MIR Extra herkansing Samenvatting Week 1: An introduction to Methodology in IR theories Epistemology = What is knowledge. What can we know?

Ontology = what is the world made of? Methodology = how do we know? Methods are problem specific techniques, the tools. Methodology is the toolbox: certain methods are used to do a specific type of research. The same method may be used in different guises towards different objectives, under different ontological presumptions. Naturalism Ontology: there is a Real World out there, independent of our experience of it Epistemology: we can gain access to that World by thinking, observing, and recording our experiences carefully. Outsiders view, explaining: why? What causal relations do we find? Modelled on methods of natural science: There are regularities or patterns in nature which can be observed and described. Statements based on these patterns can be tested empirically following the falsification principle and a correspondence theory of truth. It is possible to distinguish between value-laden and factual statements The scientific project should be aimed at the general, at the expense of the particular. Human knowledge is singular and cumulative. Events are governed by laws of nature which apply whenever similar events occur in similar conditions. There is scientific progress by learning which similarities are the key to which sequences, generalises, and tries to make cases of laws. Assumes a cause makes an effect happen. Behaviour is generated by a system of forces or a structure. Every individual behaves in the same law-like way, with individual variations depending on systematic differences in for instance preferences. Searches for causes. Rejects what one cannot see or reason. Product of Enlightment. Hierarchy of methods: Experimental method Statistical method Comparative method Case studies / historical method

Constructivism Ontology: the world / truth lies in the eye of the observer, we make the world Insiders view, understanding, how do social facts get their meaning? There are no universal laws or necessary causal relationships. If men defines situations as real, they are real in their consequences Thomas Theorem. One acts as if it is true and thus becomes truth. -the social world is a construct. -perception depends on individual or social characteristics (gender, religion)

-focus on the role of identity, ideas, norms, culture, knowledge -importance of intersubjective beliefs a collective agreement. These beliefs construct identities and interests. Human interaction is shaped by ideas: shared ideas will construct how we perceive the world and how the world is shaped, how others respond to us. When human interaction is shaped by ideas and most ideas are formed by humans > we construct our own world. E.g. money as a product of human interaction. It has no intrinsic value. Social facts = depend on human agreement, and typically require human institutions, for their very existence. Individual characteristics or social characteristics can facilitate or obscure a given perception of the world. Our experience and reason can be influenced by these factors, which undermines any claims to an objective transmittance of truth. Nietzsche: there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena. Constructivists seek to capture and understand the meaning of a social action for the agent performing it. Truth lies in the eyes of the observer and the construction of power and force that supports that truth. Hierarchy of methods: Narrative approach Comparative method Statistical method Experimental method Scientific Realism There is a Real World out there, but there can be many layers to the reality that they study. Their access to the Real World is highly complicated (like onion) -Believe in uncovering the truths about the Real World by means of naturalist approaches > Naturalist element. -Avoids formulation of universal laws (appreciates complexity) and the questioning of neutrality > Constructivist element Research method should depend on the nature of the object of study and purpose of studying it. Week 2: Naturalism as a Methodology in IR-theories and the use of experiments Philosophy of Naturalism Assumptions: Ontological - there is a Real World with natural laws. Nature works like a machine. Correspondence theory of truth (a statement is true if it accurately corresponds to the state of affairs in the Real World - Popper). Epistemological the laws of nature can be discovered through systematic observation. Knowledge is gained from the outside, like telescope/microscope Methodology: 4 methods: experimental, statistical, comparative, case study Strength: power of explanation and prediction Weakness: is the social world the real world? Is objective knowledge possible without ethical or political biases? Scientific revolution -universalistic / mechanical / mathematical worldview Maths show that some things are necessarily true.

-systemic observation -discovering causal relationships and general laws Galileo,Kepler,Newton versus Aristotle: -the study of nature was done earlier, but the mathematical aspect was new: combining mathematical with experimental method. Before these scientists, the Aristotelean worldview was commonly accepted. This was a teleological view: directed at the goal of every natural object, people are designed to achieve a certain good. -Aristotle started with a general proposition, and then go to the specific. He assumed men had been given natural reason by God, which could be accessed to understand the world. -But nature does not appear teleological, but mechanical> search for laws of nature -The general movement of objects is seen by Galileo, Kepler ,and Newton. The aristotelean science is dualistic: the earthly and perfect world of stars were seen as opposites. But laws are universalistic, and everywhere in the universe the same. -Aristotle was mostly biological, Galileo,Kepler,and Newton mathematical: regularities in nature must be captured in mathematical laws. Things are only interesting if they can be quantified. This was also their downfall. Deduction and Induction: about empiricism Induction: sensual observations > general law Deduction: start with general law > via established rules of reasoning > reason to the particular Induction is done by empiricist research General Claims (Laws / Theory) Induction Facts Deduction Test

Bacon: experiment is the means for discovery. Science must begin with systematic observation. Then an argument can be build form a large number of single observations towards more and more general truths. Particular > general 2 claims: only direct observations supply us with statements about the world True knowledge is derived from observation statements Human senses are not always reliable and things in the world may not always be what they seem, so we should also trust on common sense and reason. Spider = deduction, no new knowledge can come from people who spin webs out of themselves (old knowledge Ant = induction, collects material in the world and uses it, can produce new knowledge but this inductively produced knowledge is not necessarily true Bee = middle way, gathers material but then transforms and digests it by a power of its own Locke: defends empiricism. Man is born with a tabula rasa, a blank slate. There is no a priori knowledge. Knowledge of the world can only be derived from sense experience.

We gain impressions about the world through our senses > store these in our minds > process these senses in systematic ways, according to established rules of logic Knowledge only arises in the human consciousness through experience by our senses. Hume: we can only gain knowledge through our senses. Memory preserves and arranges the simple ideas we have stored in our mind, in the exact order by which they entered the mind. Imagination rearranges and recombines these simple ideas into complex ideas. Ideas are strung together by a principle of association or attraction. We cannot perceive causal relations, our imagination provides the link because it is used to associate events. So: our mind is capable of devising theories, which we then impose upon the world. The imaginations of the mind do not produce certain knowledge. -Problem with induction: Since causal explanations are imaginary, we can never tell what effects a thing may produce just by examining it. Only as a result of experience can we determine its consequences. -Problem with grounds of science: How can we than perform science? Science should restrict itself to identifying and observing regularities in the world. There are two types of knowledge: those based on facts (empirical knowledge) and those based on values (normative knowledge). Empirical knowledge is knowledge about the observable world and accessible via sensory perception. All sensible people are in agreement about the basic properties of this observable world. Normative knowledge is based on values and believes. It is the realm of individual preferences and is subjective. Only empirical facts lead to knowledge. Descartes: is a rationalist. Build knowledge not on teleology or senses. Human senses are not trustworthy and must be harnessed by Reason. Optical illusion can happen, but cogito ergo sum. Under the complx superficial world lies a simple mechanical Real World. To arrive here we use the Cartesian method: -systematic doubt: all claims should be treated as if they were false. We should ony add a lcaim to our stock of knowledge if we are certain it is true. -reductionism: build your investigation from the bottom up, beginning with the propositions that you know are absolutely true. So begin your investigation by dividing every argument in its many component propositions. Ask for every proposition: how do I know this is true? Then reject every proposition that you cannot verify without any doubt. You are then left with a few true, core claims. By eliminating all dubious assumptions, a scientist is left with a simple set of axioms upon which a rational argument can rest logically. Mathematics offers a true and reliable knowledge of the material world. Explain movement mechanically. Man is different from the mechanical world by its reason and soul. This leads to a dualist world: a mechanical body versus a rational human mind. Kant: is both a rationalist and empiricist. Causality comes from the human mind. We are born with this idea. Positivism Comte firstly promoted that models can also be applied to the social world. Social and natural sciences share two important features:

