Research question , Causality and hypotheses

1. Research question, Causality and hypotheses PhD Course in Research Design Roskilde University Spring 2018

2. Overview • The introduction – to yourPhD • The research question • What it is • Whyyouneed it • How youconstruct it • Causality • Why it is so relevant for social science • Twotypes => • Different types of Research Questions • Hypotheses • Whyyoumay (or may not) wantthem • Types • How youconstructthem

3. The Introduction I • Explaining the dissertation’s research problem / question • Reviewing the literatureabout the research problem • Identifyingdeficiences in the literature

4. The Introduction II • Explaining the relevance of the research problem: • For whom, for whatis this problem relevant? • Academic, administration, society.. • Account for the purpose, e.g: • How do youintend to answer the problem? AND/OR • What is your argument / what do youintend to show? • Account for youconclusion: • Whatwereyourresults? The answer to yourquestion?

5. Whyyouneed a research question • To guide youentirePhD dissertation • The choice of theory • The choice of methods • The design of your (emprical) analysis • How youanalyzeyour data • Whatyoucanpossiblyconclude • EVERYTHING IS STRUCTURED BY YOUR RQ (and to someextentyour IQ..)

6. What is a research question? • A puzzling and answerablequestionaboutyour research problem = YOUR CONTRIBUTION! • It must constitute a puzzle • Arousingyourcuriosity and interest • Is must be non-trivial – to you and manyotheracademics • It must beanswearable • What is possiblewithin the scope of yourPhDproject? • Be realisticand listen to your supervisor • Yourcontribution is the sum of 1 and 2 • MAKE SURE YOUR PASS THE CONTRIBUTION TEST: • Can youexplain in threesentenceswhatyourcontribution is?

7. Exercise • In groups of two students, revisit and discuss whether the PhD Research Design text you submitted for the course clearly defines and describes a good research problem • Write around half a page each on any revisions that might be needed to clarify the research problem in your project

8. How do youconstruct the RQ? I • Useyourexistingknowledgeabout society • Economic, politics, social issues, etc.=> • The societalrelevance argument • Useyourliteraturereview • The academicgap argument • Contradict the literature! • Resonance with yourtheory • Most RQsonly go with a limited set of theories => • The theoryinforms, but does not determineyour RQ • The theoryinformsyouranalysis and possibleconclusions • BUT the theory must NEVER determineyouranswer

9. How do youconstruct the RQ? II- Contradicting the literature • Developmental / historicalcontradictions • You can claim that others have mistaken the origin, development, or history of your object of study, e.g.: • Some argue that EU immigration is rising for the first time, this has happenedbefore • Cause-effectcontradictions • You can claim that assumed causal relationships do not exist (or vice versa), e.g.: • A new way to stop juveniles from becoming criminals is the “boot camp” concept. But evidence suggests that it does little good. • Contradicitions of perspective • These contradictions run deeper by suggesting to look at things in a new way, e.g.: • It has been assumed that advertising is best understood as a purely economic function, but it has (also) served as a laboratory for new art forms and styles.

10. How do youconstruct the RQ? III • Resonance with yourmethod • Again, most RQsonly go with certainmethods • Start with the RQ, thenchoosemethod(s) • Think of the Quant / Qualdivide, but allow for mixed methods • An on-goingendeavour • Expect to re(de)fine it throughout the firsthalf of yourPhDproject • But beware of the dangers of strayingtoo far – in particular if youaretrying to answer a quant type of question • Be ambitious AND humble! • Youwant to beable to answeryourquestion in depth • Don’texpect to beable to answerunanswerablequestions (leavethat to journalists and priests)

11. Causality: Its centrality to social science • No social science research only seeks to describe an event for the sake of description • Allsocial science research seeks to provide a better understanding of a certain phenomenon • E.g. by asking HOW did this event take place? (by what arguments, practices, circumstances, etc.) • Even this descriptive task assumes that some circumstances are more important than others because they somehow interact with the phenomenon • Muchsocial science research seeks to explain • E.g. by asking WHY did this event happen or what was the consequences of this event? • But NO agreement within the social science: • What Explanation is / requires • If explanation requires identifying causal relations • What causality is – or what it takes to identify it

12. Causality: Two types • Qualititative vs. Quantitative • Of course this is just one typology! But it covers key differences between non-positivist and positivist approaches

13. Causality: Quantitative approaches • Effects-of-causes approach • E.g what is the effect of outsourcing the unemployment services? • Case-selection on independent variables (causes) – ideally, • e.g. a “natural experiment”, such as the Danish municipal reform • Correlational causes (probabilistic understanding) • E.g. there is (no) statistically significant correlation between outsourcing of unemployment services and people getting into jobs • Additive causation (all factors weighed and added), • E.g. 1/0 outsourcing + X*costs for services + Y*number of employees + Z*level of employee experience + … • Non-fit/systematic treated as errors or outlines (=ignored!) => substantively important cases often ignored

