Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Apply the scientific method to open access journal articles
Applying the scientific method to political phenomena is what you, as a student in a political science research methods, will be doing in the course. Political scientists, especially those who conduct research, utilize the scientific method. Not all political scientists use all aspects of the scientific method all of the time. Many times, a political scientist is focused on the “observation” stage of the process. This means a researcher is trying to learn more by directly observing, participating and observing, or indirectly observing through others. Other times, a political scientist is focused on the “analysis” stage. This means a researcher is focused on refining the tools used to empirically analyze political phenomena.
Let’s explore how we can map the stages of the complex model of the scientific method to three open access journal articles. The purpose of this mapping is to demonstrate how the research political scientists publish relates to the scientific method.
Journal Article #1
The first article we will map is titled “Do Inheritance Customs Affect Political and Social Inequality?” (Hager and Hilbig 2019) by Anselm Hager and Hanno Hilbig in the American Journal of Political Science. Remember that our third model of the scientific method includes six stages: Observation, Theory, Hypothesis, Data, Analysis, and Update. Every peer-reviewed journal article has a Title and Abstract. An abstract is a summary of the article’s contents. Below is the title and abstract.
Do Inheritance Customs Affect Political and Social Inequality?
Abstract
Why are some societies more unequal than others? The French revolutionaries believed unequal inheritances among siblings to be responsible for the strict hierarchies of the ancient régime. To achieve equality, the revolutionaries therefore enforced equal inheritance rights. Their goal was to empower women and to disenfranchise the noble class. But do equal inheritances succeed in leveling the societal playing field? We study Germany—a country with pronounced local‐level variation in inheritance customs—and find that municipalities that historically equally apportioned wealth, to this day, elect more women into political councils and have fewer aristocrats in the social elite. Using historic data, we point to two mechanisms: wealth equality and pro‐egalitarian preferences. In a final step, we also show that, counterintuitively, equitable inheritance customs positively predict income inequality. We interpret this finding to mean that equitable inheritances level the playing field by rewarding talent, not status.
The title is presented as a question: Do Inheritance Customs Affect Political and Social Inequality? Titles as questions are informative because they typically include some aspect of the observation, theory, or hypothesis. In this case, we can see elements of a theory and hypothesis. For example, a theory of inheritance customs and social inequality could be declared from the title. And the hypothesis can be whether or not such customs influence inequality. So, we have mapped 2 of the 6 stages of the scientific method using just the title.
Moving to the abstract, we are searching for the 4 other stages: observation, data, analysis, and update. In search for observation, we know that they have a theory of inheritance customs and social inequality, but what entity or groups are they observing? In this case, the abstract asks: “Why are some societies more unequal than others?” In a general sense, the authors are observing societies. If we read further, we find the following sentence: “We study Germany—a country with pronounced local‐level variation in inheritance customs—and find that municipalities that historically equally apportioned wealth, to this day, elect more women into political councils and have fewer aristocrats in the social elite.” So while the authors are generally interested in societies, they specifically focus on municipalities in Germany.
With observation set, there are three more stages to identify. In the abstract, there is a sentence that clearly mentions data: “Using historic data, we point to two mechanisms: wealth equality and pro‐egalitarian preferences”. While we don’t have specifics of the historic data, we can learn more about it later in the article. Finally, in reading the remainder of the abstract, nothing appears clearly as the analysis or update. Therefore, at this point, we would need to read through the article to identify these last two components.
Journal Article #2
The second article we will map is titled “When Diversity Works: The Effects of Coalition Composition on the Success of Lobbying Coalitions” (Junk 2019) by Wiebke Marie Junk which was also published in the American Journal of Political Science. Unlike the prior article, I have numbered each sentence by including square brackets [ ] with a number inside. This will help us read through the abstract more carefully.
When Diversity Works: The Effects of Coalition Composition on the Success of Lobbying Coalitions
Abstract
[1] Lobbyists frequently join forces to influence policy, yet the success of active lobbying coalitions remains a blind spot in the literature. [2] This article is the first to test how and when characteristics of active coalitions increase their lobbying success. [3] Based on pluralist theory, one can expect diverse coalitions, uniting different societal interests, to signal broad support to policy makers. [4] Yet, their responsiveness to this signal (i.e., signaling benefits) and contribution incentives within the coalition (i.e., cooperation costs) are likely to vary with issue salience. [5] This theory is tested on a unique data set comprising 50 issues in five European countries. [6] Results reveal a strong moderating effect of salience on the relationship between coalition diversity and success: On less salient issues, homogenous coalitions are more likely to succeed, whereas the effect reverses with higher salience, where diverse coalitions are more successful. [7] These findings have implications for understanding political responsiveness and potential policy capture.
Recall that our third model of the scientific method includes six stages: Observation, Theory, Hypothesis, Data, Analysis, and Update, so we are searching for representations of these in the title and abstract. The title provides us the basis for a theory. We could reword the title to state a theory of coalition composition and lobbying success. It is not atypical of titles to provide the basis for a theory. The first three sentences of the abstract reveals that the author is observing lobbyists, coalitions, and policy makers. These objects are interacting to create a political phenomenon that the researcher is interested in exploring.
