On Economics, Prediction and two dollar wafflemakers

I always enjoy the Black Friday coverage in the news because we get to see reporters attempting to do something that , arguably, they don’t do particularly well.  Basically, Black Friday and Election Day are the two times we see members of the media attempting to sound knowledgeable as they attempt to predict the future.  That is, in both cases they tend to do things like:

Go to a location and watch what people do (shop, vote, riot)

Interview people and ask them about what they’re doing

And then go on to make larger predictions about what the economy will be like in the coming year based on their twenty minute observation period of a bunch of nonrandomly selected Walmart shoppers in their general area (just as later in the year, they will predict who will win the election based on their trip down to their local precinct).

As research methods scholars, hopefully, you have all been equally aghast at these reporters as you have watched them this week.  Some of the more egregious research methods violations I have observed have included:

1.        Commentators on the Today Show watching someone’s cell-phone video of a riot at the Walmart over the aforementioned waffle makers – authoritatively making  pronouncements such as “Yes, this is a sign of people’s desperation in these challenging economic times.”  Or “You can really see the decline of America here, as people are becoming more violent.”  The question is, I suppose, how many Walmart riots would you have to have observed, and in how many different locations, before you could actually say something generalizable about them?  Was this particular Walmart generalizable to the larger population of Walmarts?  Were the shoppers representative?  Why or why not?  (Also, were there any racist overtones to the media reporting on these issues?  If the rioters had been white, do you think the language would have been the same?  Perhaps it might have been described as “a tussle”, rather than “a riot”.  What do you think?)

2.        Here’s a typical report in which the reporter aggregates together a variety of violent incidents in the US and presents them to viewers. But we need to ask – are these news reports representative?  How did the reporter choose them?  Does this mean that ALL stores had violent incidents?

3.        Commentators this morning on the Today Show engaged in a somewhat more methodologically nuanced discussion regarding exactly what the economic spending figures from the weekend actually tell us.  At least one analyst pointed out that it’s a bit simplistic to make the claim that “More people spent more money this weekend and that shows that consumer confidence is up and the economy will be on the upswing.”  She somewhat intelligently pointed out that in fact one might want to know whether the people who spent a great deal of money actually HAD that money (which they were thus putting into circulation in the economy) or whether in fact they were simply wracking  up additional debts that they would then not be able to pay.   (For more on that point, I’d like to introduce you to one of my favorite videos of all-time).

The Today commentator then actually made the following statement, which I thought was interesting:  “If in fact people were merely charging things they couldn’t afford, then that would explain why most of the spending occurred early on Friday and then settled down around  Saturday evening.  This might be a sign that people were reaching their credit limits.”  She then went on to point out that there had been previous years when people spent a lot of Black Friday but then spent little for the rest of the holiday season.    In other words, one shouldn’t extrapolate a trend based on only looking at one data point.

4.        Finally, there was an interesting conversation in many venues about the SES or socioeconomic status of the people lining up on Black Friday.  If most of those who line up for deals early on Friday morning are of lower socioeconomic status, then what that mean?  Here, one would have to actually have empirical evidence that this was the case.  At least some of the Occupy websites suggest that lower SES individuals have been “manipulated” by corporations into wanting things they can’t afford and spending money they cannot have.  Others have suggested that only lower SES people would be desperate enough to participate in the Black Friday madness.  The first statement seems to imply that lower SES people are more easily manipulated, something which seems a bit condescending and maybe even racist.  Honestly, there’s probably a research article in there somewhere --  but it would involve studying Black Friday in a methodologically rigorous way – through selecting a variety of locations to observe, or perhaps recruiting people to answer a survey about why they participate in these events.  What might you study if you had the chance?

Thoughts about conferencing

I spent the weekend at one of my favorite conferences – the Northeast Region conference of the International Studies Association.  It took me several years to actually work out for myself:

1.        What the purpose of an academic conference is/was

2.       How to choose an academic conference to attend and

3.       How to use your time effectively at an academic conference

As the Bible tells us in First Corinthians: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Similarly, I would argue that my views towards academic conference have matured as I myself have matured.  Graduate students in particular seem to think that an academic conference is a jousting tournament – where one goes to spar with colleagues and competitors.  The point of the conference, to a graduate student, sometimes seem to be that one can sit in a room while colleagues give papers thinking some variant of the following thoughts:

a.      I have read more on that subject than this guy has.  How dare he think he knows something about that subject?

b.    My paper is better than his.  Just wait until I give my paper!

Or (my favorite)

c.      I can’t wait until the Q and A session, so I can ask my well-prepared question, which will drill into my opponent like a missile, exposing his weaknesses and humiliating him.

(Another popular thought is something along the lines of:  “Haha, this guy only had fourteen people show up to listen to him read his paper.  I had TWICE THAT MANY at my paper session.  I’m the best!”)

Nope!  If you’ve ever had any of these thoughts at a conference, then you are missing the point.

Another thought that one sometimes has as a graduate student (or even as a young academic) is that the point of an academic conference is that you will bring your work to a forum where older, wiser colleagues will mentor you and ultimately ‘fix’ your work for you, bringing it to a publishable standard.  Particularly as a young academic, I remember feeling disappointed when this exchange didn’t magically happen at any of the conferences I attended.  Sometimes I got some good feedback on my work – an audience member perhaps suggested expanding on some minor point I had made in my paper and I ended out fleshing it out more in the final draft;  someone suggested an article that I hadn’t yet read;  someone (probably a grad student) pointed out some problem I had in misunderstanding a theorist and I was able to go back and fix it – but ultimately one’s work is one’s own.  Your journey as a academic is sometimes a lonely one, and often it feels like you actually ARE the only person in the world we cares about some topic like “the comparative discourse of internet addiction.” 

That’s where it becomes important to choose the right conference.  ISA-NE (to the cognoscenti) is an international relations conference with a particular “flavor” to it.  I think this is largely because of some of the awesome people who have stepped forward to lead this organization.  Laura Sjoberg and Rosemary Shinko are two wonderful feminist international relations theorists.  They, along with Rene Marlin-Bennett, have consistently mentored grad students and shared their expertise on a growing body of literature about “issues of the body” in international relations.  As a result, the conference probably attracts more women academics than a lot of IR conferences.  It’s also one of the least competitive and most supportive environments I’ve ever seen at a conference.  I was awed to see the ways in which the panelists interacted with each other, cooperatively giving feedback and encouraging young academics – who are well represented at this conference.  Patrick Jackson is a top-notch IR theorist who also makes a point of mentoring new grad students.  He has set up several events at the conference specifically for young academics, and strives to include them and welcome them to every aspect of the conference.  (Many of the ISA-NE members blog at "Duck of Minerva", which links at the bottom of this blogpage.) 

Finally, the conference has a significant representation by academics interested in “doing” critical theory and constructivism within international relations.  At some mainstream conferences, it’s possible to encounter a certain amount of hostility by mainstream (positivist) theorists when you announce that:  you think that language matters, that you think that popular culture matters, and that you think that power resides outside of traditional political institutions.  In contrast, there were a number of wonderful papers given at this conference on subjects as varied as “the language of international relations in Battlestar Galactica,”  the politics of creating war memorials and beauty contests as the subject of contestation between nations.   Here's the conference program, if you're interested. 

I’ve also come to realize that a conference is, to some degree, like a support group.  Often I think that as academics we just want to know that we are not wasting our time and that we are not alone in our “quirky” weird research interests.  I was thrilled to get to know so many fine academics who are also interested in the politics of disease – from the University of Toronto, from Bridgewater College and from Harvard University.  I’m excited about putting together a panel specifically on the politics of disease at a future ISA session.