1. Research Questions, Paradigms & the “Language” of Variables & Hypotheses
Links
Charles Tilley Interview on Paradigms in the Social Sciences:
Hans Rosling on Using Empirical Research to Understand World Change
Hans Rosling: “Let my data set change your mind set”

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)
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.

4. Deductive & Inductive Methods

5. 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)

6. 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.

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

8. Recall: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches See also Textbook Ch
Recall: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches See also Textbook Ch. 5 (p. 83) & Ch. 16 (pp )
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. 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)

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 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

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
Interdependence of 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? 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

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. X Y Causal diagrams Direct relationship (positive correlation)
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: Importance of Choosing Appropriate Unit of Analysis
Recall example: Ecological Fallacy (cheating)

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

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

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