On U-Turns, Detours and Academic Productivity

There’s a piece of common wisdom among academics that I’d like to share with you today.  One of the best ways to become a productive scholar – the type who frequently introduces an innovative way of looking at a problem and  who is never short of research topics  -- is to read widely outside your field of primary interest.  That’s because often new and novel research ideas in one field come about through a process of ‘borrowing’ from another field.  Within political science, we can identify approaches to looking at problems that have been borrowed from psychology, sociology and economics, to name a few. 

Back when I was in graduate school at the University of Michigan, I was fortunate to be able to take a class with Robert Axelrod, the award-winning author of the Evolution of Cooperation, a seminal work in the field of international relations.  He  offered his students a lot of advice as we began our academic careers and some of it has stuck with us today.  First, he encouraged us to apply for every single fellowship and grant, seminar and program for which we might be remotely eligible.  I still remember him asking us, “What have you got to lose?  All it costs you is the price of a stamp – but that grant might be worth ten thousand dollars.”  This shows you how old I am – since now most of the applying takes place on line (making it even cheaper, by the way . . . )

The other piece of advice had to do with this notion of borrowing.  He was constantly asking how explanations which helped in understanding and predicting one type of phenomena might be useful in explaining other phenomena.  I remember watching his mind work – as he asked us whether, for example, computer models which predicted which buildings were stable and which were prone to collapse – might be applied to asking about stability in the international system, or the likelihood of a regime change.  (Those of you in my research methods class will recognize this as the principle of generalizability.) 

Recently my own extradisciplinary reading has been in the field of engineering ethics, and I’ll blog more about that later this week.  I’ve been enjoying a book by Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen called Moral Machines:  Teaching Robots Right from Wrong.  In it, the authors make the argument that increasingly, humans are turning over many functions of running society to machines which make decisions which affect our lives.  These machines are using automation and algorithms to do everything from deciding who gets an extra ‘pat-down’ at the airport, to automatically shutting off your credit card if you engage in an unusual transaction, to shutting off a nuclear reactor if a breach is detected.  As we begin to traverse this brave new world in which both humans and machines think, make decisions and affect society, there are certainly ways in which political scientists can begin to think about the politics which will arise.  But more about that later this week . . .

Intelligence, Prediction and Crowdsourcing

How good are you at predicting the outcomes of political events?  Would you have predicted that the Arab Springs were going to occur?  That September 11 was going to happen?  That the US would (eventually) capture and kill Osama bin Laden?

How about if there were a utility which collected and combined the predictions of several individuals?  If we were to aggregate all of your predictions, and all of your friend’s predictions and those of experts all over the world, would that be a better way to predict what might be likely to happen?  Is a group of experts better at predicting events than a single expert?  A statistician would suggest that by having a group of predictors, it might be possible to realize a MEAN (average) or MEDIAN prediction (the one found directly in the center of all predictions).  For example, if we were to ask a question like:

How much longer do you expect that China will remain a one-party state?

 you might receive a number of predictions which ranged from an optimistic ‘six months’ to a pessimistic ‘fifteen years’.    If you asked enough people, you could expect that the predictions would thus form a bell curve, with most people making a prediction which is somewhat conservative and falls squarely in the middle, while only a few individuals would make the sort of extreme predictions which would fill in the ends of the curve.  This article explains what the baseline requirements are for group or aggregate prediction to work.  (It also explains why ‘polling the audience’  and phoning a friend works so well on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.”)

New developments in information technology have allowed us to begin experimenting with this relatively new idea of crowdsourcing.  Social networking technologies allow individuals to work together on group projects – like collecting information, compiling information or making predictions – on their own time from the privacy of their homes.  Wikipedia is an experiment in crowdsourcing, as articles are written together by groups of analysts who serve as checks on one another’s work.  Foreign Policy magazine has offered some wonderful examples of the ways that individuals all over the world worked together to pass on, compile and share information on the location of survivors after the devastating earthquake in Haiti.

