Session 1: Introduction
“Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted” William Bruce Cameron
1963
how to overcome cognitive bias?
● questions ur own assumptions (philosophical foundations of research & research questions)
● look for info outside ur info bubble (biased search for info)
● look for alternative explanations (biased interpretation of info)
philosophical foundations of social research → the is no right or wrong, its just how a research views doing
research:
1. ontology: what's out there to know about? what can be known about the nature of the social world, what it
is possible to know about the world?
1. study of being, reality and what we think it it
1. whether there is a common, shared, social reality or just multiple context-specific realities
2. what is the nature of social reality?
1. underlying ontological issue has concerned whether the social and natural worlds exist in
similar ways or whether the social world is very different because it is open to subjective
interpretation
2. realism: there is a world out there independent to human, we attach meanings that are not
necessarily there on its own ←→ idealism: reality is always mind dependent so there are
different realities out there, u can only understand it by talking to people
3. there is no truth
2. epistemology: what can we (hope to) know about it?
1. study of knowledge
2. where u stand on this is dependent on what u think of ontology
3. what can be known about the social world?
1. objectivism: meaning is always in the object, we can study it ←→ subjectivism: the
meaning is always in the researcher, the person add the meaning, the meaning is not there
1. Example: what is the nature of money? – physical commodity vs social
construct
4. very subjective: double hermeneutics → i'm interpreting the interpretation of reality of someone
else
3. methodology: how can we acquire that knowledge?
1. study of methods
2. tip of the iceberg → depends on the 1st two
1
, Session 2: Qualitative Research Design I
a taxonomy of major types of research in political science research
1. normative → what should the item be used for? (try to advocate for better reality)
1. concerned with value judgments and explores "what ought to be"
2. data is used to bolster a value-based argument—but the core focus is on what should be done
based on ethical or normative principles
3. focuses on ethical, moral, or ideal aspects and is often prescriptive in nature, making arguments
about what policies, decisions, or actions should be pursued
4. introduces subjective values, often seeking to guide policy or decision-making based on ethical
principles
2. positive → what is something/the item? what is it used for? (try to explain reality)
1. is value-neutral and empirical, aiming to explain the world without bias
2. data is central to objectively explaining or predicting how the world works, without involving
values
3. theoretical: theory elaboration, conceptualisations; analytical (truth statements are based on
logical deductive reasoning); about formal modeling, calculating which rules are more fair;
example: arrow’s impossibility theorem (1951) (theoretical but positive), no voting method is fair /
every ranked voting method is flawed (?))
4. empirical: theory generating, testing and application, conceptualization; synthetic (truth
statements result from a confrontation between theory and empirical content); uses data to
confront a theory/conceptualisation → thats what we focus on
1. descriptive: what is going on?; collection of relevant facts that can be used as evidence
in subsequent theory building or conceptualization; good descriptive research can lead to
a “light bulb” moment in later/different kinds of research; research objective: thick
description or conceptualization; wants to dive into/understand a topic very specifically
& in detail, also there to conceptualize, maybe understand a factor that is later relevant in
the explanatory research; how is usually how this type of questions starts
1. Example: “How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters”
akkerman
2. predictive: v niche within political science, we wont focus on it
3. explanatory: why or how it is going on?; explanations can focus on causes of events (Y),
causal effects (X), or causal mechanisms (X-Y); not what is it but rather why-questions
abt causal effects, how-questions abt causal mechanisms; research objective: theory
building or theory testing but also conceptualisation
1. “Twitter and facebook: populist double-barreled gun?” jacobs
→ descriptive and explanatory research are not exclusionary, they are often combined within one
study as different stages
2
,what is research design?
“a research design is a logical plan for getting from here to there, where here may be defined as the initial set of
questions to be answered, and there is some set of conclusions (answers) about these questions”; “a research design
deals with a logical problem and not a logistical problem” yin, 2014
● experimental designs
● large-N designs
● small-designs (case studies)
6 aspects of research design:
1. theory
2. cases
3. level of analysis
4. causation
5. type of data
6. methods
case study designs
what is a case?
“a case is usually defined as an instance of a broader phenomenon under study” ruffa
● central question to know what this case is: what is this a case of?
● boundaries cases, e.g. spatial, temporal, & substantive
● ≠ observation (most basic empirical element)
what is a case study?
“the empirical analysis of a small sample of bounded phenomena that are instances of a population of similar
phenomena” (Rohlfing, 2012, p. 27)
● there is an aim for generalizability, bc causal effects and mechanisms (of this case-study) are expected to
hold true for other cases in the population
○ ur assuming that there is generalizability but u also have to convince ur reader of that (for that u
need research design)
○ the more representative the case is, the more generlizability there is from the study
● both qualitative and quantitative techniques can be used (here we focus on qualitative case studies)
what is a theory?
