take home

İbrahim Anil ÇELİKBAŞ- 116605017

1 st : In this course, we often discussed how to understand the reality. Please discuss different assumptions

about the reality by comparing different research methods.

Throughout history, the answer of the reality that has been argued which suggests an attitude to agreement

reality and experiential reality.

A scientific claim should have both logical and empirical support which has to be the rational and realist

on the other hand it should not resist the real observation. However, there are some basic assumptions that

offered by the science in order to accept or explore the reality by means of personal experiences.

Assumptions are known as Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology.

Epistemology is the science of knowing; systems of knowledge;1

Methodology might be called the science of finding out. The science of finding out; procedures

for scientific investigation.2

When we evaluate the Ontology and epistemology in terms of research philosophy, which are actually a

way of sight. Ontology might be identified as “the science or study of being”3 and it touches upon the

character of reality. Ontology is some sort of “system of belief” that represents a construal of an individual

about what compose a fact4. In addition, Ontology has two basic sub-headlines to the reality; objectivism

and constructionism. Firstly, term of objectivism that focuses on the independent reality and in other

respects the constructionism sustain the thought of reality to the result of social processes.5

Furthermore, epistemology is the sciences of knowing about reality. It offers two different terms

positivists that is centered upon on quantitative data and constructivist which are also based upon the

attitude of qualitative method. Accordingly, Positivists view of reality as being only one and that has the

quality of being measured and explored. In this regards, they prefer to use quantitative methods to

measure. However, on the contrary the Constructivists refuse the idea of reality in lieu of they offer the

reality as qualitative. In accordance with the constructionists reality which is actually based on

interpretation and it could merely be construed by the qualitative method and data, as well.6

In addition to the above suppositions there are different approaches to the reality which are basically

known as modern, pre-modern, and postmodern views on reality.

Pre-modern view on reality (which is also known as Scholastic term) the church knows the

reality, not the ordinary person at that times, so there was no way to comprehend the reality.

Hence, people had been accepting the thing what they really were in this era. 7

1 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.42 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.43 Blaikie, N. (2010) “Designing Social Research” Polity Press4 Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) “Research Methods for Business Students” 6th edition, Pearson Education Limited5 http://research-methodology.net/research-philosophy/ontology/(Last Accessed January 7th,2017)6 Bryman, A. (2012) “Social Research Methods” 4th edition, Oxford University Press7 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.8

1


The modern view , if everyone was born with the same capacity according to the principle we

would be the same. According to this point of view, modernism, it’s possible to understand the

world through scientific methods. We can know this through understanding and scientific

approach.8

Postmodern view on reality; There are merely several subjective views. Positivists are defining

science as something that can be measurable. It is an assumption of understanding the same thing

(modernism). Post-modernity says that your tools aren’t enough meaning you can’t develop the

most objective tool. According to them we are living in a conflict society “between people”. As

humans as we are a part of the conflict.9

2 nd : Sampling is an important component of survey research. However, sampling framework is also a

problem to be answered in other methods of data collection. Please discuss how different research

methods solve their sampling problem and show similarities and differences.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative: Qualitative research gathers information that is not in numerical form. For

example, diary accounts, open-ended questionnaires, unstructured interviews and unstructured

observations. Qualitative data is typically descriptive data and as such is harder to analyze than

quantitative data.10

There are 2 ways of sampling:

Probabilistic : There is a way of calculating the probability of being a participant of that survey.

There’s a way of calculating the probability of being a participant to any given survey.11

Non-probabilistic or Non-probability Sampling: It can’t be estimated. For estimations it needed

to be used the first one.12

There are 4 non-probabilistic samples: Reliance on Available Subjects, Purpose Sampling, Snowball

Sampling and Quota Sampling.13

For Survey: The statistics assume sampling with replacement, which is nearly never done— but this is

quite likely not a critical issue. In spite of systematic sampling is used more often than random sampling,

it, too, probably offers no critical issue if done correctly. Stratified sampling, due to it improves

representativeness quite well, frankly presents no problem. Cluster sampling does present a problem, but,

because the estimates of sampling error might be very small. Quite clearly, street-corner sampling does

not warrant the use of inferential statistics. Furthermore, it is really vital to data collection in survey 8 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.89 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.810 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.2311 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010,p. 9412 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.9413 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.192-193

2


research e.g. what are the criterias of chosen intended population by researcher? Representativeness

achieved by probability sampling is largely a function of the sample size. As a general guideline,

probability samples of less than 100 are not likely to be terribly representative, and social science

experiments seldom involve that many subjects in either experimental or control groups. To conclude,

then, probability sampling is seldom used in experiments to select subjects from a larger population. The

calculation of standard error in sampling assumes a 100 percent.14 The standard error is also a function of

the sample size—an inverse function. As the sample size increases, the standard error decreases. As the

sample size increases, the several samples will be clustered nearer to the true value.15

For Experiment: Experiments have been using to study a large sort of subjects in the social sciences.