Recently, I was invited to join an experiment in predicting world events which is being put together by this organization. Feel free to visit the link, to look around and even to apply to participate in this project.  So far, I’ve only participating in making a few predictions but I’m starting to see some problems with the model.  My concern is that the most enthusiastic participants are likely to be people who feel very strongly about particular issues.  Therefore,  I’m concerned that the people who participate the most may be the least representative.  People who are moderates might be less inclined to give their opinions because they feel less strongly about the issues.  It will be interesting to see how this project works out in the long term.  

Devotional: Have you Considered My servant Job?

Job 1:8-12

New International Version (NIV)

 ⁸ Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

 ⁹ “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. ¹⁰ “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. ¹¹ But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

 ¹² The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”

   Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

What does this passage have to do with research methods?  Plenty!  This is about an EXPERIMENT which the devil conducts upon Job, an upright man – with God’s agreement that he be allowed to do so.

First, God proposes a hypothesis  (defined as:

1.  a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2.

a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.)

The hypothesis is:

H1:  There are those who praise God in all situations.  (Job is an example of this phenomenon).

Satan then offers a counter argument, based on an ALTERNATIVE THEORY:

Let’s call his theory the “good fortune school of belief.”

(Here, a theory is defined as: : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

Satan proposes to explain RELIGIOUS BELIEF in the following way:

H2:  As people’s GOOD FORTUNES increase, people’s propensity to PRAISE GOD increases also.

(Here, the related hypothesis states that:

H3:  As people’s GOOD FORTUNES decrease, people’s propensity to PRAISE GOD  also decreases.

In other words, there is a LINEAR, POSITIVE relationship between good fortune and praise. (We can graph this on an axis.)

Satan believes that he has identified a principle which is:L

1.        Generalizable:  true about people EVERYWHERE at every time in the world

2.       EMPIRICALLY OBSERVABLE (we’ll get to that)

3.       Falsifiable

4.       Parsimonious  (explains a lot with very few variables)

AN ASIDE:  the Bible contains many generalizable observations about human behavior  -- across time and cultures (particularly in Proverbs). 

God then proposes that Job’s existence serves to FALSIFY the devil’s hypothesis. 

When one makes a statement that “all people do X”, one only needs ONE data point showing that ‘this person doesn’t do x’ to falsify the general law.  (i.e. all birds fly.  If I can identify ONE species of bird that can’t fly,  then I have proven that the law does not hold categorically).  This has been referred to as the ‘black swan’ principle.

Here, Satan posits that:

All people will praise God when their fortunes are good.

All people will forsake God when their fortunes are NOT good.

Then, Satan is given permission to TEST Job by afflicting him.   Job will then serve as a data point in an experiment.

NOTICE, how after Satan is initially proven wrong (Job loses his wealth and does not forsake God), Satan MODIFIES his hypothesis, NARROWING it in scope. He goes from:

People who suffer bad fortune will forsake God to:

People who suffer from bodily affliction will forsake God.

In the final analysis, Satan’s hypothesis is DISPROVEN by Job, who is blameless and upright.    He notes in Job 16:16 “My face is red with weeping, deep shadows ring my eyes yet my hands have been free of violence and my prayer is pure.”

Faith makes us do UNEXPECTED things.  Everyone EXPECTED Job to give up and lose hope.  They saw that as a rule – this is what people do.

Yet he defied expectations and proved the devil wrong.

Research methods can be powerful tools in seeking after righteousness, particularly when God is on our side.

“Oh my Gosh! We’re Them!”

Perhaps it’s just me, but have you noticed any references to the recession lately in somewhat odd places?  Of course, when you open up the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, you expect to hear about the recession – but have you noticed the way it’s making its way into movies, novels and television shows?  I was struck by this fact as I read a bit of British escapist fiction this week – until I realized that the main plot point of the novel was that more and more people were winding up in the same house in London, as the parents took in adult children and relatives who were downsized and foreclosed.  What began as a farce actually began to seem quite tragic.

Some nosing around the internet to see what others have to say about this topic unearthed a number of references t o this trend – though  most date it back to 2009, when Hollywood produced a number of films including “The Company Men” and Wall Street:  Money Never Sleeps.  And of course, who could forget  Up in the Air. – with the handsome George Clooney playing a corporate type whose calling in life is downsizing?  It follows the adventures of a man from Nebraska who goes around the country as a sort of consultant whose job is to fire staff when the boss is perhaps too nervous to do it himself.