“a theory is nothing more than a set of connected causal laws or hypotheses” van evera
a theory consists of…
● a prime hypothesis (e.g. A → B)
3
, ○ overarching argument ur making
○ can be broken down into different arguments paths that have to do with linking the X to the Y
● one or more explanatory hypotheses (e.g. A → q, q → r, r → B) = your argument!
● one or more antecedent conditions (e.g. C)
○ “well the argument im making is limited to a set of cases that actually have this” (what)
○ u can limit the region of ur generlizability which makes it more believable → if u analyse how war
affects ukrainian politicians, u can say that this will apply to either mostly other ukrainian
politicians or to politicians from war-ridden countries
→ theories provide an explanation as to how A causes B & they can be written in the form of an arrow diagram (u
will need to do it for the group work assignment)
types of case study designs depending on how they relate to theory
the role of theory as research objective in case study designs
● case-centered case studies (ideographic; single-outcome studies; not looking for generalization) = “the
phenomenon of interest is not seen as an instance of some greater population of cases” (Ruffa 2020, p. 8)
should still be theory-guided, i.e. explicitly structured by a well-developed conceptual framework
○ usually Y-centered (i.e. seeks to develop a more or less “complete” explanation of an outcome,
including all causes)
○ when ppl want to analyse a phenomenon as exhaustedly as possible
○ often focusses on rare events (e.g. the end of World War I or the Cold War)
○ → research objective:
■ thick description,
■ conceptualization,
■ basis for subsequent theory building (light bulb moment) → finding patterns that can late
on be used to build a theory
● theory-centered case studies (nomothetic) = “a case study is theory centered when it contributes to the
advancement of general theory” Rohlfing 2012, p. 1
○ relate very muhc to theory
○ contribute to further development of theory → adapt, modify, contradict etc etc a theory
○ → research objectives:
■ exploratory: theory development & building-block studies
● a theory on which one builds doesnt exist
■ confirmatory: theory falsification, theory adaptation, plausibility probes, disciplined
configurative case studies (application
● a theory on which one builds exists
● → the difference between the two usually gets blurry once u look into examples
4
“Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted” William Bruce Cameron
1963
how to overcome cognitive bias?
● questions ur own assumptions (philosophical foundations of research & research questions)
● look for info outside ur info bubble (biased search for info)
● look for alternative explanations (biased interpretation of info)
philosophical foundations of social research → the is no right or wrong, its just how a research views doing
research:
1. ontology: what's out there to know about? what can be known about the nature of the social world, what it
is possible to know about the world?
1. study of being, reality and what we think it it
1. whether there is a common, shared, social reality or just multiple context-specific realities
2. what is the nature of social reality?
1. underlying ontological issue has concerned whether the social and natural worlds exist in
similar ways or whether the social world is very different because it is open to subjective
interpretation
2. realism: there is a world out there independent to human, we attach meanings that are not
necessarily there on its own ←→ idealism: reality is always mind dependent so there are
different realities out there, u can only understand it by talking to people
3. there is no truth
2. epistemology: what can we (hope to) know about it?
1. study of knowledge
2. where u stand on this is dependent on what u think of ontology
3. what can be known about the social world?
1. objectivism: meaning is always in the object, we can study it ←→ subjectivism: the
meaning is always in the researcher, the person add the meaning, the meaning is not there
1. Example: what is the nature of money? – physical commodity vs social
construct
4. very subjective: double hermeneutics → i'm interpreting the interpretation of reality of someone
else
3. methodology: how can we acquire that knowledge?
1. study of methods
2. tip of the iceberg → depends on the 1st two
1
, Session 2: Qualitative Research Design I
a taxonomy of major types of research in political science research
1. normative → what should the item be used for? (try to advocate for better reality)
1. concerned with value judgments and explores "what ought to be"
2. data is used to bolster a value-based argument—but the core focus is on what should be done
based on ethical or normative principles
3. focuses on ethical, moral, or ideal aspects and is often prescriptive in nature, making arguments
about what policies, decisions, or actions should be pursued
4. introduces subjective values, often seeking to guide policy or decision-making based on ethical
principles
2. positive → what is something/the item? what is it used for? (try to explain reality)
1. is value-neutral and empirical, aiming to explain the world without bias
2. data is central to objectively explaining or predicting how the world works, without involving
values
3. theoretical: theory elaboration, conceptualisations; analytical (truth statements are based on
logical deductive reasoning); about formal modeling, calculating which rules are more fair;
example: arrow’s impossibility theorem (1951) (theoretical but positive), no voting method is fair /
every ranked voting method is flawed (?))
