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

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

Relationship of Theory & Empirical Observation (Wheel of Science) Deduction – start with a more abstract conceptual framework that we might call a theory, and we develop testable hypotheses, make observations, and see if the hypotheses is right, and then you try and make some generalizations that will give you insights into what you’re thinking about theoretically.

Deductive & Inductive Methods

Source: Singleton & Straits (1999: 27); Babbie (1995: 55) 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)

Conceptualization & Operationalization of Research questions Development of abstract concepts Operationalization: Finding concrete ways to do research One of the real goals of the first assignment is to get you to become increasingly aware of the importance of developing really clear concepts when doing empirical research. Then to meet the challenge to finding operationalizational methods. - Businesses in DT Vancouver are fighting about who had the worst damage. How do you measure it? The economic aspect of it, or do you measure it with something else? - Sometimes there is a choice of what kind of method to use, sometimes it’s the actual research object, and what we know about it and how we can access it, that makes one choice better than another.

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

Recall: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches See also Textbook Ch Recall: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches See 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

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

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

Subjective vs. Objective Assumptions 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)

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

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

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

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

Positivism 2. Nature of Social Reality? 3. Nature of Human Beings? 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

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

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

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

Critical Theory 1. Why conduct research? 2. Nature of Social Reality? 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

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

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...

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

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

Examples of 2 possible Relationships between Two Variables

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)

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…

Hypothesis Testing

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

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

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

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

Interaction effect

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

Ecological Fallacy (cheating)

Ecological Fallacy (cheating Box)

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)

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

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

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??? ?

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.

Causal Diagram for Storks Baby = B Newlywed = N Chimneys on Building = C N B + S B + C S +

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

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?

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

The Research Process Babbie (1995: 101)

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

Developing research topics

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