I thought your presentation did a good job of clearly and concisely presenting your research design. It was clear that you spent a lot of time developing the literature and pulling out the schools of thought that inform your research, and I particularly appreciated the clarity you had about choosing two cases to apply a theory rather than create something easily generalizable. I thought you did a thorough job of operationalizing your variables as well, although I wonder also if there are any other intervening variables you could include, maybe related to the schools of thought you talked about in your lit review? I see how the nationalist and psychologist schools support the negative societal views about relogious minorities, and how foreign policy and political scientists provide the necessary background for establishing fragile government, but I’m wondering if you came across any articles about political or economic structure that could influence the persecution of minorities. For example, the article we read about women and oil comes to mind, where the ultimate causation was economic and not social. Other than that, I think you’re starting from a good place for next semester, and I’m excited to see where your project goes next!
This is an effective presentation, Rachel, and I’m excited to learn more about your research in the coming months.
A few thoughts about your design so far:
You do a very nice job working through the relevant schools of thought as you go through the literature review, but I would like to hear a little bit more about how they each connect to your choice of variables – or, in some instances, perhaps more about why you have chosen not to include one school of thought/area of explanation. This will get worked through as you develop your design in more detail, but as I watched, I wondered, for example, about whether you would address the Foreign Policy school by considering possible or perceived connections to outsiders on the part of particular minorities as one of your intervening variables.
On a related note, it would be good to hear more about how you will contend with the variation among minority groups in your study.
Rachel — I like how clear and easily comprehensible the explanation of your research project is, despite the complexity of the topic you have chosen. I thought your four schools of thought were described very well, in a concise manner with an appropriate level of detail. What I was wondering as I was watching the Literature review section of your presentation was the connection between the variables you propose for your causal mechanism and the variables introduced by the scholars whose works you reviewed. In the Foreign Policy Analysis school of thought, is it only America’s imperialistic agenda in the developing world that causes domestic conflict and turbulence? This sounds like a critical theorist argument, but are there any realist/liberalist perspectives on the persecutions of minorities in this body of literature? Overall, I found your presentation to be very interesting!
A very good presentation! I think that you have a really interesting puzzle to investigate. You did a very good job justifying why you are want to employ a small-N analysis, focusing on theory generation instead of theory testing. However, I am unsure that Mills Methods of Different will be the best for your analysis. Mill methods of difference offers utility when the dependent variable is different and one independt variable is different. I believe that there are many different variables that are different in Iraq during the two-time periods that you specified. Just something to keep in mind going forward.
Also you mentioned focusing on historical analysis and I think that will be the best way to do your research. The feasibility of completing surveys that are actually represented in the context of 306 I would imagine would be very difficult!
Rachel — like your peers and Dr. Field, I think you have a very good presentation here: clear, well-organized, and thorough. You’ve received excellent suggestions here, and I don’t have much to add to the suggestions here. I would perhaps emphasize the idea of considering other variables (surely politics matters somehow!), not least because one strength of this methodology is the capability to disentangle many complex and interrelated factors in the explanation of specific cases. Keep thinking about deep or “rich” operationalizations of your variables, as well (for example, beyond the level of persecution you should probably think about differences in the “type” of persecution or in the way it manifests in the different cases and vis-a-vis different groups). All in all, make sure to follow up on the suggestions provided to you in the comments above as you work on your Final Narrative Paper and then continue with your research in SISU-306. I look forward to seeing how your research develops!
Rachel,
I thought your presentation did a good job of clearly and concisely presenting your research design. It was clear that you spent a lot of time developing the literature and pulling out the schools of thought that inform your research, and I particularly appreciated the clarity you had about choosing two cases to apply a theory rather than create something easily generalizable. I thought you did a thorough job of operationalizing your variables as well, although I wonder also if there are any other intervening variables you could include, maybe related to the schools of thought you talked about in your lit review? I see how the nationalist and psychologist schools support the negative societal views about relogious minorities, and how foreign policy and political scientists provide the necessary background for establishing fragile government, but I’m wondering if you came across any articles about political or economic structure that could influence the persecution of minorities. For example, the article we read about women and oil comes to mind, where the ultimate causation was economic and not social. Other than that, I think you’re starting from a good place for next semester, and I’m excited to see where your project goes next!
This is an effective presentation, Rachel, and I’m excited to learn more about your research in the coming months.
A few thoughts about your design so far:
You do a very nice job working through the relevant schools of thought as you go through the literature review, but I would like to hear a little bit more about how they each connect to your choice of variables – or, in some instances, perhaps more about why you have chosen not to include one school of thought/area of explanation. This will get worked through as you develop your design in more detail, but as I watched, I wondered, for example, about whether you would address the Foreign Policy school by considering possible or perceived connections to outsiders on the part of particular minorities as one of your intervening variables.
On a related note, it would be good to hear more about how you will contend with the variation among minority groups in your study.
Good work here, Rachel!
Rachel — I like how clear and easily comprehensible the explanation of your research project is, despite the complexity of the topic you have chosen. I thought your four schools of thought were described very well, in a concise manner with an appropriate level of detail. What I was wondering as I was watching the Literature review section of your presentation was the connection between the variables you propose for your causal mechanism and the variables introduced by the scholars whose works you reviewed. In the Foreign Policy Analysis school of thought, is it only America’s imperialistic agenda in the developing world that causes domestic conflict and turbulence? This sounds like a critical theorist argument, but are there any realist/liberalist perspectives on the persecutions of minorities in this body of literature? Overall, I found your presentation to be very interesting!
Rachel,
A very good presentation! I think that you have a really interesting puzzle to investigate. You did a very good job justifying why you are want to employ a small-N analysis, focusing on theory generation instead of theory testing. However, I am unsure that Mills Methods of Different will be the best for your analysis. Mill methods of difference offers utility when the dependent variable is different and one independt variable is different. I believe that there are many different variables that are different in Iraq during the two-time periods that you specified. Just something to keep in mind going forward.
Also you mentioned focusing on historical analysis and I think that will be the best way to do your research. The feasibility of completing surveys that are actually represented in the context of 306 I would imagine would be very difficult!
Rachel — like your peers and Dr. Field, I think you have a very good presentation here: clear, well-organized, and thorough. You’ve received excellent suggestions here, and I don’t have much to add to the suggestions here. I would perhaps emphasize the idea of considering other variables (surely politics matters somehow!), not least because one strength of this methodology is the capability to disentangle many complex and interrelated factors in the explanation of specific cases. Keep thinking about deep or “rich” operationalizations of your variables, as well (for example, beyond the level of persecution you should probably think about differences in the “type” of persecution or in the way it manifests in the different cases and vis-a-vis different groups). All in all, make sure to follow up on the suggestions provided to you in the comments above as you work on your Final Narrative Paper and then continue with your research in SISU-306. I look forward to seeing how your research develops!