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.

Finalizing the 'Isms'

As a review, we have already discussed three 'isms.'  

The first was approaches or perspectives to the study of politics:  Institutionalism (Traditionalism), New Institutionalism, Behaviorlaims, Post Behavioralism, Post Modernism (Constructivism), and Rational Choice.

Second, political ideologies: we've covered a general idea on Communism and Socialism in the prelim period, and recently discussed Conservatism and Classical Liberalism.  Mind you, there are many more ideologies such as Fascism, Ecologism, and Libertarianism.  Even Democracy is in itself an ideology.

As an activity on political behavior and ideologies.  Please take the political compass test and know the truth about your Politico-economic colors.  Please answer the test as you do a psych test.  Answer the first tendency of your behavior, no mulling over the topics.  Once you get the results, try to look back on what you answered?

Last for this lecture are the International Relations Theories or Perspectives.  Similar to the approaches, they are ways to look at the international world.  They are ways to approach a situation where international actors are involved, and they are also like ideologies of political actors.  Since they are like ideologies, knowing them can be a tool on how to deal or interact with them.  

An important thing to note.  International Relations is the general area of international politics.  The former simply deals with the relationships and interactions between international actors.  The latter, as supported by Hans Morgenthau (Father of Realism), though focuses on relationships defined by power.  

International Relations from another sub-discipline of political science.  Other sub-disciplines include; comparative politics, political science research, and political theory.  Under International Relations, you will have future courses on international Conflict Resolution, International Political Systems, International Political Economy, and Global Environmental Politics.

The theories below are general theories and there are a number of thinkers and scientists who have written works on these topics.

Realism

The perspective that since the international community is similar to the state of nature, then it's every political actor for himself and the main tool for survival is power.  Hans Morgenthau even went as far as to claim that the ethics of international relations is defined by the state's survival.  That a decision usually thought of as morally wrong, e.g. betraying an ally, would be realistically moral as long as it is done for the survival of one's state.  

Slaughter (2011) classifies realists into two camps.  Aggressive and Defensive.  The goal of both is the survival and welfare of their states.  An Agressive Realist though would strive to achieve to become a hegemon, etymologized from Greek, which means "superpower."  A Defensive Realist though would want to achieve a Balance of Power.  The state of the world when several superpowers cancel each other out and thus cause no threat.

Structuralism

The institutionalism of the international world.  It can also be used interchangeably with the same name.  It also believes in the existence of global anarchy and thus focuses on state survival.  However, as a way to approach this, an Institutionalist or Structuralist would want to create institutions, believing them to be the means to balance the chaos.  Structures take the form of international institutions, such as; EU, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, Pacific Alliance, NATO, and the United Nations.  A founding value to these is the principle of Reciprocity also know as Quid pro Quo (something for something).  Somewhat similar to utang na loob or debt of honor.  This principle is followed by most states in the practice of diplomacy, you scratch my back, I scratch yours.

Liberalism

Liberals have a loose idea on the world being anarchic or orderly.  However, they all believe in the human capacity for rational thought.  And in contrast to the previous two, balances the interests of the individuals to the interests of the state.  Hence, similar to what Kant thought, that a democratic state would not go decide to start a war because it will put the wellbeing of its citizens in danger.  And would only go to war to defend itself.  Liberals also believe in upholding justice, but not through aggression but through peaceful means such as mediation and institutions such as the International Court of Justice (which tries states)  and the International Criminal Court (which tries individuals). 

Constructivism

Constructivism is the approach of approaches.  it is the creation of and understanding of constructs.  Take for example the concept of rights and values.  Rights originated from Rome.  It's a privilege to all citizens.  When the Americans went into Japan at the end of the second World War, they crafted a new constituion for the Land of the Rising Sun.  However, the Japanese did not easily accept the document, in contained Western constructs such as Rights.  In Japan, there were no rights until that time.  Before, what a person enjoys is a privilege granted by the Emperor.  Similarly, the concept of Barbarians originated in Greece.  It is rooted from bar bar their colloquial way of saying gibberish.  Which is how they described anyone who did not speak the Greek language,   Values are also constructed relatively.  East and Southeast Asian leaders have capitalized on the political term 'Asian value.'  Saying that values of the Asian states are different to that of the west.  A counter rhetoric to the west's democratic stance against authoritarian rulers.  These rulers even came to abuse this rhetoric saying that Asians value the community over the individual, and any individual who spoke against authoritarian rulers soon 'disappeared' for threatening the state.