-epistemological argument: all scientific knowledge about the Real World flows form empirical observation. Knowledge which does not originate in positive perception (empirical) is not knowledge about the world, and therefore falls outside the view of science. -historical evolution: science has evolved through three historical phases. A mystical theological stage, metaphysical stage, and a scientific phase. Here the search for ultimate causes is abandoned and humanity instead tries to establish laws. The ony way to search for these laws was through systematic, empirical observation. Durkheim Social facts are socially constructed and collectively maintained constraints. Social facts do not just appear to our senses, representation of social facts are often confused with the real things. A sociologist needs to break away from popular perceptions and start anew, building his scientific argument on empirical foundations. Logical positivism The Vienna circle Logic should be used as the primary tool of positive (naturalist) science. When is an argument scientific? The circle came up with a system to gain knowledge: -demarcation principle to decide what science is: verification. All scientific statements have one quality in common: they can be tested and deemed true or false. Scientific statements are meaningful. There are two types of meaningful statements: true and false ones. Statements can be tested on their truthfulness by comparing them to the Real World. Science is primarily concerned with meaningful statements which are true. -Meaningful statements come in two types: formal or empirical. Formal (analytical) statements can be deemed true or false by investigation whether they are logically constructed because they are self-referential. They are true or false by definition. Empirical (synthetic) statements may provide new knowledge about the world. They refer to a state or event outside itself and can be deemed true or false by observing the facts of the world, and then determining whether the statement corresponds to a real fact or condition in the world. -theories should only be based on facts. Ethics and values are subjective -the correct process is observation > theory > test with facts Critical rationalism Popper There is no absolute guarantee that what we have seen in the past will persist on the future. Laws are therefore a product of our imagination. The world is too vast and varied for anyone to demonstrate a general claim to be accurate and true. modifications on the system of the Vienna Circle: -Any systematic observation of the world is affected by theory, otherwise it could not be systematic. Empirical observation is therefore theory dependent. E.g. Sherlock Holmes has a theory which tells him what to look for. -Criticism on induction: Laws are general statements produced by a process of induction. Attempts to justify induction by appealing to general statements which are produced by induction constitutes a tautology. > Science is not about finding the ultimate truth, it is a process which builds on general statements. Where these statements come from is not important, we evaluate it on the basis of its explanatory power, which we test.

-what is testing? Falsification is a better option: no one can demonstrate a claim to be true, verification is nave and easy, since you can always find some proof, but you cannot observe all phenomena in the world. Scientific knowledge is falsifiable: if a theory is not refuted, it has our trust. Poppers criticism on the Vienna Circle results in another model which provides a strong deductive grounding for scientific study: Problem > Tentative Theory > Error Elimination > New Problem This approach leads to a diversity of rival theories, which can be evaluated in hierarchical terms. Both this and the inductive-deductive model share an implicit understanding that there is a Real World with naturally existing patterns than can reveal themselves to the observer. Post-Popper: Hempel deductive-nomological explanation What is science? Observed scientific explanations and discovered 2 common features: -involves at least one universal law -incudes a statement of relevant conditions These constitute the premises (explanans) from which an explanatory statement (explandandum) is deduced. When X > Y A law implies prediction, because whenever we observe X then we can predict the appearance of Y. The difference is that an explanation follows an event and starts with what we want to explain (Y), and a prediction precedes it. The naturalist scientist engages the world with a basic hypothesis in mind, something that needs explaining (Y). this is the dependent variable. The things that explain the changes in the dependent variable are independent variables (X). there is a linear relationship between the two. The wiener kreis and popper had a twofold effect. Pragmatism Quine: there are no objective facts prior to observation. When we sense things, we pick out certain relevant and reliable features so we can group it with other experiences (relevance). We presume that the grouping is significant for other cases too (reliability). There is no way of describing experience independently of its interpretation. A test cannot be a moment of pure empirical truth where theory is judged against reality. The question in these tests is not what the facts show, but which theory we prefer. Theory is involved in deciding what the facts are, which gives room for choice when deciding whether the theory is consistent with them. Therefore, there is never a hypothesis at stake. Scientific Communities Kuhn: falsification is a false ideal which is not relevant for actual scientific practice. We have set up assumptions, which leads to a paradigm. These assumptions cant be said to be true or false from an objective perspective. This paradigm can come into crisis > the scientific community designs a new one > Scientific Revolution. In social science we have different paradigms at the same moment. Socialism is therefore not real science. Overall, natural science has become more open minded. So is there a way to combine experience and theory to discover the truth?

The task of a scientific theory is to abstract, generalize, and connect. Abstraction is grouping things which are not identical. The groupings vary on the concepts applied. Generalizing is a matter of saying what else things identified by the same concept have in common, not as a matter of logic but as a matter of fact. The problem lies with the connections: there must be a necessary and constant relationship. A theory is a model whose internal logic we understand together with a claim that reality conforms to the concepts and logic of the model. Theory has more to it than experience can check, and the other elements are not just fiction. Empirical evidence for the claim that the theory represents the real world, is only that facts can be read consistently with it. Consider the differences between idealists and realists: they have different theories which all represent an interpretation of the facts. The explanations are not directly comparable because they have a different character. Naturalism and IR theory Classical Realism Balance of Power, duty of statesmen Human nature is crucial in natural interest. Objective laws have their roots in human nature. Men will challenge them only in the risk of failure (Morgenthau). The concepts of balance of power have origins in natural science, but are also normative. Neorealism science, structure, balance of power Neorealism is more scientific, emphasises the structure of IR. Has the deductive theory of Popper as inspiration. The structure of the system is anarchical. This means its everyone for themselves. Neoliberalism neorealism plus Has the same paradigm as neorealism, but gives an autonomous role for supranational regimes. World system Theory global laws of capitalist exploitation

Naturalist Methods The Experimental Method The first naturalists did empirical experiments. Direct observation of X>Y. This is the most scientific method because it is simple and direct, whereas non-experimental methods have a lack of control of observation. In experiments we manipulate the environment, which makes sure the results are reliable. Central are control and comparison Control is the ability of the researcher to operationalize the independent and dependent variables, with the aim of measuring the impact of a given stimulus Random assignment is the ability of the researcher to control all other external factors that may be linked to the phenomenon of interest. This is used to make sure that the result of the experiment is not caused by an external factor. Comparison is used to map regularities with the aim of discovering general laws or patterns. Classic design of experimental method: -all factors are kept constant, except the one which we are observing. -x is the dependent variable, the one we are changing. Y is the independent variable, of which the behaviour will change as the outcome of the experiment.

