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