Fundamental scientific methods - Historique des versions

Arthur le 6 février 2022 à 21:56

2022-02-06T21:56:41Z

← Version précédente		Version du 6 février 2022 à 23:56
Ligne 32 :		Ligne 32 :
	== The three challenges ==		== The three challenges ==
	=== Multi-causality ===		=== Multi-causality ===
	*Almost everything has an impact: it is determined by a multiplicity of possible causes; e. g., political voting behaviour is not determined by one cause, there are several factors. One example is the level of education, but ~~there are~~ other contextual factors ~~that~~ come into play: gender, position in classrooms.		*Almost everything has an impact: it is determined by a multiplicity of possible causes; e. g., political voting behaviour is not determined by one cause, there are several factors. One example is the level of education, but other contextual factors come into play: gender, position in classrooms.
	*Each phenomenon has several causes: it is difficult to defend a position that says that a given phenomenon has only one cause. When there are several factors, this complicates the task.		*Each phenomenon has several causes: it is difficult to defend a position that says that a given phenomenon has only one cause. When there are several factors, this complicates the task.

Arthur : /* Determinant of causal relationship */

2021-12-19T20:12:32Z

Determinant of causal relationship

← Version précédente		Version du 19 décembre 2021 à 22:12
Ligne 63 :		Ligne 63 :

	==="If C, then (and only then) always E"===		==="If C, then (and only then) always E"===
	In this case there are the four cause-effect relationship characteristics:		In this case, there are the four cause-effect relationship characteristics:
	*Conditionality: effect provided there is cause.		*Conditionality: effect provided there is cause.
	*Succession: first the cause then the effect.		*Succession: first the cause then the effect.

Arthur le 5 février 2019 à 20:04

2019-02-05T20:04:00Z

← Version précédente		Version du 5 février 2019 à 22:04
Ligne 20 :		Ligne 20 :
	\| fr = Les méthodes scientifiques fondamentales		\| fr = Les méthodes scientifiques fondamentales
	\| es = Los métodos científicos fundamentales		\| es = Los métodos científicos fundamentales
			\| it = Metodi scientifici di base
	}}		}}

Arthur le 23 janvier 2019 à 20:27

2019-01-23T20:27:48Z

← Version précédente		Version du 23 janvier 2019 à 22:27
Ligne 19 :		Ligne 19 :
	{{Translations		{{Translations
	\| fr = Les méthodes scientifiques fondamentales		\| fr = Les méthodes scientifiques fondamentales
			\| es = Los métodos científicos fundamentales
	}}		}}

Arthur le 1 avril 2018 à 18:37

2018-04-01T18:37:02Z

← Version précédente		Version du 1 avril 2018 à 20:37
Ligne 1 :		Ligne 1 :
			{{Infobox Lecture
			\| image =
			\| image_caption =
			\| faculté = [[Faculté des sciences de la société]]
			\| département = [[Département de science politique et relations internationales]]
			\| professeurs = [[Marco Giugni]]<ref>[https://unige.ch/sciences-societe/speri/membres/marco-giugni/ Page personnelle de Marco Giugni sur le site de l'Université de Genève]</ref>
			\| assistants =
			\| enregistrement =
			\| cours = [[Introduction to the methods of political science]]
			\| lectures =
			* [[Introductory course on the methods of political science]]
			* [[The positivist paradigm and the interpretative paradigm]]
			* [[Fundamental scientific methods]]
			* [[From theory to data]]
			* [[Data collection]]
			* [[The processing of data]]
			}}

	{{Translations		{{Translations
	\| fr = Les méthodes scientifiques fondamentales		\| fr = Les méthodes scientifiques fondamentales

Arthur le 12 mars 2018 à 23:28

2018-03-12T23:28:37Z

← Version précédente		Version du 13 mars 2018 à 01:28
Ligne 185 :		Ligne 185 :

	*'''conceptual manipulation (mathematics) of empirically observed data''': we have observational data or we try to control by statistical control, with partial correlations. A distinction is made between experimental and observational data.		*'''conceptual manipulation (mathematics) of empirically observed data''': we have observational data or we try to control by statistical control, with partial correlations. A distinction is made between experimental and observational data.
	*'''partial correlations''': Correlation between two variables after leaving the analysis, i. e. control the effect of other variables that could influence what you want to explain. In other words it is to make the other Z's as if they were constants following a purification process. It is a logic of variable control: we control the variables that could influence what we would like to explain. In the voting example, anything that could explain the vote should be taken into account, especially if it is thought that this external factor can influence both the vote and the independent variable (media exposure). So we can tell if we're getting close to a causal effect.		*'''partial correlations''': Correlation between two variables after leaving the analysis, i.e. control the effect of other variables that could influence what you want to explain. In other words, it is to make the other Z's as if they were constants following a purification process. It is a logic of variable control: we control the variables that could influence what we would like to explain. In the voting example, anything that could explain the vote should be taken into account, especially if it is thought that this external factor can influence both the vote and the independent variable (media exposure). So we can tell if we're getting close to a causal effect.