-Confounding experiments disturb the connection between X and Y -participants are divided in an experimental and a control group, which is not exposed to the stimulus. -pre-test > one group exposed to stimulus, one not > post-test Internal validity = the scientists control over the context, so that he can be certain of the causal relationships among them. To distinguish causation from correlation, the experimenter is forced to engage in a counterfactual thought experiment: the absence of the causal factor would lead to the absence of the effect. If there is not a causal relationship, this does not hold. External validity = generalizability, the extent to which we can trust that the lessons learnt from experiments in the laboratory are extendable to the real world. Often if there is high internal validity, there is a low external validity. Some of this tension can be resolved by employing different types of experiments. Quasi-experiments = experiments which uses non-comparable groups, or where there is no complete random allocation 4 types of experiments Quasi-experiments 1: One group, after only design Treatment Control Before (t1) ? X After (t2) Ye2 Effect of X = ? Real experiments 3: Two randomized groups, after only design Treatment Control Before (t1) ? ? X After (t2) Ye2 Yc2 Effect of X = Ye2 Yc2 Difference in after tests is allocated to X, but we cannot be sure 4: Two randomized groups, pre-test-post-test design Treatment Control Before (t1) Ye1 Yc1 X After (t2) Ye2 Yc2

2: Two groups, after only design Treatment Control Before (t1) ? ? X After (t2) Ye2 Yc2

Effect of X = Ye2 Yc2 Difference in after tests is allocated to X, but we Effect of X = (Ye2-Ye1) (Yc2-Yc1) cannot be sure 1: a single group, no control, which is only tested after the treatment X has taken place. It is difficult to control for a number of alternative explanations, so there is a low level of internal validity. 2: there is both a control and treatment group, but they are not randomly chosen. The first group is treated with X, but the control group is not. The effect of the treatment is then measured by comparing the difference in outcomes between groups. 3: there is a random distribution of group members, which protects against selection bias. The researcher can be more confident that the different post-test outcomes are caused by the treatment X. 4: provides the strongest defence against alternative explanations or bias. There is random selection and a pre- and post-test to define, locate, and test the real causal factors. The effect of X is measures by comparing the change in test scores within both groups and between groups.

By employing quasi-experimental designs, the experimenter accepts a lesser degree of internal validity to avoid practical and ethical problems associated with experimentation. Example 1 Worker productivity, Mayo Hawthorne effect: productivity goes up when workers are being observed. This is a problem for the method of observation. In order to isolate the factors which are researched, the scientist alters the nature of that world. Example 2 Psychological, Maier Rats respond to stimuli. Problem: what can we learn directly about human behaviour from studying rats? Example 3 political science, Marcus, Sullivan, Piereson Ideological innocence Research has shown that americans are badly informed about politics and vote on the basis of ideology. Research form the 60s showed that they were better informed then. S,P,M investigate this and conclude that the difference in survey questions has led to different outcomes. Conclusion Strength of the experimental method is that it can establish a causal relationship, there is control of different variables, and this leads to reliable knowledge in principle. There are however problems: -it is artificial, not a real life situation -context violation: students are more often used because they are cheap -practical problems: not all variables can be controlled -ethical issues

Statistical Method What it is: quantitative analysis to identify co-variations, mathematical science. Why it exists: co-variation may indicate cause. X>Y or Y>X How it works: you have to choose a sample of the population, which should be representative. Then collect data, analyse this, and this leads to either description or inference. Statistics involves the systematic collection of quantitative information along lines specified by the rules of inductive logic. a) descriptive statistical methods are used to supplement narratives and analyse variables: mean of population, average measure, standard deviation, correlation. Graunt collected death records. Petty and Gaunt compiled information, sifted through it, classified it, and grouped it in various ways in an attempt to uncover the worlds uniformity and hidden patterns. Conring introduced a system which allowed him to collect quantitative information about countries and compare them according to size and structure. He also elaborated on the kind of conclusions that could be drawn from descriptive facts concerning rules of conduct for responsible statesmen. Galton measured peas and people and introduced two innovations: -the explicit phrasing of social science questions in variable terms, -he made statistical measurements popular to capture such variable relationships. This is the correlation coefficient. It provides the social sciences with a standard measure, according to

which its practitioners could assess the strength and direction of a co-relation between two variables. He then transformed the values from a data matrix into a set of coordinate points, and plot these points into a Cartesian graph > scatter plot! (he followed Descartes idea of reference lines and coordinate points on a tile) These innovations function as a bridge to the use of statistical inference. -Galton then discovered regression analysis: things move towards the mean of the race. -Galtons problem: he made scholars aware of the dangers of comparing fundamentally similar units Durkheim did not develop new statistical techniques, but placed descriptive statistics at the centre of social scientific activity. His statistical research shows that suicide occurs more often in societies with a low social integration. Variable analysis John Stuart Mill: The Real World is held together by intricate webs of causal relationships. Causality cannot be observed, but we can expect that there is some kind of causal relationship when you can see a covariation. Co-variation and cause are different things, but these things always appear together. It is possible to capture causal relationships with inductive approaches: The scientist needs to break down the chaos that appears on the worlds surface, and distil it into single, well-defined, facts. Each fact can be related to other facts. Through systematic observation of relationships and mapping of co-relations of facts, the uniformity of the world can be uncovered. This is possible because every observed fact has a cause and this cause will be found in another fact which immediately precedes it. To make a data matrix: Units = people or things which are observed Variables = X and Y Values = number of times X or Y is observed per unit This is to discover a relationship between X and Y. in an experiment, one can control the variables. In social sciences, this is not possible: you cannot change someones sex or age. Therefore, variation needs to be created by taking many different cases with different values, according to a number of variables. Statistics therefore uses around 1000 case studies. Important concepts in early statistics: Arithmetic mean = sum of the values divided by the number of observations Mode = most common value Median = that value which divides the distribution exactly in half Standard deviation = the spread of the values Correlation coefficient = a number between 1 and -1 where 1 indicates a perfect positive correlation and -1 a perfect negative correlation which means that if one variable rises, the other one falls with the same amount. A correlation of 0 shows that there is no correlation. b) inferential statistics: regression analysis. Tries to make connections that go beyond the collection of particular observations. Goal is to generate predictions, explanations, and test hypothesis.