But why does it matter that the recession has shown up in popular culture?  I mentioned the fact to a grad student of mine the other day, and together we came up with a couple of interesting observations:  First, the fact that the recession now exists in literature and film and other cultural artifacts that very well might outlive us means that it is real.  It’s not a blip, it’s not a temporary state of affairs.  No, it’s now  part of our culture  (This is similar to the feeling I had when I first encountered literature references to 9/11 – in such novels as Falling Man and Martin Amis’s The Second Plane.)

Somewhere out there is this generation’s John Steinbeck, crafting this generation’s Grapes of Wrath – though it won’t contain references to the Dust Bowl, Oklahoma or economic refugees.  Instead, it will feature foreclosures, subprime loans and dads moving far away to look for work, leaving their families behind with relatives  (However, novelist Rick Moody argues the opposite – that recession tends to produce bad literature, since novelists worry too much about saleability and are less likely to take risks).

Or as my student put it, “Oh my gosh.  We’re them!”  “Who’s them?’  I asked. “You know.  Those people whose lives were eaten by the recession.  Twenty years from now, we’re going to be like people’s grandparents – going around turning off the lights and clipping coupons and our kids are going to say, “What do you expect?  Mom and Dad grew up during the Recession.”  Apparently today’s students are the replacement for the Depression Generation, who are gradually aging out of our historical consciousness.

Beyond the fact that we are perhaps marked as the forgotten generation, particularly those of you in your twenties, who vividly remember not being able to find a job as a high school student, or a college student, or a college graduate, or who perhaps remember the sight of neighbors being foreclosed. What will the longterm effects of this recession be on people’s psyches?  A group of researchers this week have posited that for young children, the sort of emotional, social and economic turmoil which the recession has inflicted on their households, may have lasting effects.  They suggest that young children will be less likely to hold a steady job as adults, and less likely to plan for the future.

Analysts who have looked at other large scale political phenomena in America society – including the Red Scare, the threat of nuclear annihilation or even the threat of apocalypse through electronic magnetic pulse – have suggested that people and groups use literature to work through their fears.  It represents a sort of cultural group therapy – going all the way back to the times of the cavemen, where tribesmen  might have acted out a scary story about being gored by animals as a way to relieve tension and come to grips with their fears.  I have always been keenly interested in understanding how individuals and groups think about threat – what scares us as a culture, and which fears we choose to legitimize, and which we choose to dismiss as irrational.  Perhaps that’s why this new trend of depicting the recession in popular culture worries me – because it means that people now accept that it is real, and because they’re willing to admit that they’re scared.  What do you think?  What is the sociological significance of “recession themes” in books and movies?

Well, As I Understand the Term: Politics, Language and the Politics of Language

Did anyone have a chance to catch the following exchange this morning on Meet the Press?
It's from David Gregory's interview with Michele Bachman, winner of the Iowa straw poll:

MR. GREGORY: From the economy, I want to move on to another topic that's deeply meaningful and important to you, and that's your faith in God. This is something that not only motivates you as a person, inspires you as you try to live a virtuous life, but it's also been very important to your political identity as well. And I want to ask you about, not only the role God plays in, in your life but to what extent he's a motivator for decisions that you make. One example that's gotten some attention is some remarks you made back in 2006 about your career path, which you've talked about here, and I want to play a brief clip of those remarks.

(Audiotape, October 14, 2006)

REP. BACHMANN: My husband said, "Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law." Tax law! I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, "Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands."

(End audiotape)

MR. GREGORY: Is that your view for women in America? Is that your vision for them?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I--during the debate I was asked a question about this, and my response was is that submission, that word, means respect. It means that I respect my husband and he respects me.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Congresswoman, I didn't even have to check with my wife and I know those two things aren't, aren't equal.

REP. BACHMANN: What's that?

MR. GREGORY: Submission and respect.

REP. BACHMANN: Well, in our house it is.

MR. GREGORY: OK.

