Doing Dissertations in Politics

A Student Guide

David Silbergh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN: 9780415246866
• eBook ISBN: 9781134540501
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political History & Theory
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This guide has been designed to help undergraduates develop an understanding of practical research methods, and their application in the undergraduate dissertation.

Written in an accessible and engaging style, it offers advice on all aspects of undergraduate research, from choosing a dissertation subject through to presenting the finished article.

Features of this book:

• concise chapters which provide an introduction to various aspects of research methods, including: why it is important; quantitative and qualitative methods; and practical application
• advice, hints and tips on planning, presenting, researching and writing undergraduate dissertations
• a wide range of examples of research to clearly illustrate different issues and methods which students may encounter
• guides to further reading and thinking at the end of each chapter.

1

DOING DISSERTATIONS IN POLITICS

INTRODUCTION

More or less regardless of the educational system, at an advanced level of your undergraduate studies you will be faced with the prospect of writing a dissertation for the first time. Although there can be a good deal of variation between what is expected of a dissertation in different countries, at different institutions of higher education and in different departments (not to mention differing expectations on the part of tutors and examiners) there are also a great many areas of commonality. It is across these areas of commonality that this small volume will range. This book will not be the only resource that you need to consult in undertaking your dissertation studies. Hopefully though, it will serve as a compact and handy source that can assist in guiding you through what is, thus far at least, uncharted territory. Further basic reading has been suggested throughout the text in all chapters and this serves to direct you to further relevant materials as regards this subject or that. In a volume of this size it is evidently impossible to cover everything, but then it is also impossible to cover everything in a tome of 1,000 pages. Thus, the purpose of this book is primarily to direct the reader through the process of preparing a dissertation with reference to as wide a range of issues as space allows and with regard to both fundamental principles and practical advice. In other words, this volume will seek to address (albeit in a truncated fashion) both the dogmatic and pragmatic issues with which you should concern yourself in the preparation of a dissertation. Whatever else you take from the book, bear in mind that the process of doing a dissertation is mainly about striking the right balance between dogma and pragma. This can be achieved through nothing more spectacular than employing your own considered judgement, informed by the relevant literature and aided and abetted by the advice of your dissertation tutor. If you can get this balance and judgement right, it makes it much easier to then demonstrate to the outside world that you have taken full account of all the relevant issues (both dogmatic and pragmatic) in the final written piece. Put in another way, if you get the balance and judgement right, you should be able to produce a high quality dissertation.

A quality dissertation is something to be proud of. It may be the longest and most focused piece of academic work that you ever undertake and it will stay with you for the rest of your life. In an attainment sense (it will play an important part in determining your overall award classification) you can never get rid of it – it is an integral part of your degree parchment. In a physical sense you’ll probably find that you’re unlikely to ever part with it (although admittedly it may start off on top of the coffee table but end up propping it up some years down the line). Even if, like the author’s, it ends up in some forgotton box in the attic you will, if you have pride in it, never forget its contents. The author hasn’t looked at his own undergraduate dissertation for about a decade but can still share with you that it involved a comparative study of political and economic pressures and their respective influence on decision-making in the National Health Service in the North East of Scotland. Although this may sound boring and trivial (and maybe it is) what you will undoubtedly have to do if your dissertation is to be completed on time, to a high standard and with the minimum of fuss, is to have a sufficiently clear and focused problem to address at the outset. The author has personally seen too many dissertations that consist of general musings on ‘The National Health Service in Britain: 1950–2000’ and such like to know that the broad-brush approach just does not work. In the final analysis the dissertation is a focused piece of academic work that you are undertaking as part of your degree studies. If you desperately want to write a tome on ‘Political Ideology: 2000 bc to 2000 ad’ then you are of course free to do so; all that is being suggested here is that you should finish off a more realistic piece of work for your dissertation first.

Thus, if in discussing potential topics with your dissertation tutor they suggest that your focus is too broad and needs to be reined in somewhat, do take their advice. Although all decisions as to what your dissertation will and will not cover are undoubtedly yours and yours alone, do remember that your tutor has had more experience of dissertations than you. This is not a criticism, just an observation of a simple fact of life. One day you may well have more experience of dissertations than they do. In the meantime however, do listen carefully to their advice and take what they say to you seriously. You do not always have to follow the tutor’s advice to the letter (nor would they expect you to do so), but it is always offered in good faith. We shall return to this point periodically throughout the book. Wherever you are likely to benefit from seeking advice from your dissertation tutor a note will be made to this effect. The first step in undertaking any research project however is not something that a tutor will be able to assist you with to any great extent however. First of all, you must decide what you think the world is like.

WHAT IS THE WORLD LIKE?

Although your immediate reaction to the question above may well be, ‘Haven’t a clue,’ each and every person does carry around with them in their own mind a view of what the world is like. The only problem (and one that afflicts the author as much as anyone else) is that we cannot usually express this view in a clear, consistent and coherent fashion. Indeed, there are very few people who can provide a clear exposition of their world-view that is free from contradictions. When people can do this we call them philosophers. Although it may not always seem so, we, the human species, have derived enormous benefits from the mental toil of the philosophers of the present as well as of ages past and this situation will undoubtedly persist for ages to come.

