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.