What does this have to do with political science methodology, you might ask.  Aren't I just asking you to think about current events?
Actually, what we're seeing here is a really interesting little controversy about the politics of language.  If you notice from this exchange, David Gregory is telling Michele Bachman that she used a term, "submission" that clearly has only one meaning, particularly (presumably) in evangelical politics.  If he was to look up that definition, he might point to this definition from The Free Dictionary online:

sub·mis·sion  (sb-mshn) n. 1. a. The act of submitting to the power of another: "Oppression that cannot be overcome does not give rise to revolt but to submission" (Simone Weil). b. The state of having submitted. See Synonyms at surrender. 2. The state of being submissive or compliant; meekness. 3. a. The act of submitting something for consideration. b. Something so submitted: read three fiction manuscripts and other such submissions. [Middle English submissioun, from Old French submission, from Latin submissi, submissin-, a lowering, from submissus, past participle of submittere, to set under; see submit.]

In Gregory's mind, submission is basically a synonym for oppression, and it's also a synonym for subordination -- in the sense that something (or someone) that is being submissive is basically acting from the position of someone lower who enjoys less power than the one who is dominant.  Gregory presumably believes that if Bachman has what he perceives as a Christian marriage, then clearly Bachman is required to be:  compliant, in a position of being less or being subordinate -- and probably that she is veing oppressed.  What's interesting is the way that he turns the question back on her, and notes that "everyone knows" (including his wife) that Bachman's definition is not 'what is meant by being submissive'.  Actually, I don't know what's stranger about the whole conversation -- a secular TV reporter blundering into a discussion which is essentially theological, the fact that he's referring to a Bible quote but that he never says this in the exchange, or the fact that he claims to have some form of superior knowledge about what the word (and perhaps the Bible quote) means.

It's also interesting to note Bachman's response.  In this conversation, David Gregory acts as a positivist -- he says "this is what the term means -- either because I have defined it this way or because that's the common meaning of the term."  Bachman then parries -- as a reflexivist --  noting that "that's not what the term means to me" or to her husband, and indeed to many other Evangelical women today.  Rather, she probably had this meaning in mind, which I have cribbed from Bible answers.com:

What is the definition of submission? It is yielding to another's desires without resistance. Submission to another's wishes is an attitude of the heart done willingly, while surrender is yielding by being forced to do so. Our first submission should be unto the Lord. "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind'' (Matthew 22:37). God never forces someone to follow Him nor does He want us to be forced to follow or yield to another human being. He wants us to lovingly submit to Him and to each other

In other words, Bachman most likely believes that everyone should 'submit' -- in the sense that they should put their own desires lower on this list than the desires that God has for them and the best interests of their family.   Turns out, she didn't actually say, nor did she actually mean "Women should be oppressed."
What struck me was the way that -- in allowing that the term could only have one meaning -- Gregory is actually the one who comes across sounding like a fundamentalist.

On the whole, I'd accuse Gregory of practicing bad science.  He pulls a quote out of context -- doesn't give the audience any background in terms of where she is speaking or the fact that the term is actually somewhat contested (even among Evangelicals) -- and then claims to know absolutely what it means.

I call your attention to this exchange because it illustrates why content analysis is so difficult in political science.  And as we become so technologically advanced that pretty soon there will be written evidence and transcripts of much more that every politician has ever said during the course of his career -- this tendency to pull things out of context and authoritatively pronounce about the meaning of those snippets will probably increase.

What did Bachman mean?  What did Gregory mean?  Is he right in saying that she's not being honest when she says that's not what she meant?  Is it fair for her to say that "the term normally means this, but I've always understood it to be that" and why do secular news analysts care so much about this Biblical controversy anyway?  Any thoughts?

What Should a Political Scientist Read? Part Two

In my last post, I suggested that you establish a series of routines for keeping up with both current events news and developments in your field of study on a daily, weekly and quarterly basis.  Today I'd like to talk a bit more about what you might read on a daily basis. 

