Doing Research

Methods of Inquiry for Conflict Analysis

Daniel Druckman

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781452241296
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Winner of the2006 outstanding book award (for books published in 2004-2005) from the International Association for Conflict Management at their annual meeting held in Montreal!

An award-winning book, Doing Research is a must read.Designed for students across a variety of social science disciplines, it is the first research methods text devoted to conflict analysis and resolution. It begins with a discussion of the philosophical foundations for doing research, providing guidelines on how to develop research questions and how these questions can be addressed with various methodologies. The book presents a wide-ranging treatment of both quantitative and qualitative approaches to the design and analysis of problems of conflict.

The approaches covered include experiments, simulations and models, surveys, single and comparative case studies, ethnographies, content analysis, narrative analysis, evaluation research, action research, and research consulting. These approaches come alive in a variety of applications culled from the published literature. A concluding chapter provides an integration of the various methodologies, including their complementary strengths. Throughout the book, author Daniel Druckman illustrates the value of a multi-method approach to doing research on conflict analysis and more generally across the social sciences.

Key Features

• Guides readers through how to do literature reviews and ask research questions, easing students into the research process
• Weaves together qualitative and quantitative, as well as deductive and inductive, approaches to analysis, allowing for the widest possible diversity in methodology
• Includes numerous examples from published articles and dissertations and a discussion of research consulting

Doing Research is perfectly suited as a text for research methods courses across the social sciences, especially those dealing with conflict analysis in departments of political science, communication, psychology, sociology, and management. Professional researchers and consultants will also want to add this book to their libraries for guidance on multi-method techniques. "This is an extremely important book for our field because it is the first research methods book that focuses on techniques that are common in this area but transcends disciplines. I am confident that the book will be used widely in our field because it is both practical and engaging."
-- William A. Donohoe, Michigan State University " Doing Research is a gem. It provides multiple research methods and models focusing on conflict analysis and resolution that can be used by any student in a variety of social science disciplines or fields of study. I wish this book had been written 20 years ago."
—Brian Polkinghorn, Salisbury State University

" Doing Research is the most widely acclaimed book on research methods for conflict resolution students to appear in recent years. The book provides a wonderfully rich array of ideas about ways to do research for both the scholar and practitioner--pracademic--enriching the analysis and practice in the conflict resolution field. The author has a diverse intellectual background and his wide-ranging research experience informs the contributions made by this book to conflict analysis and resolution and to related social-science fields."
—Sean Byrne, University of Manitoba

Part I

---

Doing Research on Conflict

The two chapters in this part of the book introduce the reader to the intellectual foundations for research and ways to prepare to do research projects. In the first chapter, I discuss some philosophical issues that influence the way we do research, motivations for doing research, the kinds of questions that can be answered by conducting research projects, and a sampling of findings from published studies on conflict analysis and resolution. An attempt is made to give the student a feel for the kinds of issues that are often debated intensely among social science researchers. The chapter also enlightens the student about certain features of the research enterprise, including ethics.

The second chapter is intended to get the student started to do research. Here, I come down from a philosophical perch to provide practical advice about how to review literature, use library resources, and choose a topic for investigation. Where and how to find information about a variety of topics in the field and how to organize the information in frameworks are discussed. Examples of recent dissertation studies are provided to give the reader a sense of the challenges facing these doctoral students in choosing a topic and implementing the research tasks. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the framing of research questions goes hand-in-hand with the methodological approach taken, which could be conducting experiments, sample surveys, or comparative case studies.

The introduction to doing research provided by these chapters is a prelude to the more technical chapters about research design and analysis techniques to follow. You will notice that discussion questions are provided at the end of each chapter. These questions cover all parts of the chapter and provide an opportunity for review. This format reappears at the end of each chapter in the book.

1

---

Why Do Research?

Research Foundations: Debating Points

In trying to provide a foundation for doing research on conflict and conflict resolution (CR), I am struck by several tensions that take the form of controversies or debates in the literature and in academic conversations held in classes, colloquia, and informal hallway chatting. Some points of contention are discussed in the following sections.

