Arguments and Variables

 Let’s the the basics of the building blocks of an argument - varaibles.

We always talk about this when reading, analyzing, or doing research, but what are they?

One way to see them are as subjects and predicates of a sentence.

If you’ve undertook logic classs before, it’s also similar.

I.e. Something is ______.

The most basic format of a statement. Mind you not all statements are argumentative statements.

Basically, there’s at least three in political science.

1. Sample - you argue, women should not expect men to treat them like delicate flowers (Wollstonecrafts argument). This is a normative argument, it’s not testable, but it’s arguable. Your purpose here is to give support for you argument on why a certain gender (women) should act based on a particular norm (being treated delicately).
2. Sample - you argue, more women in government reduces corruption. This is a positive statement, it’s arguable, and can be tested (you can check a number of governments and see if they do). What you are doing here is try tp prove that governments with more elected women officials really do reduce corruption. Notice a difference, normative arguments say how things should be, while positive arguments try to describe the world.
3. Sample - you argue, Philippine civil society is on a decline. This is an evaluative or assessment argument. You’re making judgement on something based on a particular set criteria.

Variables are the components of the argument that have “variations.”

Let’s see,

1. In the first sample, if we simply look at the specificity of the argument, there might not seem any variation. But when we look at the classes over which the two parts belong, women is a variation of gender. Expectation of treatment is another and is a variation of s norm. You can also frame your variable in terms of what kind of women should abide by this proposed argument? Strong women? Though that can cause a different for of debate. But rermember, the quality is arguable, then expect a debate on the topic.
2. The second example is where Independent and Dependent Variables are usually used. The idea of dependence and independence ais a relationship etween them. The Independent variable usually has an impact on the dependent. Hence, in the example, Corruption is a variable, it’s the dependent. It’s affected by the kind of gender that officials have (or even the number of a kind of gender, multiple variations). Gender here is the independent variable. So what’s the variations for corruption? In the case of this argument, it’s degree, so we’re talking about a potential quantitative study. The same for woemen, the variation ca be the high or low number of women officials.
3. In the third sample, there was only one variable, and we’retrying to see the variation in terms of the Philippine’s civil society. Sometimes you can just do it this way, but may seem incomplete. You can instead evaluate the civil society’s effectiveness in advocating for human rights. So here you already know what category it’s being evaluated.  You can check variations of civic activity (i.e. Rallies, social media engagement, membership), it’s your independent variable. How did we know t’s independent though? Check out the operational connector between them - “effectiveness” so who (IV) afects who (DV). Another variation that you ca research here is the degree of effectiveness.

These are the basic building blocks of an argument. So check it out for yourself, think of current issues, identify variables and their potential units of variation. Are the units numeric? Then your research will be quantitative. Are the units words and ideas? Then your research will be qualitative.

It’s part of the science, you don’t choose the method because you like or don’t like math. You choose it because it matches your argument. Then you recruit a statistician or a data analyst if you have a particular weakness on the method.

This links us back to niche. As I mentioned last time, your niche is your expertise or even your passion or concern. And this can be either your dependent or independent variables.  I.e. Gender, corruption, environment, pollution, etc. Or your expertise can be on a particular method.

This coincides with flavor text for our Magic: The Gathering card for today, check it out below.

(Photo credit to Wizards of The Coast, Inc., https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=175138&type=card)

Your Niche

I was thinking whether or not to write on this topic since it can cause problems if mishandled. But it's still an important element of why we write so, let's disentangle the puzzle.

The "niche" or research niche is your academic expertise. The problem is, not everyone has a clear cut vision on where they want to go. Some students are not even sure of their own course, or some family reason is why they're not in the course that they want. I won't answer those directly but rather with this discourse: 

• It's always better to have a plan. Education is expensive, best to maximize the years spent on your course. 
• BUT
• If you don't have a plan yet, BE STILL, get a moment where you can talk to yourself and find out your plan.
• BUT
• If your "self" is being silent, or you don't have a moment to BE STIL, then ask yourself for now, what is your take away from where you are now? I.e. your course/program.
• BUT
• If you're not having any takeaway, there's something terribly wrong going on. You have to address this.
• BUT
• If you can't address it, then just have fun. This is the counterpoise in the not everyone has a plan yet. Don't stress yourself, don't overburden with yourself with drama queen stuff like "I'm just trying to get through." Laugh at the ridiculousness of the situation and find something fun to do while doing the reality of "getting through."

- - - 

Let's now focus on the practicality of a niche, maybe this can help guide you find yours (if you don't know yet), or help you plan along yours (if you already have).

Your thesis whether college, master's or PhD (dissertation) is the crowning glory of that level's academic life. That's the reason why I have a bias against courses that don't do a thesis. Take note, even students at the Conservatory of Music may not have a "thesis" per se but they have a recital, which is just the same - the test and outcome which proves that you have mastered that level.

