year. Focus on the Research Questions first. I asked the
students to provide a research question that was being addressed in another course they were taking. But I wanted
https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/courses/WS.UBC.DBL.PRODUCTION.101/userscripts/compile/index.html#
3/6
9/15/2015
panel content inner
research questions for empirical research. Only one of those are good empirical research questions. Which one isn't;
and why? You should be able to answer this based on the reading.
2. Now have a look at the theory entries in light of what you have just read in the textbook. Of course, these can't be
very richly developed theories because of the tiny space available. Only one of the rows has something like the kind
of theory we're looking for. But it's still not very precise. Which one?
3. Finally, it's your turn.
1. First, find your course ID number. They are sequential here. Use the line that has your course ID number in it.
You find your course ID from the Course Materials section. (from the menu at right and then find the item there
that has a list of student numbers and corresponding course IDs).
2. Then, in your row, fill in a research question suggested by the topics treated in another course you're taking or
have taken. In the next column, provide a very concise bit of theory relevant to that question. And then in the
next column define one key concept. That's it for now -- we'll do the hypotheses and variables during the week.
(Do this in a document or an email to yourself so you have a copy of what you've done; then paste into the
google spreadsheet. That way if someone else messes up and deletes your entry, you can put it back in.)
PLEASE only work in the line with your student number -- don't ruin this for everyone by messing around with
other entries.
In class this week: We will have a good look through what you've put in the spreadsheet.
Social scientists used to be mostly concerned with describing the world accurately and in detail. Understanding came with
knowledge of many cases.
But in the last 30 years or so, they have turned more attention to understanding how and why things happen by carefully
trying to discern what really causes the things we want to understand.
The textbook does a nice job of highlighting the concept of causation. Unless you have taken a philosophy course you
probably haven't thought clearly enough about causation, especially in the realm of politics and government. And yet, you
probably care deeply about causation if you want to change something about the world. Causal language exists in any
interesting political debate. So read the textbook chapter 3 and get a feel for the challenge of discerning causes and effects
in the political world..
We're not going to dwell on deep issues of causation in this course, but I am assuming you have a handle on this. It will be
particularly important towards the end of the course when we start trying to separate multiple possible causes of a
phenomenon.
To check on this, go back to the theory you've put into the spreadsheet. Read it over closely and make sure it is an account
of how something causes variation in the dependent variable that defines your research question. If your theory's not
causal, fix it!
Concepts should be nothing new to you. This word doesn't have a special meaning in POLI380.
Concepts play an important role in research questions. Theories use concepts as well. They are the building blocks in a
theory. Examples of concepts that appear in political science research are: democracy, conflict, equality, representation,
and hundreds more. You just used a few concepts in the previous excerise in the spreadsheet.
But concepts need to be defined rather precisely to be of any use for us in empirical research. That is, in this course we
don't just use concepts in arguments. We measure these concepts and then analyze the association between those
measures. If our measures are good enough, then we can say we're talking about the association between the concepts.
Like, for example, gender equality and political justice. If we can precisely define these concepts for the purposes of
measurement and then see how much those measures are associated, we will be able to build arguments about the role of
gender equality causing greater political justice or political justice causing greater gender equality.
For example, take the concept of intra-state conflict. One possible conceptual definition is a sustained (say, more than one
month) militarized (the parties involved have modern weapons) confrontation fully within the boundaries of a state between
organized groups that results in casualties or displacement of persons. That sounds like a definition of a civil war. Another
definition of intra-state conflict could be much broader and would not make duration or militarization or group organization
necessary conditions to classify a situation as an intra-state conflict. These kinds of definitions really matter for what we
can learn about the causes of those conflicts and actions that might be taken to prevent them. For instance, if we call
https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/courses/WS.UBC.DBL.PRODUCTION.101/userscripts/compile/index.html#
4/6
9/15/2015
panel content inner
organized protest by a minority group without casualties a form of intra-state conflict, then we may conclude that ethnic
diversity leads to conflict. If, on the other hand, we decide that guns and deaths have to be present to be a real intra-state
conflict, then those protests might actually be a safety-valve that prevents intra-state conflict.
So go back to the spreadsheet
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoVwv9pGfFkdEZ0Y3pXX3lJUG5vUThpczJBVEhGelE#gid=0) and write in a
definition of one of the concepts in your theory. (Keep what you've written in case it gets deleted).
You should have had enough exposure to the textbook stuff on variables so that you can ensure your definition is indeed a
conceptual definition NOT an operationalization of one of those concepts. That'll happen in the next step: Variables.
Measuring variables is the final step in the process before we start to actually collect and analyze the data as we'll do in the
rest of the course. We will talk about variables until you're sick of the word. It's how social scientists see the world: Things
VARY and we want to know why. Variation is just different outcomes of something we want to learn about. War or not war,
levels of spending on health care, the proportion of national income that the government transfers to individals, whether or
not someone voted, which party the voter voted for, how much support the Green party got in each province or country,
the cost of undergraduate tuition in each province. ANYTHING that has more than one measurable outcome; that is,
outcomes, plural!
This is covered well in section 1.3 of the textbook.You should be able to draw a link between the example the textbook
gives and Obama's re-election in 2012. The variables the text discusses are measures of the overall economic situation and
the vote share for the incumbent President's party's candidate for President (in the case of 2012 it would be Obama). But
notice that many political scientists would approach the question not through the immediate context of THIS election;
instead, they look over the long term for the degree to which the state of the economy is related to the incumbent's
success.