The third sentence “Based on pluralist theory, one can expect diverse coalitions, uniting different societal interests, to signal broad support to policy makers” can be considered a hypothesis. For example, we can restate this sentence: if coalitions are more diverse, then they serve as a clearer signal to policy makers. Sentence four relates to the hypothesis because it introduces the concept of issue salience and the author returns to it in sentence six. Sentence five reads: “This theory is tested on a unique data set comprising 50 issues in five European countries.” The word “data” so this is a clear statement of the data that is used.
In reading sentence six, the author states “Results reveal a strong moderating effect of salience on the relationship between coalition diversity and success.” Issue salience is how widespread an issue is known. If an issue is very salient, that means a lot of people are aware of it. If an issue is not salient, that means that few people are aware of it. We will return to this in a moment. The author started with a theory of coalition composition and lobbying success. However, after analyzing their data, they find that issue salience “moderates” the effect of coalition composition on lobbying success. Therefore, we should update our theory. Unfortunately, the author does not list what kind of analysis they conduct with the data, so we would need to read the article to find these details.
Journal Article #3
The third article we will map is titled “Evaluating the Conflict-Reducing Effect of UN Peacekeeping Operations” by Havard Hegre, Lisa Hultman, and Havard Mokleiv Nygard published in the Journal of Politics.
Evaluating the Conflict-Reducing Effect of UN Peacekeeping Operations
Abstract
[1] Several studies show a beneficial effect of peacekeeping operations (PKOs). [2] However, by looking at individual effect pathways (intensity, duration, recurrence, diffusion) in isolation, they underestimate the peacekeeping impact of PKOs. [3] We propose a novel method of evaluating the combined impact across all pathways based on a statistical model of the efficacy of UN PKOs in preventing the onset, escalation, continuation, and recurrence of internal armed conflict. [4] We run a set of simulations based on the statistical estimates to assess the impact of alternative UN policies for the 2001–13 period. [5] If the UN had invested US$200 billion in PKOs with strong mandates, major armed conflict would have been reduced by up to two-thirds relative to a scenario without PKOs and 150,000 lives would have been saved over the 13-year period compared to a no-PKO scenario. [6] UN peacekeeping is clearly a cost-effective way of increasing global security
Let’s read through the title and abstract, line by line, and see what each line provides us in terms of the six stages of the scientific method. The title provides us parts of observation since it specifically mentions United Nations (UN) peacekeeping and conflicts. Additionally, the title offers information that could be reworded as: a theory of peacekeeping operations and conflict. Sentence 1 states how prior research, worded as “several studies”, shows a positive influence of, worded as “beneficial effect”, peacekeeping operations.
Sentence 2 states that looking just at intensity, or duration, or recurrence, or diffusion by themselves overlooks their combined effect on conflict. For example, have you tried to carry a bag of groceries with just one finger? Even though you struggled, you still carried the bag from your car to your home. So, you could argue that your finger has all the strength needed to lug the bag. Now, have you carried a bag of groceries using all five fingers? Most likely but wouldn’t say you carried the bag with five fingers, rather, you would declare that you are carrying it with your hand. Therefore, what the authors are arguing is that we need to see the effect of the hand, not just each individual finger. With respect to the scientific method, this sentence is not clear, but seems like it would fit under analysis.
Sentence 3 declares that the authors have a “novel method of evaluating the combined impact across all pathways based on a statistical model”. This is clearly analysis because you use a “statistical model” to conduct analysis of data. Additionally, sentence 4 describes how the authors use “simulations based on the statistical estimates to assess the impact of alternative UN policies for the 2001–13 period.” While simulations are a bit advanced (Carsey and Harden 2015), but they relate to analysis as well.
Sentences 5 and 6 describe how alternative policy choices by the United Nations could have resulted in less conflict and less lives lost. This most closely relates to update, since Hegre, et. al. suggest that more peacekeeping operations can reduce the impacts of conflicts. After reading through the abstract, the hypothesis and data are not clear, so we would need to read through the article to uncover this information.
Summary of Mapping Journal Article Abstract Content onto Scientific Method stages
| Journal Article |
Hager and Hilbig 2019 |
Junk 2019 |
Hegre, et. al. 2019 |
| Observation |
Society and inequality in society |
Lobbyists, coalitions, policy makers |
United Nations, conflicts |
| Theory |
Equal inheritance rights and societal equality |
Coalition composition and lobbying success |
Peacekeeping operations and conflict |
| Hypothesis |
“But do equal inheritances succeed in leveling the societal playing field?” |
“Based on pluralist theory, one can expect diverse coalitions, uniting different societal interests, to signal broad support to policy makers.” |
-NIA- |
| Data |
Country-specific: Germany |
50 issues in five European countries |
-NIA- |
| Analysis |
-NIA- |
-NIA- |
Statistical models and simulations |
| Update |
-NIA- |
Theory of coalition composition, issue salience, and lobbying success |
More peacekeeping operations reduces the impacts of conflicts |
NIA = Not In Abstract
