The ProcessSelection of the research questionIdentification of the methodology to answer that questionResearchDefinition, Description and AnalysisExplanation and Prediction
Good questionsAnswer a puzzleTake part in a debateAdd to the “tree of knowledge”For this class, they should have a comparative dimension“Is” versus “ought” questions
The Comparative method
(Review Ch. 1)Inductive reasoningGoing from the bottom up. Using one case to develop ideas. “Why has Country X slide toward state failure?” Still need to test theoriesDeductive reasoningGoing from the top down. Using logic to generate a number of explanations. “What explains democratization in Asia?” Still need to test theories
Finding patterns or connectionsDependent variable OutcomeIndependent variable Cause (potential)
Q. Why did protests turn violent?
Q. What makes some democracies stable?
CorrelationsCorrelations are associations or a relationship between variablesPositiveNegative
Plotting the correlation shows a relationship exists but it does not necessarily explain the cause. (The “why” question)
Correlation and causationTo show “causation” we first need to show that a correlation existsCorrelations are necessary but not sufficient to prove causationProblems with spurious correlations
Hierarchy of UnderstandingWorld views/FrameworksTheories Generalizations, explanations and predictionsConceptsFacts/Raw data
Hypothesis Assumptions to be tested against the evidenceIt’s your answer to the research question(s) you posed. Descriptive hypothesis (propose a “fact”, test to see if it exists. Need evidence to confirm)Democracy has broad support in RussiaExplanatory hypothesis (seek to explain the fact)Russians support democracy because of their past experience with communism
Hypotheses have to be testableA nonfalsifiable hypothesisWe won because God is on our sideFallacy of composition All Americans are wealthyTautologyArmed conflict caused the civil warReductivism One cause can explain everythingFalse InferenceInfering too much from the data you have
Sources for finding hypotheses
or where do I get my argument?Deduction (literature, logic)Induction (observations, facts)Grounded theory generalize from cases
Both need to be tested
Methodology QuantitativeQualitative
Comparative PoliticsStructured focused comparison
Steps in hypothesis testing1. Define key terms (wealth, elite)2. Identify the Variables (independent/dependent)3. Specify the expectations of the hypothesis. (if….then)4. Collect and examine the evidence5. Draw conclusions from the evidence
Example Puzzle: Has the creation of European institutions and policies led to a shift toward a “European” identity in member states? Descriptive hypothesis…Explanatory hypothesis …Identify variables (I and D) institutions/identitySpecify expectationsCollect and examine evidenceAnalyze evidence
Who Governs?, Robert DahlEconomic power confers political power Tes.
TataKelola dan KamSiber Kecerdasan Buatan v022.pdf
The ProcessSelection of the research questionIdentificatio.docx
1. The ProcessSelection of the research questionIdentification of
the methodology to answer that questionResearchDefinition,
Description and AnalysisExplanation and Prediction
Good questionsAnswer a puzzleTake part in a debateAdd to the
“tree of knowledge”For this class, they should have a
comparative dimension“Is” versus “ought” questions
The Comparative method
(Review Ch. 1)Inductive reasoningGoing from the bottom up.
Using one case to develop ideas. “Why has Country X slide
toward state failure?” Still need to test theoriesDeductive
reasoningGoing from the top down. Using logic to generate a
number of explanations. “What explains democratization in
Asia?” Still need to test theories
Finding patterns or connectionsDependent variable
OutcomeIndependent variable Cause
(potential)
Q. Why did protests turn violent?
Q. What makes some democracies stable?
2. CorrelationsCorrelations are associations or a relationship
between variablesPositiveNegative
Plotting the correlation shows a relationship exists but it does
not necessarily explain the cause. (The “why” question)
Correlation and causationTo show “causation” we first need to
show that a correlation existsCorrelations are necessary but not
sufficient to prove causationProblems with spurious correlations
Hierarchy of UnderstandingWorld views/FrameworksTheories
Generalizations, explanations and
predictionsConceptsFacts/Raw data
Hypothesis Assumptions to be tested against the
evidenceIt’s your answer to the research question(s) you posed.
Descriptive hypothesis (propose a “fact”, test to see if it exists.
