Research Methods in Politics 12 Analysing Research Data

Research Methods in Politics 12 Analysing Research Data: The Process Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 12 1

Teaching and Learning Objectives 1. to understand the weaknesses and limitations of earlier methods of analysis 2. to consider the recommendations made by authorities 3. to develop a general hierarchy of analysis for Politics research Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 12 2

Weaknesses of Previous Analytical Approaches n n n n implied methodology absence of supporting evidence generalisations, sexed-up analysis remote from data evidence is not compelling or corroborated ‘black-box’ analysis relies on trust in researcher so, Politics research confirms or qualifies existing theory in ever-decreasing circles Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 12 3

Analysis n n n n n objective-seeking, rational process answer the research question ‘deconstruction’ – breaking down the whole into constituent parts systematic examination of those parts and relationships comparisons between variables patterns and rhythms creative interpretation testing inferences – generalisations about the research population drawn from samples discussion Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 12 4

Hierarchy of Analysis Δ Theory development Inference-drawing from evidence Testing Information classification, coding and sorting Raw data assembly, validation and reduction Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 12 5

Questions for Discussion or Assignments 1. 2. What do you understand by ‘analysis’? The suggested hierarchy of analysis seeks to reduce (raw) data to (reliable) information, and this information to evidence. An operational distinction between these is suggested in Chapter 7: ‘Commentators and politicians tend to use the word ‘evidence’ to describe what they would wish us to regard as ‘conclusive, compelling information’ which either proves or, in its absence, disproves allegation. But is there a real difference between data, information and evidence? Certainly, the dictionary meanings are similar. But some distinction is useful. Researchers tend to speak of data as the mass of disordered, raw material from which information (knowledge) is abstracted to provide evidence to support argument and conclusions. Information informs. Evidence supports conclusions. So it is helpful to conceive of research of involving three stages. First, the raw data is gathered. Second, the data is organised and distilled into information. Thirdly, evidence is abstracted for or by analysis from the information’. Is the suggested distinction between data, information and evidence useful, exaggerated or dangerous in the context of analysis? Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 12 6