Some experiments have been carried out within laboratory; others happen out in the “real world” and are

addressed to as field experiments.16 Experimentation has also been accomplished in the study of small-

group interactive relations. Hereby, we may bring together a small group of experimental subjects and

assign them a duty, such as giving advices for popularizing car pools. We observe, and then, how target

group fix with itself and get through the problem. Over this kind of experiments, we may systematically

diversify the nature of the duty or the rewards for handling the duty ably. We can observe the differences

in the way of groups how organize themselves and operate under these varying circumstances, we can also

learn a lot of things about the nature of this group interaction and the factors that affect it. For instance,

lawyers sometimes show the evidence in different ways to different juries in order to see which method is

the one of the most determinant.17 As in all of scientific research, iteration of research signs strengthens

the reliance in the validity and generalizability of these signs. Probability sampling, randomization, and

matching are the methods of achieving comparativeness in the experimental and control groups.

Probabilistic way of sampling is not applicable in the experimental research. Randomization is the

generally preferred method in experiments. In some designs, it can be combined with matching.18

3 rd : Causality is another concept we discussed during the lectures. Please present different paradigms to

this problem of causality, by specifically referring to one of the main themes of political science literature.

Such as democratization, inequality, international terrorism, wars etc

When we evaluate “causality” and asking why questions we are talking about nomothetic causality

(nomothetic=generalizable). There are three main criterias for nomothetic causal relationships in social

research: (1) the variables must be correlated, (2) the cause takes place before the effect, and (3) the

variables are nonspurious. Unless some actual relationship—or correlation—is found between two

14 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.47815 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p. 20616 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p. 24417 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p. 23118 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p. 250

3


variables, we can’t say that a causal relationship exists. There should be an observable/statistical

correlation between variables in order to talk about nomothetic causality.19 As an example in terms of

political science; in the global world, MNCs are getting stronger (this is cause) in each decade. In this

regards, MNCs interfere the domestic policies of the states (this is effect) such as ITT. Salvador Allende

who was Chilean statesman and the first Marxist president was elected without any influence of Western

states. However, he made some decisions economically against ITT’s interest then his government was

overthrown by a coup d’etat in 1973.20

Criteria for Nomothetic Causality: There are three main criteria for nomothetic causal relationships in

social research: (1) the variables must be correlated, (2) the cause takes place before the effect, and (3) the

variables are nonspurious.21

Correlation : An empirical relationship between two variables such that (1) changes in one are

associated with changes in the other or (2) particular attributes of one variable are associated with

particular attributes of the other.22

Time Order: we can’t say a causal relationship exists unless the cause precedes the effect in time.

It makes more sense to say that most children’s religious affiliations are caused by those of their

parents than to say that parents’ affiliations are caused by those of their children—even though it

would be possible for you to change your religion and for your parents to follow suit. Remember,

nomothetic explanation deals with “most cases” but not all.23

Nonspuriousness : The third requirement for a causal relationship is that the effect cannot be

explained in terms of some third variable. E.g., there is a correlation between ice-cream sales and

deaths due to drowning: the more ice cream sold, the more drownings, and vice versa. There is no

direct link between ice cream and drowning.24

False Criteria for Nomothetic Causality: 25

Complete Causation: Whereas an idiographic explanation of causation is relatively complete, a

nomothetic explanation is probabilistic and usually incomplete.

Exceptional Cases: In nomothetic explanations, exceptions do not disprove a causal relationship.

Majority of Cases: Causal relationships can be true even if they don’t apply in a majority of cases.

The cause should cause before the effect. There should be a temporarily between these two phenomena. It

doesn't mean that everything is occurring before another event is the cause of the event. For instance,

19 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.9620 Ünaldılar, S “ Çokuluslu Şirketlerin Uluslarası Aktörler Olarak Siyasi ve Ekonomik Rolleri” 2005, p.80-8121 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.9422 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.9523 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.9524 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010, p.9525 Babbie, E. “The Practice of Social Science” 2010,p.96

4


Renaissance started in the 16th century and the Turks occupied Istanbul in the 15th century. Since these

occurred before the event, it would be wrong to say that there is a causality between them.

When we talk about “nomothetic causality” we can’t find the complete causality. In fact, we’re talking

about the alternative causalities. In social sciences it is impossible to find a complete causation. There are

some exceptions and sometimes it won’t be valid for majority. When people are well-educated, we believe

that they’ll be less prejudice. But, actually it is depending on the quality of education so it can increase

prejudice. It doesn’t mean that the majority of well-educated people are prejudice.

5

take home

Documents