JustPaste.it

Blog - Raul Pacheco-Vega PhD - Understanding and solving intractable resource governance problems





Qualitative research is empirical research – stop equating “empirical” with quantitative


While I do multi-methods research, and I wrote three theses using quantitative methods, I have found that many of the research questions I explore are best answered with qualitative methodologies. I don’t know what it is, but every few months, I need to reassert the importance of methods where qualitative data is analyzed. But recently, I’ve had to remind people that qualitative research IS empirical.


| ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄|
| Qualitative analysis IS |
| empirical analysis. |
|___________|
(\__/) ||
(•ㅅ•) ||
/ づ


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) July 14, 2018


While there are many ways of approaching this epistemological debate, and I actually don’t have the time to do so because I have papers to write, and research to do, I think the easiest way to examine this qualitative versus quantitative debate is using Russ Barnard’s piece: “Qualitative Data, Quantitative Analysis“.


There are qualitative data that are analyzed using qualitative methods, quantitative data analyzed with quantitative methods, and two other combos in-between.


It might just be me, but qualitative research is tremendously difficult to conduct with the appropriate amount of rigor. It’s the research with which I struggle the most, and I tip my hat to those who ground their research agendas in it. Y’all are the real MVPs!


— Meg Guliford (@mkguliford) August 8, 2018


Mahoney and Goertz (2006), in their “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research” piece, published in Political Analysis, make the argument that what we see is a cultural divide between qualitative and quantitative research traditions. As Meg Guliford’s tweet above shows, solid quantitative researchers are very appreciative of how difficult it is to undertake qualitative research well.


I don’t think write a thesis for me are uniquely positioned to answer truths or deliver generalizations. But they can provide insight into patterns, behaviours, contexts, relationships. But the crux of the matter, and what prompted me to write this blog post, is the fact that both qualitative and quantitative methods have an empirical basis. As Tilda Gaskell aptly explains in her 2000 piece “The process of empirical research: a learning experience?“:


“Empirical research methods derive from the application of observation and experience to a research question rather than being grounded in theory alone” (Gaskell 2000, p. 349).


I think the problem here is that there’s a generalized perception that only quantitative methods are empirical. I see this misnaming in tweets from economists and political scientists and it makes my blood boil. I also hear scholars talk about “empirical studies” that are solely quantitative. But it’s not hard to make this distinction. A simple Google Scholar search on the phrase “what is empirical analysis” yields purely quantitative studies, and most of them economics-focused.


On a side note, and a more philosophical and epistemological note, I quite enjoyed Lowenberg’s 1940 disquisition on “What Is Empirical?” in the Journal of Philosophy, makes for a good read.


Interview Research in Political Science (Layna Mosley, Ed) – my reading notes


I am editor for the Americas of a major qualitative methods journal (International Journal of Qualitative Methods), I am a self-identified ethnographer, and I teach courses on the topic. Therefore, knowing good books that I can recommend to my students is very important to me. Dr. Layna Mosley (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) assembled a fantastic edited volume that responds to my frequent query: “which texts should my students use to learn how to conduct interviews?”. While written by political scientists and aimed at students of political science/international relations/public policy/public administration, this volume is an extraordinary contribution to social science methods’ teaching. Interview Research in Political Science reads like a Who’s Who in the field.


This volume, edited by the incomparable @thwillow (Dr Layna Mosley) is the perfect combination of scholars studying political phenomena through interviewing. The late Lee Ann Fuji has a chapter and I almost cried when I re-read it. Lee Ann was amazing. pic.twitter.com/T1ktZPu1Ps


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) September 6, 2018


The table of contents for @thwillow ‘s volume reads like a Who is Who in Political Science and Qualitative Methods. Her introductory chapter is a must-read for everyone doing research methods whether qualitative or quantitative – particularly because it addresses epistemology pic.twitter.com/eX1sWeRFJ2


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) September 6, 2018


I consider myself an ethnographer, and I follow a similar positivist view of the world as @thwillow posits in her introductory chapter (sue me) – I use qualitative methods to posit research questions and testable hypotheses. pic.twitter.com/wsjsCcrUnH


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) September 6, 2018


.@sarahmbrooks ‘s chapter on ethical treatment of human subjects and IRBs is also a must-read. Full disclosure: I strongly respect Dr Brooks’ scholarship and I recently published a piece with @kateparizeau on the ethics of doing ethnography of vulnerable communities pic.twitter.com/TbyeVHW6vm


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) September 6, 2018


Dr Lauren M. Maclean is a professor at @IUBloomington and an expert in comparative political economy. She has recently published a paper with @jennifer_brass on NGOs in development. I loved her chapter in this book, focusing on power asymmetries between interviewer and subject pic.twitter.com/y7HKBfVxeK


