Research Questions, Paradigms & the “Language” of Variables & Hypotheses

1. Research Questions, Paradigms & the “Language” of Variables & Hypotheses Links Charles Tilley Interview on Paradigms in the Social Sciences: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjESyyQ16AI Hans Rosling on Using Empirical Research to Understand World Change http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w Hans Rosling: “Let my data set change your mind set” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVhWqwnZ1eM&feature=related

2. Today • Distribution of Revised Schedule (Page 3 of syllabus) • Review: some core topics & key ideas from last lecture • Research paradigms & their implications for empirical research design (Ways of characterizing different styles of research) • Theory, Methods & Methodology • Variables & Hypotheses (plural form of hypothesis) • Demonstration of Excel for Media Self-Audit

3. Relationship of Theory & Empirical Observation (Wheel of Science)

4. Deductive & Inductive Methods

5. Empirical and Logical Foundations of Research(does not have to start with theory) Theories The Scientific Process DEDUCTION Empirical Generalizations Predictions (Hypotheses) INDUCTION Observations Source: Singleton & Straits (1999: 27); Babbie (1995: 55)

6. Conceptualization & Operationalization of Research questions • Conceptualization: Development of abstract concepts • Operationalization: Finding concrete ways to do research

7. Matching Theoretical Concepts & Empirical (Operational) Measures • Example: (Which county had “worst” damage from bad weather?)

8. Recall: Quantitative vs. Qualitative ApproachesSee also Textbook Ch. 5 (p. 83) & Ch. 16 (pp.333-41) Quantitative vs. Qualitative Objective Subjective Variables Processes and events Reliability Authenticity Value-Free Explicitly Stated Values Independent of Context Aware of Content Many cases or subjects Few cases or subjects Statistical Analysis Other qualities Detached Researcher Involved Researcher

9. Research Paradigms • Sets of shared patterns in a scholarly community about what constitutes worthwhile research (Thomas Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions) • What problems are worth investigating? • What constitutes an answer? • Different views on how approaches are grouped

10. Classification of Theories to Understand Different Approaches to Research Design • Paradigms, other typologies (like quantitative vs. qualitative) refer to: • direction of reasoning (inductive, deductive) • level of reality (micro, meso, macro) • forms of explanation • theoretical frameworks • degree of abstraction

11. Assumptions about human nature & ways of knowing for use in classifying approaches (Burrell & Morgan, 1982) Subjective vs. Objective Assumptions • ontology : nominalism realism • epistemology : anti-positivism positivism • human nature:voluntarism determinism • methodology:ideographic nomethetic (laws, patterns) (idiographic=unique, singular)

12. Assumptions about Society (Order vs. Conflict) Order/regulation vs. Conflict/Radical Change Stability/solidarity Change/emancipation Integration Conflict Functional coordination Disintegration consensus Coercion need satisfaction Deprivation

13. Four Paradigms (Burrell & Morgan) Conflict/radical change radical humanist radical structuralist interpretive functionalist subjective objective Order/stability/regulation

14. Example: Four Groups of Paradigms in Communications Research • Positivist • Once widely taught as same as science • early religious aspect • association with quantitative research • Systems Paradigm • Interpretive • Verstehen (understanding) • association with qualitative research • direct observation, context, meaningful action • holistic • Critical Theory **Note: other groupings & more approaches exist

15. Questions to Ask about Research 1. reasons for research 2. nature of social reality 3. nature of human beings 4. role of common sense 5. what theory looks like 6. explanation that is acceptable 7. good evidence 8. place for researcher’s values

16. Positivism 1. Why conduct research? • instrumental orientation (to predict and control) 2. Nature of Social Reality? • has order, fundamentally unchanging • can be discovered using science 3. Nature of Human Beings? • self interest, pleasure seeking, rational • operate on basis of external causes, probability • mechanical model of humans 4. Science and common sense? Separate 5. What constitutes Explanation or Theory? • science nomethetic (universal laws) • causal relationships, universally valid 6. How to judge explanation • use reason, no logical contradictions, observation, replication 7. Good evidence?Based on observations , empirical knowledge • can be communicated 8. Social/Political Values? value-free, objective

17. Concepts associated with Positivism • Objective Reality that can be studied scientifically (logic & empirical observation) • Variables • Relationships between variables • Quantitative Analysis

18. Concepts Association with the Systems Paradigm • Holistic • Society or group as organism • Interdependenceof parts of system • Whole is greater than sum of parts • Dynamic equilibrium • Uses “Language of variables”

19. Interpretive Approaches 1. Why conduct research? • to understand meanings 2. Nature of Social Reality? • importance of human consciousness • socially constructed • multiple social realities possible 3. Nature of Human Beings? • people use meanings, have reasons • laws (?) 4. Science and common sense? • must study common sense, pragmatic 5. What constitutes Explanation or Theory • ideographic • “thick” descriptions), semantic relationships • Rules in interpretive traditions= shared beliefs 6. How to judge explanation– as understanding • makes sense to others • Heuristic framework (meaning) 7. Good evidence? • in context, has meaning for social actors (evocative) 8. Social/Political Values? • does not try to be value free, state biases