We will learn a lot about variables and measurement and how they get put into a dataset next week.
If you're doing this before our second class this week, you'll be in good shape to understand the boundaries between
theory, hypotheses, and variables. These are nicely illustrated in the Bradley article you will look at (see next page) and so
you should think about the hypotheses in the Bradley article's table of variables (http://www.jstor.org/stable/25054218?
seq=14)that has hypotheses (called "Proposed Effects") represented simply by plus and minus signs.
Hypotheses are covered nicely in the textbook in chapter 1 and to some extent in chapter 2. You will probably have trouble
distinguishing hypotheses from theory at first. But you MUST.
Hypotheses emerge from your theories. They're testable statements of specific facts that have to be true if your theory is a
good theory. (A good theory is useful way to understand the thing you're interested in and predict how similar things might
turn out in the future.) On the flip side, if these 'testable facts' in your hypotheses turn out not to be apparent in the data
you collect, you'll start to doubt your theory.
One way to think about the distinction between theory and hypotheses is that theory can be many paragraphs long with
lots of "because" or "causes" in there. And theories will have an 'infinite regress' problem where you can always question
an assumption one step behind the theory, and then question the assumption behind that, and so on.
Hypotheses are usally one sentence long and only state an association between two variables. (The direction of the
association is almost always stated).
For instance, if your theory is that candidates that spend more money get more votes because voters are generally
uninformed and select the candidate whose name they've heard and seen most, then the following are possible hypotheses:
Candidates who spend more, receive a higher share of the votes, all else equal.
The association between candidate spending and vote share will be higher in low-information elections (like municipal
elections) than in higher-information elections.
The less information citizens have about the election, the more likely they will be to choose the biggest-spending
candidate, all else equal.
Notice that these are very specific deductions from the theory. They're not big enough on their own to be considered a
theory. Although I stated the theory very concisely it could obviously be expanded to fill paragraphs about how spending
https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/courses/WS.UBC.DBL.PRODUCTION.101/userscripts/compile/index.html#
5/6
9/15/2015
panel content inner
translates into visibility and how familiarity is a basis for human judgment that is supported by lots of psychological
research. The hypotheses are nothing like that rich: they're almost always one sentence and so they are stated very
directly. The theory is an argument about WHY or HOW something happens. Hypotheses, instead, never contain word
"because". They're just statements that may or may not be consistent with the patterns in the data we gather when trying
to answer our research question.
So go back to the spreadsheet
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoVwv9pGfFkdEZ0Y3pXX3lJUG5vUThpczJBVEhGelE#gid=0)again and put
in variables and then a hypothesis that's an observable implication of your theory. Make sure it uses the concept you've
defined earlier; of course, it'll probably have other concepts in it too.
One more thing... As the textbook mentions: "For every hypothesis there is a corresponding null hypothesis. A null
hypothesis is also a theory-based statement but it is about what we would expect to observe if our theory is incorrect". We
don't spend much time on the concept of null hypotheses in this course but it is useful to know what one is and to think
about the basic idea that our theory should also yield predictions about what we will see if the theory is wrong. If your
theory cannot produce a null hypothesis, there is something wrong.
In class this week we will have a detailed look through the article by Bradley et al
(http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/25054218).
This article is a perfect example of a big research question, lots of theories that come from various sources, clearly defined
concepts, painstakingly measured variables, and tight hypotheses.
This is really serious, high-end political science research.
For this Bradley article read only up to the section on “Estimation Techniques” at page 213. Skip that section and the results
and then go straight to the conclusion/discussion.
Remember, this is NOT a normal course, so you’re not reading this article for its conclusions. YOU ARE READING THIS FOR:
questions, concepts, hypotheses, variables. The stuff up to page 213 is what we are concerned with this week. The article
provides examples of these things.
It's hard to transition from reading for CONCLUSIONS to reading for HOW the research was done. You're going to have to
do this a lot to do well in 4th-year seminars, in law school, in any Master's program, and so on. So get used to it!
You are almost finished this module. You should actually do this toward the end of the week or over the weekend between
the second and third weeks of class.
The final step is to complete this activity
(https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-2979399-dt-content-rid-13254188_1/xid13254188_1) and bring your answers to
your lab session next week.
It's a Word doc so you can fill in answers on the document directly and then print it and bring it to your second tutorial/lab
(in the third week of class).
This week, you should be familiar with some of the key concepts of social science research. You should be able to define
each and demonstrate your knowledge by applying them to actual research projects. For instance, you should be able to
propose a research question and accurately define concepts, theories, hypotheses, and variables that are involved in the
research question. This is harder than it seems. In week 3 you will write a test on these concepts, so after you have gone
through all the sections this week, do this quiz to practice and test yourself.
You can put all this together by reading a report on income inequality among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.
First, have a read through the whole report
(http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/reports/docs/Aboriginal%20Income%20Gap.pdf)and
pay particular attention to pages 11-19.
The next thing you will do (next item in this module) is a self-assessment quiz. The quiz questions will ask you to apply
your knowledge of the concepts we have just covered to this particular report.
In this quiz, you will answer a few questions about the report on income inequality among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginals in
Canada. This quiz is not graded.
https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/courses/WS.UBC.DBL.PRODUCTION.101/userscripts/compile/index.html#
6/6