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) September 6, 2018


One complaint I often get is that qualitative methods can’t capture causal effects. We can argue about that, but I would encourage you all to read Dr Cathie Jo Martin on how you can better design interviews to capture causal mechanisms pic.twitter.com/JCT2UyK5jC


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) September 6, 2018


Of course, if people feel like they need more on how qualitative methods can capture causal effects, they can go to @beach_methodman and Rasmus Brun Pedersen's book https://t.co/PGauMp6ctk or @IRgetsreal and George's book (my thread -) https://t.co/DhoaO2HyLF


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) September 6, 2018


The late Lee Ann Fuji wrote on language fluency and interviews. @smsaideman @laderafrutal and others know how I feel about this. But I find Lee Ann’s reasoning quite solid and I feel more at ease now. pic.twitter.com/folSX8jkrU


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) September 6, 2018


As I said on Twitter, overall “Interview Research in Political Science” is an amazing volume, so we owe a big “thank you” to Layna for putting this together. Great for teaching and as a volume to be consulted frequently. My only complaint (and forgive the self-promotion) is that interviews with marginalized populations were not addressed in the volume. But my recently published paper with Dr. Kate Parizeau (University of Guelph) can be used to remedy this absence.


How to write the conclusion of a paper


9f1beceab9486affd7ab34abe97cab3d.jpg Whenever I read conclusions of papers, both in my students’ papers as well as in journal articles and book chapters, I find that writers are so tired of writing and doing the research that they end up exhausted. As I often say, they have “run out of gas”. Conclusions read hasty and rushed. I decided to write a blog post on best practices to craft the conclusion section of a scholarly paper, not using one of mine, but looking at papers that I thought had a really solid concluding section.


When I read papers (both my students and those I peer-review), I notice that most people write a one-paragraph conclusion. I find those rather boring, and worrisome. This happens to me too, as I often run out of gas while writing and all I want is to get the damn paper out. When I write conclusions, I am also very clear about the limitations of my study, potential improvements and “future research” issues. I kept this practice from my doctoral dissertation writing. As I did in my blog post on how to write an abstract, and on the one on how to write the introduction of a research paper, I also asked for advice from #AcademicTwitter on this topic. I’ve included their advice too.


My first piece of advice is (as I outlined in this post on how to write a first paper draft real quick in 8 simple steps), is to write bits and pieces of the conclusion as you write the main body of the paper.


415d0867490e4decab0fdd59474abd0e.jpg Moreover, I extract ONE insight from each section of the paper regardless of whether it is a book chapter or a journal article. I find that grabbing a topic sentence from the Discussions/Analysis sections and expanding on that particular insight in the conclusion helps me summarize the entire paper itself. I use that insight as a “topic sentence” to create a paragraph that explains the contributions of my findings to our overall understanding.


To me, conclusion sections are supposed to help the writer “finish off”, “bring everything together” they are supposed to re-center the paper’s discussions and explain how what we’ve found actually connects with the overall literature and the field. The first sentence of my conclusions’ sections usually reads as a global summary of the paper’s goals: “in this paper, I discussed polycentricity as a theoretical framework through which we can see multilevel water governance.”


As for concluding sections of entire book manuscripts, I’ll use my PhD thesis as an example. When I wrote the conclusion to my doctoral dissertation, I grabbed the conclusion of each chapter and I distilled ONE insight from that chapter to create the introduction to the concluding chapter. Then I created sections per dissertation chapter and summarized what I learned. I have seen this done with other books too.


Continuing with my Conclusions of Papers thread: I will use @buenosdiez 's paper on antihomophobia campaigns in Mexico and framing as published in LARR https://t.co/1W5B0YYkr1 note how Jordi summarizes his entire study in the first paragraph of the conclusion. pic.twitter.com/IZ9CshunQu


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 7, 2018


Note how in the second paragraph of his paper's conclusion, @buenosdiez explains why this research is relevant, how it can be more generalizable, which other policy areas can draw insights from it, etc. This is an important move to make in the conclusion (limitations/future work) pic.twitter.com/U01F7PbaUV


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 7, 2018


The previous example is from a paper by Dr. Jordi Diez Mendez, a good friend of mine who is a professor at University of Guelph. The following one is from Nate Millington.


Another good example of a paper conclusion, this time using a paper by @nate_millington on a linear park project in Brazil, analyzed using urban political ecology and forced-displacement literature. pic.twitter.com/va6NVCXQhf


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2018


I purposefully didn’t highlight the introduction before tweeting about it (which I normally would do if I’m running an AIC Content Extraction) because I wanted o highlight coherence between abstract and conclusion (which is posted here). Note how @nate_millington starts… pic.twitter.com/HY5NeL75te


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2018


In the third paragraph, @nate_millington positions his paper within broader debates on megaprojects/infrastructure development in the global South. He also suggests modest ways in which insights from his research can be generalized to other contexts. On the actual paper…


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2018


I like that @nate_millington cites authors from the global south and asks the same from other scholars, all the while situating his paper and research within global debates and dialogues on environmentally-and government infrastructure- induced forced displacement. pic.twitter.com/ZW7xpAWHen


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2018


I usually maintain a Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump on “stuff I like and I’m interested in but I don’t have the time to actually study”. Millington’s paper belongs to that CSED.


Some authors combine discussion and conclusion. When this happens I usually assume they have ran out of steam. pic.twitter.com/8LF8ol1Gdw


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 30, 2018


Authors usually show different rhetorical moves in their conclusions, but most commonly they link what they say in the Introduction and Abstract to their Conclusion (which is why I recommend the Abstract-Introduction-Conclusion content extraction method for quick/speed/skim reading).


Continuing my thread on writing conclusions of papers: do note that conclusions usually reiterate and/or reframe concepts mentioned in the abstract and introduction. This example is by Tagat and Kapoor on religious nudging and sanitation in India. pic.twitter.com/Qc1iNRcC0d


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 31, 2018


Note how in their Conclusion, Tagat and Kapoor highlight stuff that isn’t explicitly acknowledged in Abstract nor Introduction. Ethical considerations are key to the core of the paper but they aren’t revealed in A nor I. This is something they learned AFTER doing the research. pic.twitter.com/1dSLoqnUpF


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 31, 2018


Tagat and Kapoor divided their Conclusion section into “Ethical Considerations” and “Practical Implications”. They began with ethics and waited until later to summarize the entire paper. Personally, I like this rhetorical move. Note how they reveal stuff that wasn’t in A nor I. pic.twitter.com/mxOwNU6pn0


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 31, 2018


The paper below shows classic rhetorical moves connecting Abstract and Introduction to Conclusion sections.


Musemwa’s paper on sanitation and public health in Harare (Zimbabwe) offers a classic “drawn from abstract, lessons learned expanded in conclusion” example. Note how Musemwa interweaves cholera outbreaks with poor urban planning and localism as well as state political tensions. pic.twitter.com/HbBYZd4OKb


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 31, 2018


Note how Musemwa uses the paper’s Conclusion section to summarize BUT (note the “but was largely exacerbated”) also spell out additional insights drawn from conducting the research. This is a powerful rhetorical move: what did YOU learn from writing this? pic.twitter.com/2AQw3lkzH9


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 31, 2018


Hopefully, armed with the examples I’ve outlined in this post, readers of my blog may be better positioned to write the conclusion section of their papers.


Empirical Research and Writing: A Political Science Student’s Practical Guide (my reading notes)


I had known of the excellent work of Dr. Leanne C. Powner for a very long time. We are both political scientists, and since I write so much about academic writing, and I have taught research methods, it was just a matter of time until I got to read Leanne’s excellent book, published by Sage Publishers: Empirical Research and Writing: A Political Science Student’s Practical Guide. It’s a book that is highly recommended, and I am happy to vouch for it too.


Today is #BookLoversDay and I, a veritable book lover and addict, will be teeeting about several books throughout the day. For those who teach research design and writing in political science, @LeanneCPowner has already done the heavy lifting for you with her book: pic.twitter.com/4H6ATixP1Q


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 9, 2018


As I commented on Twitter, I am distracted and therefore I bought two copies: one through Amazon.com and one at the Midwest Political Science Association (MPSA) in Chicago, last year. And yes, I know I should know better, so sue me.


In her book, @LeanneCPowner walks the student from the very basics “hi, I have an idea for a paper” through crafting research questions, to developing hypotheses and working questions to theorizing and answering RQs and testing hypotheses. pic.twitter.com/nyHLfv9hZk


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 9, 2018


Leanne does something very few authors do: she talks about the ins and outs of the research process in both traditions (qualitative and quantitative). This is very hard to do. Something important for both qualitative and quantitative scholars that Leanne does in her book is distinguishing how different methods, data sources and analytical techniques apply to various research designs and paradigmatic and methodological choices. This advice is pure gold.


Different types of data require distinct modes of preparation and analysis. Moreover, @LeanneCPowner explains clearly where to go, who to ask and what questions to posit depending on whether you’re doing quant, qual or mixed methods. And then comes the writing (Chapter 9) pic.twitter.com/zre7oRnVKD


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 9, 2018


Chapter 9 (writing up your results), 10 (peer reviewing work) and 11 (posters, papers, presentations, conferencing) are excellent, but I wish Leanne had done a companion workbook that focused solely on those components. I haven’t taught Research Methods in a while (as a stand-alone class, I mean – I teach my RAs and students how to do research all the time). But it seems to me as though this book should be taught over a two-semester class rather than in one semester. Or maybe teach the book over one semester and devote the next to writing.


At any rate, an excellent book that deserves all the accolades that it gets on a regular basis.


Work Your Career: Get What You Want from Your Social Sciences or Humanities PhD (my reading notes)


A few weeks ago, University of Toronto Press sent me a complimentary copy of “Work Your Career: Get What You Want from Your Social Sciences or Humanities PhD“, a book written by Dr. Loleen Berdahl and Dr. Jonathan Malloy. It’s the first time I have gotten a complimentary copy of a book of this type and while UTP did not ask me to review it, I figured that it would be good for those who follow me on Twitter to get a sense of what the book offered.


Reading “Work your Career” by @loleen_berdahl and Jonathan Malloy. Really pragmatic and useful suggestions. I think it nicely complements other similar books. I’ll admit I wish they had made this flow chart basically saying “don’t do a PhD” pic.twitter.com/EsoQKmohsz


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 1, 2018


I stand by what I said on the above shown tweet: I don’t think anybody who wants to work in academia should do a doctoral degree right now. The market is atrocious and we don’t anticipate that it will improve any time soon. But since there are thousands of PhD students worldwide, and I DO want them to succeed, I will continue to write about how to do a doctoral degree as much as I can.


I think what makes Berdahl and Malloy human is how they add their own experiences. I wish my PhD had been an easy 3 years, “hi, bye, thanks for my degree”. I was *on the way to doing exactly that*, but life happened and I learned from the experience. pic.twitter.com/w4SPT1UNSq


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 1, 2018


I’m glad Berdahl and Malloy cover A LOT of ground (which in all honesty makes this book great as a backbone, but I will also be very honest in admiring you will need companion books. This isn’t a one-stop-shop for everything. It covers much ground and thus loses a bit of depth. pic.twitter.com/pjgXFvfagK


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 1, 2018


There are a number of things that make “Work Your Career” worth checking out. It’s an honestly written book, and it does offer lots of good suggestions. It also speaks to challenges doctoral supervisors face. And as always with books like these, there are important gaps. Berdahl and Malloy cover grant proposals (which many books don’t), but they skim over the thesis writing process (which is what many books DO cover, and one of the places where most students get stuck). As I said, I like this book as a backbone/workbook to work from. his book is an excellent and refreshing addition to my collection of books on how to help doctoral students.


I am glad they do offer suggestions to faculty who supervise doctoral dissertation, but if I may be so bold as to say, I think Berdahl and Malloy should have scolded supervisors more! At any rate, a good read, which I am sure will help my own doctoral students.


How to Write a Thesis (Umberto Eco) – my reading notes


I sometimes eschew book recommendations even though I have an intuition that these may actually work for my purposes. A number of scholars had recommended to me that I should check Umberto Eco’s How to Write A Thesis whose 2015 reprint was published by The MIT Press, particularly since I’ve been reading a lot of books on how to do a doctoral dissertation (mostly for my own students, but also to help others globally). As I mention in my tweet below, I’ve never been a fan of Eco’s, so I was a bit skeptical. I take my skepticism back.


Everybody and their mother has recommended to me that I read Umberto Eco’s How to Write a Thesis. Frankly I was skeptical, particularly because I didn’t love “The name of the rose”, but I figured I had read Stephen King’s “On Writing”, so I might as well do this one. pic.twitter.com/JZcLdlvNV6


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 23, 2018


I’m really pleasantly surprised that so much of Eco’s book is focused on avoiding plagiarism. I’ve had my work plagiarized by students and professors alike, and it’s something I’m really angered by, so glad someone out there is paying attention to the issue from a teaching view. pic.twitter.com/8PI0JLlvth


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 23, 2018


I am, very much like Eco, very critical of people who don’t use direct sources (hence my emphasis on language training and mastery when dealing with comparative and cross-country research). I enjoyed how he discussed this issue in HTWAT. pic.twitter.com/PcOZoBqCb6


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 23, 2018


This is where Eco is useful both for book manuscript-type PhD theses and for post-PhD writers. He takes pains to explain different ways in which the table of contents acts as an outline and how we can develop different models of outlines. pic.twitter.com/ZVTRTyyzuN


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 23, 2018


I melt. I have used physical index cards, I teach my students how to write index cards for their theses but I never had typed them. Umberto Eco typed his index cards (and classified them in various types). His attention to detail and citation is fundamental and important. pic.twitter.com/S64FHsdZpW


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 23, 2018


After reading Umberto Eco’s book, I think I agree: yes, PhD students should his book How to Write a Thesis. Aimed at Italian students and the Italian model of a PhD, his adaptation and translation into English is super useful. I imagine it would be useful to Spanish speakers too (the Spanish version of course). I will be recommending it to my own doctoral students.


