Launching the First International Professional Lectures in Political Science and the Youtube version of Ronald's Tower

The first of the International Professional Lectures in Political Science was held today, a cooperation between my class on Introduction to International Relations and Global Politics, and the class of Asst. Prof. Ma. Zenia Rodriguez on Gender Studies.  It is also a cooperation between their courses and professor Chuing Prudence Chou of the Department of Education, National Chengchi University; and Mr. Antonio Bolaños Casanova of the International Doctoral Program on Asia Pacific Studies, also from National Chengchi University.

Both universities were bridged by Angelo Brian Castro, UST AB Political Science alumnus who is a fellow of Mr. Casanova and a Research Assistant to Prof. Chou.

This event was prequeled a couple of years ago when Lukas Riek of NGO, Assist Asia, gave a talk on policy implementation to my Political Science as a Profession class.  Today we formalize this endeavor as a bi-annual event, to further the stand for a Better Normal.

This first in the series was themed International Perspectives on Gender and Education.  Details can be found in the Youtube description. 

Richness v Rigor in Writing

In the quest to differentiate political theory from political science, Jacob Levy of McGill University published this essay.

https://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/levy/theory-philosophy.html

The wisdom in his essay is also relevant in writing, particularly in political science papers, whether it be an essay, think piece, thought paper, but particularly as thesis, or dissertation.  It's always good to remember the basics.  This one focusses primarily on writing style, rather than content.

You have to ask, is what you're writing: a) theoretical/normative or b) is it Scientific?

If that dichotomy does not immediately apply, ask is what you're writing: a) qualitative or b) is it quantitative?

If the answer to either question is A, then your writing will have to be RICH.

If the answer to either question is A, then your writing will have to be RIGOROUS.

Doesn't mean to say, though, that Rich and Rigorous are exclusive. 

So, what are those two?

Richness is the quality of insight, of dept, of being able to discuss in full detail.  It immerses the reader.  It engages the reader.  It informs the reader of the argument then proceeds to prove it.  The discussion contains proofs that support the argument, drawing both from illustrations through samples, and through clear explanations.  It is also enriched through a clear discussion interfacing all related wisdom from the discipline.  E.g. If you are talking about political psychology, then you have the most relevant ideas from the best sources to match the samples and explanations that you point out.

The argument is insightful.    It's not the kind of information that you can say, 'duh!  Obvious!'  It's the kind that leads the reader into an aha! moment.  

Rigor is the quality of efficient or accurate effort.  Take note, it's not just effort.  It's the process where you arrive at your conclusion because the math is accurate.  You present the numbers and the facts well.  All data should be accounted for, and their meanings explained through the right standards.  You accomplish this through the accuracy of computations, by validating the results, taking into consideration all possible points that need to be considered or removed (this is called clearing the clutter).  Once done, data must be presented as clearly and orderly as possible, their interpretations are done meticulously.  And the interpretations are accurate.

On Using Quotes

My safe-assign/Turnit In requirement is always 5% match.

This increases as you increase the amount of direct quote or if the quality of paraphrase is lousy.

Best way to deal with direct quotes is to strategize and budget.

Direct quotes have uses.

1. It's good to start or end an article with.

2. It's good in emphasizing something in your discussion.

Sometimes you encounter one or more quotes that are so good.  Pick among them, which should you retain, which should you paraphrase?

Best to have a limit of max of 3 lines of direct quotes in one paper.  Less if the paper is short.  More if it's a thesis with a higher number of pages,  but you will be using IMRAD nowadays, hence, better to still limit them.

The only place in a paper where direct quotes can be plenty is in Chapter 4 of a Thesis, or in Results and Discussion of an IMRAD.  And this is only IF your direct quotes come from interviews, making the work original.          

Qualitative Treatment

Qualitative Treatment or analysis of qualitative data has a usual general process.  I quote from UST Professor, Dr. De Guzman in the use of cool and warm analysis, which begins the process.  For a reference to Dr. De Guzman here's a link.

But first a few preliminaries:

Thematizing - the process of looking for common themes.  This can be done on transcribed interviews, transcribed news or speeches, even primary written materials such as autobiographies, laws, even inscriptions (in tombs 😁).  

Themes - common ideas across objects being studied.  These themes depend on your design.  