4. empirical: theory generating, testing and application, conceptualization; synthetic (truth
statements result from a confrontation between theory and empirical content); uses data to
confront a theory/conceptualisation → thats what we focus on
1. descriptive: what is going on?; collection of relevant facts that can be used as evidence
in subsequent theory building or conceptualization; good descriptive research can lead to
a “light bulb” moment in later/different kinds of research; research objective: thick
description or conceptualization; wants to dive into/understand a topic very specifically
& in detail, also there to conceptualize, maybe understand a factor that is later relevant in
the explanatory research; how is usually how this type of questions starts
1. Example: “How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters”
akkerman
2. predictive: v niche within political science, we wont focus on it
3. explanatory: why or how it is going on?; explanations can focus on causes of events (Y),
causal effects (X), or causal mechanisms (X-Y); not what is it but rather why-questions
abt causal effects, how-questions abt causal mechanisms; research objective: theory
building or theory testing but also conceptualisation
1. “Twitter and facebook: populist double-barreled gun?” jacobs
→ descriptive and explanatory research are not exclusionary, they are often combined within one
study as different stages
2
,what is research design?
“a research design is a logical plan for getting from here to there, where here may be defined as the initial set of
questions to be answered, and there is some set of conclusions (answers) about these questions”; “a research design
deals with a logical problem and not a logistical problem” yin, 2014
● experimental designs
● large-N designs
● small-designs (case studies)
6 aspects of research design:
1. theory
2. cases
3. level of analysis
4. causation
5. type of data
6. methods
case study designs
what is a case?
“a case is usually defined as an instance of a broader phenomenon under study” ruffa
● central question to know what this case is: what is this a case of?
● boundaries cases, e.g. spatial, temporal, & substantive
● ≠ observation (most basic empirical element)
what is a case study?
“the empirical analysis of a small sample of bounded phenomena that are instances of a population of similar
phenomena” (Rohlfing, 2012, p. 27)
● there is an aim for generalizability, bc causal effects and mechanisms (of this case-study) are expected to
hold true for other cases in the population
○ ur assuming that there is generalizability but u also have to convince ur reader of that (for that u
need research design)
○ the more representative the case is, the more generlizability there is from the study
● both qualitative and quantitative techniques can be used (here we focus on qualitative case studies)
what is a theory?
“a theory is nothing more than a set of connected causal laws or hypotheses” van evera
a theory consists of…
● a prime hypothesis (e.g. A → B)
3
, ○ overarching argument ur making
○ can be broken down into different arguments paths that have to do with linking the X to the Y
● one or more explanatory hypotheses (e.g. A → q, q → r, r → B) = your argument!
● one or more antecedent conditions (e.g. C)
○ “well the argument im making is limited to a set of cases that actually have this” (what)
○ u can limit the region of ur generlizability which makes it more believable → if u analyse how war
affects ukrainian politicians, u can say that this will apply to either mostly other ukrainian
politicians or to politicians from war-ridden countries
→ theories provide an explanation as to how A causes B & they can be written in the form of an arrow diagram (u
will need to do it for the group work assignment)
types of case study designs depending on how they relate to theory
the role of theory as research objective in case study designs
● case-centered case studies (ideographic; single-outcome studies; not looking for generalization) = “the
phenomenon of interest is not seen as an instance of some greater population of cases” (Ruffa 2020, p. 8)
should still be theory-guided, i.e. explicitly structured by a well-developed conceptual framework
○ usually Y-centered (i.e. seeks to develop a more or less “complete” explanation of an outcome,
including all causes)
○ when ppl want to analyse a phenomenon as exhaustedly as possible
○ often focusses on rare events (e.g. the end of World War I or the Cold War)
○ → research objective:
■ thick description,
■ conceptualization,
■ basis for subsequent theory building (light bulb moment) → finding patterns that can late
on be used to build a theory
● theory-centered case studies (nomothetic) = “a case study is theory centered when it contributes to the
advancement of general theory” Rohlfing 2012, p. 1
○ relate very muhc to theory
○ contribute to further development of theory → adapt, modify, contradict etc etc a theory
○ → research objectives:
■ exploratory: theory development & building-block studies
● a theory on which one builds doesnt exist
■ confirmatory: theory falsification, theory adaptation, plausibility probes, disciplined
configurative case studies (application
● a theory on which one builds exists
● → the difference between the two usually gets blurry once u look into examples
4
