December 10, 2019 - Caroline

Final Research Design Presentation

Password: olson19

Research / SISOlson / SISOlson19


  • Avatar Claire says:

    Caroline — really interesting research puzzle and question, and good outline for a research design. Process-tracing is a strong method choice for your project, given the nature of your cases. On your note about operationalization, I think a “deep” operationalization can still end in coding your variable as high or low, or another similar end point. The question is how you get to that coding and the details of the factors which are taken into consideration. For the government risk variable, rather than simply identifying if the pesticide was perceived as risky by the government, you can take a look at additional factors. What types of risk were considered? To whom? What types of data were used by the government? Provided by whom? For the consideration of scientific studies — how were scientific studies considered? Exactly in what ways was the information from them used? To what extent? By whom? Even if you ultimately come to a “simple” coding of the variable, answering all of these questions means you have operationalized your variable more deeply.

  • Avatar Savannah Kleeman says:

    Caroline, I really enjoyed watching your progress of research to create this methodological plan. I think you do a great job at identifying key concepts and ideas within small-n neopositivist research, especially with doing your research through process tracing. I have a few comments about your project. First, for your dependent variable you spoke not only about the outcome of specific movements, but also considering whether something is unwinnable. I am unclear about what this exactly means or how it would be measured or determined. It could be something to look at again in more detail. I also want to caution you against say that you are proving a hypothesis. In neopositivist research hypothesis are either accepted or rejected. Overall, great job with everything! I am excited to see when your project continues.

  • Avatar Carly Holencik says:

    Caroline – I really enjoyed your presentation! Your topic is so interesting and your explanation of it kept me engaged. With your literature review, I really liked how thorough you were in explaining each grouping, as well as how pre-exisiting scholarship as a whole would play into your research as things like causal factors, which you mentioned. You also did a great job in explaining why you chose small-n, and the implications it could have on your research, good or bad. You mentioned that normally the way you think of conducting research tends to be more interpretivist, with a focus on meaning-making and contextuality, and in your analysis of small-n, you, in a way, figure out how to address these factors through things like process tracing that makes your argument stronger for why small-n works best for your topic. You mentioned you were still trying to find different labels to codify your variables, but I feel like as long as you justify your decision making and are thorough in you evaluative standards, you can still conduct thorough, deep analysis with the usual labels of “high or low” and “yes or now”. Overall, I enjoyed your presentation and I can’t wait to see where your research takes you!

Leave a Reply

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