A summary of ‘Scope Statements: Imperatives for Evaluating Theory by Walker and Cohen in American Sociological Review, 50:3

Given the fact I am scoping in my dissertation I have looked at why this is useful in more depth. I initially found it to be a good way of making my project feasible and a way of narrowing down my literature review.
W and C begin by saying ‘the debate [in social sciences] can be characterized by two extreme and seemingly irreconcilable positions. Those who believe that it is possible to develop general theories of social behavior and argue for the cumulative development of general theoretical explanations are at one extreme. At the other extreme are those who suggest that it is not possible to construct truly general theories of social behavior’ Page 288. This can make anything you do pointless, yet scoping can help with this.
They ‘offer a strategy for constructing and testing theoretical formulations that avoids the true-false paradox. The strategy we propose requires investigators to develop and test conditional theories. Webargue that falsifying theories which have been made conditional through explicit specificationbof their scope can be a progressive rather than degenerative process’ page 289 Ergo, theories that are conditional are more useful.

We should therefore narrow down our research question and then test it.

‘scope statements provide clear guidelines for choosing the appropriate empirical situation in which to evaluate a theory’
‘’Theorists who make the scope of theoretical statements explicit are making a commitment to a class of situations in which the general principles will not be falsified’’
PAGE 294
By appending more general,i.e., more inclusive, less restrictive, scope statements to a theory, the sociological investigator makes the theory more vulnerable to falsification. PAGE 295
‘The proper use of scope restrictions provides a method of analyzing data without getting tangled up in all possible relationships among variables that are not central theoretical concerns.’ PAGE 297
In walker and Cohens conclusion they say that to resolve the true-false paradox conditional research questions should be asked.

They demonstrate that theoretical formulations that have been made conditional by specifying their scope are different than theories that have been made conditional by adding new theoretical variables to them to make them work.
Finally, scoping forces researchers to make a commitment to count a theory as false if it encounters negative evidence under the given conditions we therefore must commit to accepting the results after we scope.

 

A summary of Chapter One – Paradigms and Sand Castles : Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics by Barbara Geddes (2003)

Paradigms and Sand Castles : Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics (2003)

Geddes begins by giving us reasons to be doing what we are doing as political scientists. Her own reason is that being ‘’Confronted by compelling and exiting events in the world scholars quickly turn their attention to trying to understand them’’. Page 12 To Geddes, the aim is to understand the world around her and sound methodological ground helps us do this. Geddes, who as further reading of this book will show, likes a metaphor and likens politics to paths in a jungle. Some of which do not take us where we want to go.

Geddes clearly and helpfully defines paradigms in this book. She calls them ‘a dominant understanding of a particular phenomenon at a particular time’ page 17

There is a thought that quantitative data is of higher evidential value but to counter this Geddes refers to analysis that inferred far greater claims than the data could support and therefore quantitative answers are very vulnerable to bias and subjectivity. For Geddes this can therefore be no different than anecdotal evidence if done badly. Page 24

One reason Geddes thinks paradigms fail is because a broad review of the evidence was not conducted in the first place. This means I will need to do a thorough literature review to formulate the theory and come down on a side of the hypothesis. I need to be spanning as much evidence as possible other wise the paradigm may fail or at least be suspect.
When using the data collected some analysis while not ‘ignoring’ evidence, use it selectively to support of refute theories. I cannot do this as it leads to the eventual failure of the paradigm one day although Geddes says this could be decades later.
This ‘general inattention’ (Geddes employs a careful and kind quote here) just leads to a slowing down of formulating a true working theory and our understanding she highlighted at the beginning. Page 29

Geddes also takes time to persuade us that our explanations need to be whitled down to the bear minimum and not be complex and difficult to understand. Any simplification is not necessarily a good one. Some thing to remember perhaps when writing up a conclusion. Page 33

A summary of ‘Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research’ by Bent Flyvbjerg

Flyvberg’s article from 2006 is an investigation into five misunderstandings often perceived when looking at case studies as a method of research. He argues that if people merely opperate at a theoretical level they remain at the beginners level of looking at the world they live in. He goes on to say ‘case knowledge is central to human learning’ Researchers who wish to develop there own skills need to use context depoendent examples in their work. Page 222-223.

Flyvberg then makes the admission  that any social science is incapable of producing undeniable theory that is applicable independent of context. Flyvberg uses this idea to heap extra value on context dependent knowledge. This is something  hope to produce in my work as ”case studies are particularly well suited to producing this knowledge…. as learning [in the social sciences] is possible” Page 224. Flyvberg is adamant that case studies and the ”force of example” are underestimated.