14. Causality: Qualitative approaches • Causes-of-effect (often individual cases = one effect), • e.g. the Russian revolution • Case selection often on dependent variable (effect) • Necessary and sufficient causes (deterministic conception) • E.g. Marx’ theory of capitalism necessary for Russian revolution • Clusters of factors amount to a cause (set theory logic) • E.g. Marx theory AND feudal regime AND poverty AND WW1 = sufficient causes of Russian Revolution • Lack of fit: • Non-conforming (untypical) cases are often more interesting than the typical ones, e.g. Foucault’s analysis of crime and madness

15. Exercise • In groups of two: • Discuss if/how you intend to address causality in you PhD project • If you do not intend to do causal analysis, then discuss what you do instead to provide a better explanation / understanding of your RQ

16. Types of research questions I • Overall purpose of question • Descriptive (what and how) vs. Explanatory (why) • Normative (good/bad) vs. Explanatory • In much of social science today, youoftenneed to justify the absence of whyquestion(s) • Types of explanatoryquestions • IntersubjectiveUnderstanding vs. ObjectivistExplanation • Causal processes and relations vs. Statistical correlations • No methodmonopoly on explanatoryRQs: • Explanatoryquestionscanbeansweredboth by qualitative and by quantitativemethods

17. Types of research questions II- Qualitative • Typicalquestons: • Whathappened and/or how? • Explanation by way of: • Describingactors’ actions, explanations, justification, etc. • Describingwider (collective) ideas, logics or rationalitiesthatseveralactorsrefer to whenjustifyingtheir actions • Followingconcrete actions, events and processes • Document relationshipsbetween statements, ways of thinking, actions, decisions, routines • Explanation of actions is the result of suchmappings / descriptions

18. Types of research questions III- Quantitative • Typicalquestion: • What is the relationshipbetween variable X and variable Y? • Explanation by way of: • Randomizedcontrolledtrials OR • Statistical correlation • NOT by mapping the social practicesconstituting the causal relations – unless mixed method => • Beware of conflatingcorrelation with causality • Explanation by experimental or statistical proxy: • The calculated and controlledcorrelationsbetween abstract objectification of two or more sets of social practices

19. Whyyoumaywant to formulatehypotheses • Hypothesis: • A falsifiablepostulateabout a social practiceor causalrelationship, e.g.: • High personalincomelevelsareconducive to voluntarywork • May beuseful to guide your research, i.e. a furtheroperationalization of your RQ • Onlymakehypothesis if: • Youintend to examine / test them • Theyactuallyhelpyouoperationalizeyour RQ

20. How do youconstructyourhypotheses? • Deductive: • Based on theory • Something sounds wrong, letssee if it holds.. • Something sounds right, but does it alsoapplyhere? • This theory is veryvague, mycontribution is to turn (parts of) it intotestable propositions • Inductive (or Ab-/Retroductive): • Based on eithertheory, yourpreconceptions or the (lay) understandingsfound in the fieldyouexamine => • Hypothesesformulatedbefore OR during data collection => • Not usedveryoften in the strict test version, but more as a workinghypothesisguidingyour research

21. Types of hypotheses • Test hypotheses vs. Workinghypotheses • Test hypothesis • An empiricallyfalsifiableclaimabout reality usually but not alwaysabout a causalrelationship, e.g. • Test Hypothesis= CV writingcontributes to getting more people in job • Falsification/confirmation is fundamental (= RQ answer) • Usuallylinked to quantitativemethodsand the use of regression analysis • Workinghypothesis or Assumption(hypothesis a loaded term): • Assumptionthat guides you research, e.g.: • Workinghypothesis: Soft forms of power play an influentialrole in contemporaryDanish employmentpolicy => • I examinehowsoft power is exercised in DK employment policy (+ why + with whatconsequences..) • Falsification/Confirmationmaybepossible, but is not the keyobjective

22. Types of (test) hypotheses • Nullhypothesis • Assumesnorelationshipbetweentwo or more variables • Directionalhypothesis • Assumes a directionalrelationshipbetweentwo or more variables, e.g. X => Y • Precondition: It is possible to distinguishbetween independent (X) and dependent variable (Y) – if not, thentautology • Non-directionalhypothesis • Assumesthat the presence of X has an influence on Y, but not howPrecondition: • Possible to distinguishbetween variable X and Y, but • Not the direction of theirinterdependency

23. Summing up • Research Question • Mandatory • Your basic tool for guiding your entire project • Needs to be revised on a regular basis – though not too much as you approach project deadline! • Causality • Part and parcel of most social science, but there are very different ways of approach causality => • Be explicit about how you do it • Hypotheses • Optional • May help you sharpen you RQ and your design