Rules for Constructing Causal Theories King, Keohane and Verba 99-109.
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
242 -
download
0
Transcript of Rules for Constructing Causal Theories King, Keohane and Verba 99-109.
Rules for Constructing Causal Theories
Same as causality: the objective is to demonstrate that a variable causes or causes a change in another variable.
Internally Consistent:Theories need to be internally consistent.
Rule 1: Construct Falsifiable Theories
A theory incapable of being wrong is not a theory.
In fact, a theory should be designed so that:
1) It can be shown to be wrong as easily as possible 2) It is tentative.
3) Should be prepared to reject the theory as soon as possible.
Falsification
Theories are NOT verifiable: Too many possible HypothesesNo particular theory can in fact be verified, since there are there are an
infinite number of possible hypotheses. Hence, the objective is not to prove a theory, but to test its boundaries of applicability.
FalsificationA falsified theory does not claim universal application. Rather it admits that it
applies only to some circumstances, but not all. It can, then, be proven wrong.
It is valid under certain conditions or in a particular setting. There are, in other words, boundaries its applicability.
Falsification
Example:Theory: In American politics, presidential campaigns have a very limited
effect on voter preferences.
Hypothesis: There could be dozens or more:
1) Campaign ads have no effect2) Debates have no effect
Etc.
Falsification
We cannot test them all to see if any contradict the theory. It still might be the case, that in some situation, campaigns do have an effect. Solution: we should not try to explain everything.
Modify the theory so it asserts less:
Theory: In American politics, presidential campaigns have a very limited effect on voter preferences, unless a candidate is viewed as dangerous. (1964) (This is not a universal claim. It boundaries are clearly stated.)
Rule 2: Build Theories that are Internally Consistent
Internal Consistency is related to Reliability
Reliability: “is the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring procedure yields the same result on repeated trials.”
Internal Consistency: If any part of your theory contradicts another, it is internally inconsistent, no evidence from the empirical world will uphold your theory. You cannot say that some population has contradictory practices andbeliefs.
Formal models: can help with internal consistency.
Rule 3: Select DV Carefully
Need to avoid selection bias.
Should not select cases on DVDV should not be constant. Do no pick just countries with revolutions, for
example, if you want to study the factors that facilitate social revolution.
Choose DV that varyHave cases were there were and were not revolutions.
Rules 4 and 5
Rule 4: Maximize ConcretenessNeed to operationalize hypotheses.
Rule 5: State Theories in as Encompassing Way as FeasibleValue of generalizations.…
Review: Levels of Analysis
Theory: Concept 1 is related to Concept 2
Hypothesis: Variable 1 (IV: Cause) is related to Variable 2 (DV: Effect)
Operational Definition: IV: Definition of Cause
DV: Definition of Effect
Review: Levels of Analysis
Theory: Inequality and Democracy
Hypothesis: Inequality (IV) adversely effects Democracy (DV).
Operational Definitions: IV: (Inequality): Income Levels
DV: (Democracy): Voting
IV: (Inequality): Political Contributions DV: (Democracy): Representation
IV: (Inequality): Racial Density of City DV: (Democracy): Rate of Government Response
Essay OutlinesIntroduction:
Topic: Inequality and Democracy Question: How does Inequality affect Democracy? Thesis: Racial Inequality (IV) adversely effects Democracy
(DV). Hypothesis: The federal response will vary by the racial
density of a city.
Literature Review: What have other said about the topic?
Argument/Analysis: (Operational Definitions):How do you plan to test/demonstrate your argument:
IV: (Inequality): Racial Density of City DV: (Democracy): Rate of Government Response(Selection Bias: Look at Variety of DVs: Instances where the government
responded to a crisis)
Review: Levels of Analysis
Theory: SSM and 2004 Election
Hypothesis: State bans on SSM (IV) aided Bush’s reelection (DV).
Operational Definitions: IV: (SSM): States with SSM bans on the ballot
DV: (Bush Reelection): Republican Voting % by state
Selection Bias: Variation on DVDV: (Bush Win): Rep. Voting % in state DV: (Bush Loss): Rep. Voting % in state
You cannot just look at states where Bush won. You need to look at states where he lost, and where SSM ban or may not have been on the ballot.
Essay Outlines
Introduction:Topic: SSM and 2004 ElectionQuestion: How did State bans on SSM impact the Bush’s reelection?Thesis: (Hypothesis): State bans on SSM (IV) aided Bush’s reelection (DV).
Literature Review: What have other said about the topic?
Argument/Analysis: (Operational Definitions):How do you plan to test/demonstrate your argument:
IV: (SSM): States with SSM bans on the ballotDV: (Bush Win): Rep. Voting % in state DV: (Bush Loss): Rep. Voting % in state
Review: Levels of AnalysisTheory: Conservatism and US Foreign Policy
Thesis: Bush embraced a crusading, unilateral approach to foreign policy.
Hypothesis: After Bush’s election (IV), the US became less likely to seek multi-literal support (DV) when confronted by threats from abroad.
Operational Definitions: IV: (Bush): His election (2000-2009)
DV: (Multi-literalism): Number of US Allies In Afghanistan and Iraq.
DV: (Multi-literalism): Number of US Allies In Gulf War I and II (before and after study of Bush).
DV: (Multi-literalism): Number of US Allies In Korea, Vietnam, GWI compared with Afghan, GWII (before and after
study of Bush, times series).
Review: Levels of Analysis
Theory: US Culture and Foreign Policy
Thesis: During the Bush years, US Foreign Policy (DV) was defined by a culture of unilateralism (IV).
Hypothesis: During the Bush presidency, culture of unilateralism (IV) in the pentagon made it less likely (inversed relationship) for the US to seek international support (DV) for its foreign policy.
Operational Definitions: IV: (Unilateralism): Policy/Rhetoric of Pentagon/White House.
DV: (Inter. Support): Number of US Allies In Afghanistan and Iraq.
Essay Outlines
Introduction:Topic: US Culture and Foreign PolicyQuestion: Is a Culture of Unilateralism shaping US Foreign Policy?Thesis: A Culture of Unilateralism (IV) defines US Foreign Policy (DV).
Literature Review: What have other said about the topic?
Research Design: Quasi-Experimental: Before and AfterDV: (US Foreign Policy): Number of US Allies In Iraq during Bush adminDV: (US Foreign Policy): Number of US Allies In Iraq during Obama admin
Essay OutlinesIntroduction:
Topic: US Culture and Foreign PolicyQuestion: Is a Culture of Unilateralism shaping US Foreign
Policy?Thesis: (Hypothesis): A Culture of Unilateralism (IV) is
shapes US Foreign Policy (DV).
Literature Review: What have other said about the topic?
Argument/Analysis: (Operational Definitions):How do you plan to test/demonstrate your argument:
IV: (Unilateralism): Policy/Rhetoric of White House DV: (US Foreign Policy): Number of US Allies In IraqDV: (US Foreign Policy): Number of US Allies In Afghanistan
Essay Outlines
Introduction:Topic: SSM and 2004 ElectionQuestion: How did State bans on SSM impact the Bush’s reelection?Thesis: (Hypothesis): State bans on SSM (IV) aided Bush’s reelection (DV).
Literature Review: What have other said about the topic?
Argument/Analysis: (Operational Definitions):How do you plan to test/demonstrate your argument:
IV: (SSM): States with SSM bans on the ballotDV: (Bush Win): Rep. Voting % by state DV: (Bush Loss): Rep. Voting % by state