There then follows a good table that actually does not do what it says it does. The table claims to help select the case but instead lists the action that particular selection type performs. Take Deviant for example: It explains what it does but not which deviant case to choose. It is useful however and will probably make it into my dissertation.

Flyvberg continues to slam into the idea of firm theoretical truth in social science as he persuades us that complex real life narratives are impossible to fit into neat theories. This is helpful as I therefore feel under less pressure to do so. What is important from this article and Flyvbergs viewpoint is to understand the world a little better than before and explain it in a good narrative. Page 237

”the dense case study is more useful for the practitioner and more interesting for social theorythan either factual “findings” or the high-level generalizations of theory” PAGE 238

Flyvberg finishes by reminding us that we need to tell our cases story in as broader philosophical  terms as possible as it will then appeal to many different readers. This could mean merely using the basic theoretical positions and not being too cleaver or narrow minded.

Applied Research Methods

I will be giving a presentation on Chinese International Security. This meant I was looking at a single case study as a research design and followed some advice from Stoker and Marsh and George and Alexander. This was my first effort of knowingly applying a research method to my work. Its not much and will be fully explained in the presentation but click the link to see how to use ideas from literature on research design to say why you have done what you have done.

Chinese International Security Presentation – Selected Slides: Applied Research Methodology

A summary of ‘Americas coming War with China’ (2005) by Ted Galen Carpenter.

Americas coming War with China (2005) by Ted Galen Carpenter. Palgrave Publishing

This summary is intended for those looking at International Security, China, US foreign policy and history. Carpenter begins with a future imaginary war between the US and China over Taiwan. The picture he paints is vivid and seemingly generated by a love of narrative and fiction. It is not until the subsequent chapters and Carpenters conclusion that we see that the imaginary war is in fact a result of his research and is more of a prophesy.

The future war begins with Taiwan’s independence rhetoric delivered through its media and the call by the president to change the state’s official name from Republic of China. The PRC then ramp up the action to reclaim Taiwan and cause the US to send aircraft carriers into the strait between the two states. China begins to take offence and after years of developing its own military to deal with the issue of Taiwan bombs the US naval presence. After airstrikes by USAF on the Chinese mainland the issue of Nuclear weapons raises its head and the war calms down to the point where Taiwan become part of China again, the US is humiliated militarily and economically after Chinese shedding of US bonds. Pages 1-25

At this point it may be right to scoff but after careful reading of the ensuing chapters Carpenter presents a good case for this being a decent stab at what might happen. Carpenter begins by laying the blame in the hands of the Chinese and colonial expansion in general. In 1895 A war between China and Japan over Korea resulted in Taiwan been given to Japan after Chinese defeat. Taiwan (already showing an independent streak) declared independence and made it a Japanese police state. Despite the occupation or may be because of it Taiwan developed a new culture and became a very different place to mainland China in 1943.

This became todays problem when Churchill and Roosevelt divvied up ex Japanese land and gave Taiwan to the Chinese after a Cairo conference. Here lyeth the problem. The US created their own problem. The ‘rough landing’ Page 34 China made on Taiwan upset locals and felt the hard work of developing a strong economy and industry was undone. Further local upset was caused by the nationalists using Taiwan as a base during the war with Mao in 1949.

Previous to the Cairo treaty Churchill and the US president decides on Mao had stated that he did not consider Taiwan ‘lost territory’ Page 37 But the two western leaders legitimised Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan in Cairo. This confuses things today.

During the Korean War in the 50’s Truman sent Aircraft carriers to the area and there was thinking that the US should use Nuclear weapons on mainland China to make the nationalists on Taiwan more able to reclaim what the communists had taken. In fact Eisenhower asked why ‘’Nuclear weapons shouldn’t be used exactly as you would a bullet’’ Page 43

In the 60’s JFK changed stance to recognise PRC as official China. This was however just a way of stoking up Chinese anti USSR feelings. This was clever by the US and Kissinger as the US strategy was to use Chinese war theorist Sun Tze’s philosophy and engage in war by causing friction with your enemies alliances.

In 1979 the US agreed to sell arms to Taiwan and including high tech fighter aircraft in 1981. Concomitantly, Chinese-US relations also improved due to Deng Xiapings modernisation and the need for China to import to develop.

Taiwan replied by democratising the country in order to win over US congressional support. Whatever the impact Bush Snr sold 150 top of the range jets to Taiwan in 1992. This could have been due to the fact Bush Snr was fighting an election and need the votes a big defence contract would bring. (he lost anyway) This gave Taiwan the confidence to court relationships with other nations which incensed China. 150,000 troops moved to Fujian province just over the water and after renewed US naval presence a further arms deal was signed including Attack Submarines. Page 71

Today the US want to trade with China and support democracy in Taiwan. A tricky situation. Any strategic ambiguity was cleared up by Bush Jrn in 2001 when he said ‘’we will defend Taiwan’’ Page 127.