	What is important is to go beyond a simple bivariate analysis; it is necessary to move towards a multivariate analysis or introduce other variables into the explanatory model.		What is important is to go beyond a simple bivariate analysis; it is necessary to move towards a multivariate analysis or introduce other variables into the explanatory model.

Arthur : /* Annexes */

2018-03-12T23:24:25Z

Annexes

← Version précédente		Version du 13 mars 2018 à 01:24
Ligne 239 :		Ligne 239 :

	The next four want to create a theory or draw something from the cases. Their objective is to create or generate theories or hypotheses:		The next four want to create a theory or draw something from the cases. Their objective is to create or generate theories or hypotheses:
	*'''~~générant des hypothèses~~''' : ~~on veut de créer des hypothèses là où il n'y en~~ a ~~pas. J’étudie un cas pas seulement parce qu’il m'intéresse~~, ~~mais parce que je veux formuler des hypothèses que je vais après tester ailleurs~~. Ex : ~~d'organisation qui s'engage en politique~~. ~~On étudie une~~ situation ~~donnée, car on veut des hypothèses qu’on n’arrive pas à trouver par ailleurs~~. ~~On explore un cas dans l’objectif de formuler des hypothèses~~. ~~Les hypothèses ont essentiellement trois~~ sources : ~~la littérature existante~~, ~~l’imagination sociologique~~, ~~les études exploratoires~~.		*'''generating assumptions''': we want to create hypotheses where there are none. I study a case not only because I am interested in it, but also because I want to make assumptions that I will test elsewhere. Ex: of an organization that engages in politics. We study a given situation because we want hypotheses that we cannot find elsewhere. A case is explored in order to formulate hypotheses. The hypotheses have essentially three sources: existing literature, sociological imagination, exploratory studies.
	*'''~~confirmant une théorie~~''' : ~~tester une théorie sur un cas particulier pour confirmer cette théorie~~, ce type ~~d'étude de cas n'est pas très utile~~, ~~car ce n'est pas le fait qu’il y ait un cas qui reflète une théorie existante qui va renforcer la théorie faisant que ce système n'est pas très utile~~.		*'''confirming a theory''': testing a theory on a particular case to confirm this theory, this type of case study is not very useful, because it is not the fact that there is a case that reflects an existing theory that will reinforce the theory that this system is not very useful.
	*'''~~infirmant une théorie~~''' : ~~ceci~~ a ~~beaucoup plus de valeur, il y~~ a ~~une théorie qui est appliquée dans un cas spécifique~~, ~~on ne cherche pas à confirmer la théorie~~, ~~mais prouver qu'elle ne fonctionne pas~~, on ~~cherche à infirmer une théorie. Ceci nous pousse à réfléchir sur la théorie~~, ~~c’est quelque chose d’important dans le but d'élaborer une théorie~~.		*'''invalidating a theory''': this has much more value, there is a theory that is applied in a specific case, one does not seek to confirm the theory, but to prove that it does not work, one seeks to overturn a theory. This leads us to reflect on the theory, something important in order to develop a theory.
	*'''~~cas déviant~~''' : ~~pourquoi un cas dévie de la généralisation~~, ~~ce cas est très utile quand on veut infirmer une théorie~~. ~~On cherche une~~ situation ~~qui dévie d’une~~ situation ~~existante~~, ~~l’étude de cas cherche à montrer pourquoi ce cas dévie de la généralisation~~.		*'''deviating case''': why a case deviates from generalization, this case is very useful when you want to overturn a theory. We are looking for a situation that deviates from an existing situation, the case study seeks to show why this case deviates from generalization.