Example 1, a case study on the success of a city in implementing COVID19 policies can have themes in the form of processes (consultation, council, consolidation, cooperation).  

Example 2, A study on networks will have either relationship themes (resource relationship, communicative relationship, open relationship), or 

Example 3, network component concepts (node, bottleneck, line).

Codes - any word that you can use to help your mind in thematizing data.  There are open codes and close codes.  Open codes mean that you create codes as you read the data.  Closed codes are based on your framework.  You sometimes do this when you do your readings and you use different colors to highlight.  Here, you also associate the highlights to specific ideas - the codes.

Let's proceed to the process of treatment

Cool Analysis

This is the beginning of any data treatment.  You have your transcribed data.  You read them, and you note words, phrases, and sentences.  You highlight, underline, and note the margins.  Note similarities of ideas, and recurring ideas.  You do this to all the data.  And you can start even if you're not yet done with the data gathering.  Since each transcription will require its own cool treatment.  When you're done reading and highlighting, best to redo to make sure you've covered all of the document, and even to make corrections to your notations.

Warm Analysis  

Review your highlights and notations.  As you do, please apply the though process of your framework and chosen analysis design.

Notice the commonality of ideas in each document and across them.  Reflect and evaluate how these ideas (highlighted words, phrases, statements) relate to the concepts in your framework.  It is best to approach this methodically.  Because if you don't it lessens the validity of your qualitative work.  it becomes questionable to quantitative scientists who would label your work with: unscientific, anecdotal, cherry-picked.

And the method can either be in the basic forms of tables/matrix, or in the form of a dendrogram.

In table or matrix form, you tabulate the quotes that you highlighted.

Picture 1 - Sample Thematic Analysis Table or Matrix

   

Note in Picture 1 above.  Column A is source.  That means I classified the transcriptions.  My interviews were from model barangays and non performing barangays.

Column B is the quote that I identified during cool analysis.  Column C are Main Themes.  And Column D are Sub Themes,  

Themes and Sub Themes form a relationship.  You will notice that in your analysis, several quotes belong under one category (main theme), you will also notice that the quotes in this category can also be divided into sub categories (sub theme).  The reverse can also be true.  You will notice that a group of quotes (sub themes) can fall under a bigger category (main theme).

Simulacra Creation

Simulacrum (singular), from the word simulation.  If the conceptual framework is a diagram of an idea. simulacra are diagrams of the real world.  When you began your thesis, you only had ideas of what is happening in your target barangay, city, institution, etc.  You had a theory, and you framed it.

Now that you've gone to the field, you now have a clearer picture of how society, politics goes on.  And you are presenting this discovery to the academic community.  In the case of my discipline, the political science community.  You create a simulacrum or several simulacra.  Another word for simulacrum is model.  If successful, YOUR diagram will eventually become the next framework for the future.  Check out example 1 above.  Notice they all begin with the same letters.  That's a strategy in picking words for codes and themes.  Eventually, you end up with: the three c's of LGU Covid Governance 💀.

Based on Picture 1 above, I was able to make two simulacra.  Since it's a comparative study.  One simulacrum for a model barangay, and one for non performing.  Your simulacrum can be a new diagram, or it can be a modification of your conceptual framework.  Always mention what you did as you write Chapter 4.

Picture 2 - Simulacrum of Performing Barangay in Effective Solid Waste Management

Picture 3 - Simulacrum of Performing Barangay in Effective Solid Waste Management

In quantitative theses, the presentation of data in Chapter 4 is through graphs and charts.  In a qualitative one, you show the diagram and discuss it in full.  Adding the quotes to the discussion as supporting proofs.  Notice this in Picture 4.  All these pictures are snippets of my article to be published this month.

Picture 4 - Presentation of Data, Discussion, Diagram, Quotes

Validation

Once done, it's best to have the codes, themes, sub themes, and the diagram validated by peers, especially by your adviser, or an expert on the topic.  it adds to the science of qualitative analysis.