All changed after 9/11 when China was needed by the US to reign in North Korea and assist with pressuring Pakistan and Central Asia to cooperate with dealing with terrorism.

In 2004 however the rise of China turned the tables. China now had the ability to take Taiwan. Reports and Think Tanks saw that 700+ Ballistic missiles were trained on Taiwanese economic hubs. The issue remained that Taiwan had decent air defence and only 20% of shoreline useful for amphibious assault. Page 153

The tipping point would be the introduction of a blockade that would result in Chinese submarine being hunted by depth charges. This would lead to an open naval warfare that would see China now superior Navy win out.

All this may seem as hypothetical as the initial chapter but is borne out by reliable intelligence and research. This was all thought through in 2005 and then said it would take 10 years for China to develop the amphibious hardware to invade or more of the same naval power to win any naval warfare brought about by a blockade.

The book, although depressing does show the kind of way China has been strategically moving to ensure a successful war over Taiwan and warns the west over interfering in sovereignty issues. It encourages us to find a peaceful end to the ‘one china’ dispute and perhaps the west should explain to Taiwan it would need to defend itself in the future and stay out of this affair. It seems inevitable that Taiwan will return to mainland control and other states in the area should not antagonise China into a war it cannot win (I.e Japan and the Diayou Islands)

A summary of Theories and Methods in Political Science edited by David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (1995) Macmillan: Basingstoke.

As part of continued efforts in understanding research methods and not only choosing the correct one for any dissertation but understanding how to do said method well I have looked at:

Theories and Methods in Political Science edited by David Marsh (1995) Macmillan: Basingstoke.

This book helpfully breaks down the sections into methods and includes a good quotable introduction. It reminds us that ‘’in the study of political science it is important to be aware of the methodological choices available’’ page 13-14 because certain methods may be useful in certain research questions. The way of selecting seems rather unscientific when Stoker suggests certain topics have ‘gut’ preferences for certain methodological approaches page 14. It leads me to believe that in order to answer any research question it needs to be tacked from every research method and I am one part of this process.

For me it has identified the umbrella term inductive method ‘’The inductive method [which] draws its conclusions by empirical observation and the search for patterns and generalisations.’’ This is what comparative analysis comes under.

Due to the fact that ‘’The comparative method involves the PRESENTATION of empirical evidence of some kind in an attempt to compare systematically and explicitly political phenomenon.’’ Page 173 I need to present evidence for both cases from the same variable (provided you do two cases)

I am going to be reviewing two terrorist groups which is sanctioned under Marsh et al opinions of good comparative analysis as ‘logically, the comparative method can be employed in intra country comparisons’’ so logically, elements from within the state such as terrorist groups can be compared to other similar groups in other states. Page 173

Although there is not hierarchical line of methodology, some are needed to be done first, data and evidence cannot be used to test a concept unless the theory is first developed properly. Page 175 With this in mind my dissertation will need to clarify some conceptual ideas first such as what is security. This means I will have to use some conceptual methodology (only a little bit) to set my concepts.

There are 3 different types of comparative anayisis 1) case studies of individual states within a framework 2) comparing a limited number of states 3) global comparison of statistics.

INDIVIDUAL case studies have been accused of not being comparative method but may have comparative merit!! Page 177. Marsh calls this ‘pedatitic’ but I agree. A single case study can be put together with another with similar variables that it looks at and conclusions drawn to create an analysis. This is what comparative merit means. It is not an insult just highlighting how it can be used in the future. Something every researcher would want. It could be used as part of a edited book into cases of terrorist groups or whatever.

I will be looking into two cases. Selecting the amount of cases have implications in relation to the detail you can do. If you are aiming for generalizability then more is better than less. It is a trade off. Page 189

Stoker warns us that globalisation has implications for comparative case study analysis. But this can be a benefit as my aim is to provide relevant recommendations to defence companies/MOD and defence and security related think tanks such as Jane’s on how to deal with a globalising and dynamic terror group.

This means ‘’we must study the way in which individual states (in my case terrorist groups) contribute to the processes of globalisation’’ i.e what effects do these groups have on the West page 189 and that ‘’Globalisation means researchers need to broaden their concerns in order to understand more the common global problems that all countries face.’’ This is inevitable anyway as ‘’Gone are the days when political scientists could insulate the study of politics from the broader social and economic processes’’ All page 186.