ABSTRACT AND CONCRETE KNOWLEDGE

The distinction between abstract, or general, and concrete, or specific, knowledge is relevant to the study of conflict and CR. According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Mish et al., 2001), abstract as an adjective means “disassociated from any specific instance; difficult to understand; insufficiently factual; expressing a quality apart from an object; dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects; having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content.” The antonym for abstract is concrete. As a noun, an abstraction is “the act or process of abstracting; the state of being abstracted; an abstract idea or term; absence of mind or preoccupation; abstract quality or character; an abstract composition or creation in art.” As a transitive verb, to abstract is to “remove, separate; to consider apart from application to or association with a particular instance; to make an abstract of or summarize; to draw away the attention of; steal, purloin.” Art and science are closely related by the activity of abstracting. Both include design, analysis (separating the elements), and synthesis (putting the elements together). Aspects of both art and science are present in social science and, particularly, in the field of conflict analysis and resolution (CA&R) where distinctions between basic and applied research and between scientific (or theory) and clinical (or practice) work are enthusiastically debated.

The field of CA&R consists of both scientific and clinical activities, and both are represented on faculties in academic departments that teach conflict analysis. When faculty members talk about applying research in practice or about the use of practice for research, they often confront the issue of moving from the general to the specific (or vice versa). The “general” refers usually to knowledge obtained from large-N or comparative analyses of data, as discussed in Chapter 7 on comparative case studies; the “specific” usually refers to knowledge obtained about a single case, which may be an individual, group, organization, or nation, and is the focus of Chapter 6 on enhanced case and time-series analyses as well as Chapter 8 on ethnographic methods. For example, when an investigator studies the relative effects of different techniques of mediation, he or she is doing general, or abstract, scientific research. When a person attempts to understand how a particular mediator handled a case, he or she is doing specific, or clinical, analysis. The former investigation seeks generality in order to contribute to theory; the latter seeks understanding in order to contribute to a satisfactory resolution or “cure.” The tension between these approaches is due, in large part, to the difficulties in finding ways to connect them. One attempt is Kolb’s (1984) idea of a learning cycle that connects concrete experience with abstract, analytic knowing. This conceptualization has influenced attempts to bridge the gap between researchers and practitioners in CA&R (see Cheldelin, Druckman, & Fast, 2003, chap. 2). I will return to this topic in Chapter 12.

This issue has been receiving a lot of attention in the educational research literature. It has pit a concerned group of cognitive scientists against a vocal group of educators who have been promoting an approach known as situated learning. The issue turns on different opinions concerning transfer of training. The cognitive scientists emphasize the transfer value of learning abstract concepts, such as mathematics or statistics (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1998). The situated learning group questions the transfer value of abstract concepts, claiming that effective learning takes place in work contexts and, thus, they herald the value of on-the-job or vocational training (Greeno, Smith, & Moore, 1993). The idea of understanding conflict behavior within its context is widely shared by conflict theorists. The most developed version of this assumption is the work on contingency models of conflict interventions (Fisher, 1997; Keashly & Fisher, 1996). However, an emphasis on the contextual or situational determinants of actions does not negate the importance of transferring learning from one situation to another. Contingency theorists share the view with cognitive scientists that similar processes are likely to take place in similar conflict situations. To claim that behavior is specific to situations, as I do (Druckman, 2003), is not the same as claiming that each situation is unique or even that the differences between situations are more important than their similarities. Thus, it is assumed in this book that abstract concepts are essential for understanding the way that conflicts unfold in particular settings. Theoretical, or abstract, analyses of cases are discussed in detail in Chapters 6 and 7. Case examples are also used throughout the book as illustrations of the concepts.