Philosophical thought underpins all scientific and social scientific investigation and political research is no different from any other type in this regard. When philosophers provide explanations of what the world is like, their explanations are then used (consciously or otherwise) to provide reference frameworks within which scholarly activity can take place. Most philosophical thinking on what the world is like can be classified as being associated with one of two main ‘ontological’ frameworks (where ontology is the study of the nature of existence itself), namely the holistic framework and the individualistic framework. Tom Campbell has noted that the difference between these two frameworks has caused, ‘Perhaps the most fundamental and persistent difference between social theories’ (Campbell 1981: 36).

Without going into too much detail about the holistic– individualistic dichotomy, definitions of these terms will be offered here, followed by a brief discussion of their implications for social scientific research. Individualism can be defined as an ontological stance that is based on the view that there is, ‘a fixed and universal human nature, independent of the effects of social conditioning, which is the ultimate explanation for social life’ (Campbell 1981: 9).

This perspective is clearly explained by Frank Parkin in his discussion of the individualistic ontological stance of Max Weber:

Only the individual is capable of ‘meaningful’ social action. Weber says that it may often be useful, for certain purposes, to treat social groups or aggregates ‘as if ’ they were individual beings. But this is nothing more than an allowable theoretical fiction . . . Collectivities cannot think, feel, perceive; only people can. To assume otherwise is to impute a spurious reality to what are in effect conceptual abstractions.

(Parkin 1982: 17–18)

Holism on the other hand can be defined as an opposing ontological stance where the world is viewed as being made up of large-scale social systems that have an existence in their own right, that is, ‘it is not people in aggregate who constitute such a totality. Just adding them up, so to speak, will tell you nothing about a social structure other than how many people are in it’ (Doyal and Harris 1986: 164).

This perspective is further explained by Frisby and Sayer in their exposition of the holistic ontological stance of Emile Durkheim:

Durkheim’s claim is that the ‘being’, society, which is formed out of the association of individuals, is a whole – an object – distinct from and greater than the sum of its parts. It forms a specific order of reality with its own distinctive characteristics . . . These characteristics of society are not reducible to nor, therefore, explicable from those of its component elements – human individuals – taken in isolation. Society has emergent properties, that is, properties which do not derive from its elements considered independently of their combination, but which arise from and do not exist outwith that combination itself.

(Frisby and Sayer 1986: 36)

In terms of shaping the manner in which humans have interpreted and understood the world down the millennia, the holistic–individualistic dichotomy has played a central part. To summarise, an individualistic perspective purports: that the world is primarily made of small units (e.g. individuals and families); that it is these small units which are important to an understanding of the world around us; and, that it is upon these small units that we should focus our scholarly activities. Conversely, the holistic perspective purports that the world should be viewed as consisting of large units (e.g. governments and social classes), that it is these large units which are important to our understanding of it and that it is upon these large units that we should focus our investigations. See Table 1.1 for a brief schematic representation of how both holistic and individualistic thinking has contributed to the shaping of subject areas, theories of society and political ideas.

Furthermore, the holistic–individualistic dichotomy also feeds through into the types of study that social scientific researchers undertake. For example, the study of large-scale problems is most easily achieved through the assessment of the patterns found in large data sets. Conversely, the study of small-scale problems is most easily achieved through analysing these problems in considerable depth to identify the nature of the underlying mechanisms causing them. We will return to this issue in Chapters 5 and 6. As regards further reading in the meantime (for those who are interested), please refer to the following sources, all of which give an easy-to-understand explanation of the individualistic and holistic views of the world: Bergström (1993); Bookchin (1990); Campbell (1981); Doyal and Harris (1986); Frisby and Sayer (1986).

Table 1.1 The holistic-individualistic dichotomy and its effects

WHERE DOES POLITICS FIT?

Once we have figured out what we think the world is like in general, the next thing that we must do is recognise that it is so complex and filled with so many problems that we cannot address them all. This was not always so; for instance, the Ancient Greek philosophers would happily address issues of faith, ethics, physics, politics and more. However, the realm of human knowledge has changed since their day and it is no longer realistically possible for people to attempt to undertake study across the range of the world’s problems. There is simply too much information for any one individual to be able to knowledgeably and credibly criticise such a broad canvas. Instead, scholarship today relies upon painting more detailed imagery on smaller canvases. When one puts all of these canvases together into a gallery we are creating an overview of the world as we know it (the gallery) made up of a number of canvases (subject areas). Politics is simply one canvas in the gallery, along with mathematics, theology, fine art, forestry, pharmacology, mechanical engineering, classics and many others. While the political canvas shares elements of its subject matter with others (e.g. economics, sociology) and relies upon techniques shared with many (e.g. statistics) it is, at the end of the day, a canvas in its own right, a distinct area of scholarship.

