1 / 27

Toolbox of a professional researcher

Toolbox of a professional researcher. Master Class on the Development of Analytical skills Žilvinas Martinaitis, 2009. Professional experience: 5 years at Public Policy and Management Institute; Over 30 applied research projects for the Government and the EU Commission;

kendall
Download Presentation

Toolbox of a professional researcher

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Toolbox of a professional researcher Master Class on the Development of Analytical skills Žilvinas Martinaitis, 2009

  2. Professional experience: 5 years at Public Policy and Management Institute; Over 30 applied research projects for the Government and the EU Commission; Academic experience: 4 years of teaching experience at VU; PhD Student at VU. How does a researcher look like?

  3. Key questions: • What is the difference between a researcher, fiction writer and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel? • What is the meaning of life for a researcher? • What does the toolbox contain: • Objectives, questions and problems; • The hypothesis; • Research methods.

  4. How to recognize a researcher? • They create value added. Value added = asking important questions + providing generalizable answers + testing, if the answers are correct! • You can actually read their papers! Rules of thumb: KISS! Grandmother test! 5 tells; 1 and 8 rules.

  5. Where are you?

  6. The meaning of life: • Although the debate about THE TRUTH goes on, we attempt to get closer to it; • We raise the questions, develop and systematically test the answers (hypothesis, theories and laws). • What is the best indicator of your success?

  7. The toolbox: • Objectives, problems and questions; • The solutions and the answers: hypothesis; • Research methods.

  8. Highway to hell: I want to write about.. I focus on Estonian foreign policy; Foreign policy is a very important policy Highway to paradise: I seek to explain why..? I seek to explain, why Estonian – Russian relationships changed over the past 10 years. I seek to explain empirical and theoretical puzzles. The purpose statement of research paper

  9. The problem/puzzle: • Why bother: no problems, no solutions! “We fail more often not because we find the wrong solution, but because we solve the wrong problems” (Ackoff, 1974). • A good problem: • Doesn’t lead to a question “so what?”; • Doesn’t provide obvious answers; • Looks like an interesting puzzle, which is worth solving; • Involves empirical and/or theoretical contradictions.: “Although ….., however……”.

  10. The research question: • If you got the problem, the question is easy: “Why…? How…?” • Link your question with wider theoretical debates (the lit. review!).

  11. A q B Developing a hypothesis • Once you have a question and a puzzle, you need an answer/solution. • The answers should create value added, because they are: • Based on the knowledge already available; • Empirically testable; • Generalizable to other cases. • A hypothesis is theoretically driven statement about causal relationships between variables (the causes and effects). • Good hypothesis could be written as follows:

  12. Variables: Dependent v.= phenomenon to be explained; Independent v.= factors explaining the dep. v.; Intervening v.= is caused by indep. v. and causes dep. v.; Condition v. = frames antecedent conditions Examples: Sunshine causes grass to grow; Sunshine causes grass to grow; Sunshine causes photosynthesis, which causes grass to grow; Sunshine causes grass to grow, but only when there is enough of rainfall Key ingredients of a hypothesis:

  13. A hypothesis in its schematic form:

  14. Operationalizing your hypothesis • Clearly define your variables • Identify criteria for verification of the values of your variables: • Identify observable implications of your hypothesis: Example: left leaning coalitions promote employment security.

  15. Research methods: • In principle the data for testing the hypothesis could be collected in following ways: • Experiment; • Observation: • Large n analysis (quantitative); • One or two case studies (qualitative).

  16. The overall logic of testing the hypothesis

  17. Comparative analysis: method of difference The method of difference: • Choose two cases, which are similar in all respects except for the phenomenon you want to explain (DV) and the factors explaining it (IV). • Variables with the same values can not explain the difference in the results. • Hence the variation in the outcomes is explained by the difference in the values of IV.

  18. Examples: reforms in the pension system in the Czech republic and Poland (Muller 2001)

  19. Comparative analysis: method of similarity • It is exactly the opposite: find two cases, which are very different, except for the value of IV and DV;

  20. Issues and problems in comparative analysis • Comparing apples with oranges • Additional variation: for e.g. when using the method of difference you find an additional variation?  use the shadow case study.

  21. Shadow case in the method of difference

  22. Case studies: • “For example…” is not a case study! • The overall logic is the same as in comparative analysis: seek to explain variations! • Two strongest types of case studies: • Process tracing; • Critical case studies.

  23. Example of process tracing: electoral barrier and the number of effective parties in Poland

  24. Example of process tracing: electoral barrier and the number of effective parties in Lithuania

  25. Critical case studies Key steps: • Clearly defined hypothesis; • Find a case, which “perfectly” matches the conditions set out in the hypothesis; • Show that despite the “perfect match” the hypothesis is wrong. • Add additional antecedent conditions to the theory Two variations: “the best suited cases”; and “the worst cases”.

  26. Summary: what is a good academic or policy paper? • Solves puzzles, which are embedded in academic discussion and are relevant for the “real world people”; • Raises questions and provides answers (the hypothesis); • Creates value added on top of the existing knowledge; • Performs systemic empirical tests to assess the validity of the answers (hypothesis); • It is readable and understandable!

  27. Further readings: • Stephen Van Evera, Guide To Methods For Students Of Political Science, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997; • Gary King, Robert O. Koehane ir Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference In Qualitative Research, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994.

More Related