Regressions the dependent variable changes while other values are held fixed. Bivariate regression shows how changes in the level of a single independent variable are related to changes in a dependent variable. Y=+.X+ is a constant minimum term, e.g. the grade a person can expect without going to any lectures is the slope of the regression line, e.g. shows the effect which attending 1 lecture had on grades. is an error term used to capture the effect of other factors (e.g. sex, age) There are 2 types of regression analysis: bivariate and multivariate. Multivariate regression allows us to expand on the number of independent variables. The variables are independent from one another. This shows Galtons problem: man of the things we research have common and complex causal backgrounds, but it is important that the variables are not related to one another, because this can lead to misleading results. It is also possible than rather than X>Y, X and Y are both influenced by Z. Y=+ .X+ .Z + If for instance X is attendance at lectures, and Z is sex, the influence of attendance of lectures on grades is looked at, where the group is divided between male and female units. The more independent variables there are, the more data the researcher needs. Control & Comparison: whereas with experiments we manipulate the context and data to isolate a relationship, but in the statistical method we let the computer divide the sample into sub-groups and compare the data form the groups. Regression analysis provides a strong foundation for predictions. This relies on an underlying naturalist ontology: in statistics we assume that it makes sense to divide up the social world into variables and search for patterns to them. We assume that the patterns in the Real World are so stable that we can expect them to hold beyond our narrow sample of observations. The statistical method allows us to manipulate data in ways that can uncover hidden patterns in the data. Statistics are often used with counterfactual analyses: there is a pre-test after which a policy change has taken place. We can then not compare the results in the real world at with the results of the pre-test, because then we would assume that nothing would have changed between and if the new policy was not implemented. We therefore have to make an expectation of what the world would look like without the implementation of X, and then compare the Real World outcome with this outcome. Power of this method is that it is the closest alternative to experience. There is no interfering context. There are also a high number of cases used. Weakness is that the causality can be wrong. There can be a confounding 3rd variable. There can also be a misuse or non-availability of data. Application example: political science (Nols and Thriens analysis of political parties and foreign aid) Experiments and statistics in IR?

We should aspire to be scientific in the best sense; but neither the experimental nor statistical methods are easy to apply to a world of strategic interactions, by a limited number of players, that are not subject to our control. Robert O. Keohane

Comparative Method Few-N studies What it is: comparison of cases. Less cases (3 or 4) than the statistical method (1000). Less wide, but deeper. The cases are selected on the dependent variable, and thus not random. This brings the problems of selection bias and over-determination. Why it exists: when there is not sufficient data, depending variable cases (non-randomn), carefulness of case selection How it works and is applied: Methods of J.S. Mill (only applicable to natural science) a) method of difference (highlighting differences); neutralizing or highlighting difference. All cases share characteristics, but vary in one certain aspect. This is the causality aspect. The presence or absence of this one aspect can then be used to explain any variation in the outcome. This method is the closest to artificial experiment, but it is unlikely to meet the conditions in the real world. A B C D occur together with W X Y Z B C D occur together with Y W Z therefore A is the cause, or the effect, or a part of the cause of X 4 types of applications: -longitudinal comparisons: everything is the samen before and after a big event, except for one factor. This factor can then be seen as being the consequence of the event. -intra-state comparisons: within a country the context of different cases is so similar that we can expect them to fulfil the criteria of being similar except for one factor. This is then the factor which is researched. -comparisons between similar states: assumes that countries in the same region have so many significant variables in common that it is meaningful to compare them with respect to selected variables. -counterfactual comparison: it is impossible to find cases which are similar in all aspects except one, but we can imagine a case. b) method of agreement (finding common factors); each case is inherently different, with the exception of a key explanatory factor. The phenomenon is that explained by the common presence of that factor. E.g. 4 friends go to a restaurant and get ill, the only thing they had all eaten are oysters. The oysters are then expected to have caused the illness. A B C D occur together with W X Y Z

A E F G occur together with W T U V therefore A is the cause, the effect, or part of the cause of W this method can lead to faulty empirical generalizations. Problem with this method is that it cannot establish a necessary link between cause and effect. There can be a third factor (Galtons problem) or multiple factors. Another problem is over-determination: there are too few cases relatively to the number of explanatory variables. c) indirect method of difference (double application method of agreement); 2 or more instances have 1 circumstance in common while 2 or more which have nothing in common do not contain this circumstance. Double check: X+Y are present in the positive and absent in the negative cases. Problems come with multiple causes: the 1st phase can be a positive case, 2nd phase negative cases, 3rd phase Negative Case(s) Positive cases A A B B C C D D not X X not Y Y

X = causal variable; Y= phenomenon to be explained A, B, C, D = non-causal variables E.g. everyone who got sick ate oysters, while everyone who did not get sick did not eat oysters. d) method of concomitant variation (relative strength correlations) shows relative strength of a co-relation. Phenomenon vary in every case. If A increases a little, X increases a little, but if A increases a lot, X increases a lot (with representing an increase) A B C occur together with X Y Z A B C results in X Y Z therefore A and X are causally connected Power of Mills methods is the careful comparison Shortcoming (of every naturalist method, just more so in few-N methods: -over-determination: we use inference to generalize from specific cases to a broad law. Degrees of freedom: number of cases number of variables -1 2 problems: too few observations > increase # cases, or use theory to choose cases carefully too many variables > combine variables, or use theory to choose the most likely variables

-sampling bias: comparative methods use case selection. Bias can threaten the generalizability of any results. Scientists can only select cases which support the theory which he is trying to prove, draw from certain types of sources, or cases can be chosen by their score on the dependent variable.

Historical Method Collect data on an individual case of a larger phenomenon. What it is: scientific study of history, writing history based on a scientific method Why it exists: we want verifiable knowledge of past events. The scientist looks at how things were in the past and how things are now and what caused the changes. Critical on sources. Von Ranke- Quellenkritik -helped to establish history as a separate discipline, based on describing history as ti actually happened. -established that discipline with a reputation for impartiality -developed an explicit outline of historical methods based on source criticism Relying on primary sources as much as we can. 19th century was the age of nationalism. This has led to a distortion of true history to create a national unity. History should show what really happened. Are there only facts or fact and general motifs? Quellenkritik: history should be based on sources closest to what happened (eye-witness). Primary sources are the direct outcomes of historical events or experiences Secondary sources are once removed from original events The aim of history is the uncovering of unquestionable facts The goal of history is to systemize the content of the documetns and create a narrative of what really happened. Avoid moral judgement and try to understand events in their own time. writing as of the time Tuchman: without using the benefit of hindsight. Phase of research: collect all relevant evidence Phase of processing: thinking and writing, referencing Power is that not everything counts as history. There has to be impartial and convincing evidence. Shortcomings are that it is hard to determine how objective a source is. Empirical sources always imply that someone chooses the facts and interprets them. It also favours the people who have left traces behind over those who have not. Interpretation of sources also never objective. Naturalist affinity: idea of linearity of history, there is a truth out there

Case Study method What it is: collecting historical data on a single case of larger phenomenon. The examination is systematic and in-depth. History with a theoretical concern: the case is selected based on a theory. Why it exists: is interested in 1 particular case, to generate or test hypotheses. The difference with the historical method is that it lacks a generalising, theoretical purpose. Lijphart 4/6 types of case studies: a) hypothesis-generating case studies

develop theoretical generalisations in areas which have no theory yet. Present it as hypotheses: a tentative statement which is created to be tested. Cumulation b) theory- confirming case studies a case verifies a theory. You are doing the case study to test a generalisation. One case is not likely to totally confirm or inferm a theory. Is a bit like the verification principle of the Vienna Circle, illustrates a theory. c) theory-infirming; wants to show how a case does not fit with a theory. Like falsification principle. d) deviant a case study leads to additional variables Power is that it is an intensive examination of a case, with more direct experience, familiarity with the context, and potential falsification Shortcomings are that it is hard to test hypotheses with only 1 case and shows a sense of shortsightedness.