20. Critical Theory 1. Why conduct research? • discover structures • change world, action oriented, knowledge is power (from below) 2. Nature of Social Reality? • changing • conflict (not always visible-myths, false consciousness) 3. Nature of Human Beings? • have potential but can be mislead • potential realized through collective action 4. Science and common sense? • objective reality & underlying truths but • science can be instrument of oppression 5. What constitutes Explanation or Theory • combination of determinism & voluntarism 6. How to judge explanation • capacity to describe social conditions & promote change 7. Good evidence? • material conditions separate from subjectivity but facts not neutral 8. Social/Political Values? –always present, promotes activism

21. Nature of Explanation • Varies in different paradigms • Causal Explanation (3 necessary features) • temporal order (cause before effect) • association • elimination of plausible alternatives • Causal explanation studies relationships between “variables” • To test theories, predictions, etc… • Idea of “advancing” knowledge

22. Variable • Must have more than one possible “value” or “attribute” • context important, examples • Religion (as a variable) • Possible Attributes: Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, etc… • Protestant (as a variable) • Possible attributes: Baptist, United, Presbyterian, Anglican etc...

23. *Types of variables* • dependent variable (effect) • independent variable (cause) • intervening variable • control variable

24. Causal Relationships • proposed for testing (NOT like assumptions) • 5 characteristics of causal hypothesis(p.128) • at least 2 variables • cause-effect relationship (cause must come before effect) • can be expressed as prediction • logically linked to research question+ a theory • falsifiable

25. Examples of 2 possible Relationships between Two Variables

26. Types of Hypotheses (note: plural form of Hypothesis) • null hypothesis • predicts there is no relationship • if evidence support null hypothesis then???? • Direct relationship (positive correlation) • Indirect relationship (negative correlation)

27. Ways of stating causal relationships(Often used in research questions & hypotheses) • causes, • leads to, • is related to , • influences, • is associated with, • if…then…, the higher….the lower • etc…

28. Hypothesis Testing

29. Possible outcomes in Testing Hypotheses (using empirical research) • support (confirm) hypothesis • reject (not support) hypothesis • partially confirm or fail to support • avoid use of PROVE

30. Causal diagrams Direct relationship (positive correlation) X Y X Y Indirect relationship (negative correlation)

31. Types of Errors in Causal Explanation • ecological fallacy • reductionism • tautology • teleology • Spuriousness

32. Double-Barrelled Hypothesis & Interaction Effect Means one of THREE things 1 2 OR

33. Interaction effect

34. Recall example: Ecological Fallacy (cheating) Recall: Importance of Choosing Appropriate Unit of Analysis

35. Ecological Fallacy (cheating)

36. Ecological Fallacy (cheating Box)

37. Ecological Fallacy & Reductionism ecological fallacy--wrong unit of analysis (too high) reductionism--wrong unit of analysis (too low) reductionism--wrong unit of analysis (too low)

38. Teleology & Tautology tautology--circular reasoning (true by definition) teleology--too vague for testing Neuman (2000: 140)

39. Spurious Relationship spuriousness--false relationship (unseen third variable or simply not connected) Neuman (2000: 140)

40. Example: Storks & Babies • Observations: • Lots of storks seen around apartment buildings in a new neighbourhood with low cost housing • An increase in number of pregnancies • Did the storks bring the babies??? ?

41. But... • The relationship is spurious. • The storks liked the heat coming from the smokestacks on the roof of the building, and so were more likely to be attracted to that building. • The tenants of the building were mostly young newlyweds starting families. • So…the storks didn’t bring the babies after all.

42. + N B S + B + C S Causal Diagram for Storks • Stork = S • Baby = B • Newlywed = N • Chimneys on Building = C

43. Another example of spurious relationships: number of firefighters & damage • The larger the number of firefighters, the greater the damage

44. But... • A larger number of firefighters is necessary to fight a larger fire. A larger fire will cause more damage than a small one. • Debate about Hockey Riots in Vancouver. • Did the size of the crowd & amount of drinking cause the riots? • Did bad planning and inadequate policing cause the fire?

45. F + + F D S + D Causal Diagram • Firefighter = F • Damage = D • Size of Fire = S

46. The Research Process Babbie (1995: 101)

47. Research Questions • Questions researchers ask themselves, not the questions they ask their informants • Must be empirically testable • Not • too vague • too general • untestable

48. Developing research topics

49. Using Excel for Data Processing and Analysis in Media Self-Audit- Presentation by Dave Murphy • See Part two of Assignment 1 (Handout 2) • Preparation for Lab activities today • On-line Help with Excel http://www.homeandlearn.co.uk/excel2007/Excel2007.html