	= Annexes =		= Annexes =

Arthur : /* Comparative method */

2018-03-12T23:22:35Z

Comparative method

← Version précédente		Version du 13 mars 2018 à 01:22
Ligne 190 :		Ligne 190 :

	== Comparative method ==		== Comparative method ==
	All social science research is comparative in nature. We always compare implicitly or explicitly something. One may wonder about the objectives of the comparison. We have seen that the objectives of any scientific method try to establish general empirical proposals by controlling for all the other variables, but according to some, such as Tilly, there are four objectives for comparison, i. e. the comparison of observation units.		All social science research is comparative in nature. We always compare implicitly or explicitly something. One may wonder about the objectives of the comparison. We have seen that the objectives of any scientific method try to establish general empirical proposals by controlling for all the other variables, but according to some, such as Tilly, there are four objectives for comparison, i.e. the comparison of observation units.

	The goals of the comparison according to Charles Tilly are:		The goals of the comparison according to Charles Tilly are:
Ligne 206 :		Ligne 206 :
	[[Fichier:Two designs for macro-analytic comparative history (from Stuart Mill).png\|700px\|vignette\|centré\|Skocpol, T. et M. Somers (1994). “The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry”. In Theda Skocpol (éd.), Social Revolutions in the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ]]		[[Fichier:Two designs for macro-analytic comparative history (from Stuart Mill).png\|700px\|vignette\|centré\|Skocpol, T. et M. Somers (1994). “The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry”. In Theda Skocpol (éd.), Social Revolutions in the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ]]

	Stuart Mill ~~a réfléchi sur la manière d’analyser ce lien~~ causal. ~~En sélectionnant des cas différents pour arriver à cet idéal~~, on ~~vise à la relation cause à effet~~. ~~Mais nous ne sommes pas dans le contexte de contrôle statistique~~. ~~Dans notre cas~~, ~~à travers la sélection de cas~~, on ~~essaie de se rapprocher de cet idéal~~.		Stuart Mill has been thinking about how to analyze this causal link. By selecting different cases to arrive at this ideal, we aim at the cause and effect relationship. But we are not in the context of statistical control. In our case, through case selection, we try to come closer to this ideal.

			Stuart Mill distinguishes between two cases:
			*'''The method of agreement''' (the most different system design):the logic is to choose countries that are very different, but which are similar on a key factor. X is present everywhere. Then we observe Y, then there is a similarity at the level of variable Y that we want to explain. The logic is to say that we are looking for countries where we find the same phenomenon that we want to prove its effect. One observes what happens is that every time there is X, one finds Y. There is this moment is produced by X because it can't be produced by anything else, because the other factors of the countries are different, we find it nowhere else. The logic is to choose very different cases on most of the factors we can think of and then we will see if there is a copresence of the variable we want to explain and the one that explains.

	~~Stuart Mill distingue deux cas :~~		*'''The method of difference''' (the most similar system design): we're looking for countries that are as similar as possible. A distinction can be made between positive and negative cases. We will look for cases that have the factor A, B and C and negative cases that also have A, B and C. In positive cases there is a factor present that is not present in the negative case. Thus the vote is present when X is present and absent when X is absent. The conclusion is that X is the cause of the Y effect, because at least the presence of Y cannot have been produced by A, B and C. A, B and C have been made constant.
	*'''The method of ~~agreement~~''' (the most ~~different~~ system design): la logique est de choisir des pays très différents, mais qui se ressemblent sur un facteur clef. Il y a X qui est présent partout. Ensuite on observe Y, puis il y a une similarité au niveau de la variable Y que l’on veut expliquer. La logique est de dire qu’on cherche des pays ou on retrouve le même phénomène qui est celui dont on veut prouver l’effet. On observe ce qui se passe est qu’à chaque fois qu’il y a X on retrouve Y. Y a ce moment-là est produit par X parce qu’il ne peut pas être produit par autre chose, car les autres facteurs des pays sont différents, on le retrouve nul part ailleurs. La logique est de choisir des cas très différents sur la plupart des facteurs auxquels on peut penser et ensuite on va voir s’il y a coprésence de la variable que l’on veut expliquer et celle qui explique.

	*'''The method of difference''' ~~(the most~~ similar ~~system design): on cherche des pays qui se ressemble le plus~~ possible. ~~On peut distinguer entre les cas positifs et négatifs~~. ~~On va chercher des cas qui on le facteur~~ A, B et C ~~et des cas négatifs qui ont aussi~~ A, B et C. ~~Dans les cas positifs il y~~ a ~~un facteur présent qui n’est pas présent dans le cas négatif~~. ~~Ainsi le~~ vote ~~est présent lorsque~~ X ~~est présent et~~ absent ~~lorsque~~ X ~~est~~ absent. La conclusion ~~est que~~ X ~~est la~~ cause ~~de l’effet~~ Y, ~~parce que la présence au moins de~~ Y ~~ne peut pas avoir été produite par~~ A, B et C. ~~On a rendu~~ A, B et C ~~en constante~~.

