Deductive vs. Inductive Theory ConstructionDeductive Reasoning Construction: general → particular1. start off with a topic 2. take an inventory of already known knowledge of the topic (preliminary research) ‣beware overlooking the value of introspection3. specify the range of phenomena your theory addresses4. identify and specify your major concepts and variables5. find out what is known about the relationships among those variables6. reason logically from those propositions to the specific topic you’re examining Inductive Theory Construction: particular → general Example in Babbie: Why do people smoke marijuana? by Takeuchi•looking at the specifics of the outcomes of his research, ended up changing his explanation from why some students smoke marijuana to why some didn’t•based on observations concluded that women had more to lose than men from smoking marijuana (evidence: women living at home were less likely to smoke marijuana than men) •students from Asian backgrounds also have more lose from smoking marijuana than students from non-Asian backgrounds •created a theory based on “social constraints” to explain the observed differences in the likelihood smoking marijuana IR example: experience shows that theory and observation inform each other to move forward a given program of research, alliances and defense spendingDeductive: larger states contribute more, take on more burden of leadershipInductive: Greece and Turkey, anomalously high spending levels within NATO relative to their size compared to other states, arming to consider a war against each otherLinks between Theory and Researchdeductive model: research is used to test theoriesinductive model: theories are developed from the analysis of research dataNecessary vs. Sufficient CausesNecessary: Condition that must be present for the effect to follow •X is necessary for Y•IR example: Free and fair elections is necessary for a stable democracySufficient: Condition that guarantees the effect in question •X is a sufficient condition for Y/X is a subset of Y•IR example: Oppression of human rights is sufficient for coup?Significance•brings clarity into analyzing the correlation between variables•not much exciting explanatory power from pursuit of necessary conditions, tougher to determine sufficient conditions•hard to satisfy both in IR•never discover single causes that are both absolutely necessary and absolutely sufficient when analyzing nomothetic relationships among variablesCorrelation vs. CausationCorrelation: empirical relationship between two variables such that…•changes in one are associated with changes in the other•particular attributes of one variable are particular attributes of the othercorrelation is a criterion of causation but does not mean causation Causation•variables must be correlated•cause takes place before effect•variables cannot be explained by a third variable — they are non-spurious necessary cause represents a condition that must be present for effect to followsufficient cause represents a condition that if present guarantees effect in questionIR example: lets take statement human rights abuses by a government causes civil war•civil war and human rights abuses are definitely correlated•but there are many other variables in place•what about ethnic tension, drug trafficking, type of government (dictatorship?) Validity vs. Reliability (IR example for reliability) Validity: how dependably a measure mirrors its concept•criterion for validity (indirect): separate standard of judgement•IR example: measure of nation’s hostility towards each other based on content analysis ofthe nations’ newspapers•if we found out that nations went to war against each other but measure did not reflect increasing hostility we would be suspicious. •face validity (most general): does measure accurately reflect the concept, purely subjective•amount of campaign contributions as a valid measure of political supportReliability: a measure is reliable to the extent that it gives the same result again and again if the measurement in repeated•test retest•split half check Nomothetic vs. Idiographic Nomothetic → generalizing across cases•identifying a few causal factors that in turn impact and explain several events rather than just one•use when you want to focus on a wide range of events•however lacks specificityIdiographic → one individual instance in great depth•all possible causes and explanations for one event•explanation is limited to a singular case•use when you want to fully list all the causes of one event and focus specifically on a single caseIR: terrorismnomothetic: look at various events relating to terrorism and generalize why terrorist attacks occurred in greater depthidiographic: look at all possible reasons as to why 9/11 occurred Cross Sectional vs. Longitudinal StudiesCross-sectional studies: observations of a sample of population or phenomenon that are made at one point in time•exploratory and descriptive studies, conclusions are based on observations made at one time, but aim at understanding causal processes that occur over time •problem of generalization when conclusions are limited to one period of time, subject to other tests•IR example: survey about favorability of Iraq war in 2003Longitudinal studies: designed to permit observations of the same phenomenon over an extended period•best to study changes over time•trend studies, cohort studies and panel studies•IR example: studying the evolution of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to predict its future political movesConceptualization vs. Operationalization Conceptualization:‣mental process where imprecise notions are made more precise‣produces a specific agreed-on meaning for a concept for the purposes of research‣conceptions summarize collections of seemingly related observations and experiences Operationalization: ‣development of specific research procedures that will result in empirical observations representing those concepts in the real world‣process of developing operational definitions‣operational definition: concrete and specific definition of something in terms of the operations by which observations are to be categorized‣beware of “definitional operationalism”Considerations while Operationalizing 1. must consider range of variation, this should be governed by the expected distribution of attributes among the subjects of the study 2.