Upload
jetta
View
33
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Outline for today’s class. Review of midterm evaluation feedback Readings – takehome messages Relative effectiveness paper assignment How to analyze data Negotiation material will be covered on Thursday. Points from midterm evaluation of teaching. More visuals/videos - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Outline for today’s classDoing research – Victoria Mitchell, Knight
LibraryReadings – takehome messagesRelative effectiveness paper assignmentHow to analyze data
Negotiation material will be covered on Thursday
Readings – Negotiation TheorySprinz and Vaahtoranta – will be reviewing
extensively in class butTakehome: positions states take in negotiations (the
DV) are determined by two IVs: the costs states face to take action to protect the environment (abatement costs) and the benefits they receive if the environment is protected (ecological vulnerability)
Betsill and Corell show:Need to clarify research question – WHAT is
influence?Evidence of NGO influenceUse of process tracing AND counterfactuals Building on work of prior others
Why States Take Positions They Do in Int’l Negotiations
Ecological
Yes
Vulnerability
No LowAbatement
Pusher Bystander
Costs High
Intermediate
Dragger
Sprinz and Vaahtoranta, 1994.
Discussion paper Thurs, next weekRelative Effectiveness
Fully described in assignment packetGoals of exercise
Compare problem effect/effectiveness in light of differences in problem structure – a REALLY hard thing to think about
Practice THINKING about graphingPractice GRAPHINGLay foundation for Treaty Assignment 2
Steps to a ConvincingCausal Argument
Identify important theoretical questionDevelop hypotheses and identify the variablesSelect cases to control variables (and thereby
exclude rival hypotheses as explanations)Link data to hypothesesExamine correlations and causal pathwaysGeneralize to other cases
A Convincing Argument RequiresEvidence that the ACTUAL value of the Dependent
Variablematches the PREDICTED value of the
Dependent Variable for your theoretical claim
AND FORyour counterfactual claim
Working with Datafor Final Paper: Basic GoalCompare regulated behavior to otherwise-
similar non-regulated behavior to see if they are different
If they aren’t different, there’s nothing to explain (BUT you may want to explain why you expected them to be different)
If they are, try to exclude other explanations, leaving the treaty as only remaining explanation
Steps to a ConvincingCausal Argument
Identify important theoretical questionDevelop hypotheses and identifying variablesSelect cases to control variables (and thereby
exclude rival hypotheses as explanations)Link data to propositionsExamine correlations and causal pathwaysGeneralize to other cases
A Convincing Argument RequiresEvidence that the ACTUAL value of the Dependent
Variablematches the PREDICTED value of the
Dependent Variable for your theoretical claim
AND your counterfactual claim
Data Analysis Strategies, aka:“How to Drink from a Firehose”Determine ideal DV before looking at dataDraw expected graph by hand: years, lines
included, success exampleIdentify best indicators you have availableCompare regulated/non-regulated behavior
Actors: Member/non-member Regulated countries vs. non-regulated countries
Activity: Regulated/non-regulated activity E.g., regulated chemical/species vs. unregulated
chemical/speciesLocation: Regulated/non-regulated area
E.g., catch in North Pacific vs. South Pacific
Steps to a ConvincingCausal Argument
Identify important theoretical questionDevelop hypotheses and identifying variablesSelect cases to control variables (and thereby
exclude rival hypotheses as explanations)Link data to propositionsExamine correlations and causal pathwaysGeneralize to other cases
A Convincing Argument RequiresEvidence that the ACTUAL value of the Dependent
Variablematches the PREDICTED value of the
Dependent Variable for your theoretical claim
AND your counterfactual claim
To do thisShow what happened to DV of regulated
states: behavior or environmental quality Compare what happened to DV of similar but
not regulated states: develop counterfactuals to evaluate whether changes were due to treaty or other factors
Evaluate alternative explanations that might explain changes in dependent variable
Simplify your data!!Create columns for reg/d non-reg’d Focus on most important indicatorsFocus on countries most responsibleCompare average of country groupsDon’t do too much on one graph Normalize data between countries by
indexing
Problems of graphing data and how to resolve them
Graphing without thinking:don’t know what you’re seeingGoal:
See if treaties change country behavior over timeDraw what you want by hand, then graphCountry-groups, X-axis, Y-axis, expected linesPractice makes perfect – do it by hand again!
Making graphs takes too long
RectangleYears as columnsCountries as rowsEmpty NW cellHighlight rectangle
Then: Insert // Line // 2-D line
Graphing everything creates spaghettiLarge countries swamp smallToo much to understandGraph all; then delete one-by-one to learn about
your data: major polluters, missing data, etc.Create groups of different type states
Members vs. Non-membersDeveloped vs. Developing membersGreen vs. Brown membersOther categories theory suggestsMake sure data isn’t messing you up
Graphing the raw data doesn’t make countries similar enoughSolution 1: Indexing
Concept: view each country’s behavior as % of its behavior in year treaty entered into force (EIF year)
Doing it: copy of rectangle, but with formula that divides each country’s data in each year by that country’s data in the EIF year
Solution 2: NormalizingConcept: view each country’s behavior after
adjusting for population, GDP, or other variables Doing it: copy of rectangle, but with formula that
divides each country’s DV by IV in each year
Possible Comparison #1:Members/Non-members
Members (regulated actors) to non-members (non-regulated actors), Members vs. non-members after treatyTreaty members before/after treaty starts
Possible Comparison #2:Regulated/Non-regulated Activity
Members regulated activity to members non-regulated activityCatch of regulated yellowfin tuna vs. non-
regulated bluefin tunaSulfur dioxide pollution vs. carbon monoxide
pollution
Possible Comparison #3:Regulated/Non-regulated Location
Members in regulated location to members in non-regulated locationCatch of yellowfin tuna in regulated area
(Indian Ocean) vs. non-regulated area (Western Pacific)
Pollution of regulated river vs. pollution of non-regulated river