Many have tried to define the nature of the political canvas, but few can agree on a precise definition of its nature. That said, as with a van Gogh, most people can recognise a political issue when they see one. It is not the purpose of this book to enter into this definitional debate, however, worthy as it may be. All readers should be familiar with this debate by the time that they come to write their dissertation and many will have taken entire courses addressing the question ‘What is politics?’ as part of their degree studies. In Table 1.2 a summary of very basic (and admittedly contested) definitions of the subject matter of the political canvas is given. The remainder of the book will be concerned with the techniques that are used to create and to criticise political pictures.

Given the basic definitions offered in Table 1.2, the author offers the same advice that he offers to first year undergraduates in their first tutorial. That is, regardless of preferred definition, political issues are always going to be issues that are concerned with arguments advanced from within competitive value systems, with the purpose of securing and exercising power (where ‘power’ is used in its everyday sense as opposed to its more limited Weberian definition). Thus, politics (and its associated sub-fields, e.g. public administration) is an area of scholarly activity that addresses values and power in human society as opposed to natural philosophy which is an area of scholarly activity that addresses the most fundamental questions of the physical world and so on. Taken together, all areas of scholarly activity represent the gallery of human understanding, which, like any gallery, contains old works, new works, the currently fashionable and the currently unfashionable. Your task in completing a dissertation in politics is to develop a thorough understanding of both the subject matter and the techniques associated with the political canvas and to draw conclusions about relevant issues of value and power, employing balance and judgement in the process.

Table 1.2 Some basic definitions of the political canvas

WHAT IS A DISSERTATION?

A dissertation is an extended piece of personal work. It is far more personal in nature than many other types of academic work. It is an opportunity for you to decide what it is that you will study, how you will study it and, to a certain extent, when you study what. There is no question set, no reading list, no set of lectures to explain the basics of the topic in a structured and summarised fashion and far less opportunity for meaningful discussion with fellow students as to what they think about this matter or that. As we are all different, some students take to this way of working more easily than others do. Some relish the freedom to expand their personal horizons and have an abundance of the selfdiscipline that is required to undertake their work in a manner that progresses smoothly, finishing their final draft in plenty of time to avoid having to pay a premium rate for last-minute binding. Others of course are less fortunate. Some students can find the dissertation process daunting to say the least. What on earth should I choose to study? Is my problem realistic? How will I approach it? Will I be able to gain access to the necessary resources? Can I do so in the period of time I have remaining, given that I also have a range of other outstanding requirements to complete for my degree and a part-time job? Why is so-andso not my dissertation tutor? All of these questions can lead to anxiety on the part of the person who asks them, but be warned not to sit and ask them too long. Procrastination, as Shakespeare noted, is the thief of time and the longer you think about problems without taking any steps to address them, the less likely you are to produce your best work. Hopefully the contents of this small volume will help the reader to address some of these questions profitably (although it cannot help with others such as juggling part-time jobs with study or wishing that you had a different dissertation tutor). All that any book can ever do is assist; however, remember that this is a personal piece of work and that your personal questions must, in the final analysis, be resolved by you.

The dissertation is also more personal in terms of writing style than many other types of work (although not too personal if the requisite academic tone and balance are to be struck). For instance, if called upon to write a report you would probably set forth in as detached a manner as possible, writing in a fashion not dissimilar to that of a natural scientist. Were you to be called upon to write an essay, while you may bring more of your own ideas to the discussion than you would in a report, the end product will invariably involve weighing up a number of relevant issues through reference to the published ideas of others. In the dissertation you are undertaking a different type of work, even if its subject matter is related to something that you have written about before (e.g. in an essay, a report or some other format).

As noted above, in an essay (or indeed an examination) you will be required to address a given topic, about which you will probably have had at least some lecture material. In writing your essay or examination answer you will almost certainly draw upon materials that were mentioned in lectures and tutorials and that were included on your reading list. This is no bad thing; essentially the essay and the examination are the means by which a member of academic staff assesses your understanding of a fairly substantial chunk of their class. Typically, in addressing the essay or examination question, you will have read around the syllabus with a view to answering questions that are, in comparison with a dissertation, fairly broad. For example, as the author writes this chapter he is looking at the environmental policy paper that he’d set for the Christmas 2000 round of examinations. It includes questions such as, ‘With reference to the literature and to environmental events, explain the rise of public environmental concern and green politics over the period 1960–1990’ and, ‘The “bottom-up approach” can lead to an implementation gap in the policy process. Is this of particular relevance to the successful implementation of environmental policy?’. Whilst (hopefully) reasonable enough as British-style examination questions (although it is always possible that educationalists would throw up their hands in horror), these questions are in fact actually quite general in nature. There is good reason for this of course, as the purpose of the examination is to test knowledge of the environmental policy syllabus. As the basis of a dissertation, however, such questions are unlikely to provide the sort of focus that is required. Essentially, in writing a dissertation you will be addressing a more focused problem than you will probably be used to and doing so in a ‘deeper’ and more personal way. You truly bring yourself to bear on the final written piece, going way beyond the more limited personal comment that is usually included in the essay or examination answer. You will, in the dissertation, be writing down your own ideas as well as writing about the ideas of others. This can prove one of the most daunting aspects for the dissertation student the firs...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Illustrations
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Bibliography