Printing out my articles for the week, I was really excited to see the headline of Bailenson’s article. Starting to read through it, however, I realized I committed a pretty critical flaw. I immediately overestimated the impact of facial similarities and incorrectly predicted the outcome of the experiment. I expected the article to present a very strong causation that had significant influence over voting patterns. I realized however, that this was not the case, not what the research projected, and not what it proved. This was an important lesson for me as an observer as well as someone conducting research. In both scenarios, I cannot fall susceptible to an over emphasizing the importance or impact of variables. This would cause me to overlook and omit other variables in my research or project a false sense/strength of causation. Class discussion helped clarify some of the details of the research design, but overall I really enjoyed this article and found the research conclusions interesting and significant.

One reading that I really enjoyed from this week was the piece by Diamond. I thought, first of all that it was very interesting and a noteworthy topic. This article not only gave me insight to the area, its history, and development, but also to the background process of research. I knew how much work research and data collection involved. I’d heard the horror stories that used words like ‘coding data’, ‘spreadsheets’, and ‘collection and analysis’, but for me this article really illustrated the amount of effort comprehensive research requires. This was primarily because I was in awe of the amount of variable Diamond considered and the breadth of them. I am not surprised when theories or research gives consideration to economic policy or historical background, I am used to seeing those subjects overlap, but I never expected a political scientists to be theorizing and studying environment things such as soil richness or erosion patterns. Seeing the wide range of information and consideration that goes into developing a single research topic is daunting to say the least. This article made me think about my own future research aspirations. Having not solidified our group topic, I thought to my national security thesis and about what variables might I have to consider that are outside the realm of democracy and social media apps use, but would contribute to my overall research. Although nervous, I am ready to dive in to comprehensive research.

I had no idea what I was getting myself into, but hearing words like “coding”, “programming”, and “conduct your own research study” did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about this class. As I worked through the readings, however, of these first two weeks, I discovered it to be a manageable and critical class. Although a lot of our first initial readings have been reviews of concepts and definition to standardize our language and understanding, I have learned new terms and ways of thinking. I have really enjoyed the KKV readings that give a very clear layout of key terms. While we have gotten into the details and small functions of data collection and analysis, we have also been exposed to tests that we can use and reflect on as case studies of what works, or what could be better in conducting tests. This is important for me because I am a learner that values seeing and understanding the bigger picture and product. Two readings inparticular that I really enjoyed were Turner and Lewis-Beck. I appreciated these because of the social implications of the results: that messenger is greater than the message because individuals take heuristic shortcuts in processing information, and that government regulation and enforcement can affect safety and habits/conditions of workers. These are important understandings, and the data collection pertaining to them is important as well. I am enjoying learning how to collect and handle this important information. After studying so many large theories and global implications/effects, it is interesting to see the data behind it and how it is collected.