Week 4: Applying Naturalist Methodology Foreign policy decision making An experiment is artificial, does not represent the real live situation > not used much in IR. Social sciences do use them. It allows us to measure an effect of something and to have control on the situation to make sure that X>Y and there are no other variables. Redd - Experiment in foreign policy decision making

Dependent variables: Their value depends on the value of other variables Independent variables: Variables that influence the value of other variables Intervening variables: Variables that provide the link between independent and dependent variables. poly-heuristic = the cognitive mechanisms decision makers use to simplify complex decision tasks: people screen the available alternatives and then makes a cost-benefit analysis to choose the alternative which minimises risk and maximises rewards. Politicians view costs and benefits in terms of domestic politics. They try to avoid failure. Processing characteristics: -Dimension-based processing: decision maker evaluates alternatives in groups, based on a theme. E.g. focuses only on the political dimension of all alternatives, before listening to the military

dimension of all alternatives. Since this is an easier process, it is more likely to be used when making a complex decision Alternative based processing: decision maker evaluates alternatives across dimensions e.g. political and military and economic dimension per alternative first -Non-compensatory strategies = a low score on one dimension cannot be compensated for by a high score on another dimension. Decision makers do not make trade-offs between low and high scores on different dimensions, once an alternative is given a low score, it is rejected. -Order-sensitive search order of appearance matters -Non-holistic search -Satisficing behaviour There are 2 ways to make a decision: alternative- or dimension-based. When someone first looks at all the political information of every alternative, he or she is dimension based. When someone first wants the political, economic, and military information of alternative 1, he or she is alternative based. When a decision is more complex, you first choose the dimension. After that, the strategies. Hypotheses: Decision makers will be more likely to use non-compensatory strategies when the policy advisor is most important (i.e. when advisors are unequal in importance) there are 4 advisors: political, military, economic, foreign affairs. Four conditions to the experiment: 1. advisors of equal importance/policy advisor first appearing 2. advisors of equal importance/policy advisor last appearing 3. advisors of unequal importance/policy advisor first appearing 4. advisors of unequal importance/policy advisor last appearing Gorendy vs. Milano: both have uranium. Americans work on Milano. Gorendy invades Milano, what should America do? There are 4 advisors with different stands and interests. Why is force the accurate choice? It has in total the most points from advisors. We need a baseline to know what is the accurate choice. Effect of importance of advisors on choosing accurately: When the advisors were of equal importance, 43% chose the correct alternative. When the advisors were of unequal importance, only 23% chose the correct alternative. Effect of alternative versus dimension based strategies on choosing accurately as a function of the importance of advisors: With alternative based strategies, the importance of the advisors did not really matter. For the dimension based

strategy, the correct answer was given a lot more when the advisors were of equal importance. This also points towards a non-compensatory process, because the political advisor evaluated force as the worst option. Effect of alternative versus dimension based strategies on choosing accurately as a function of the order of appearance of the advisors: When the political advisor appeared first, the dimension based strategy led less often to the correct strategy than the alternative based strategy. This is because a noncompensatory process would reject the alternative which was least preferred by the first advisor. A non-compensatory strategy is highly sensitive to negative values appearing early in the information acquisition process. Redds conclusion:

Issues: Value of experiments Research design Role of hypotheses Variables

Environmental Voting Statistics What do they want to know? Do voters concern about the environment influence their vote for the President? If so, what factors are influencing this relation? Steps: Are voters concerned with the environment? Are they able to identify and assess candidates positions on the issue?

 Are their decisions influenced by the issue? Ability to distinguish between candidates: Independent Variable: Environmental Issues Independent Variable: Environmental Issues Dependent Varialbe: Ratings of Candidate Dependent Variable: Distinguish between competing candidates

Environment and actual voting Independent Variable: Environmental Issues Dependent Variable: Voting decision

This research looks at these variables in 5 elections. Their conclusions are: 1: In all elections the environment issue is present. 2: While voters commitment to the environment issue is not overwhelming, their concern seems great enough to sustain the expectation of measurable issue voting. The greater the proportion of voters who express a concern for the environment, the greater the environments expected power as an electoral issue. 3: a correlation coefficient shows the difference in evaluation of Republican and democratic candidates by the voters. This then shows that the higher the level of environmental spending voters wanted, the higher they rated the Democratic candidate and the lower they rated the level of environmental spending, the higher they rated the Republican candidate. Voters appear capable of rating individual candidates and distinguish between competing candidates based on the environment. A greater difference between candidates will allow a larger share of voters to distinguish the candidates on the environment issue, and therefore to act on their environment-related inclinations. 4: the environment issue has influenced the voting decision in 4 of the 5 elections. It has thus potential to influence voting behaviour. 5: the proportion of voters which wants increased spending on the environment is larger than the proportion which wants to decrease it. When voters perceive a candidate as a threat to environmental spending, they are more inclined to let their vote be influenced by this issue. For that reason, Democrats have more to gain from emphasising the environment in elections, while Republicans need to minimise the issues visibility.

Issues: Literature review Operationalization Asked whether you want the president to increase spendings on environment or not Using control variables Data collection Purpose

Factors: Candidate difference scores Level of expressed concern Democratic and Republican scores

Munck/ Verkuilen: A framework for the analysis of data

Conceptualisation: Go form the general to the specific Dont make definitions too broad > decreases its usefulness by making it a concept that has no empirical referents, and makes it of little analytical use. A minimalist definition makes every case a possible case study. Aspects must be added in able to discriminate between cases. How are all the attributes related to each other? > virtual organisation of attributed by level of abstraction. The specification of a concepts meaning frequently entails the identification of attributes that vary in terms of their level of abstractness. The identification of conceptual attributes affects and can assist you in your measurements. To have this benefit, the various aspects must be organized vertically according to their levels of abstraction. The components of attrbitutes are the points of departure for measurements: Concept Attributes Components of attributes Democracy Contestation Right to form political parties freedom of press

Common problems are redundancy (te veel aspecten die eigenlijk hetzelfde zijn) and conflation (they are not related to each other). Measurement conditions: Validity (internal/external) > is it true Reliability > are the stable values

 Replicability > do you get the same results if you repeat the research Steps in Measurement: Selection of indicators. An indicator makes you able to measure something you cant see. A concept can have different empirical manifestations > often multiple indicators necessary. But dont overstrain yourself. The indicators depend on the context. Selection of measurement level: nominal, ordinal (scale), ratio Recording/publicizing. Make sure the research is replicable.

Aggregation -Specific > general. We go back from the leaves of the concept tree to the more abstract level. In this process information may get lost, therefore you have to decide to which level you want to aggregate. -select an aggregation rule, which indicates the relation between attributes on the same level. Some values way more heavily than others. This requires the clear definition of what attributes need to be aggregated and in what order.