  

Critical Approaches / Theories

This group is a hodge-podge of theories.  It is a stand against the existing institutions, values, systems of the world.  Among them include ecological criticisms to multinational corporations, Marxist criticisms to imperialist states and multinational corporations, and feminist criticisms to patriarchy.   

English School

This particular approach is a perspective that gives values to understanding history.  A very basic teaching that understanding the past can help understand conflicts, and can provide strategies in dealing with present or future problems. 

As an attendance.  I want you to describe a scene in any of the films that we watched through one of the perspectives.

Also, 

Take the Political Compass Test and get your certificate.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

Reference:

Slaughter, A. (2011). International Relations, Principal Theories. Retrieved from Princeton: https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrincipalTheories_Slaughter_20110509zG.pdf

Comparative Politics Lecture for POL 3211 November 15, 2019

Before we begin, some important reminders.

For your paper.

A paper is not a series of paraphrases and quotes placed in a sequential order.  Only nonserious students do this. 

A paper instead is a set of sequenced paragraphs that you personally composed.

You write it because there is something that you are trying to say to the reader.

You write it because you have knowledge of the topic.  You are not John Snow who knows nothing.

And since you are trying to say something, it is possible that not everything you know was personally discovered by you.  For example, if you say that Manila is now clean of garbage.  Did you come to know that in person?  Or is it because it's in the news? 

The former, you write it experientially.  Going through Manila, one can observe that it is now clean in comparison to a few months ago.  Notice I didn't use 1st person perspective, thus making it objective.

The latter, you will have to cite. 

De Castro (2019) reported that Manila is now clean of garbage. 

Or - Manila is now clean of garbage (2019). 

Or - Manila Bulletin documented that Manila is now clean of garbage (De Castro, 2019). 

Or - Manila is now clean of garbage (De Castro, 2019). 

Or - Manila Bulletin (De Castro, 2019) stated that Manila is now clean of garbage (De Castro, 2019). 

Or - De Castro (2019) in the Manila Bulletin documented that Manila is now clean of garbage (De Castro, 2019). 

There are many ways to place the citation.  There are many ways to report a statement.  Or to paraphrase or precis. 

Remember to use headings and sub-headings.

Remember to communicate well.  One sentence = one idea.  More ideas, add sentences.  Transition them.

One paragraph - oned idea composed of several sentences.

If your paragraph reaches half the page.  There's probably over one idea there already.

Don't make it difficult for your reader.

Especially when the person reading will be grading.

Especially when you want to be published or recognized for your work.

Writing arguments is in your career track, whether it be for law school or any other profession after you graduate with your degree.

Don't settle for 'pwede na.'  That's mediocre. 

On with the lesson.

Comparative politics is our disciplines' version of experimentation.  It is both a method of analysis and a sub discipline of political science.  As a method, it was originally proposed by John Stuart MIll.  And in his method of analysis, he gave us three modes.  

1. Analyzing similarities
2. Analyzing differences
3. Analyzing similarities and differences

These three can be considered as general principles through which we can compare states and and various political phenomenon to understand or arrive at new political concepts, theories, and laws.

Another important principle to note is that we can only compare "things that are similarly situated."

This does not mean that they shouls be the same things or equally the same.  Bu there should at least one category to which they can be both be classified.

For example, you are trying to study Federalism.  That's actually my M.A. thesis.  There are more than Federal states across the globe that can be counted in two hands.  So, can you just compare any federal state?

For one, my theory is that federations can lead to economic development.  Another is that a federation can lead to better management of national territory.  ANd finally, that a federation can help manage cultural differences within a territory.

