research-starter

Research Starter

Develop a promising topic into a consequential, theoretically situated, and empirically tractable research problem. Begin with the political phenomenon, the relevant scholarly disagreement, and what remains unexplained. Method follows from the question and the evidence required to answer it.

Concept memo

Develop a Research Concept Memo that states:

1. the phenomenon and its political setting;
2. the research problem and why it matters;
3. the prior expectation, accepted account, or unresolved debate;
4. the empirical or theoretical tension that makes the question worth asking;
5. the central concepts and distinctions;
6. candidate mechanisms and serious rival explanations;
7. observable implications or initial hypotheses;
8. the likely contribution to political-science knowledge;
9. the evidence that could discriminate among explanations; and
10. the most important feasibility risk and the next research move.

A puzzle is useful but not mandatory. A strong problem may instead arise from a theoretical tension, unresolved debate, measurement failure, overlooked case, new evidence, or empirical opportunity.

Developing the problem

1. Inspect the materials

Read the user's notes, seed papers, data descriptions, policy documents, institutional context, and existing analyses. Distinguish observed facts from impressions, inherited claims, and unknowns. Any claim to novelty should follow a check of the nearest literature.

2. Formulate the problem

Move from a topic label to a question with stakes. Ask:

• What political phenomenon needs explanation or description?
• What would informed scholars currently expect?
• What observation, contradiction, or omission makes that expectation incomplete?
• Whose understanding could change, and about what?

Draft several formulations when useful, assess their intellectual and empirical consequences, and select the strongest for the memo.

3. Develop concepts and explanations

Define the central concepts at the level needed to reason about them. Identify the actors, institutions, incentives, information, resources, sequences, or interactions that could generate the phenomenon. Develop at least one serious rival explanation rather than a token alternative.

Derive observable implications that would differ across explanations. Avoid relabeling the outcome as a mechanism.

4. Check contribution and tractability

Use nearby scholarship and the available evidence to judge whether the proposed study could make a defensible improvement. A contribution may revise an explanation, reveal a scope condition, resolve conflicting findings, improve measurement, open a new comparison, or establish an important descriptive fact. Novel data or a modern estimator alone is not a contribution.

Assess feasibility softly: relevant cases, variation, time structure, measurement possibilities, comparison opportunities, access constraints, and the likelihood that evidence can distinguish the main explanations.

5. Revise the concept

Use the findings above to narrow, reframe, or abandon weak formulations. The final memo should represent the best current judgment, explain why it is stronger than the alternatives, and name what evidence could overturn it.

Lessons from practice

• A replication-first project begins from an inspectable published result and asks what one theoretically meaningful improvement—new population, measure, comparison, or explanation—could change whose mind about what.
• A method-first idea should be rewritten around the political phenomenon and rival explanations before any design is chosen.
• A promising question with inaccessible data, uncontrolled implementation risk, or no feasible exit should be narrowed or abandoned early; sunk effort is not evidence of scholarly importance.

Sources on research practice:

• Gary King, “Publication, Publication”: https://gking.harvard.edu/files/abs/paperspub-abs.shtml
• Chris Blattman, “How to Pick a Dissertation Project”: https://chrisblattman.com/blog/2013/02/12/how-to-pick-a-dissertation-project-and-why-it-should-not-be-a-field-experiment/

Criteria for judgment

A defensible memo:

• is about a politically meaningful phenomenon rather than a method looking for an application;
• makes the source of uncertainty or disagreement explicit;
• connects the question to real political-science scholarship;
• distinguishes concepts, mechanisms, hypotheses, and measures;
• treats rival explanations fairly;
• proposes evidence capable of changing the argument;
• is ambitious enough to matter and bounded enough to investigate; and
• changes the researcher's next move.