Roselle & Spray case based research Definition and Investigation A research design sets out how you will systematically organize your research process and how you will collect information and analyse it. A single case based research project focuses on one case and the relationship between a dependent variable and a set of independent variables and hypotheses identified in scholarly literature. A comparative-based research project focuses on two or more cases and the relationship between a single dependent variable and independent variables identified in the scholarly literate and in your own hypotheses. You first come up with a list of independent variables which could explain your dependent variable. You narrow this list by coming up with hypotheses or reasoned potential explanations. You can find hypotheses in scholarly literature that you can test in new cases or may develop your own

hypotheses of your own based on variables you believe will most likely answer your research in question. Hypotheses are set out in general terms. Your dependent variable is your first guide to choosing cases. Begin with a written definition of your dependent variable. Choose a critical case within which to test your hypotheses: one that scholars suggest is historically important. Or choose two cases: with similar outcomes to what extent does an independent variable produce this outcome? Before and after an independent variable changes With different outcomes does an independent variable play a role in determining the outcome? Always compare the same independent variables When you choose your cases, make sure you define the parameters which make your project original, and the project is manageable. Operationalization is the process used in the social sciences to define variables in terms of observable properties. These can be done quantitatively, and qualitatively. Choose your sources for data collection carefully Be consistent and systematic when you make calculations and comparisons. Put values in context, e.g. compare them to the values of years before or after. You have to collect the same data for all cases. Analysis and Writing Sections of a paper: Abstract: basis and structure of the study, relation to IR literature, methodology, significant findings Introduction: general information on topic, discuss variables, cases and research question literature review: describe findings of other researchers on your dependent variable or case study. Try to discuss previous research per category. research design: technical discussion with hypotheses and justification for them, discussion of how variables were measured and compared, methodological tools. case presentation, analysis and discussion of findings conclusion bibliography. Dont overstate your findings.

Week 5: Constructivism as a methodology of IR Emerged as a critique on naturalism. Its origins lie in the 19th century. A researcher is formed by social context. Doubts about the Naturalist Methodology Ontological doubts:

-metaphysical: the religious context has changed in ways that make it less compelling to assume a patterned logic to nature. -physical: the world is a complex places and some physical processes cannot be characterized by universal laws and patterns Human capacities such as self-reflection make it possible to doubt whether mechanistic assumptions about natural patterns in the real world make sense when studying the social world. The things we study can change in appearance when viewed from different contexts and perspectives. People have multiple identities. (Preston: identity can be triggered by representations). What happens in the social world has meaning for the inhabitants: we must make a distinction between natural signs (tear = grief) and social symbols (flag half-mast = grief) Main doubts: -It is not clear that the social world can be understood in a law-like way. -The social world exists as a single entity that can present itself in different forms -can the social world exist independent of its interrogator? Epistemological doubts: In a world that reveals itself in so many complex ways, can observation alone be sufficient for understanding it? -Collingwood: it is not possible to observe facts objectively by way of the senses, and to classify them by mean of logical thought. Facts are historical phenomena: observations of them depend on presuppositions. In order to observe anything, we need to observe it in relation to some pre-existing criterion or condition. ideas have meaning for social actors. What people mean by their actions depends on what expectations they have about the actions of others. Popper: observation is always selective. Presuppositions can give rise to different frames of reference for understanding the world. Perceptions can be framed by presuppositions to help us see one of many potential faces of reality. Observation as become so bound up with interpretation and hence with theory that, in deciding what the facts of observation are, we may be deciding between rival theories. -the social world is saturated with meaning. the context of an action cannot be divorced from the actors understanding of the context. Dilthey: the human world can be understood with reference to different aspects of meaning. The epistemological consequence of this is that social facts are not thing which can be simply observed. To distinguish one meaning from the other, the observer has to interpret the phenomenon in the constitutive context to which it is anchored. -much of the power of science comes not from its reliance on observation or reason, but on rhetoric and on sciences own image as an important source of authority in the world. Other authorities become more important though, e.g. myths, films etc. linguistic meaning is a crucial component of social life, sine language is the vehicle of expression. Words have public meanings, governed by the rules for their use, and people us words with certain

intentions and motives. If we accepts that signals and interpretations can vary from time to time, or from context to context, it becomes increasingly difficult to be certain about the realness, correctness, and singularity of the things we are studying. Methodological doubts: Should we strive to having one single methodology for the study of both social and natural phenomena? Methodological pluralism: some methodologies are more appropriate than others for studying certain types of phenomenon. Postmodernists find methodological assumptions alien and violent. Methodologies try to impose a demarcation barrier between science and non-science.

Philosophy of constructivism Ontological assumptions: -the social world is constructed by humans, alone or in interaction. -There are no laws of nature, the world is formed in interaction. This means life is unpredictable. The social world can change fundamentally. -focus on the role of identity, ideas, norms, culture, knowledge -importance of intersubjective beliefs a collective agreement. These beliefs construct identities and interests. -Drama - This does not mean you can create the world as you like it: it can change unpredictably -chess game - you react on the set of others. Epistemological assumptions: -knowledge about the social world is always knowledge-in-context. It is always somebodys knowledge. -Understanding the players - why do others act as they do? Know what their reasons are, without prejudices and generalisations -are visions consistent and clear? Truth vs. Inverted colours in behaviour of actors. Try to get behind what people say. The social world is unpredictable. Knowledge is inherently subjective, applied by hermeneutics. See through the eyes of the actors -Learning the rules of the game get to know the rules of the culture -As opposed to those of naturalism Hierarchy of methods: Narrative approach Comparative method Statistical method Experimental method Context matters: importance of ideas, community, language, and identity. An action can only meaningfully understood in relation to the context. The context also plays a role for the researcher: subject and object and facts and ideas cannot be separated. Understanding from within: Verstehen and Hermeneutik (Dilthey, Weber)

Cultures and religions as forms of life (Wittgenstein, Winch) Back to Hume: If a billiard ball moves, we look for a cause, which is external to the ball. If we want to explain why a pool player sets his ball in motion, the search for an external cause becomes more complicated. There can be 4 causes: a physical cause, an intentional cause, an institutional cause, and a functional cause. The natural world knows mass and extension, which makes it possible to create laws. Plants and animals, are alive and can be looked at in terms of adaptation (plants), function (animals). Humans also have will and reason and therefore have interests, meaning, rules etc. which makes their behaviour unlaw-like. The simplest objects are associated with the simplest explanations, while the more complex object come with more complex explanations. Since all subjects have mass and extension, they can all be explained in terms of external causality. But other types of explanation can also apply. Hume was sceptic of the inductive method: induction is based on observed events, and observed events can never embrace all possible objects/events of the world. We cannot infer beyond our own limited experience. There is a natural limitation to what the can know about causality. Kant: Agrees with Hume that our senses present perceptions to the mind. It is then up to the mind to organize these perceptions, categorize them ,and store them for later use. Kant concluded that the mind is an agent in its own right: it is an interpreter of the impressions that come to it from the external world. We all share certain basic, preconditioning or organizing ideas. All humans share a set of basic categories and concepts that organize the perceptions that our senses deliver to the mind from the outside world. There are 4 sets of these basic ideas, ideas on: quantity, quality, relation, and mode of existence. Everything we perceive is channelled through these categories of our mind. Kant makes a distinction between the Real World, and the way it is perceived by us. The laws of the Real World do not belong to the Real world (which does exist!!), but to the human mind. We can never know or observe the Real World. William Whewell 3 forms of critique on Naturalists: -Naturalists misunderstood Bacons induction. According to Whewell, scientists do not begin with observations and then distil general theories form them. Scientists begin with a question. They then make hypotheses, which they test against available facts. -Naturalists have a too limited epistemology: science does not only depend on sense perception, but also on the appropriate processing of perceptions. -Naturalists are ontologically arrogant: they claim that there is a Real World, but have few metaphysical arguments to show that this is the case. They cannot show they have found true knowledge on the real world.