Modes of reasoning may not, however, be universal. There has been a lively debate about the extent to which culture influences the way we reason, including preferences for abstractions. Nisbett, Peng, Choi, and Norenzayan (2001) found that East Asian and Western frameworks for reasoning differ substantially. In a variety of reasoning tasks, East Asians take a holistic approach. They make little use of categories and formal logic, focusing instead on relations among objects and the context in which they interact. The subjects from the United States, on the other hand, used an analytical perspective. They categorized objects by applying formal logic and rules, largely ignoring context. They looked for regular features of isolated entities. In another article, Peng and Nisbett (1999) found differences between Chinese and American students in their styles of reasoning about contradictions: The Chinese students tried to retain elements of opposing positions by seeking a middle way; the Americans tried to determine which position was correct and then rejected the other. Findings reported by Briley, Morris, and Simonson (2000) support these differences: The Hong Kong Chinese students in their study were more likely to prefer compromise solutions to problems than their American counterparts. This preference was stronger when the subjects were asked to provide reasons for their choices. These studies suggest that cultural experiences influence the way people reason. Yet despite the evident cultural differences, Atran et al. (1999) found that people can adapt to the preferred reasoning pattern of another culture, whether that pattern is holistic or analytic.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS: POSITIVISTS AND CONSTRUCTIVISTS

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how it is acquired. Alternative epistemological foundations for research can be found in the debates involving positivist and constructivist perspectives on knowledge. Perhaps the most relevant aspect of these approaches for doing research is their difference with regard to viewpoint. Positivists generally prefer analyst or outside observer interpretations of data. Constructivists prefer interpretations given by the subjects or respondents themselves. Based on the assumption that there is a world to be discovered, positivists prefer to use the tools and techniques of science to discover it. They seek a convergence, if not a consensus, among investigators on observations made and interpretations offered. Based on the assumption that the world is understood primarily through actors’ perceptions, constructivists prefer to rely on reflections, perceptions, and stated beliefs of the actors themselves. They seek divergence of observations made and interpretations offered. By attempting to capture the relatively unique experiences of actors, constructivists attempt to illuminate the context of experience or the idea of multiple “realities.” Both approaches are empirical. They differ on their adherence to the canons and use of tools for scientific investigation. Insights into conflict behavior have come from investigations conducted in both traditions.

The issues are drawn sharply in an earlier philosophy of science literature. The dramatic 10-minute argument between Wittgenstein and Popper, recounted by Edmonds and Eidinow (2001), captures the different viewpoints. Wittgenstein railed against causal and contextual reductionism; Popper embraced it. The key theme in Wittgenstein’s philosophy was that language and thought cannot be separated from one another or from the context in which language is used to accomplish a goal. Meaning is not derived from the thought process concurrent with a speaker’s words, but from the whole setting in which a speaker’s words are embedded. Language makes sense only when subjects and observers share a common knowledge of the context in which they interact; this is referred to as contextual inter-subjectivity. If this is so, then language (or thoughts) is (are) not reducible, causal, or falsifiable. For Popper, however, the opposite is the case: Thoughts and language (or deeds) are assumed to be independent of one another. This, then, is the assumptive basis for causal analysis involving the falsification of hypotheses. By the time these two philosophers met in 1946, their views on these issues had solidified, resulting in a 10-minute conversational impasse. These views strongly influenced the continuing debate between the interpretive (or constructivist) and positivist traditions of scholarship.

In psychology, a similar debate occurred between the behaviorists and phenomenologists. An exchange between Skinner and MacLeod provides an illustration. Writing in 1964 about the difference between behaviorism (positivism) and phenomenology (constructivism), the psychologist Skinner argued that

instead of concluding that man can know only his subjective experiences—that he is bound forever to his private world and that the external world is only a construct—a behavioral theory of knowledge suggests that it is the private world which, if not entirely unknowable, is at least not likely to be known well. The relations between organism and environment involved in knowing are of such a sort that the privacy of the world within the skin imposes more serious limitations on personal knowledge than on scientific accessibility. (p. 84)

He continues with a spirited defense of the importance of reinforcement contingencies for learning and suggests that “a person cannot describe or otherwise ‘know’ events occurring within his own skin as subtly and precisely as he knows events in the world at large” (p. 85).