	Example - most different system design: we have three cases (1,2, n); one case can be individuals, countries, etc. We have a number of qualities for these cases. These are characteristics of different countries (unemployment, development), X is the independent variable and we want to explain Y. In this comparison logic, the cases are very different, but are similar only in one property. So this variable explains the factor, because it is the only common factor. In Table 2 there are positive and negative cases; these cases are perfectly similar on the highest possible number of attributes, properties and variables, but there is a crucial difference in what is supposed to explain what we want to explain. There is a factor that is not present. In one case there is Y in the other; the difference is attributed to the variable that is not in both cases. This method tries to get closer to the experimental approach, because it is done in such a way that the two groups are as close as possible (like a, b, c), but they differ from the independent variable, most similar system design. Professor Giugni prefers this way because it is closer to the ideal of experimentation. One example is to study students attending the course over two years and change the slides that are given. The final result (the average score) is then compared in both cases.		Example - most different system design: we have three cases (1 ,2, n); one case can be individuals, countries, etc. We have a number of qualities for these cases. These are characteristics of different countries (unemployment, development), X is the independent variable and we want to explain Y. In this comparison logic, the cases are very different, but are similar only in one property. So this variable explains the factor, because it is the only common factor. In Table 2 there are positive and negative cases; these cases are perfectly similar on the highest possible number of attributes, properties and variables, but there is a crucial difference in what is supposed to explain what we want to explain. There is a factor that is not present. In one case there is Y in the other; the difference is attributed to the variable that is not in both cases. This method tries to get closer to the experimental approach, because it is done in such a way that the two groups are as close as possible (like a, b, c), but they differ from the independent variable, most similar system design. Professor Giugni prefers this way because it is closer to the ideal of experimentation. One example is to study students attending the course over two years and change the slides that are given. The final result (the average score) is then compared in both cases.

	Example - most similar system design: I compare countries that look like each other (France and Switzerland), and I want to show that the French police repression is stronger, it's the only difference between two countries. Then we see that the radicalisation of social movements is stronger in France. The problem is that the "A" s, i. e. the factors that are similar between the two countries, are never equal, but only resemble each other (this problem is only encountered with the most similar research design method, that's why there are researchers who prefer the other approach, in which we only have to find the differences), we can only get closer to the ideal. In addition, we also find the problem of endogeneity, i. e. knowing which factor influences the other.		Example - most similar system design: I compare countries that look like each other (France and Switzerland), and I want to show that the French police repression is stronger, it's the only difference between two countries. Then we see that the radicalisation of social movements is stronger in France. The problem is that the "A" s, i. e. the factors that are similar between the two countries, are never equal, but only resemble each other (this problem is only encountered with the most similar research design method, that's why there are researchers who prefer the other approach, in which we only have to find the differences), we can only get closer to the ideal. In addition, we also find the problem of endogeneity, i. e. knowing which factor influences the other.
Ligne 227 :		Ligne 227 :

	While the statistical method aims to generalize, the case study by definition does not allow generalization, the objective is another. There are different case studies and modalities for conducting a case study. There are 6 variations:		While the statistical method aims to generalize, the case study by definition does not allow generalization, the objective is another. There are different case studies and modalities for conducting a case study. There are 6 variations:
	*~~les deux première ayant pour objectif de s’intéresser au cas précis~~.		*the first two to focus on the specific case.
	*~~les quatre autres modalités ont un objectif de créer ou générer une théorie~~.		*the other four modalities have an objective to create or generate a theory.

	~~L’étude de cas peut servir pour atteindre des buts différents~~, ~~d’une part~~ on ~~veut connaitre mieux une~~ situation ~~particulière de manière~~ descriptive, ~~d’autre part~~ on ~~peut étudier plusieurs cas permettant de générer à terme une théorie~~.		The case study can be used to achieve different goals, on the one hand one wants to know a particular situation better in a descriptive way, on the other hand one can study several cases allowing to generate a theory in the long term.

	~~Selon~~ Arend Lipihart, ~~le but de la recherche est de tester et vérifier une théorie ainsi que de généraliser des résultats~~.		According to Arend Lipihart, the aim of the research is to test and verify a theory and generalize results.

