Book Review Issues For GFIR 738

  1. What is the question?

a.        why ask this question and not another?

b.       what is the (c)overt literature or debate that this book addresses?

2.      What methodology?

a.       deductive: tests existing hypotheses; constructs formal model

b.      inductive: claims no hypothesis, looks at data, then induces generalizations

c.       case studies:

                                                               i.      "ideographic-configurative": 'verstehen' intuitive, use of proper names not variables, total explanation; inductive at best

                                                             ii.      "disciplined-configurative": explanation from principles; variables explicit; a 'positive' case; often deductive

                                                            iii.      "heuristic": generation of positive laws from existing theoretical building blocks

                                                           iv.      "Crucial": - most likely (theory destroying): the theory predicts that under circumstances (abc) d results. here is a case where ABC are present; does D result? = "looking for black swans" versus least likely (theory expanding): the theory predicts (ABC) => D. notA, notB, notC are present, but so is D. what was overlooked?

    1. d.  level of analysis

                                                               i.      is it appropriate for what author seeks to do?

                                                             ii.      ecological fallacy? (generalizing from population to individuals in group)

                                                            iii.      cross sectional fallacy? (correlation not= causation; other independent variables?)

3.      Data or empirical evidence

a.       how many data points, cases, etc used to test hypothesis. # of explanatory variables?

b.      were data (cases) selected to fit theory?

c.       accuracy of interpretation of fact

4.      Theory (or 'model' - theory-lite)

a.       brevity/parsimony (does Occam's razor apply?)

b.      precision & falsifiability: what exactly needs to be shown factually to (dis)confirm this argument? [note: disconfirmation is easier...]

                                                               i.      relative vs. absolute standards

                                                             ii.      ad hoc (auxiliary) theories

                                                            iii.      Galton's problem -- a real problem in IR / IPE / CPE

    1. c.  causation: how well does theory explain this phenomenon?

                                                               i.      overdetermination vs. underdetermination (i.e. tautology)

                                                             ii.      over prediction vs. underprediction

                                                            iii.      spurious correlation & non-sequiturs

                                                           iv.      is theory reliable, does it generate foreknowledge?

5.      How successful is book in answering its question?

a.       what are theoretical outputs: description? explanation? prediction? future hypothesis to test?

b.      organizing mechanisms?

c.       prescriptions? policy changes, etc.

A good book review will summarize core argument briefly (in a good book, the author will lay out her hypotheses neatly); describe methods; praise/condemn strengths/ weaknesses; ask if book achieved goals; link book to literature(s).