  

IMRAD Format

Title

Abstract

Introduction

                Short Background  /        Aim        /  Gap  /  Question (for quali) Hypothesis (for Quanti)

Are not subheadings.  But these things must be readably clear.  Use signposts (words that guide the reader), e.g. Upon review of the current literature, this paper identifies the gap that ……

OR The author aims to bridge the gap in the literature wherein…  OR The questions guiding this research are as follows:

Materials and Methods

                Population and Locale (state inclusion criteria)

                Data Gathering Method

                Data Treatment

                Ethical Issues

Results and Discussions

                Use subheadings

Subheadings will be based on your simulacrum.  In fact, use the simulacrum to guide the RESULTS.  Results is a relaying of what you found.  A description of what is happening in the field.  This is not a place to analyze nor to comment.  It’s a place to describe.

For the Discussion, this is where your analysis comes from.  The subheadings would be short phrases that somewhat answer each of your statement of the problem questions.  Hence if you have 5 sub questions… you have how many sub headings?

The discussion is done by discussing your answer to the sub questions.  Do this by referring to: 1) the results.  2) The theory.  Support it by cross referencing with data from 3) literature.

Conclusion and Recommendations

                Conclusion is short paragraph summarizing your answer to the sub questions.

Recommendations are several paragraphs.  1) What can you recommend given the conclusion?  2)  What can you recommend to the discipline?  3)  Recommendations to the beneficiaries (as listed in the Significance).  4)  Recommendations for future research. 

Keywords

Figures (All figures should appear here.  Pls follow APA 7.)

References

All boldfaced are Main Headings

The Political

Political Science as a Program of learning produces three important things, among other possibilities: Statesmen, Political Scientists, and Political Theorists/Philosophers.

The first enter what career people would call, 'the industry.'  Government, the world of politics itself, local or international, NGOs involved in advocacies.  Some would apply their skills in interfaces of the disciplines, some become journalists, some become economists, etc.

The latter two, Political Scientists and Political Theorists are two sides of the same coin.  Scholars of political knowledge.  They are either in Universities (Universities being institutions that produce knowledge through discoveries by their scholars) or in Think Tanks (research institutes who lend their findings to practical use in the industry, some universities also do this, some).

I'd like to clarify though that Political Scientists and Political Theorists are one.  They are two sides of the same coin, but none can reject the other.  Anyone who has read the History of Our Discipline will understand this.  They are both political science scholars.

Writing papers train those who are in the discipline in the scholarly act of production of knowledge.

Hence if one is a scientist or a theorist, what makes one's object of study political?

The object of study is the thing being studied.  A lot of things in this world touch on the political.  It is best to ensure that the object of study is the political one, not the other discipline.

Take, for example, my researches.  I study a lot of solid waste management topics.  The environment is an advocacy of mine.  Solid waste management is a topic of application.  But as a political science scholar, my object of study is usually institutions.

That should give a clue.  Political things fall under the topics of every branch of the discipline.  These are the groupings or sub-disciplines.

Political Institutions
Political Behavior

These two, especially local, are easiest to do because of ease of access.

Unlike if one decides to study political institutions or political behavior of states other than one's own.

If one extends them to the international environment. international political systems are institutions, and international relations are behaviors of states.  International relations theorizing is, of course, political theory or political philosophy.  One can also do political theorizing locally (just make sure you know the process).

Another pair that so many tend to choose is Public Administration and Public Policy.  Both are also good objects of study.

Note that depending on the general object of the study, the framework and method will have to be aligned to it.

Those are very broad topics though.  it is best to zero in on a specific topic within.  It can either be:

• a phenomenon (a political event that is happening, or has happened which is worth looking into).
• a person
• a process
• a concept (these usually become the names of phenomena, sometimes, names of ideas)  e.g.  corruption is a phenomenon.  Spoliatory politics is both the name of a phenomenon and an idea.  Climate justice is a concept as the name of an idea.)
• a principle or theory or law, these are all similar.  They vary in terms of strength.  Gender equality is a principle.  Having a less corrupt government requires more women in congress is a theory.  Perpetual Peace by Kant is a Law

Take for example political behavior.  What concepts are there?  

E.g.  Political Articulation, Political Aggregation, Social Capital as used in Politics, Political Engagement...

Hence, one can study gender rights.  But note, gender rights can either be social or political.  If the focus is on political mobilization to uphold gender rights.  Then it's political.  But if it's simply gender rights as portrayed in Sitio Bamban, in Province X.  Then that's sociology. 

Best place to look is the sub topics of the syllabus of the course which you excel or the course that you actually like in the discipline.