	~~Ces deux cas ne veulent créer des hypothèses~~, ~~l’idée est d'éclairer quelque chose par rapport à un cas~~ :		These two cases do not want to create hypotheses, the idea is to enlighten something about a case:
	*'''~~athéorique~~''' : ~~il n’y a pas de théorie~~, ~~c’est purement descriptif~~. ~~C'est une recherche exploratoire~~, ~~par exemple~~, ~~l'étude d'une nouvelle organisation~~, ~~on ne veut que la connaître et la décrire~~, ~~dans ce cas on ne peut pas généraliser les résultats~~, ~~car ils sont liés à un cas étudié en particulier~~. ~~On l’utilise dans des~~ situations ~~ou des cas qui n’ont jamais été étudiés auparavant~~.		*'''atheorical''': there is no theory, it's purely descriptive. It is an exploratory research, for example, the study of a new organization, one only wants to know and describe it, in this case one cannot generalize the results, because they are linked to a particular case studied. It is used in situations or cases that have never been studied before.
	*'''~~interprétatif~~''' : ~~on utilise des~~ propositions ~~théoriques qui existent dans la littérature~~, ~~dans cette démarche~~ qualitative ~~le rôle de la littérature est moins~~ important, ~~on applique une généralisation existante à un cas donné~~, ~~ici le cas porte sur un cas précis~~, ~~sans volonté de créer une théorie tout comme l'athéorie~~. ~~L'objectif n'est pas de confirmer ou de l'infirmer~~, ~~mais c'est de l'appliquer seulement~~. ~~On utilise des~~ propositions ~~ou des théories existantes qu’on applique à un cas~~ ; ~~on lui applique des généralisations existantes afin de voir si la généralisation tient de ce cas spécifique~~. ~~On interprète une~~ situation ~~particulière à la lumière d’une théorie existante~~.		*'''interpretative''': we use theoretical propositions that exist in the literature, in this qualitative approach the role of literature is less important, we apply an existing generalization to a given case, here the case concerns a specific case, without wanting to create a theory just like the atheory. The objective is not to confirm or invalidate it, but to apply it only. Existing propositions or theories are used and applied to a case; existing generalizations are applied to see if the generalization derives from this specific case. A particular situation is interpreted in the light of an existing theory.

	~~Le quatre qui suivent veulent créer une théorie ou tirer quelque chose des cas~~. ~~Leur objectif est de créer ou de générer des théories ou des hypothèses~~ :		The next four want to create a theory or draw something from the cases. Their objective is to create or generate theories or hypotheses:
	*'''générant des hypothèses''' : on veut de créer des hypothèses là où il n'y en a pas. J’étudie un cas pas seulement parce qu’il m'intéresse, mais parce que je veux formuler des hypothèses que je vais après tester ailleurs. Ex : d'organisation qui s'engage en politique. On étudie une situation donnée, car on veut des hypothèses qu’on n’arrive pas à trouver par ailleurs. On explore un cas dans l’objectif de formuler des hypothèses. Les hypothèses ont essentiellement trois sources : la littérature existante, l’imagination sociologique, les études exploratoires.		*'''générant des hypothèses''' : on veut de créer des hypothèses là où il n'y en a pas. J’étudie un cas pas seulement parce qu’il m'intéresse, mais parce que je veux formuler des hypothèses que je vais après tester ailleurs. Ex : d'organisation qui s'engage en politique. On étudie une situation donnée, car on veut des hypothèses qu’on n’arrive pas à trouver par ailleurs. On explore un cas dans l’objectif de formuler des hypothèses. Les hypothèses ont essentiellement trois sources : la littérature existante, l’imagination sociologique, les études exploratoires.
	*'''confirmant une théorie''' : tester une théorie sur un cas particulier pour confirmer cette théorie, ce type d'étude de cas n'est pas très utile, car ce n'est pas le fait qu’il y ait un cas qui reflète une théorie existante qui va renforcer la théorie faisant que ce système n'est pas très utile.		*'''confirmant une théorie''' : tester une théorie sur un cas particulier pour confirmer cette théorie, ce type d'étude de cas n'est pas très utile, car ce n'est pas le fait qu’il y ait un cas qui reflète une théorie existante qui va renforcer la théorie faisant que ce système n'est pas très utile.

