• • • •Causal relation research -limitations in social sciences Social systems – risk of inadequate control • •Social systems in the social sciences: very complex natural systems, it is not easy to isolate examined relationship from the important links with the environment. •Risk: the key variables and relationships will be missing, others will be incorrectly included (the source of the distortion). • • Causal relationship •Conditions for establishing cause and effect relationship: 1) There must be changes in both variables; 2) Changes must be in logical time order; 3) We must rule out the existence of another (external) cause. • •"People read Foreign Affairs and therefore understand the Middle East conflict„ •Those who read - are able to explain - there is a connection - (or the more often / more - the more often / more ..) the first condition is fulfilled; •We are not able to tell what was before - do they read because already understand it? - non-fulfilled second condition (!) •We can not rule out any other cause - maybe they are able to explain for another reason than reading FA (academic/journalist writing, teaching, being there, participating in it ...) - the third condition not fulfilled (!) Drinking alcohol has shortened life by more than 20 years Blanka Nechanská from NÚDZ compared data on people hospitalized for alcohol use between 1994 and 2013 with data on deaths during this period. More than 25,000 patients died out of the 90,375 hospitalized for alcohol problems. The mean age of death of these people was 50.8 years, with no significant difference between the sexes. The average life expectancy in the Czech Republic is 82.1 years for women and 76.2 years for men. Alcohol therefore decreased the life expectancy by more than 20 years. Ilustrační foto Types of distortion (When monitoring variables and establishing a causal relationship) • •The causal relationship may be misleading, obscured or inconclusive, for example because of (Disman 1999): 1.False correlations; 2.Developmental sequences; 3.Missing middle cause; 4.Dual cause. False correlation •The ommited variable affects both analyzed! • •Observation: EU Member States have a cooperative foreign policy. •Hypothesis: The preference of cooperation in the FP is the result of EU membership. •Variable not included: The common pol-soc-eco. character of the EU countries (advanced democratic countries); •Valid Correlation – Explanation – developed democracies: –Developed countries need a common free market for the maximum development of their economy (therefore they are in the EU); –Democratic countries prefer a cooperative and predictable international political and economic environment (therefore they have a responsible FP) ... EU membership Responsible foreign policy Country characteristic: a developed-democratic country. White Stork Children Countryside Sequence •The preceding unobserved variable affects the "independent" variable • •Observation: Poor developing countries strive for economic independence. •Hypothesis: The low economic level of the state leads to the pursuit of economic self-sufficiency. •Previous unobserved variable that affects independent transformation: the colonial past of (undeveloped) countries. •Explanation: Poor developing countries, after gaining independence, do not want to be economically tied to former colonizers ... Low level of economic development Economic independence as a key ambition Colonial past Missing (middle) cause •In the relationship there is an intermediate step - a significant variable, without which context it makes no sense. • •Observation: Developed countries are against the liberalization of the agricultural commodity market. • •Hypothesis: High level of development is the reason for resistance to the liberalization of agricultural markets. • •Missing middle cause, which we have not included in the analysis: relatively inefficient and uncompetitive agriculture - the consequence of solidarity between sectors. • •Explanation: Economic development is often linked to the lagging behind of the primary sector (in both efficiency and revenue). Subsequent protection and redistribution lead to sector uncompetitiveness. Interest groups defends this policies – do not to support liberalization. Development level (high) Refusal to liberalize agrarian markets Incompetitive agriculture (solidarity) Double cause • •The result has a dual cause, omission is inconclusive when one of these is omitted. • •Hypothesis: A skilled labor force, technologically advanced, with high GDP per capita has competitive advantages and will therefore see globalization positively. • •Observation: At present, the policies of developed countries are often slowing down globalization tendencies ... • •Missing second cause: preference for stability/predictability before income when reaching a high standard of living, problematic position of sensitive sectors ... • •Explanation: In developed countries, sensitive sectors are also vulnerable to severe foreign competition - in the face of solidarity; marginal utility of income is lower; there is a costly social system; interest groups are strong and active. Development level Level of support of globalization Labor costs, welfare state costs, vested interests presure Education Income Seniority Distortion in research process EU / Eurozone Support Campaign History - an external factor coincides in time and is interpreted as a campaign's impact. Ageing – Changes caused by the flow of time transform the population and are confused with the effect of the campaign. Environment: its effect itself changes the values of the variable. Instrumentation - a change in the research tool, the tool does not produce reliable results. Testing - Measurement itself results in a change in the values of the variables. EUR will strengthen against the USD; The US will publish concerns about the competition of the EU´s single market; UK will revise exit; GER accepts transfer union; Economic recession ends (HISTORY). People gain practical experience with EUR; work and study abroad (AEGING). Citizens tired with the permanent campaign; ... (ENVIRONMENT). The interviewers are burned out and fix the questionaries ... (INSTRUMENTATION). As a direct result of questioning, the person "gains" an opinion (TESTING). "Experiment" in the social sciences •Example: Czech Republic joining the EU/Eurozone – an Effect of Campaign (?) ... -Tool: opinion poll: -Before start of the campaign: 40% for entry, after the the campaign 60% for entry. - •Interpreting the increase in responses for, as a result of a campaign is unfounded and possibly incorrect. Standard approaches… •Comparison of statistical groups: –Was he/she following a campaign? What does he/she thinks about joining the EU/Eurozone?; –Who followed more often supported the joining EU (sampling ...); –We do not know what was first (attitude or interest in campaign?); –Only the condition of correlation is fulfilled, we are absolutely not able to exclude another cause, we don't even know what was before. – •Preliminary and follow-up observations: –We measure before and after the campaign; –Before the campaign: what does he/she thinks of joining the EU? –After the campaign: what does he/she thinks about joining the EU? –Before the campaign, the support was lower than after ... Only the condition of the time sequence was met, what if it is consequence of some other cause (!) Experiment: characteristics •Works with the Experimental and Control Group: –only the experimental group is subject to change due to manipulation with independent variable; – then the values of the dependent variable in the experimental group are measured; –are compared with the values of the dependent variable in the control group. Example: Campaign "Entry of the Czech Republic to the Eurozone" (impact of a specific segment of the campaign - film, lecture, advertisment ...) •We will create two representative samples of the population; •One group we expose to the campaign (movie, lecture ...); •We compare their attitudes towards Eurozone accession; •The difference between them is the impact (segment) of the campaign; Conditions; •we need to ensure that the experimental group is and the non-experimental group is not exposed; •both groups are statistically "identical"; are not influenced by other influences. Costly and very difficult (!) Experiment Process Control group Experimental group Film Preliminary measurement Intervention Subsequent measurement 40% 40% 40% 60% 50% (?) 60% (?) Quantitative research Qualitative research Aim: hypothesis testing Aim: to generate hypothesis Limited information about great number of units Much information about very limited number of units, Strongly reductionistic: in terms of variables included and relations between units. Strong in generating deep knowledge about units; varibales and causes of events. It is possible to generalize findings on whole population Generalization risky and dificult •Quanti: –Test hypothesis – strong in explanation – reliable (repeated measurement – same results). •Quali: –Generates hypothesis produce theories – attempts to generate understanding – valid (measures what we are reaserching). Inductive Deductive Starts with data collecting applied or developed theories through generalising producing hypothesis to use in subsequent research hypothesis testing confronting with data aim Developing theory Testing theory – selecting the theories (consistency with data)