Need evidence to confirm)Democracy has broad support in
RussiaExplanatory hypothesis (seek to explain the fact)Russians
support democracy because of their past experience with
communism
Hypotheses have to be testableA nonfalsifiable hypothesisWe
won because God is on our sideFallacy of composition All
Americans are wealthyTautologyArmed conflict caused the civil
warReductivism One cause can explain everythingFalse
3. InferenceInfering too much from the data you have
Sources for finding hypotheses
or where do I get my argument?Deduction (literature,
logic)Induction (observations, facts)Grounded theory
generalize from cases
Both need to be tested
Methodology QuantitativeQualitative
Comparative PoliticsStructured focused comparison
Steps in hypothesis testing1. Define key terms (wealth,
elite)2. Identify the Variables
(independent/dependent)3. Specify the expectations of the
hypothesis. (if….then)4. Collect and examine the
evidence5. Draw conclusions from the evidence
Example Puzzle: Has the creation of European institutions and
policies led to a shift toward a “European” identity in member
states? Descriptive hypothesis…Explanatory hypothesis
…Identify variables (I and D) institutions/identitySpecify
expectationsCollect and examine evidenceAnalyze evidence
4. Who Governs?, Robert DahlEconomic power confers political
power Tested in New Haven, CTVariables? (I and
D)Expectations? (what would support/undermine the
hypothesis) EvidenceConclusions: Inconsistent with the idea of
a power elite and consistent with the idea of pluralism in
American politics
FindingsConsistentInconsistentCounterintuitiveAll are
interesting….
Next StepsBrainstorming a topicInitial research to formulate
ideasSubmit one paragraph concept piece (can submit more than
one)After approval develop research proposal. (Note—the more
developed the proposal, the easier it will be to write your
paper)Structure is key
Structured Focused Comparison Introduction (Parts 1-6 of
Proposal)General BackgroundCase 1Intro, background, IVs,
analysis, conclusionsCase 2Same formatComparative Analysis
***important*** Policy Implications (if desired)Conclusions
Comparative Politics Questions from ‘Introducing Comparative
Politics 4th Edition’ by Orvis&Drogus
Chapter 7 Contentious Politics
1.In the class lecture, cases and discussion, we covered the
types and causes of political violence. Using the Mexican and
Nigerian case studies, what do they suggest about the role of
5. weak states in unleashing political violence?
2. Define what a social movement is. How is it different from a
political party? Then compare and contrast the Occupy
Movement and the Tea Party movement. How are they similar,
how are they different? (Think about the mechanisms behind
the movement, methods, ideologies, how they shaped public
opinion, etc. in the United States.
3 Describe the different types of revolutions and theories that
explain why they happen. Why does the case argue that
relative deprivation and political opportunity were the primary
causes of revolution in China and Iran?
Chapter 8:
1.Explain the “dictator’s dilemma” and its consequences for
authoritarian regimes. Why do democratic regimes not suffer
from a similar dilemma?
2. Explain the role supreme leader in authoritarian regimes.
Why are they more important than in democratic regimes? Most
authoritarian regimes suffer from the problem/challenges of
succession. Why? How have Iran and China dealt with the
problem of succession?
3. What is clientelism? Why is it critically important for many
authoritarian regimes? (What purpose does it serve). Provide
examples from the cases.
Chapter 9
1.Both Brazil and Nigeria underwent military coups. Compare
and contrast the military coups in Brazil and Nigeria. In what
ways were they similar and in what ways were they different?
Which one do you think undermined the country’s political
institutions more and why?
2. Democratization is one way that authoritarian regimes can
change. Describe what is typically included in the process of
democratization. Then using the case of South Africa, given the
institutionalized racism of the apartheid regime why do you
think South Africa’s democratization occurred without severe
6. violence?
Chapter 10
1.Even among states that adopt capitalism, distinct models (or
variations) of capitalism have emerged. Pick two states (hint
the ones covered in the case studies would be the easiest) which
illustrate different models under the variety of capitalisms
approach and describe those economic models using the cases as
your examples.
2. Describe the different role of the state in a market economy.
Why do states intervene in the economy?
Chapter 11
1.Briefly, what is development? What are some of the major
types of development strategies that post-colonial states have
tried? Illustrate with examples.
2. What was Amy Chua’s argument about the relationship
between capitalism and democracy in certain types of states?
What do you think about her argument and how might a
government avoid negatives outcomes?
Chapter 12
1.Describe the social democratic welfare state. What are its
main goals, what do they emphasize, and what are typical
benefits associated with this type of welfare state? What are a
few of the reasons why scholars think this type of welfare state
has emerged? Illustrate your discussion with a country example.
2.Describe the liberal welfare state. What are its main goals,
what do they emphasize, and what are typical benefits
7. associated with this type of welfare state? Illustrate your
discussion with a country example.
Chapter 1 (from Methodology slides)
What is a structured focused comparison approach to
comparative politics? Why is this a useful way to approach a
research topic?