Whewell has 4 patterns which we use to understand the world: History, society, ideas, and communication. -role of history: There is no clear pattern of cumulative growth in the history of human knowledge. > Kuhns paradigms: scientists are committed to established truths. Scientists who operate within this paradigm undertake normal science. When a scientists discovers an inconvenient fact which does not fit within established theories, this leads to a paradigm shift. Naturalists say that when social sciences matures and is properly funded, it will reach the same paradigmatic state as the natural sciences: cumulative, stable and predictive. Constructivists say that human knowledge had evolved through sudden shifts. Old paradigms may be replaced but never fade away entirely. Scientific fashion swings in tandem with various constellations of power. -impact of society: whewell further recognises that knowledge is affected both by individuals and by the societies they compose. Science is specialised knowledge, produced by specialised scholars. A scientist is not a scientist by virtue of the facts he knows, but because of the nature and context of his knowledge A scientist is self-concious about the methods and theories he has at his disposal. They know the history of their discipline Are part of scientific societies which encourages discussion. These professional societies are community- and identity- building mechanisms that tie distinct communities of scholars together by a common knowledge of debates and arguments. -in practice, people do not obtain knowledge by observing the world, but by interaction with other people. Knowledge is social and interpersonal. -impact of ideas: human knowledge comes from sense perception, but scientific knowledges comes from perception conditioned by ideas. Without ideas we cannot make sense of the things our sense bring to us. Observation is theory dependent! When an idea is convincing enough, it becomes so tightly integrated into experience that we come to think of it as a fact. Wehells argumentation leads to the concept of understanding. Dilthey: Direct understanding is an outcome of empathy: in order to understand an action or an argument, it is necessary to put oneself in the agents shoes. Explanatory understanding focuses on what the significance of an action is when pit in the appropriate social context. Some understandings are truer than others > Hermeneutic understanding -distinction between natural and social sciences: natural sciences tries to explain, social sciences to understand social phenomena in terms of relationships. -hermeneutics sorts good from bad understanding Hypothesis > search and interpret details > revise hypothesis The hermeneutic circle: one has to understand the totality of a text. Both the individual components and its relationship to the wole. Giddens Double hermeneutic:

At the first hermeneutic level, we come to understand the world by going back and forth between it and our perceptions of it. This is not enough, because social scientists are members of the social world they study. As social actors can understand and respond to the analysis of the social scientists, our knowledge of the world can change that world. Second hermeneutic level: a description of the interpretative and dialectical relationship between social scientific knowledge and human practices. Objectifying: take more distance. Unify the experience of a historical phenomenon in a broader social context. Weber distinguishes pre-modern and modern societies. In pre-modern people behave according to tradition, in modern societies actors behave rationally. Rational action can be instrumental rational (economic theory, interest) or value rational (norms) One can understand decisions by reconstructing them. Communication and Language In addition to facts being theory dependent, Kuhn also stated that facts are language dependent. If facts are language dependent, than so is the world. We therefore find ourselves in a reality which cannot exist independently of language. 2 approaches: Formalists - Saussure: language exists of words and the underlying structure. The meaning of words depends on the structure and context. Structuralist social philosophy -Lvi-Strauss: tries to uncover the underlying structure of societies by examining social relationships. Language is important for how we frame and see patterns in the world. Preston: theories use the language of science. Language is capable of representing and interpreting ideas. This is a mistake: it violates the identity of people. Passes over the people themselves. Language is not neutral and cannot represent all the complex differences and histories. The language we use and the senses we have of ourselves and others are deeply interwoven. Literature should be read Example: preston first lived lived in the margins of Hospital society, but when he became a professor, he returned there and received respect. He became a different person by a change of identity. Identities exist in various ways on various levels. Context matters. Wittgenstein: language has been developed among those who share a form of life. As we participate in a form of life, we learn the practices by which it is carried on: we learn to use its language. We must question conceptions of sameness or difference. People find it necessary to pass or to resist passing because they have acquired a language - its words, its meanings, the practices associated with those words and meanings - that tells them who they are, not because they are biologically or culturally or otherwise essentially the same or different. It means, to follow Wittgenstein's lead, that it is no longer sensible to view different sociological "ways of life" as anything more than the distinct meanings and practices - the language games - associated with different linguistic "forms of life." What he and his followers seem not to understand is that the scope of those who share a given language and its meanings may be far more limited than they have imagined, that there may be a

multiplicity of languages and forms of life within a given society, even among those who use similar words. This multiplicity is not reflected in theorists' language. The theoretical voice only represents one voice: the one which speaks by the language of theory.

Max Weber understanding from within Distinction between Explaining: causality, natural science. Focuses on the problem Understanding: social science, interpretation of facts. Focuses on the practice and the thoughts of the actor Historical particular motive on particular occasion Sociological in light of institutional practice Ideal-typical rational choice Social behaviour consists of individual actions to which the individual has attached a subjective meaning, oriented on the behaviour of others. Actions must be understood from within: -the investigator must know the rules, conventions, and context -the investigator needs to know what the agent intended by the action. The meaning of a wink is not always the same Understanding the rules > like chess: there are formal rules, and informal rules of good play. Asking why someone makes a move does not refer to the formal rules, but to the intentions and motives of an agent. Individual level central Rationality is the key concept: rational actors make the same choices in the same situation, but only in so far as the situation is the same from within. The rational agent has: fully ordered preferences, perfect information, and accurate information processing. He can then calculate the expected utility of each action -Instrumental rationality (maximizing utility) has nothing to say about either the source or the rationality of the agents goals. -Value-rational action means that the goal is so dominant for the actor, that it drives out all calculation of concern for consequences. Affective action is in-reflective Traditional action is a type of action in traditional societies, which is governed by custom. Generalisations in social sciences only have meaning if they reflect internal connections in a system of rules for action, and there is hard evidence that actors are really moved by the causal elements. Winch: cultures and religions are forms of life Top-down approach, inspired by Wittgenstein: 1: originally a logical positivist. Supports empirical observation. A philosopher should clear away metaphysical circumstances and try to make himself superfluent. 2: the language of science is important, but other languages are important as well. All have written rules which cant be fin in the language of science. Human learn by doing, family resemblances exist in languages. Winch then adds that cultures construct a reality in which people live.