We have to go through a tour of an institution in Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time novels in order to do this (no worries, no spoilers).

This institution is the White Tower, headquarters of the Aes Sedai (trans. from the Old Tongue = Servants of All). The Aes Sedai are humans gifted with the power to channel power, but what's most important is aside from the fictional supernatural power that they train to use, they also specialize in two other powers: knowledge and politics (that's why the prequel, New Spring is usually first reading for political science freshmen when I used to teach Political Science as a Profession). At present in the timeline of the books, Aes Sedai were all women (I won't go into the details), and in order to attain the rank of "Aes Sedai, a girl enters the White Tower and becomes a Novice. Novices are expected to attend their classes, follow the prescribed lessons, follow instructions, and not to question their teachers (I kind of disagree with the last one). After years of training and a difficult test, the novice is promoted to the rank of Accepted. The Accepted gain a certain degree of freedom, they get to choose what they want to study, choose their time for lessons with specific teachers, and are expected to question things. Again, grueling years of training and a test (the political science freshmen usually encounter this in New Spring) called the Hundred Weaves, then woman is raised to Aes Sedai, and one Aes Sedai (Cadsuane Melaidhrin, Aes Sedai of the Green Ajah) comments while reminiscing her years after her "graduation" that that is the point when one truly learns.

There was a huge fan run website called WoTmania and it contained a rich collection of fan activity. Seriously, RICH. There was a section on theories where site registered members can post well thought of theories, and you will suspect that the people posting are either college or post-college level students.

I found an article there that likened the 3 ranks as college, master's and PhD's (sadly WoTmania has been closed after the devastation of Jordan's death). Another argued that the three ranks are elementary, high school, and college.

So, you have x years before writing your research, usually it's on your second or third year. 

• IF you treat your brains like a temporary computer memory rather than a hard drive, then we have a problem, because where's the mastery?

• IF you are not taking something away for your future plans, then we have a problem (I say we because sometimes, it's not the student but something else which is the cause, yes TEA 😎 ).

• IF you get nothing in each course that's useful to your future writing, then again, problem.

So, keep in heart the lessons, the readings, and all discussions, because you will need them.

It's from here where you might be able to find your niche.  Attend to your lessons.

Another is, like the Accepted, find an expert and learn from them. It's like an apprenticeship. Being a Research Assistant (RA) or Teaching/Teacher's Assistant (TA) is an example.

And always remember what Cadsuane Sedai said, after graduation is when you truly learn. Hence, after High School graduation, you are a student in college, open your mind and use the previous lessons, don't make them hindrance to fill in your brain. If the muscles of the body get toned by working out, then do the brain workouts.

Let's end today with the quote from the card below. A quote with so many layers. An Adept is someone who has attained expertise (PhD) in a field (a niche). There is often a temptation that makes people arrogant, avoid that temptation. In the quote, don't follow the idea of taking something that is not yours though, let it be a proscription (not to do). Never plagiarize, get your takeaway from the lessons, "the things that will be yours" when you write your own ideas. And make your own ideas, propose them and support them with evidence. That's the essence of an original thesis.

Image from Wizards of The Coast, Inc., https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=4729&type=card

The Elementary Chicken and Egg Question

It's day 2 of the cold period of Autumn here now and it's difficult to get out from wanting to stay in bed and just enjoy the cold while under a warm comforter.  So, I'll do my brain warm-up with this blogpost before proceeding to do my writing tasks today.

***

There was a style during the dinosaur era of thesis writing when the main problem in the Statement of The Problem and the Title of the thesis reflect each other syntactically, that is, the former is in a statement which is like a question made into a declarative sentence of what ought to be answered while the latter is either a description of how you have answered such question or a teaser the answer itself..

Let's have samples

Statement of the Problem: This research seeks to answer how federalism is applicable to the Republic of the Philippines.  (Note that the question is embedded in the declarative sentence.)

Title: Federalism and Its Potential Application to the Republic of the Philippines (teaser answer, a bit more modern than the time of the dinosaurs)

Title: An Comparative Constitutional Analysis on the Potential Application of Federalism on the Republic of the Philippines (tells how you answered the question).

Note: These samples are in my successfully defended Master's thesis.  Just Google Castillo Philippines Federalism (yes, flex that I'm googleable 😅 )

Now from this exercise, what we can notice are important elements of what makes an argument.

Concept Note: Sometimes we forget the breadth and depth of the terms that we use. My esteemed professor on the Philosophy of Man, Dr. Florentino Hornedo, reminded our class on what element is: something that constitutes another thing, or the basic building blocks of a thing.  Without them the thing is either incomplete or it is already something different.

