Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

4.5: Units of Observation and Units of Analysis

  • Page ID
    76195
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    Learning Objectives

    By the end of this section, you will be able to:

    • Understand the difference between a unit of observation and unit of analysis

    Political scientists observe a range of political objects, such as political actors, institutions, processes, interactions, and outcomes. Units of observation are the objects that a researcher is specifically observing with the goal of describing the relationship between the objects. On the other hand, a unit of analysis is the object that a researcher is specifically analyzing. These two, units of observation and analysis, may sound similar, but are different concepts. Let’s explore three examples from open access, peer-reviewed journal articles to help illuminate the difference between units of observation and units of analysis.

    Our first example comes from the Journal for International Development and the article “Rethinking research partnerships: Evidence and the politics of participation in research partnerships for international development” by Jude Fransman and Kate Newman (Fransman and Newman 2019). In the article abstract, they write: “This article responds to the drive for research partnerships between academics and practitioners, arguing that while potential benefits are clear, these are frequently not actualized resulting in partnerships that are ineffectual or worse, exacerbate damaging or inequitable assumptions and practices. In order to understand/improve partnerships, a systematic analysis of the interrelationship between what counts as evidence and dynamics of participation is proposed. Drawing on data from a seminar series and iterative analysis of seven case studies of partnerships between Higher Education Institutions and International Non‐Governmental Organisations, the article concludes by suggesting substantial shifts in the theory and practice of partnerships.”

    Thus, the authors observe how higher education institutions and international non-governmental organizations partner to conduct research. And this means their units of observation are academics and practitioners. However, the question is, what are Fransman and Newman analyzing? Is it the academic organizations, international non-governmental organizations, or both? With a careful read of the article, it could be argued that the units of analysis are case studies of the partnerships themselves. For example, Table 1 in the article shows a comparison of seven case studies that details the lead organization, additional partners Involved, types of funding, level/scale of the partnership, disciplinary/thematic focus, and research approaches. And throughout the remainder of the article, they are focused on the partnerships.

    Our second example is found in the Economics and Politics and the article “The heterogeneous effect of oil discoveries on democracy” by Tania Masi and Roberto Ricciuti (Masi and Ricciuti 2019). In the article abstract, they state: “This paper evaluates the existence of a resource curse on political regimes using the Synthetic Control Method. Focusing on 12 countries, we compare their democracy level with the weighted democracy level of countries that have not experienced oil shocks and have similar pre‐event characteristics. We find that the exogenous variation in oil endowment does not have the same effect on all countries. In most cases, the event has a negative effect in the long run, but countries with a pre‐existing high level of democracy are not negatively affected.” This abstract suggests that the authors are observing countries. Now, are the countries the unit of analysis as well? A thorough review of the article suggests that the units of analysis are the countries as well. For example, Figure 1 in the article compares the level of democracy in each country with a “synthetic” version of itself. This suggests that both the unit of observation and the unit of analysis are the same.

    Our third example is located in the Journal of Representative Democracy and the article “Filling the Void? Political Responsiveness of Populist Parties” by Carolina Plescia, Slyvia Kritzinger, and Lorenzo De Sio (Plescia, Kritzinger, and De Sio 2019). The abstract reads: “This paper examines the responsiveness of populist parties to the salience of issues amongst the public focusing on a large number of issues on which parties campaign during elections. The paper investigates both left- and right-wing populist parties comparatively in three countries, namely Austria, Germany and Italy. We find that while populist parties carry out an important responsiveness function, they are only slightly more responsive than their mainstream counterparts on the issues they own. The results of this paper have important implications for our understanding of political representation and the future of the populist appeal.” There are several objects mentioned in the abstract that could serve as units of observation: parties, issues, the public, campaigns, elections, and countries. It would follow that the researchers are observing parties within specific countries, so we could assert that the units of observation are countries themselves. However, given the variety of the objects the paper is examining, it’s clear that the units of analysis are not just parties within countries. We could argue that the units of analysis are the relationship between parties and the public. Particularly, this article is interested in how parties are responsiveness to the priorities of the public. Therefore, the researchers are keenly interested in measuring the relationship between these two objects.


    This page titled 4.5: Units of Observation and Units of Analysis is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Josue Franco, Charlotte Lee, Kau Vue, Dino Bozonelos, Masahiro Omae, & Steven Cauchon (ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI)) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request.

    • Was this article helpful?