Arthur : /* Principes */

2018-03-12T23:20:38Z

Principes

← Version précédente		Version du 13 mars 2018 à 01:20
Ligne 167 :		Ligne 167 :
	== Experimental method ==		== Experimental method ==

	=== ~~Principes~~ ===		=== Principles ===
	*'''~~Attribution aléatoire~~''' : ~~on prend au hasard~~, ~~tous les individus ont la même~~ chance ~~d'être dans le groupe expérimental ou de contrôle des sujets~~ (~~dans les groupes expérimentaux et de contrôle~~ non-~~expérimentale~~). ~~Cette idée née du principe de la loi des grands nombres~~ : la variable ~~aléatoire est censée écarter toute autre explication~~.		*'''Random assignment''': At random, all individuals have the same chance of being in the experimental or control group (in experimental and non-experimental control groups). This idea was born from the principle of the law of large numbers: the random variable is supposed to rule out any other explanation.
	*'''~~Manipulation de la~~ variable ~~indépendante~~''' (~~traitement~~), ~~en quoi les groupes sont-ils égaux~~ ? ~~le chercheur~~, ~~à un certain moment~~, ~~introduit un~~ input ~~dans l’un des deux groupes~~.		*'''Handling the independent variable''' (treatment), how are the groups equal? the researcher, at some point, introduces an input into one of the two groups.

	Two groups are separated so that the two groups are the same on all dimensions except for one, which is the one on which we want to test the effect. Choosing a person and assigning them randomly means that the two groups are similar. If treatment is then introduced in one of the two groups and a change is observed that is not in the control group, there may be a causal effect leading to cause and effect reflection. It can therefore be concluded that there is a causal effect in the introduced variable.		Two groups are separated so that the two groups are the same on all dimensions except for one, which is the one on which we want to test the effect. Choosing a person and assigning them randomly means that the two groups are similar. If treatment is then introduced in one of the two groups and a change is observed that is not in the control group, there may be a causal effect leading to cause and effect reflection. It can therefore be concluded that there is a causal effect in the introduced variable.

	=== Types ~~des~~ experiments ===		=== Types of experiments ===
	*'''~~En laboratoire~~''' ~~(laboratory experiment)~~ : ~~ce sont les expériences faites dans des laboratoires puis on divise les individus en groupes auxquels on applique des stimulus pour arriver à une constatation de l’effet ou du~~ non-~~effet~~. ~~Cependant~~, ~~on sort les individus de leurs~~ conditions ~~naturelles pouvant mener à des résultats relevant de l’artificialité des~~ conditions ~~expérimentales~~.		*'''Laboratory experiment''': These are experiments carried out in laboratories and then the individuals are divided into groups to which stimuli are applied to arrive at an observation of the effect or non-effect. However, individuals are removed from their natural conditions that may lead to results that are artificially artificial under experimental conditions.
	*'''~~Sur le champ~~''' ~~(field experiment)~~ : ~~contexte naturel~~, ~~il peut y avoir d’autres facteurs qui interviennent~~. ~~Ce sont des expérimentations qui ont été appliquées en~~ science ~~politique~~. ~~Les principes restent les mêmes avec une~~ distribution ~~aléatoire des sujets en deux groupes~~ ; on ~~manipule la variable indépendante et ensuite~~ on ~~constate s’il y a eu un effet du traitement sur le groupe expérimental et non pas sur le groupe de contrôle~~. ~~Dès lors~~ on ~~peut éviter la critique de l’artificialité des expérimentations en laboratoire~~.		*'''Field experiment''': In the natural context, there may be other factors involved. These are experiments that have been applied in political science. The principles remain the same with a random distribution of subjects in two groups; the independent variable is manipulated and then it is determined if there was an effect of the treatment on the experimental group and not on the control group. From then on, we can avoid criticism of the artificiality of laboratory experiments.
	*'''~~Dessin quasi~~-~~expérimental~~''' ~~(quasi-experiment)~~ : ~~ce dessin garde à l’idée que le chercheur manipule la~~ variable ~~indépendante~~, ~~mais il n’y a pas d’attributions aléatoires des sujets à un groupe expérimental et un groupe de contrôle~~. ~~Si on fait cela~~, ~~c’est qu’on ne peut pas distribuer aléatoirement en deux groupes~~, ~~on est forcé de prendre les groupes qui existent en réalité~~. ~~En d’autres termes, le chercheur contrôle le traitement~~, ~~mais ne peut pas attribuer les sujets de manière aléatoire~~. ~~Parfois~~, ~~quand nous sommes sur le terrain, il est difficile de faire différemment~~. ~~Généralement c'est cette méthode qu'on utilise~~, ~~car il y~~ a ~~un facteur que nous ne pouvons pas contrôler~~.		*'''Quasi-experiment''': this drawing retains the idea that the researcher manipulates the independent variable, but there is no random assignment of subjects to an experimental and control group. If we do this, it is because we cannot randomly divide into two groups, we are forced to take the groups that actually exist. In other words, the researcher controls the treatment but cannot assign subjects randomly. Sometimes when we're on the field, it's hard to do things differently. Usually this is the method we use, because there is a factor that we can't control.