Writing in the same collection of papers, MacLeod asserts that “the approach (of phenomenology) … always represents a fascination with the world of experience as it is there for us” (p. 67). He goes on to say that

I do not care for the moment whether physiognomic meanings are learned or unlearned, whether or not a baby’s smile in response to a friendly face is a product of some sort of conditioning. The fact is that there is essential components of communication which can be investigated. When we know a little more about them we may venture as psychologists into the even more entrancing fields of literature, poetry, and drama. But we had better hurry, because the electronic computer is gaining on us. (p. 71)

He adds, “what, in the old, pre-scientific days, we used to call ‘consciousness’ still can and should be studied” (p. 72). The difference of opinion between the behaviorist Skinner and the phenomenologist MacLeod turns on the issue of a proper functional unit of analysis, external or internal events. In this book, I will not take sides in this debate but, instead, argue that both units are relevant in the study of conflict. Indeed, these approaches have been unnecessarily estranged from one another as Jost and Kruglanski (2002) observe in their attempt to reconcile constructivism with experimental social psychology.

In an extreme form, referred to as naive realism (positivism) or phenomenal absolutism (constructivism), neither is tenable. When used together for informing empirical investigation, the approaches can provide a larger understanding. A number of studies in the field have benefited from a combination of behavioral and subjective data, suggesting the plausibility of a more integrated approach to doing research. For example, an investigator interested in the impact of alternative types of pre-negotiation experience on negotiating behavior can focus either on measured outcomes (type of agreement, impasse) or the bargainer’s self reports about their strategies, perceptions, and feelings during negotiation. A focus on measured outcomes facilitates comparison and strengthens the argument for generalizable results. A focus on subjective events enhances our understanding the bases for decisions or choices made by individual bargainers. Together, the two types of data can be regarded as complementary, each contributing to a larger understanding of the negotiation process. Both types of data can be collected and analyzed systematically with procedures that can be used repeatedly. These kinds of studies would move the field in the direction of the kind of reconciliation of epistemologies envisioned by Jost and Kruglanski (2002).

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

The differences between quantitative and qualitative data or approaches are another source of contention in the field, and in social science more generally. For many researchers, the distinction overlaps the difference between positivist and constructivist approaches to knowledge. Positivists generally prefer quantitative analysis, whereas constructivists mostly perform qualitative analyses. Although the difference is evident in work done within the frameworks of these traditions, there is nothing inherent in the epistemologies that would suggest a preference for either quantitative or qualitative analysis. Indeed, laboratory experiments have been conducted in the constructivist tradition (e.g., Gergen, 1982, 1984), and small-n focused comparisons have been conducted in the positivist tradition (e.g., Faure, 1994; Putnam, 1993). So, then, if epistemologies are not the central issue, what are some other reasons to prefer one or another type of data collection and analysis?

One argument made turns on the relative advantages of the approaches to provide a deeper understanding of a phenomenon. Qualitative researchers promote this advantage of their approach by arguing that nuance is missed or masked by quantification. Another argument made concerns the relative strength of the approaches for providing general (and generalizable) knowledge. Quantitative researchers lay claim to this advantage by arguing that quantification facilitates the comparison of a large number of cases sampled from a population. These arguments reflect different kinds of appreciation for the approaches, the one promoting understanding and the other, generalizability. But, for many scholars, both values are important, and the distinction between the approaches in terms of serving one or the other value is not so clear. Some in this “camp” prefer either quantitative or qualitative approaches based largely on training and skills development: Some people are more comfortable with numbers (or words) than others. I find value in both appro...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Dedication
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Prologue
• PART I. DOING RESEARCH ON CONFLICT
• PART II. PERFORMING EXPERIMENTS
• PART III. DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING SURVEYS
• PART IV. DOING CASE-BASED RESEARCH
• PART V. WRITING ETHNOGRAPHIES
• PART VI. ANALYZING DOCUMENTS: TEXTS AND PROCESS ANALYSIS
• PART VII. EVALUATING INTERVENTIONS AND APPLYING RESEARCH
• PART VIII. CONCLUDING
• Epilogue
• References
• Index
• About the Author