Paradigms+and+Sand+Castles

**CHAPTER ONE: Research Design and the Accumulation of Knowledge** **Hypothesis** __Paradigms and Sand Castles__ is really a book about the proper method of social science research. As such, it does not have a hypothesis in the traditional sense. However, Geddes does state that scholarship would be more rigorous and knowledge would be more plentiful if researchers learned to test existing theories more systematically, build on existing theories (instead of getting rid of them), and maintain healthy skepticism with regards to other scholars’ findings. She then offers specific ways to achieve this. **Definitions** Geddes expands upon the **Kuhnian** definition of //paradigm// (dominant understanding of a particular class of phenomena at a particular time) by stating that paradigms encompass a set of factual and explanatory knowledge claims (ie, theories) that are widely accepted and that structure a coherent worldview. They typically involve an ideology as a means of simplifying that worldview. According to Geddes, these paradigms also structure future research by determining which facts are salient, defining what constitutes a paradox and what questions urgently require answers, and identifying which cases need to be examined and what kinds of evidence are considered meaningful. She adds that paradigms should have that “Aha!” factor and must explain previously unexplained regularities. She then defines //approach// in two steps: First, it involves a claim that certain factors (ie, states, classes, etc) deserve attention, without articulating specific hypotheses about them; Second, it involves the belief that certain research methodologies are the most useful and appropriate means of gaining understanding. There is a current proliferation of approaches due to the disconfirmation of many of the central arguments of earlier paradigms; and the emergence in the world of urgent questions that so far seem inexplicable using simple, elegant facts. Some examples: Rational Choice and New Institutionalism. **Body of Chapter** Based on the notion that “//processes appear complicated and unpredictable when we lack theories to explain them//,” Geddes begins her book with an inductive stroll through social scientists’ last 30 years and their attempts to explain the world through theory (very much like Kahler). She highlights the frequent succession of one theory or paradigm after another, and how each //theory du jour// ends up failing due to some exogenous event (like the fall of Communism). Specifically, she briefly recounts how paradigms explaining authoritarianism were replaced by newer ones explaining the spread of democratization (such as economic liberalization). Then the break up of the Soviet Union causes theoretic chaos, and social scientists are left up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Later in the chapter, she goes into greater detail about how many of the arguments drawn from the modernization paradigm of the late 50s were never tested. Two examples: 1. The diffusion of values originating in Western Europe would lead to the rapid transformation of traditional societies and cultures into modern ones; 2. The diffusion of technology would lead to quick economic development, and the cultural and societal modernization would follow automatically as a result of changes in status, expectations, and roles brought about by the resource mobility required by industrialization. The failure to empirically test these hypotheses had two major consequences: Those aspects that were inconsistent with reality were not filtered out from those that were; Anomalies that might have forced theorists to revise and edit the paradigm instead led them to abandon the whole thing. For example, field research from developing countries showed the //opposite// of what modernization theorists expected to happen. However, because the modernization paradigm was already solidly entrenched in the social science lexicon as a single, monolithic theory, it took a lot longer for American scholars to revisit its validity. And when they did, they threw out the whole thing and replaced it with dependency theory. However, dependency theory exhibited the same shortcoming of being supported mostly by example and not rigorous tests, which also led to its eventual overthrow. She starts this way to highlight her main point that social scientists too easily discard existing theory every time a new major event takes place. This leads to a dearth of theoretical tools that could explain new phenomena, which then leads researchers to begin from scratch with inductive and unstructured searches for patterns. She says that these searches most often lead to a disorganized mass of information (and rarely, at best, lead to generalizations and correlations, which give rise to theoretical speculations). Regardless, she sees this type of scholarship as marred by vague principles and assumptions that have not been properly thought through and almost never result in sturdy, long-lived theories. The cycle then repeats itself, since these weak theories are not rigorously tested against available facts and inevitably fail the test of time, resulting in their frequent overturn. As an alternative, she suggests that scholarship and knowledge would benefit if researchers in comparative politics learn to build on, develop, and extend old theories instead of just throwing them away. She also believes that researchers should test theory more thoroughly in order to speed up the process of revision – as opposed to letting major exogenous events force their hand. Specifically, Geddes states that evidence almost always exists at the time of the theory’s creation that would call the theory’s validity into question or force the researcher to revamp the theory -- //It should not have taken decades to notice the plethora of inconvenient facts// (p. 8). If the researcher actually did this, there would be a more rapid development of knowledge, ie, more tools in the toolbox. Acknowledging that Social Science scholars deal with inadequate and ‘fuzzy’ evidence/data, as opposed to the purer variety of the physical sciences, her stated goal in writing __Paradigms and Sand Castles__ is to help create a more systematic means of using this data, thereby preventing “uninformed or unintended ventures” off the ‘narrow research path.’ To do this, she highlights four common research problems that she will address in her book: 1. Inappropriate selection of cases from which to draw evidence for testing theories; 2. Lax attitude towards qualitative case work; 3. Failure to organize and store evidence in ways that make it accessible to and replicable by others; 4. Uncritical acceptance of theories that have not been rigorously tested. **Critique** Although I do not know enough (especially about Modernization or Dependency Theory) to offer truly valid criticism, it seems to me that she grossly simplifies the historical trajectory of past theories and paradigms by insinuating that only one major paradigm exists at any given time. Furthermore, although I concede that – due to the infinite amount of information that exists in the world – it is more than likely that inconsistent facts/examples will always exist for any proposed theory, I think Geddes is too harsh (and too general) in her criticism of theory-builders. Right or wrong, other factors contribute to the incomplete testing of theories: the need/desire to be published, get a job, be finished with a certain project, etc. For instance, according to Geddes, it took her almost 13 years to finish her book. It strikes me that many scholars don’t have that kind of time to devote to a single project (maybe I’m wrong). While that does not mean that scholars should be lax about the process (which, really, is her main point) or lax in their acceptance of other scholars’ research findings, I think she ignores some nuances to the scholarly process that have less to do with the actual gathering of knowledge and more to do with personal needs. Despite this, her first chapter is well organized and easy to read. Plus, she ends the chapter by outlining the structure of the rest of the book, helping the reader see her planned trajectory and understand a bit about how she develops her hypothesis.
 * Barbara Geddes, __Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics__, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003). **