Overall a good design — although there are a few things I might change. I think it is a better idea to focus singularly on Hungary rather than the five states you previously highlighted, but your justification of why Hungary is the most interesting case would be stronger if you related it to the theory you detailed in your literature review. For instance, the case of Hungary may be interesting for the geopolitical school of thought because of its relationship with the EU.
Another small point is that your hypotheses might be served by explicitly stating your case.
Finally, not commentary on this presentation but just an observation for the project moving forward: I have personally found it difficult to find data on civil society in Eastern Europe, especially in the early 21st century and late 20th century. That would present a challenge when operationalizing that variable, but it can surely be overcome somehow.
Noah, this is a thoughtful methodological analysis and a strong framework overall. I have just a few thoughts going forward for your Final Narrative Paper: perhaps have a look at the Gerring reading, especially the section about ambiguities and the representativeness vs. comparability dynamic, because I think that you addressed this, but could strengthen your analysis with a reference to the course reading. Also, I was a little bit confused about your case selection in that you claimed to have a single case — Hungary from 1989-present. However, if you are using democratic backsliding as your dependent variable, I don’t think that Hungary from 1989 to 2010 and Hungary post-Orban have the same value of the DV. You can definitely slightly modify your case study to either study these two periods within the same unit (which I think would be particularly interesting) or to only analyze Hungary post-Orban. This would be something to think about for your FNP.
Noah, this is a strong and detailed design presentation. I believe that you could have been more explicit about your cases and also a bit more explicit about how you plan to use Atzili model. I think it’s interesting that you included so many dependent variables axes which I think will include a complete project.
Noah — you have a clear and well-organized presentation here. You have received a number of good suggestions from your peers, above, so I would make sure to follow up on those as you work on your Final Narrative Paper and as you think ahead to SISU-306. As Jack noted, the different time periods that you have here could translate into 2 cases for comparison (that would lend itself to a Mill’s Methods comparison similar to Saunders’ article) but, at the same time, if you are thinking of the movement from 1989 to the present then you want to be very clear on what the “end state” is that you propose to explain (the final outcome, much as Atzili was very clear that he was ultimately explaining the greater internationalization of the Congo War at the end of the timeframe and process he was analyzing). Bobby’s suggestion of linking your case selection justification back to theory is also a good one. I like the fact that you included a causal model as well. Keep working and make sure to think about the feedback you have received here as you continue your research. I look forward to seeing how things develop as you continue your work!
Overall a good design — although there are a few things I might change. I think it is a better idea to focus singularly on Hungary rather than the five states you previously highlighted, but your justification of why Hungary is the most interesting case would be stronger if you related it to the theory you detailed in your literature review. For instance, the case of Hungary may be interesting for the geopolitical school of thought because of its relationship with the EU.
Another small point is that your hypotheses might be served by explicitly stating your case.
Finally, not commentary on this presentation but just an observation for the project moving forward: I have personally found it difficult to find data on civil society in Eastern Europe, especially in the early 21st century and late 20th century. That would present a challenge when operationalizing that variable, but it can surely be overcome somehow.
Noah, this is a thoughtful methodological analysis and a strong framework overall. I have just a few thoughts going forward for your Final Narrative Paper: perhaps have a look at the Gerring reading, especially the section about ambiguities and the representativeness vs. comparability dynamic, because I think that you addressed this, but could strengthen your analysis with a reference to the course reading. Also, I was a little bit confused about your case selection in that you claimed to have a single case — Hungary from 1989-present. However, if you are using democratic backsliding as your dependent variable, I don’t think that Hungary from 1989 to 2010 and Hungary post-Orban have the same value of the DV. You can definitely slightly modify your case study to either study these two periods within the same unit (which I think would be particularly interesting) or to only analyze Hungary post-Orban. This would be something to think about for your FNP.
Noah, this is a strong and detailed design presentation. I believe that you could have been more explicit about your cases and also a bit more explicit about how you plan to use Atzili model. I think it’s interesting that you included so many dependent variables axes which I think will include a complete project.
Also, I think you could also define your case a bit further by defining the time periods.
Noah — you have a clear and well-organized presentation here. You have received a number of good suggestions from your peers, above, so I would make sure to follow up on those as you work on your Final Narrative Paper and as you think ahead to SISU-306. As Jack noted, the different time periods that you have here could translate into 2 cases for comparison (that would lend itself to a Mill’s Methods comparison similar to Saunders’ article) but, at the same time, if you are thinking of the movement from 1989 to the present then you want to be very clear on what the “end state” is that you propose to explain (the final outcome, much as Atzili was very clear that he was ultimately explaining the greater internationalization of the Congo War at the end of the timeframe and process he was analyzing). Bobby’s suggestion of linking your case selection justification back to theory is also a good one. I like the fact that you included a causal model as well. Keep working and make sure to think about the feedback you have received here as you continue your research. I look forward to seeing how things develop as you continue your work!