INSTRUCTOR'S NOTE: This is a verbatim example of one student's response to the first weekly assignment. I am posting it here strictly for informational purposes and to give other students in the class an idea of what I was hoping to see in your responses. The sample below, however, does not represent the only appropriate response to the requirements of the first assignment--only one particularly noteworthy way to respond.

"Real-world" research problems

1. What factors account for the lack of democratic political development in the Middle East region?

The hypothesis might be that the reason for the lack of democratic political development may be tied to the regions’ historical propensity for oligarchic societies.

Peters describes 5 types of studies "as being components of comparative politics".
Of these the one that seems most appropriate for attempting to answer this question would be number (3). This would involve "using the typologies both to compare groups of countries and to reveal something about the internal politics of each political system." In Chapter 3 he expounds on this ‘type’ when he describes using ‘families of nations’ as a strategy for comparison. Here the researcher could be using the "most similar systems"approach or "What was sufficiently common among those systems to produce political events that were essentially similar?"

The first step would be to examine countries normally associated with the descriptive term "Middle East". Then confirming whether or not these countries are indeed lacking in having membership in the larger group of democratic nations. Next step would be in limiting the research group to say 5 or 6 and identifying the type of government structure each has. Once this process has been completed it would now be time to examine the commonalities of these countries which would ultimately help to identify any differences. This comparison would involve the implicit comparison with the United States since the researcher is more familiar with this democratic country.

The limitations to this approach is the danger of first assuming that the group you have chosen as being similar are actually quite different. This mistake is most often, according to Peters, attributed to individual prejudices.

2. What factors in Iraq have led to the support of the Saddam regime?

As with the above question the hypothesis could be that the support is due to a society that has been built around a structure of power of the few. Additionally, it may be said that the countries support of the regime may be tied to the low economic conditions of the citizens thus better enabling an elite system to become established.

Utilizing a ‘most different systems’ approach you could attempt to answer this question by comparing Iraq and Iran. Given a quick overview an argument could be made regarding the similarities of these two countries, geographic, religious, economic, etc. However the similarities begs the question of why would one country support a Saddam type secular regime as opposed to a ruling class based or supported more by the religious ruling class? It would then first be necessary to fully examine and document the differences in the two countries governments as well as societal makeup. This would then be a two country or binary comparison.

The limitations of this type of approach could be what Peters describes as ‘Galtons’ problem or the methodological problem of sorting out diffusion from other causes of variance in social systems. This is especially true with the increase of globalization which has blurred nationalist lines.

3. Why given the relative commonalities between India and Pakistan are the countries at the brink of war?

The hypothesis could be that these two countries although very similar in customs and religions are involved in a conflict based on land wants. Simply stated these two countries are demonstrative of international realism, or two countries simply seeking dominance over another in response to escalating dominance struggles. The build up of arms is indicative of such a theory.

Probably the best approach for answering this question would be to utilize the two case study comparison. In doing so the objective would once again be to identify those characteristics that are not only shared but those that are different. This would also be a binary comparison.

Peters describes the pitfalls of such comparisons to include a large number of what he calls ‘extraneous variances’. He uses an example of democratic vs. non-democratic nations and the rate of spending on social welfare programs. He points out that one could conclude that the reason for the difference in spending rate was based on being democratic or not but that another equally or compelling reason may be that democratic countries are better off economically than non-democratic ones hence they have more money to spend on such programs. The ‘extraneous variance’ would then be the fallacy that democracy alone was the key indicator.


4. Why is Britain so demonstratively in support of Bush’s policy/objectives regarding Iraq when many if not most of Europe has remained either on the sidelines or, as in the case of Germany, come out vehemently opposed to Bush’s objectives?

The hypothesis here may also have a realist origin in that Britain’s support is simply a matter of ensuring future support economically and politically from the United States.

How would you test this however? It may be possible to review policy issues between Britain and the selected European countries to see if there is any commonality or differences in trade or policy agreements with the United States. Comparisons of "Natural Groups" as described by Peters may be the best approach here. A comparison may find similarities in the economic and political make up within this group but may also reveal societal or historical reason for such a difference in support.

Again, the limitations here may be in separating out the different "diffusion from other causes of variance in social systems".

5. What are the inherent characteristics that must exist in a society in order to perpetuate societal sponsored terrorism? Or what differentiates countries that have a strong presence of domestic or foreign terrorist activities from countries that do not?

An often proposed hypothesis for this question is that terrorist activities are directly correlated to the conditions of the populace, i.e. economic and political. Countries, it is proposed, that have a history of oppression by an outside entity, low national self-esteem, and limited economic resources are more likely to create conditions conducive to terrorist activities than in countries where the opposite is true.

The first approach would be in identifying those countries most associated as a ‘breeding ground’ for terrorism. This may be accomplished by reviewing state department listings of ‘known’ terrorist organizations and their country of origin. Next would be to compare these countries differences thus revealing the commonalities shared by these countries.

The limitations in this approach would be to fall into the trap of "extraneous variance" where for example all countries with a higher rate of domestic terrorism have poor economic conditions yet it is not the economy but rather a past history of colonialism which is most relevant to creating the conditions.