So, we have:

• problems/puzzles
• arguments/theses 
• and the how you bridged them or how you answered them - your methodology

The question on what goes first among the three is a triadic version of the chicken and egg version, and my answer is "it depends." What we're here for today is how do we begin, in this case for each.

Let's begin with the unique one (therefore less likely, and in a way, more advanced, plus easier to describe for this blog).

When you use method as part of a title, even modern titles still do it (but you will see points of difference from the true dinosaurs) it's the part of the method uses is usually the design.  I.e. case study, regression analysis, fuzzy models, ethnography, etc. There are unique researchers who's research niches are not on specific topics, i.e. public policy, leviathans, IR, American politics, clientelist politics, environment, etc., but rather on the method. They have a mastery of a specific design and they usually or always use it. 

There's an important takeaway from there, familiarity. It;s a person's familiarity with the method which makes it a good first step for each research undertaking.

Let's look into disciplinary topics rather than methods: puzzles and arguments.

I once said in the "Principles of Writing" previously posted on this blog that you write  because you have something to say - an argument.

But what makes a valid argument?

This is can be tempered by the puzzle that you are tinkering on.

One thing that can block us is that we don't have a clear puzzle because we are unfamiliar with the world of our discipline.

So, check yourself:

• Have you conversed with both the classic and the contemporary masters? (the writers who were the classic references on the topic, and the most recent celebrities being talked about on that particular topic) i.e. if you're doing Federalism, have you read the Federalist Papers, Elazar for classic and international sources? Have you read Pimentel, Abueva, and Tayao among the contemporary Philippine sources? This tells you the state of the discussion. Imagine, there's this debate and you butt in with a statement which has already been said. The shame.  So what's new with yours?  What do you bring into the debate?  Is there something unanswered in the debate?
• Have you been out and about or have you simply been going to school-home-gimmick/hangouts cycle and no other exposure? I.e. do you go out for community engagement? Have you been to congress? Have you attended a rally?  You don't need all of these but have you participated in on what you plan to write on? Sometimes we have no problem because things are tyoo abstract for us.
• Have you been reading the news? This is a twin to the previous one.  It helps you look into what's going on in the world.
• Are you familiar with history? 

Check out the flavor quote on this card in my favorite card game.

Image from Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Don't just do one.

The other thing that can block us in arguing is the degree of our familiarity with our discipline.

So, let's look at elemental components of the discipline as a study, since arguments become knowledge within the field (it's science).

Look at these arguments:

• Justice should be fairness (Rawls).
• What makes a strong state is the formation of elite pacts in response to the critical juncture of contentious politics (from Slater's "Ordering Power").
• Policy salience causes a thermostatic response on voter behavior (Chris Wlezein).

The first one is a normative argument. It proposes a mode of behavior,  This is done through politically theorizing on the concepts of justice and fairness. It doesn't mean that it is done without field work or any systematic method.  There's a qualitative method for these.

The second one is an empirical qualitative argument describing the foundation of state power. It described historical events on the formation of states.

The third one is an empirical quantitative argument. It can statistically test if policy salience does makes voters change their vote from one election and the next election.

There are many other possible variations. But, what can we take away from that exercise? Here are some key points?

• Is your argument too specific such that only people in your barangay, town, or country might be interested?  I.e. "Duterte is a an efficient chief executive." Is too specific as a study and better as a news opinion page article. But if you make a study on what makes chief executives inefficient, then you are on to something.
• Is your argument debatable? To say that "All chief executives should prioritize public service." Is a generalizable statement but it's undebatable (since it's already acceptable).  But if you can make can propose, x,y, and z constitute the qualities of a good leader, then it's more debatable since I can argue a different set or I can propose an addition to your list. 
• Is your argument testable? The previous example is also untestable, it is something that says something should be done.  The counterposed one that I gave is testable, let's see, let's go to this leader who is supposed to be a good leader, do they have such qualities? Wow, the list is incomplete.  Ok, new paper.
• Is your argument positive? It should say what something is rather than what it is not.  I.e. "The Philippine government is not a true democracy." Ok, so what is it?  

Ok, that's it for now.  Up next week is a short one on niches and publishing, to be followed by thinking of variables.

All that talk on theory and where do we begin writing...

I haven't posted since I left Manila almost a year ago.  It will actually be 1 year in 5 days from today.  I guess the auspice of today being International Teacher's Day is a good start to share things.  Some quick blog nuances.  You might notice a pattern on the authorship of each blogpost as you go down the archives.  Sometimes it's my moniker in Spart - Empress - and sometimes it's the more formal full name with the official pre/suffixes.  The blog was born from my old personal email, which got associated to the moniker. I've added the formal email for the sake of the accreditations that Sparta encounters, a bit of homage to our honored guests.

But for the time being, I'll be using the one with the moniker since I'm writing as a faculty on leave and currently studying here in Taiwan. 

With that, let's go to the heart of today's post.

