3 thoughts to “Research Post #10: Final Narrative Presentation”

  1. Hi Ben,

    I was impressed by the depth of your operationalizations for all of your variables but I do have a question. For all of your variables you are assigning your own values and have opted away from numerical variables. As this is small-n, that is perfectly fine, but how are you planning on defending these choices. Similarly, when it comes to causality, are you focusing entirely on the change in your dependent variable to represent this? If so, I would maybe consider adding mapping or some other method to clarify this.
    Happy Researching,
    Tristan

  2. Hey Ben, I appreciated how you justified your methodological approach by noting the conceptual depth and theory-testing advantages of small-n research, and then referred back to your literature review for the specific concept/variable of external support as the thing you wish to contribute to the existing to conversation. Threading this all the way from literature to methodological decisions and your hypotheses definitely shows you’ve been thinking about your decisions critically. In that same vein, I find your variables and operationalization very interesting. For example, when interrogating your dependent variable, you add political violence as an additional question beyond just the presence/absence of large-scale violence. Without knowing your literature, do you think positive peace could be another criteria (ie: presence or absence of electoral/political/social reform)? Furthermore, you mention triangulation as critical for ensuring validity. For the measurement of domestic support, you provide “high, medium, and low” values depending on whether there is support among a “supermajority, majority, or far below the majority of the voting population” respectively. To this end, what sources might you consult to find these numbers? Are electoral results reliable – and reflective of what it is you wish to capture – in both cases? How would you triangulate that with other sources? Additionally, when considering validity, how generalizable do you anticipate your findings to be? What are the scope conditions? Finally, what do you think you can do over break to prepare for executing the research next semester (ie: finding data, reviewing literature, etc.)?

  3. Ben,

    Your research is grounded heavily in good research and it is substantive. Your have a good balance of context and work well to meet the methodological standards of the small-n case study. This is especially well regarded in your triangulation of texts and your outreach to different types of texts that will better substantiate your points. Furthermore, the mapping of your groupings is well thought out in your literature review.

    Finally, my only recommendation is to better define what you deem a success or failure – I understand that it’s the lack of a peace agreement and the lack of violence, but still it would be beneficial if you made a clearer definition of success than simply a lack of violence.

    Overall Ben – this presentation is well done for its methodology and I look forward to seeing what you do next.
    Tristen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *