Andreas Flache
Manu Muñoz-Herrera
Summary and OverviewLecture Week 7 - Application of Theories
Block A 2012/2013
http://manumunozh.wix.com/apptheories
Aims of the lecture
In this lecture we will:
Summarize what we have learned in this course
Integrate insights from separate lectures and demonstrate how the different methods can be applied to develop an adequate explanation of a sociological prediction
Discuss the setup of the exam
Week 1: General introduction
Aims of this course
Learning how to develop and apply good explanations of social phenomena
Social phenomenon X: observation, description
Theory: why do we observe X?
Generating (new) testable hypotheses with the theory: If this is why we see X, then what else should we see (Y, Z)? And, under what conditions should we see X, Y and Z?
Application: If our theory is right, what would be a good policy to influence X,
Y and Z?
This course focuses on methods and standards for developing and applying theoretical explanations.
Do it yourself
Theories consist of assumptions (= speculation)
Explanation:
Logically derive phenomenon from assumptions
Clearly state what you want to explain
Clearly state what you assume
If needed: think up your own assumptions!
Use your theory creatively: always think of new ways how you can test and apply your theories
Features of good explanations(Lave & March)
Simplicity Few and clear assumptions
Fertility Make your explanations as generally applicable as possible:
Generate many new testable predictions
Surprise Counter-intuitive predictions (i.e., unintended consequences)
Competing explanations: Think of a critical test
Suppose you have two explanations of the same phenomenon
Then derive from both underlying theories two contradicting predictions for the same situation
And, test them for this situation: only one can be right
Example: Two competing explanations for residential segregation
Housing prices and income inequality
Racial homophily
Week 2: A model of explanation and prediction
Participation in Monday demonstrations in GDR 1989
Source: Table 1 from Braun, Norman. 1995. Individual Thresholds and Social Diffusion. Rationality and Society 7:167-182.
Structural approach
Strategy: Argue that the macro-phenomenon “Protest in GDR” was caused by another macro-phenomenon
Events showing regime weakness
Revolution
For instance: Political changes in the Soviet Union (Glasnot, Perestrojka) Gorbachev’s speech in Berlin: Life punishes those who come too late Negotiations between US and SU Reformation/revolution in Hungary and Poland
Example: A valid explanation
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the weakness of the ruling political system (E)
In GDR 1989 (g), a revolution was triggered (R)
General law
Assumption to apply law to specific conditions
Explanandum
General law vs. singular statements
What is a good explanation?
A good explanation is an explanation here all conditions of adequacy are met Hempel/Oppenheim, week 2)
Condition 1: The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans
Condition 2: The explanans must contain at least one general law and at least one singular statement (... necessary to derive the explanandum)
Condition 3: The explanans must have empirical content
Condition 4: All statements of the explanans must be true
Stop and think....
think about how condition 4 relates to what Popper (reading week 3) is saying about the difference of “verifiability” and “falsifiability” as criteria for good theories (pg. 40)
Condition 4: All statements of the explanans must be true
Some things to note about the material in week 2
Check the checklist
Understand the example about the importance of the -often implicit- ceteris paribus assumption
Durkheim’s theory about suicide, versus data on suicide and marital status in the Netherlands, controlling for age
Week 3: Introduction to formal logic
Operator 4: Implication Symbol: ⊃ (horseshoe) or → Read: “if p then q”
p q p⊃q1 1 11 0 00 1 10 0 1
The implication of p and q is false only if p is true and q is false
Example: If Popper is a sociologist, then he is a Marxist.
Popper is a sociologist + Popper is a Marxist : wff is validPopper is a sociologist + Popper is not a Marxist : wff is invalid
Popper is not a sociologist + Popper is a Marxist : wff is valid
Popper is not a sociologist + Popper is not a Marxist : wff is invalid
Working with truth tables
Example: Let us demonstrate for which combination of truth values of p and q is it is correct to state: “p and q are equivalent (p!q)”. Thus, we want to show that:
(if p, then q) and (if q, then p)
p q p⊃qp⊃qp⊃q q⊃pq⊃pq⊃p (p⊃q)·(q⊃p)(p⊃q)·(q⊃p)(p⊃q)·(q⊃p)1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 00 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Definition of an equality
This proves that: (p!q)!((p⊃q)·(q⊃p))
When is a rule of inference valid?
It is always true (for every combination of truth values of the elementary propositions p, q, etc.) that the conclusion is an implication of (follows logically from) the conjunction of the premises.
Formulating wffs in syllogistic logic
To formulate a correct wff, you need only five words:
all no some is not
Formulating wffs in syllogistic logic
There are only eight (8) forms of wffs:
all A is B All swans are white no A is B There are no white swans some A is B Some swans are white some A is not B Some swans are not white x is B This swan is white x is not B This swan is not white x is y This is the only white swan x is not y This is not the white swan
Any sentence can be translated into a wff of one of these forms
Testing whether a syllogism is valid: The star test
The star test consist of three steps:
Step 1: Find the “distributed letters”
A letter is distributed if it occurs just after “all” or anywhere after “no” or “not”
all A is Bno A is Bx is Ax is not y
Underline the distributed letters
Testing whether a syllogism is valid: The star test
Step 2: Star premises letters which are distributed and conclusion letters which are not distributed
all A* is Bsome C is A-----------------some C* is B*
Testing whether a syllogism is valid: The star test
Step 3: Decide. A syllogism is valid if and only if every capital letter is starred exactly once.&if there is exactly one star on the right hand side
all A* is Bsome C is A-----------------some C* is B*
Each capital letter is starred exactly once
There is exactly one star at the right hand side (see the B)
Thus, this syllogism is valid.
Example: A valid explanation
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the weakness of the ruling political system (E)
In GDR 1989 (g), a revolution was triggered (R)
General law
Assumption to apply law to specific conditionsExplanandum
all E* is Rg is E ----------g is R*
E RgThis is valid
Some things to note about the material in week 3
Check the differences between sound and valid
Week 4: How to criticize a theory
To criticize a theory:
Critically examine whether a theory (or, the explanations a theory can generate) meet the adequacy conditions. Think of:
Clarity of concepts (definitions)
Validity of arguments in the theory
Does the theory contain statements that contradict each other?
Is it reasonably possible to operationalize the concepts about which the theory generates predictions (empirical content)
Something to note:
What to do if a theory is wrong? (see examples in weeks 4 and 5)
All sociologists (S) are good statisticians (G). (S⊃M)
S=df. Everybody with at least a Doctor’s degree in
Sociology
S=df. Everybody with a university degree in Sociology
G=df. Everybody who can interpret a regression
G=df. Everybody who can explain what a regression is
1
2
4
3
Theories should be as informative as possible- Comparing empirical content of implications
4 (3) has more empirical content than 2 (1)4 (2) has more empirical content than 3 (1)
Week 5: Explaining social phenomena based on theories about individual behavior
A valid explanation MACRO explanation: Our example.Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the weakness of the ruling political system (E)
In GDR 1989 (g), a revolution was triggered (R)
General law
Assumption to apply law to specific conditionsExplanandum
all E* is Rg is E ----------g is R*
E RgThis is valid
Why macro-explanations are not enough?
In the lecture on explaining collective phenomena based on assumptions about individual behavior, we learned that micro-level explanations have the potential to provide information that might be overlooked if only macro-explanations are considered:
A micro-level explanation will serve three purposes: Explain why there is a macro-level relationship Explicate what sort of political events have effects Explain why the macro-law appears to be false in some settings
Example: After the financial crises, Greece and Island experienced critical political crises. However, there was nor evolution in European countries. This suggests that the macro-law holds only under certain conditions.
A structural-individualistic explanation
Macrolevel
Individuallevel
Political events Revolution
Perception of increased chances of
success
Participation in protest
We have added three new assumptions to the explanation Each new assumption needs to be explained and for each we
need to check whether all conditions of adequacy are met
Main elements of an individualistic explanation (i.e., Coleman, Lindenberg)
IndependentMacro-variable
DependentMacro-variable
Input individual choice: Choice options Information Costs and benefits...
Output: Individual choice
Explanandum: Macro relationship
Theory of action
Bridge assumptions
Transformation assumptions
Step 1: Explain the macro-to-micro relationship
Political events
Revolution
Perception of increased chances of
success
Participation in protest
People who perceive a political change in a similar country, infer that the same is possible in their home country
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible in GDR too
General law
Auxiliary assumption
Explanandum
Many people in GDR perceived changes in similar countries
Why do we expect this? This law could be derived from another
general theory: Heider’s Balance theory
Changes happen
My country Other country
This is perceivedInferredSimilar
+ +
+
Is the argument valid?
People who perceive a political change in a similar country (P), infer that the same is possible in the home country (I)
Many people in GDR (E) perceived changes in similar countries (P)
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible in GDR too (I)
all P* is Isome E is P ------------------some E*is I*
This is validE I
x
P
How could one test the macro-to-micro relationship?
Test 1: Measure three variables Did people perceived other countries as similar (s)? Were people informed about changes (c) (consider that media was not free)? Did people think that same dynamics were possible (p)?
Theory would be refuted if there was not a correlation between (s·c) and p
Test 2: Similar test as test 1, but also measure perceptions concerning China (in China, protests were not successful)
Thus, one would expect that people who consider the Chinese system as similar and were informed about unsuccessful protests (s·~c) would not consider change possible in GDR (~p).
General problem: There have been very few empirical studies in GDR. Might be difficult to gather data but not impossible).
However, the law is general. Thus, it can be falsified also in alternative settings (Arab countries, experiments)
Step 2: Explain the theory of action
Political events
Revolution
Perception of increased chances of
success
Participation in protest
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible, then they will participate in protest
Many people in GDR participated in political protest
General law
Explanandum of step 1
Explanandum
Why do we expect this? This follows from the Theory of rational
action Individuals have preferences (i.e.,
dissatisfaction) and perceive restrictions (chances of success) They choose the action alternative
(protest vs. no protest) that maximizes their utility
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible in GDR too
Already in 1954, there have been protests
Is the argument valid?
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible (I), then they will participate in protest (O)
Many people in GDR (E) participated in political protest (O)
all I* is Osome E is I ------------------some E*is O*
This is validE O
x
I
Many people in GDR (E) inferred that political change is possible in GDR too (I)
Step 3: Explain the micro-to-macro relationship
Political events
Revolution
Perception of increased chances of
success
Participation in protest
If a regime realizes that it lost control and power, then it will resign
The GDR regime resigned
General lawExplanandum of step 2, plus aux. assumptionExplanandum
Why do we expect this? This follows from the Theory of rational
action the regime might have realized that it
had lost the possibility to regain power. The rational thing to do was to give up This will be very difficult to test.
Nevertheless, the law has empirical content
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime realized that it lost control and power
Is the argument valid?
If a regime realized that it lost control and power (L), then it will resign (S)
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime (h) resigned (S)
all L* is Sh is L ------------------h is S*
This is valid
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime (h) realized that it lost control and power (L)
L Sh
We have provided a valid explanation of the relationship between two macro-level variables, using individual-level variables
In this process, we have added many new assumptions. The disadvantage is that the theory becomes much more complex
On the other hand, the elaborated micro-theory points to many new conditions of political revolutions. This might help explain why there are no revolutions in many countries or why socialism could prevail for so long even though people had been very dissatisfied
Conditions: People perceive changes in similar countries People infer from this perception that political change is possible Regime realizes that it lost control and power
We might now develop hypotheses about the conditions under which the assumptions do not hold
Summary
Unfortunately, it is difficult to gather data about an event that happened 20 years ago. In addition, GDR was a totalitarian state, what made it difficult for i.e., journalists to interview people
Nevertheless, there are many sources of information West German TV Eastern German secret service Speeches of intellectuals at demonstration Newly founded newspapers in GDR Expert interviews (i.e., study by Opp and Gern) Retrospective interview methods
Our explanation of the revolution in GDR is based in general statements. This makes it possible to apply the general theory also to other settings (i.e., Arab countries, gay movement, experimental research)
Applying the theory to other settings allows us to test our explanation of the revolution in GDR, because the fact that a general theory has been falsified in a single setting proves that it is problematic in general
How to further test the theory?
Week 6: Applying theory to generate policy advice
What are criteria for a good theoretical basis for developing policy advice
The most important criterion is that you have a valid reasoning:
You have an adequate explanation (according to the adequacy conditions) of how the expected effects of the proposed policy logically follow from an explicitly formulated theory (law + condition)
Summary (1)
Learn what are the steps in coming from theory to advice
Step 1: Find related phenomena to explain
Step 2: Develop valid explanations for these phenomena
Step 3: Derive from the theory that you use to explain the phenomena, why the proposed policy advice should have the proposed effects (valid reasoning)
Summary (2)
Learn what are the problems of applying theories to real life problems
The most important problem is that you overlook implicit ceteris paribus assumptions in your reasoning that turn out to not be true
One way to address this problem is that you try to develop deeper explanations that specify under which conditions certain premises apply and when they do not apply
Summary (3)
The exam
Questions will be formulated in English. You can still answer in Dutch No additional material is allowed Exam consists of essay questions, possibly some multiple choice questions, and
several technical questions where you will have to demonstrate something using logical tools
Read questions carefully Weight of the questions will be given. Focus on important questions Do not panic. The exam is designed in such a way that one can get grade 10.
Hence, there must be a few very difficult questions. You need to have 55% of the maximum number of points to pass (60%) Everything below 6 is failed
Good luck!
Rules