-To be real means that it satisfies criteria for being real, which belong to a social practice or institution. -to understand something about the world is to have mastered the use of the relevant concepts of an institution (e.g. of religion). To learn about the world is to learn the rules of the institution. What rules constitute an action of an actor? Socially constructed ones. The meaning of a social action is context depended. There is no single standard to understand all cultures > relativism: IR knows ideological and cultural divisions. This affects peoples empirical perceptions. They thus effectively live in a different world because they use distinct forms of life. This then makes it impossible to make a general theory of IR. Two responses: -material factors influence ideology. Ideology is therefore an effect, not a cause -pressure from the international system override specifics of ideologies. Morgenthau: international politics is the domain of power, not of morality. This means that even states with different form of life and different moral world views do behave in similar ways. Leaders often make statements in moral language, but their actions are not in accordance with that. The hermeneutic idea that actions should be understood form within, suggests that causal explanation is only interesting when people use causal explanation and this is then a fact about them, not about nature. Constructivism and IR theory Idealism: progress, law, morality, and organizations. It is possible to progress towards an utopia. Neomarxism, Critical Theory: Ideologiekritik, emancipation. Progress is possible, but it is difficult by ideas. English School: society of states, shared norms. Objective laws of power. Social constructivism: ideas constitute states identities, interests, and actions Postmodernism: ideas all the way down. There is no real world, we only have texts o nthis world based on ideas. Ideas bring power. E.g. what does 9/11 mean? Feminism: analyzing gender relations, emancipation of women. Differences between men and women are not fixed, but socially constructed. Relativism: incommensurability of world views. People see different worlds. Constructivist Methods: Narrative approach Constructivists are critical of the three basic assumptions of naturalist historians: there is a past that can be captured by a scholar; the data which are available are objective or representative of that past; and these data are simply there for the taking. Constructivist criticism is that data is either too much or not enough, and there is no guarantee that the available data is representative. What it is: thick description of human behaviour put in context > meaningful. Cliver Reards: in a thick description the analyst learns from the inside out. A thin description is only a gesture, a thick description gets meaning because it is put into context. Why it exists: inseparability of subject (storyteller) and object (story) The storyteller is important.

Approaches: a) serendipitous (accidental discovery); effect by which someone accidentally discovers, there is no systematic reasoning. It is a form of wellinformed guesswork. Ethnomethodology is one way to apply this in social sciences: social order is illusionary. The order we see in social life is constructed in the minds of social actors. Society confronts us as a series of sense impressions and experiences which we must somehow organize into a coherent pattern. We try to find patterns to make sense of the facts we see. We construct a social reality to make sense of our often senseless interactions. Miss Marple: sees many truths. She is not bound to induction to gain knowledge, but uses her imagination. There are many different ways of making sense of events. She also looks for a pattern, but is creative in how to discover this pattern. Once she has seen it she can come to a better understanding of what happened. b) presentational (choice of way of presentation); we should do narrative history Haydon White (based on Tuchman) 4 steps: -scientist has a box of event-notes -he adds descriptive elements that tie together various facts into a coherent whole -adds a binding component that provides meaning -interprets the different sources, and emphasises certain facts over others according to the role it will play in the story. White distinguishes 4 types of narratives: Romance=triumph of good after a series of trials. Progress towards a happy ending Tragedy=stories of potential progress fail which end in failure Comedy=celebrates the conservation of human values against the threat if disruption. Also progress towards a happy ending, but not linear. Satire=wants to show the naivety of the romantic story Historians look at the same world, but see different things and thus write different narratives. A historian guides the reader to the conclusion. white: historians do not base their story on the truth, history is fiction. It says more about literature than about science. Historical work depends on anarchical research: there is some truth. This is a relativist approach where the relationships only exist in the minds of the historian. Universal truth does not exist about history, it is constructed. c) ideational (Foucaults archaeology); truth varies from one era to the next, like constructivists hold that truths vary from one society to the next. Ideas order society and affect the exercise of political power. Humans have a distinct set of natural ideas, which deeply condition the way humans perceive the world. Archaeology of Knowledge: the past can be treated like an archaeological site, it can be excavated by a special set of analytical tools, layer by layer. This archaeological method enabled Foucault to rope off sections of the past in order to excavate them > we can dig up a side of knowledge and reach below the level of epistemology. It finds the preconditions, rules of scientific game.

The categories of human knowledge are socially constructed, but the formative mechanism in the construction process of language itself. > Representations: are socially produced facts. It is an understanding of the world, which is presented to us as facts. When a series of representations appear together in a lasting way, they produce a discourse. A discourse is then a lasting system of representations, and a system of meaning in light of which meaningful claims can be presented. Discourses also define the limits in what can be meaningfully said: they determine which questions are asked and which are not. Focus on expelled discourses. Views change over time. Concepts have power. d) contextualizing (authors social context) Carr: be aware of the standpoint of the scientist, which is rooted in a social context of the scientist. history is not based on facts. Facts of the past: millions of people passed the Rubicon. Historical facts: only Caesars passing is important. The study of fact may lead historians to change their views > history is an ongoing dialogue between the past and present. Conclusion: power : can give a voice to the voiceless; Preston, shortcomings: how unique is unique? Comparative Methods - What it is: comparison of particular stories - Why it exists: developing associations towards meaning and understanding Constructivists use comparisons in a way that is designed to preserve the qualities associated with thickly descriptive narratives. MasIntyre: shows Mills point that in social sciences apparent similarities are often superficial and misleading. Things with the same names are not necessarily the same. . How it works: a) avoiding law-like generalizations; e.g. people have different opinions on what is socially just. Highlighting of the particular b) more casual choice of cases; no justification for choice of cases. The choice is not made in the light of a certain theory. c) data selection based on intuition, empathy, and imagination constructivism is a broad approach. Understand the context on various ways, also through e.g. art, literature, and narrative. There are three different ways in which comparison can be used by constructivists: to challenge existing rigid explanations, to establish associations either via hermeunitcs (juxtaposing the specific against the general) or to investigate the way in which our biases alienate us from the object of study. Foucault: positive unconscious scientists apply the same rules to all objects of study. Comparisons can help us consider new readings and understandings of something.

Hermeneutic understanding: constructivists use comparisons to interpret particular events with frequent contrasts to larger contextual settings. It is these contexts that provide the constitutive meaning to the particular events. First level: compares particular events with general norms or forms (its own broader context) Second level: compares across general forms (Contexts) to distinguish particular characteristics of each form Contrasting us with them: our approach to and object of study can hinder our access to it. we need to understand it on its own terms. E.g. the western image of SU was negative, which made it impossible to understand why so many people embraced the soviet system. The same goes for islamist fundamentalism today (Euben) she compared Qutb with others in same tradition, and then with western critics of modernity. Power: understanding complex social phenomena Shortcomings: how comparable are the cases? Conclusion Recapitulating the constructivist way of knowing There is not a single truth, or neutral knowledge. Patterns exist but are socially constructed. - Strengths: richer understanding social world. Emphasis on the particular. - Weaknesses: material causes of ideas? Overestimation actors room for manoeuvre? Ideas are important, but maybe people believe what suits them > effect form material cause. Actors dont have room to manoeuvre between ideas.

Week 6: Experiments and Statistical methods, and methodological pluralism