	=== Example ===		=== Example ===
Ligne 193 :		Ligne 193 :

	The goals of the comparison according to Charles Tilly are:		The goals of the comparison according to Charles Tilly are:
	*'''~~Individualiser (individualizing)~~ – ~~comparaison individualisante~~''' : ~~le but est de souligner et de mettre en lumière les caractéristiques d’une unité d’analyse donnée sur un~~ certain ~~phénomène~~ ;~~l’idée est de trouver des comparaisons~~, ~~pour donner une spécificité à un certain cas donné exemple~~ - ~~dans les études de politique~~ comparative, ~~le cas est le pays~~, ~~on compare des pays~~ ; ~~le but est par exemple de montrer certaines caractéristiques du système politique en Suisse par rapport aux autres pays~~. ~~La démocratie directe détermine des valeurs politiques~~ ; ~~on peut comparer la démocratie directe suisse avec des pays qui ne l'ont pas~~. ~~On pourra analyser l'~~impact ~~de cette caractéristique sur les gens~~. ~~Caractériser, individualiser~~, ~~rendre plus spécifiques les caractéristiques d'un pays par rapport à un autre~~.		*'''Individualizing – individualised comparison''': The aim is to highlight and highlight the characteristics of a given unit of analysis on a certain phenomenon; the idea is to find comparisons, to give a specific case example - in comparative policy studies, the case is the country, one compares countries; the aim is for example to show certain characteristics of the political system in Switzerland compared to other countries. Direct democracy determines political values; we can compare Swiss direct democracy with countries that do not have it. The impact of this characteristic on people can be analyzed. Characterise, individualise and make more specific the characteristics of one country compared to another.
	*'''~~Généraliser~~''' ~~(generalizing)~~ : on compare ~~non pour individualiser~~, ~~mais pour généraliser~~, ~~on inclut le plus grand nombre de cas~~, ~~établir des~~ propositions ~~empiriques générales~~. ~~Pour certains~~, ~~la généralisation est l’un des deux objectifs principaux de la méthode~~ comparative. ~~On étudie des comportements que l’on~~ compare, ~~on veut voir si les~~ configurations ~~et les effets que l’on trouve dans un contexte sont retrouvés dans un autre contexte~~.		*'''Generalizing''': we compare not to individualize, but to generalize, we include the greatest number of cases, establish general empirical propositions. For some, generalization is one of the two main objectives of the comparative methodology. We study behaviours that we compare, we want to see if the configurations and effects we find in one context are found in another.
	*'''~~Chercher des variations systématiques~~''' ~~(variation-finding)~~ : ~~le but est de chercher des~~ variations ~~systématiques et tester une théorie en écartant des théories concurrentes de celle qu'on veut mettre en évidence~~. ~~Selon~~ Tilly c'~~est la meilleure manière de comparer. On essaie de tester une hypothèse causale~~, ~~ainsi on écarter des hypothèses rivales~~.		*'''Variation-finding''': the aim is to search for systematic variations and test a theory by removing competing theories from the one that we want to highlight. According to Tilly, this is the best way to compare. We're trying to test a causal hypothesis, so we can rule out rival hypotheses.
	*'''~~Globaliser~~''' ~~(encompassing)~~ : ~~le but est de globaliser~~ (~~approche systémique~~) ~~on inclut tous les pays du monde~~, ~~ou toutes les unités de comparaison~~ possible. ~~L'idée est que si on enlève une de ces unités de comparaison~~, ~~tout le système change~~. ~~Pour le professeur~~ Giugni, ~~ceci n'est pas une approche~~ comparative, ~~car on ne~~ compare ~~pas~~.		*'''Individualised comparison''': the aim is to globalize (systemic approach) we include all countries of the world, or all possible units of comparison. The idea is that if one of these units of comparison is removed, the whole system changes. For Professor Giugni, this is not a comparative approach, because we do not compare.

	There are different objectives of the comparison; to act on the selection of cases is to compare.		There are different objectives of the comparison; to act on the selection of cases is to compare.

