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 Cynics Look at PAIR 2004

Pessimism and cynicism are not traits I hold dear but polemical thought, just for the sake of it is. It’s the reason I like talking about football and art.  With this in mind, a few points as to the motivation behind the research projects given to students in a politics degree course in Southampton ought to be raised.

With students undertaking real world research as part of their course on behalf of publically funded bodies are they in fact just doing the donkey work? Are they assuming a proportion of the workload for an organisation that cannot achieve its aims without help from minions running round collecting data and producing statistics? Are student’s part of the ‘Big Society’ without anyone telling them they are?

The organisations are on a win, win. They get research done for free and get round not paying interns by not paying students while they are actually in the middle of their course. Students are expected to feel humble and grateful that they can cite a well-known organisation on their CV’s when in fact they are the ones doing the favour. Are the organisations blind to this or, even more worrying hoping students won’t realise? Perhaps the organisations might want to say a big thank you at the end.

There is also the issue of: What is the university getting out of this? It could be that students are fostering new jobs for the boy’s type networks for the University of Southampton researchers and reputable organisations. It is feasible that the good work we do will nurture the relationships between the organisation and the university and the fruits of which will be felt by those who stay long after students finish their degree. Can you not see a situation where an organisation liaison with university representatives might include the back scratchingly nepotistic exchange of ‘Thanks for getting your 2^nd years to do the boring bits for us over the past 3 years, I don’t see why we can’t give one of your proper researchers a major citation in one of our important reports’

It is too much to say that students are being blagged into doing donkey work for publically funded bodies to make research produced by the real researchers at a university more palatable to them. University staff may even by careful to include links to their own research and mention future career plans in communications.

The upside to this hypothetical parallel universe could be that the marking of our research project will reflect this. It is not in the interest of the University to have students do work for an outside organisation and then say it was of poor quality. It makes the University look bad and if organisations are getting work that is being graded as poor. Why would they continue the relationship?

This may seem cynical and unfair but is just a way of interrogating what it is that you are doing. Something lecturers would be proud of their student for doing. Anyone suspecting the above can claim immunity under the protection of utilising their free and enquiring mind to think about what they are doing, their right to publicise their thoughts and their hope that they are wrong.