You probably want to start with a newspaper or two.  Here the obvious choices would be to read a nationally regarded newspaper like the New York Times or Washington Post on a daily basis.  However, I'd recommend mixing it up occasionally.  As you're probably aware by now, most newspapers have areas in which they are really strong (like the Washington Post's coverage of Capitol Hill) and others where perhaps they are weaker.  In addition, both conservative groups and more liberal groups have suggested that newspaper coverage can be biased ideologically -- with a newspaper choosing not to use certain sources or not to focus on certain stories.  The best way to make sure that these issues are not affecting you as a researcher is to vary the sources that your read occasionally.  (Here I'm speaking from experience.  I served overseas as a US foreign service officer, concluding my somewhat short career with a stint as Press Attache at the American Embassy in Bulgaria.  I spent several years reading eight or nine daily newspapers -- so I know what I'm talking about!) 

Some other national newspapers that I read occasionally include the Christian Science Monitor, the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times.  It's my sense that (not surprisingly) the Boston Globe does a bang up job of covering education issues, including higher education.  The Los Angeles Times has particularly strong coverage of environmental issues.  (It's also interesting to note how coverage of presidential electoral politics can vary from the East to the West coast.)

I'd like to suggest that you occasionally include a non-American newspaper in your reading mix.  Ask questions as you read.  Perhaps you are reading about Iranian reactions to Arab Spring and you find yourself wondering:  How might an Arab newspaper analyze this issue?  It only makes sense to take a glance at Al-Jazeera, which is available in English. Another good source is World Press, which translates materials from all over the world.  Those who wish to see what the Christian perspective is on a particular issue might wish to take a look at World Magazine.

I'd also recommend taking a look at some of the blogs hosted by the national newspapers, and subscribing to those that interest you.  I'll write more about those blogs in my next post.

What Should a Political Scientist Read? Part One

Many of my grad students come to my classes initially convinced that they know everything they need to know to become a public policy expert in a few years.  Indeed, many of them know a great many  facts and figures about politics, and many even read widely, consuming a lot of daily newspapers which concern themselves with political happenings.  But is paying attention to current events actually sufficient preparation for becoming a policy analyst?  I don’t think so!  Students who find themselves well-prepared to participate in policy discussions in class tend to share a couple of traits that I would like to highlight here.

First, they don’t read indiscriminately!  Those of us who were praised as children for being good readers probably did in fact develop a habit of reading fairly indiscriminately.  Were you one of those kids who always won the library’s summer reading contest?  Who won the trophy in the Reading Contest at school?  If so, then probably at some point, you decided it was more important to read for volume than for content.  While that might have been sufficient in high school, it’s not enough for grad school. 

So instead, I would suggest that you develop a disciplined routine of reading about politics.  Eventually, you will end up with a couple of routines:

First, you’ll probably have a daily routine of things like newspapers , blogs and e-mailed newsletters that you receive and look at.  Some of these will be things that you read in depth and perhaps even participate in, corresponding with colleagues.

In addition, you might have a routine of things you look at weekly or when you have free time.  (This might even include some guilty pleasures, things you don’t really need to know, but which you enjoy learning more about.  And if your guilty pleasures include People of Walmart and The Onion, I promise not to tell -- provided you don't force me to explain my strange obsession with gossip about Kate Gosselin.)

Finally, you will have a routine of scholarly journals and websites that you glance at regularly – perhaps a journal that you look at quarterly, or quarterly reports from a variety of sources like think tanks.

Tomorrow, I will share my daily, weekly and quarterly routines for reading about and keeping up with politics, and I will ask my readers to share some of their favorites as well.

In addition, I will explain why you should pay attention to the credibility and quality of the sources that you read.

Welcome to My Blog

I am developing this blog because I'm a political scientist who is interested in helping my students -- and others, I hope -- to make the leap from following politics in the newspaper or online to actually thinking like a political scientist.  I teach mostly in the national security field at Regent University -- and usually teach a course on terrorism, one on intelligence and sometimes a course on disaster assistance management.  But my other real love is the field of political methodology and I frequently teach the graduate seminar on research methods.  Many of my students come to Regent already quite immersed in the day to day chatter of politics (okay, usually it's conservative politics).  However, they often look surprised on the first day of our research methods seminar when I ask them the question:  Is political science really a science?  What makes it scientific?  These are the questions I hope to help my readers to explore in this blog.  I'll be posting a couple of times a week and will be presenting articles about current events and contemporary political problems -- but then I'll attempt to lead students to think through these events as a political scientist, drawing larger lessons and considering the ramifications of particular events within a larger framework.