I've been pondering on the puzzle of my own upcoming dissertation writing life, and thus my research questions.  This part is a constant reminder to me by my adviser, Natalie (Wong, one of the coolest and insightful professors ever, don't ever call her by full name nor address her with 'professor' that's how she jams).  Part and parcel of having a topic is having a set of research questions. 

The answer to your research question is your thesis, the word thesis being synonymous to argument.

Not addressing this ends up with the usual, we have a topic but no argument.

Note: as a way of illustrating I'd sometimes refer to my topic, but since I don;t like broadcasting ideas until it gets published, we will affectionately call it WITNHIT (short for what in the nine hells is that!?)

Going back, so we have questions and the argument we pose to address that question.

There's another cool prof that I have this semester, Dr. Lev Nachman. One of the cool parts is that he graduated from UCI, so I can imagine myself as being mentored by a professor from the mythical CalSci (hi Daniella and Lolit :) ) in the Numb3rs TV series :D.

But he's got a really nice engaging way of class discussions.  During these he calls the question or what is generally called "problem" as PUZZLE/S.

Let use that for our own mindwalk. 

As political or social students, let's imagine ourselves at a place, our potential study site?

Imagine the phenomenon, the event we're interested with, i.e. an election, a protest, a something happening at a market place, an accident, a disaster, or a fan meet?

Is there anything puzzling?

Here's where one of my favorite quotes in magic the gathering comes in :D

(Photo from Wizards of the Coast, Inc.)

Yes look and observe, see the building blocks: who, what, when, where.

Then check the higher order parts: why and how?

There was a great war in the the early and mid 1900's, who were involved? what was done? 

But why? and how?

Now let's take it a bit further.  Is this how and/or why causal?

It's from this where you can proceed even toward your methodology - is there a systematic way on how I can prove this how/why?

But we're not here today for method, we're here on the germ from which we begin research.

And we have puzzles, theses, and also a third one: theory.

You could've began thinking of your topic because you saw a puzzle (question/problem).

You could've began thinking of a topic because you have an argument (we'll do a separate one on the ramifications of this next week).

And you could also begin with theory.

How best do we use theory?

A theory is already an existing argument in the body  of literature.

I.e. Weber's, Tilly's, Castillo's (ehem, just kidding on the third).

One way is...

Since a theory exists, then if there's already a detailed set of variables on that theory, you can test it.  This is conducted quantitatively.

This reminds us also of systematic thinking.  You can't just choose quanti over quali because math is your weakness or you like math over reading long interviews.

Just like any part of a thesis, can you defend it? I.e. this study quantitative because the author is testing X's theoty, which was originally used in North America, and we are now testing it's universality by testing it across the Pacific, in Southeast Asia.

Another way is 

You are either challenging the theory or expanding on the theory by qualitatively looking at possible variations of the original variables.  I.e. An argument says that state failure (dependent variable) is caused by the loss of monopoly of the use of force (independent variable).  Is it possible that there may be other causes other than the loss of this state capacity?  Notice now that I classified "monopoly of the use of force" under "state capacity." (this is where your excellent grasp of concepts and jargons after more than two years in the discipline comes in).  

Since one concept can belong under the umbrella of another, and there's possibility of other concepts within that same umbrella, then a possible pathway for the analytic methodology is classification.  I.e. this paper intends to classify variations of causes of state failure in the Middle East.

Or, you might instead map out the process on how "capacity to monopolize use of force" is lost.  In this case you are discovering processes rather than categories. 

A variation of this way is

You have an alternative theory to clash with the first theory or your possible findings will create a new theory.

Before we close for this post, a reminder.

One reason why you have tons of readings is that it gives you insights on the vast body of literatures that there are within the discipline.  This in a way is your preparation which leads you either to a puzzle, an argument, or a counter theory for your own writing.

Another is field exposure, that is why going out of the four corners of the classroom is important.

Field trips are not often but...

Every time you read the news, you are going out to the field (note that reputable news, magazines, and books are literatures too.

Every time you go out to engage with communities, i.e. community development activities.

So go out and about.  Observe, take notes in your mind or jot them down in a JOURNAL of your own, like some field researching Indian Jones.

And think of readings a puzzles that you are unlocking:

Let's end with another cool prof.  Dr. Courtney Work, my powerful professor of ethnology who gives us ACE-FA

That's the:

Argument

Conversation (how did the author talk to other authors - that's his/her/their review of literature, so that you know how to do yours)

Evidences (how did the paper prove the argument? what evidences?)

Those three are at the heart of the readings.

FA are for checking out quality (for when you are the one picking up references)

Funding - so you know if the author is biased or has real clout.

Author - let's you know of the reputability of the article (also check out the quality of the journal, more on this in future posts)

That's it for now.

Happy International Teacher's Day to me, my mentors, and my colleagues.