Outline for today’s classDoing research – Victoria Mitchell, Knight

LibraryReadings – takehome messagesRelative effectiveness paper assignmentHow to analyze data

Negotiation material will be covered on Thursday

Readings – Negotiation TheorySprinz and Vaahtoranta – will be reviewing

extensively in class butTakehome: positions states take in negotiations (the

DV) are determined by two IVs: the costs states face to take action to protect the environment (abatement costs) and the benefits they receive if the environment is protected (ecological vulnerability)

Betsill and Corell show:Need to clarify research question – WHAT is

influence?Evidence of NGO influenceUse of process tracing AND counterfactuals Building on work of prior others

Why States Take Positions They Do in Int’l Negotiations

Ecological

Yes

Vulnerability

No LowAbatement

Pusher Bystander

Costs High

Intermediate

Dragger

Sprinz and Vaahtoranta, 1994.

Discussion paper Thurs, next weekRelative Effectiveness

Fully described in assignment packetGoals of exercise

Compare problem effect/effectiveness in light of differences in problem structure – a REALLY hard thing to think about

Practice THINKING about graphingPractice GRAPHINGLay foundation for Treaty Assignment 2

Steps to a ConvincingCausal Argument

Identify important theoretical questionDevelop hypotheses and identify the variablesSelect cases to control variables (and thereby

exclude rival hypotheses as explanations)Link data to hypothesesExamine correlations and causal pathwaysGeneralize to other cases

A Convincing Argument RequiresEvidence that the ACTUAL value of the Dependent

Variablematches the PREDICTED value of the

Dependent Variable for your theoretical claim

AND FORyour counterfactual claim

Working with Datafor Final Paper: Basic GoalCompare regulated behavior to otherwise-

similar non-regulated behavior to see if they are different

If they aren’t different, there’s nothing to explain (BUT you may want to explain why you expected them to be different)

If they are, try to exclude other explanations, leaving the treaty as only remaining explanation

Steps to a ConvincingCausal Argument

Identify important theoretical questionDevelop hypotheses and identifying variablesSelect cases to control variables (and thereby

exclude rival hypotheses as explanations)Link data to propositionsExamine correlations and causal pathwaysGeneralize to other cases

A Convincing Argument RequiresEvidence that the ACTUAL value of the Dependent

Variablematches the PREDICTED value of the

Dependent Variable for your theoretical claim

AND your counterfactual claim

Data Analysis Strategies, aka:“How to Drink from a Firehose”Determine ideal DV before looking at dataDraw expected graph by hand: years, lines

included, success exampleIdentify best indicators you have availableCompare regulated/non-regulated behavior

Actors: Member/non-member Regulated countries vs. non-regulated countries

Activity: Regulated/non-regulated activity E.g., regulated chemical/species vs. unregulated

chemical/speciesLocation: Regulated/non-regulated area

E.g., catch in North Pacific vs. South Pacific

Steps to a ConvincingCausal Argument

Identify important theoretical questionDevelop hypotheses and identifying variablesSelect cases to control variables (and thereby

exclude rival hypotheses as explanations)Link data to propositionsExamine correlations and causal pathwaysGeneralize to other cases

A Convincing Argument RequiresEvidence that the ACTUAL value of the Dependent

Variablematches the PREDICTED value of the

Dependent Variable for your theoretical claim

AND your counterfactual claim

To do thisShow what happened to DV of regulated

states: behavior or environmental quality Compare what happened to DV of similar but

not regulated states: develop counterfactuals to evaluate whether changes were due to treaty or other factors

Evaluate alternative explanations that might explain changes in dependent variable

Simplify your data!!Create columns for reg/d non-reg’d Focus on most important indicatorsFocus on countries most responsibleCompare average of country groupsDon’t do too much on one graph Normalize data between countries by

indexing

Problems of graphing data and how to resolve them

Graphing without thinking:don’t know what you’re seeingGoal:

See if treaties change country behavior over timeDraw what you want by hand, then graphCountry-groups, X-axis, Y-axis, expected linesPractice makes perfect – do it by hand again!

Making graphs takes too long

RectangleYears as columnsCountries as rowsEmpty NW cellHighlight rectangle

Then: Insert // Line // 2-D line

Graphing everything creates spaghettiLarge countries swamp smallToo much to understandGraph all; then delete one-by-one to learn about

your data: major polluters, missing data, etc.Create groups of different type states

Members vs. Non-membersDeveloped vs. Developing membersGreen vs. Brown membersOther categories theory suggestsMake sure data isn’t messing you up

Graphing the raw data doesn’t make countries similar enoughSolution 1: Indexing

Concept: view each country’s behavior as % of its behavior in year treaty entered into force (EIF year)

Doing it: copy of rectangle, but with formula that divides each country’s data in each year by that country’s data in the EIF year

Solution 2: NormalizingConcept: view each country’s behavior after

adjusting for population, GDP, or other variables Doing it: copy of rectangle, but with formula that

divides each country’s DV by IV in each year

Possible Comparison #1:Members/Non-members

Members (regulated actors) to non-members (non-regulated actors), Members vs. non-members after treatyTreaty members before/after treaty starts

Possible Comparison #2:Regulated/Non-regulated Activity

Members regulated activity to members non-regulated activityCatch of regulated yellowfin tuna vs. non-

regulated bluefin tunaSulfur dioxide pollution vs. carbon monoxide

pollution

Possible Comparison #3:Regulated/Non-regulated Location

Members in regulated location to members in non-regulated locationCatch of yellowfin tuna in regulated area

(Indian Ocean) vs. non-regulated area (Western Pacific)

Pollution of regulated river vs. pollution of non-regulated river