Hence I looked for model states.  Federal, and able to accomplish those three.  My own adviser also suggested to select the most senior among them to use experience as a qualification.

With that I ended up with:  U.S., Canada, Germany, Australia.  And I compared them to the Philippines, to which I intended to apply Federalism.  Of course we can't just experiment with the Philippine government, hence the use of the comparative method.

The Philippines may not be federal.  But it has similar situations with those states.  The republic, along with the other four have cultural fractures, and .the territory might not be the same in size, but they all have the same quality of being in need of management.  USA and Canada share the North American continent between them in terms of size.  Australia is one entire continent.  Germany is the smaller, but it has had cultural fractures not to mention that there was no Germany before, only Germanic tribes.  And the Philippines is composed of more than 7,000 islands.  All these require a government that can fit the job of managing these.  All four federal states are economically well off.  The Philippines is not.  And that is one of the benefits that I intended to get for the republic.

As a sub-discipline, there are two questions involved:

1. Why do we compare? and
2. What do we compare?

For the 1st, the answer are the following:

1. To contextually describe.
2. To classify.
3. To test hypotheses.
4. To predict outcomes.

The four answers give us the four approaches of comparative research.  Contextual description describes a political actor or phenomenon.  Imagine yourself a scientist exploring rain forest of the Amazon and finding a new animal or plant.  You observe it and document it and find out the characteristics of what makes itr what it is.  Applied to political science, you have a state, can you describe it a state?  What makes it what it is?  Contextual description does not propose theories.  It just describes something, it is best in creating concepts.

Classification is a bit more advanced.  It still belings to the area of creating concepts, but is already the beginning towards making theories or hypothesizing.  Classification dates back to as Early as Aristotle and Plato.  But ask yourselves, are there better classifications?  Landman, in Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics, features S.E. Finer as having a better classification of governments than Plato's and Aristotles.

From the classification, and the characteristics of states, one can actually come of with testable hypothesis.  A good theory should be testable, and can be repeated at another state.  One of your readings is a great example.  The project done by Wlezein on thermostatic politics.  In fact, it is not just a theory anymore, but already moving towards the area of becoming a predictive tool, and thus a law.

A classic example of comparative politics is Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba's work on The Civic Culture.  It's not an accurate prdictive work.  But it created a good set of classification of the culture of states.

For the answer to the second question, we can compare:

1. One (single) country
2. Two countries
3. Many countries

Comparing one country, just like contextual description is the foundation of comparative work.  You begin the analysis by looking inside the case of one country before proceeding with the next.

It is important to note that contextual description is not the only comparative process that can be done with single country studies.  In fact many theses are already single country studies which are comparative politics in their own right.  For example, an AB Political Science senior student can be writing a thesis to test Almond and Verba's civic culture in the Philippines, thereby accomplishing two things, describe or classify Philippine political culture and test a hypothesis  related to Almond and Verba's theory.

Increasing the number of countries increases the scientific characteristic of the study.  While decreasing the number increases its abstractness.  Abstraction is the process of conceptualization, a focus on the "thingness" of a thing.  For example, what makes the culture of Russia unique to Russia.  Or what makes the political system of Thailand unique to thailand.  By understanding this, political scientists are able to achieve insight into how the politics of a particular land works.

I've prepared a powerpoint to supplement this lecture.  Downloadable via the link below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ia86MtfSh-cWR1gNjUA54jT_kqYaVrib

This powerpoint is about components of political behavior.

When we do comparative politics, there are two possible objects of study in a country, institution or behavior.  We've discussed institutions before.  Institutions like Federal and Parliamentary governments and constitutions.  And institutional arrangements such as distribution and separation of powers.  The powerpoint will give you ideas on the various manifestations of political behaviors, such as voting, political communication, and joining political parties.

As a way to apply this lesson, I am also linking to this multimedia review that I wrote on V for Vendetta.

https://onyxtower.blogspot.com/2012/07/vestige-of-vox-populi-multimedia.html