	Comparison strategies to look for systematic variations (Przeworski and Teune) A distinction can be made between two comparison strategies, which are logical and methodological approaches to case selection. These are ways of dealing with the issue of causality when we have observational data. A distinction is made between two comparative research designs: analog (similar) and contrast (different). Each of the possibilities has its advantages and disadvantages.		Comparison strategies to look for systematic variations (Przeworski and Teune) A distinction can be made between two comparison strategies, which are logical and methodological approaches to case selection. These are ways of dealing with the issue of causality when we have observational data. A distinction is made between two comparative research designs: analog (similar) and contrast (different). Each of the possibilities has its advantages and disadvantages.
	*'''~~Comparaison entre cas contrastés~~''' (most different systems design) : ~~on choisit des cas qui sont les plus différents possibles~~		*'''Comparison between contrasting cases''' (most different systems design) : we choose cases that are as different as possible
	*'''~~Comparaison entre cas analogues~~''' (most similar systems design) : ~~vise à contrôler toutes les~~ variables ~~sauf celle qu'on veut analyser~~ (~~exemple~~ France - ~~Suisse~~).		*'''Comparison of similar cases''' (most similar systems design) : aims to control all variables except the one that you want to analyze (example France - Switzerland).

	[[Fichier:Two designs for macro-analytic comparative history (from Stuart Mill).png\|700px\|vignette\|centré\|Skocpol, T. et M. Somers (1994). “The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry”. In Theda Skocpol (éd.), Social Revolutions in the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ]]		[[Fichier:Two designs for macro-analytic comparative history (from Stuart Mill).png\|700px\|vignette\|centré\|Skocpol, T. et M. Somers (1994). “The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry”. In Theda Skocpol (éd.), Social Revolutions in the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ]]

Arthur : /* Experimental (experimental data) */

2018-03-12T23:15:25Z

Experimental (experimental data)

← Version précédente		Version du 13 mars 2018 à 01:15
Ligne 149 :		Ligne 149 :

	How to control variables to avoid falling into a misleading relationship? There are two ways of distinguishing between them:		How to control variables to avoid falling into a misleading relationship? There are two ways of distinguishing between them:
	*'''~~analyse de la~~ covariation''' : ~~on observe~~ (~~données observationnelles~~) ~~après avoir les données~~.		*'''covariation analysis''': observed (observational data) after having the data.
	**'''~~contrôle~~''' : ~~on va rendre une~~ variable ~~étrangère en constante~~, ~~lorsqu’on a une relation supposée entre deux~~ variables ~~qui est rendue fallacieuse~~, ~~car il y~~ a ~~une troisième~~ variable, ~~on prend une partie des individus qui correspond à la deuxième~~ variable, ~~par exemple~~, ~~on prend de gens du même âge~~, ~~pour la relation de comportement entre l’exposition à la télé et le vote~~. ~~Donc on a contrôlé cette valeur~~, ~~on l'a rendue constante~~.		**'''control''': we are going to make a foreign variable constant, when we have an assumed relationship between two variables that is made fallacious, because there is a third variable, we take a part of the individuals that corresponds to the second variable, for example, we take people of the same age, for the behavioural relationship between exposure to television and voting. So we controlled that value, made it constant.
	*'''~~dépuration~~''' : c'~~est un contrôle statistique~~. ~~Dépuration pour toutes les~~ variables.		*'''depuration''': it's a statistical control. Depuration for all variables.
	**'''~~analyse expérimentale~~''' : ~~on met en place un~~ design ~~de recherche qui évite l'~~existence ~~des~~ variables ~~Z qui pourront affecter notre analyse~~.		**'''experimental analysis''': we set up a research design that avoids the existence of Z variables that could affect our analysis.

	= Four basic scientific methods according to Arend Lipjhart =		= Four basic scientific methods according to Arend Lipjhart =

Fundamental scientific methods - Historique des versions

Arthur le 6 février 2022 à 21:56

Arthur : /* Determinant of causal relationship */

Arthur le 5 février 2019 à 20:04

Arthur le 23 janvier 2019 à 20:27

Arthur le 1 avril 2018 à 18:37

Arthur le 12 mars 2018 à 23:28

Arthur : /* Annexes */

Arthur : /* Comparative method */

Arthur : /* Principes */

Arthur : /* Experimental (experimental data) */

Arthur : /* Determinant of causal relationship */

Arthur : /* Annexes */

Arthur : /* Comparative method */

Arthur : /* Principes */

Arthur : /* Experimental (experimental data) */