The Dissertation ‘Two Pager’: A strategy to sustain a “big picture” view of a doctoral thesis


When I was in graduate school, I took several courses with Professor Anthony (Tony) Dorcey, Professor Emeritus with the School of Community and Regional Planning at The University of British Columbia. Perhaps unbeknownst to everyone but only those closest to me, my first interest was in water planning and governance using multistakeholder processes. Professor Dorcey was an expert precisely in this field, and he taught me a method that I have adapted for my own doctoral students, the Dissertation Two Pager (DTP).


d9d8bb89692f058803e5b12973ddb014.jpg


The way Tony Dorcey taught me to write a DTP was basically to summarize my dissertation in a narrative form within the constraints of a 2 pager. I couldn’t find a link on his website to draw upon, and I only found one version of a similar document here, by Lynne Roberts. Anyways, a two pager is a document whose maximum length is precisely 2 pages, single-spaced, 12 point Times New Roman. Tony asked that his students maintained a DTP throughout their studies, and I now do the same with my own doctoral trainees. I have obviously adapted Tony’s approach to my own, particularly because not everyone can write the narrative from scratch, and I ask my students specific questions that help them guide how they think about their research problem.


As I mentioned on Twitter, DTPs evolve through time. I wouldn’t expect a first year doctoral student to know exactly what they want to answer. But I still ask them to write a DTP. I would characterize four types of DTP:


 


  1. A pre-comprehensive exams’ DTP. In this case, the student is still doing coursework and hasn’t written his/her doctoral exams. At this point, I would expect DTPs to be still draft forms of research questions, methods and expected outcomes.
  2. A post-comprehensive exams’, pre-proposal defense DTP. At this stage, I would expect the student to know his/her/their field well enough that he would have a very clear outline of what he/she/they plan to do and within what time frame. I would expect that my students would use their DTP to formulate their proposal.
  3. A post-proposal defense, fieldwork-focused DTP. At this stage, I would expect that the trainee would be incorporating results from what he/she/they have found in their research. It’s likely that by this point, one or more of their papers would be submitted to a journal.
  4. A pre-doctoral defense DTP. At this stage, I would expect the student to have dominated every single element of his doctoral research, and therefore his/her/their DTP would be an extended version of their thesis’ abstract.


A DTP for Stages 1 and 2 would include, in my view, the following elements (I pay particular emphasis on the gap in the literature and how the dissertation contributes):


But alas, I couldn't find it. Here's what my own version of the Dissertation Two Pager looks like: it's a living summary of your doctoral dissertation and the maximum length is two single-spaced pages, 12 point Times New Roman. I usually ask my students for the following: pic.twitter.com/nSeEUdTh88


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 9, 2018


For a DTP at Stage 3 and 4, I would expect them to be able to answer all the items I mentioned in this blog post.


At their defence, my doctoral students should be able to showcase the following elements, as noted in my blog post: https://t.co/M6W84kOV5K from their first DTP to the final DTP, there will be A LOT of change. But if you think about it, the final DTP is the thesis abstract. pic.twitter.com/VeDU9U153f


— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 9, 2018


As I mentioned on Twitter, my students’ DTP change every semester, and they notice the difference. I wrote my doctoral dissertation as a book, but I’ve mentored students to write 3 papers’ theses. That’s why I find the DTP such a useful tool: you can synthesize all three (or four) papers, show The Throughline (main argument), or you can summarize all chapters in the thesis, and still be able to show The Throughline. I also insist that my students write their DTP in a positive, assertive voice. “In this dissertation, I show how A, B and C variables impact Y phenomenon. Using a combination of text-as-data, social network analysis and ethnographic fieldwork strategies, I demonstrate Z“.


This last item is perhaps the one that is the most overlooked when I read doctoral dissertations for external examination. Students are hesitant about what they found. By the time you’re done with your PhD thesis, YOU are the expert. You should write as such. Hopefully my adaptation and version of the Dissertation Two Pager technique will help many students keep seeing the forest while focused on the trees.