My semester of taking what I thought would be the most difficult class because of the mundane detail in the new frontier of SPSS, ended in a reality that juxtaposed my initial expectations. Upon registering for the class, I was nervous that I would get lost in the data, numbers, and foreign functions of this class. I was used to looking at the graphs, not creating them myself. I was never number inclined so the thought of having to code and work within SPSS was incredibly daunting.

I was reassured however, once we started working through the worksheets and I found myself more comfortable with the keystrokes, doing it by memory rather than step by step with the screenshots. This was amazing considering I never expected to be comfortable with data manipulation. I loved the end result of looking at tables comparing variables side by side, but never thought I could be the one running cross tabulations. With this work within SPSS=came a better understanding of key political science research terms and concepts. For instance, although I have studied it almost every year since 8^th grade, I always had a hazy understanding of the null hypothesis. That is, until now. After manipulating data on my own and navigating the research model and process, I finally had a coherent understanding of the null and why/how we use it. I believe this only occurred because of the first-hand work that I was doing in this class. The same goes for conducting research.

I was very comfortable talking about research cases and could rattle off the key and chronological steps of experimentation. I could analyze the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of data collection, ie. Survey, interview, case study, observation, but I had never done it on my own. I didn’t expect it to be that different. I was very wrong. It was hard at first to even find direction with our research question. We fumbled around with possible topics and then once deciding that, fumbled around with the syntax of our question. I never knew how much time and energy went into writing the very specific and deliberate research question that would guide our study. Although we finally settled on our wording, I am sure we could have spent more time making sure it was stated as clearly as possible. The next hurdle was the data collection. We spent a good amount of time and energy thinking about how we can best collect our information. It was important to us to try and get a large enough sample size that was random and diverse in representation. Rather than just sending out an email survey that would get a possibly skewed representation, we did a random number generator with three companies and selected a specific number from each class. As I delivered surveys door to door, my main concern was confidentiality, not because I thought my Brother Rats would feel uncomfortable sharing basic school related information, but because I know how important this component is in scientific research. It was painstaking at points, walking laps around barracks in the cold, but it was important to see what really goes into conducting research.

Over the summer and while spending last semester abroad, I thought it would be interesting to conduct my own professional research after law school. I thought of how I would collect data, reusing government published data and figures or how I would conduct interviews and surveys to gather the most authentic information in sensitive places like China. This class has opened my eyes to how that could be done on large and small scales. My creative mind has some pretty outlandish research ideas bouncing around within it, and it was interesting to see if they could make it through a semester of computer analysis. One of my questions in particular had to do with personality traits and preferences in using a public restroom. Generally, I believe people have a tendency to always use the same stall or sink, maybe even specific enough as the same soap or paper towel dispenser. I always wondered why some people chose the outside while others chose the middle. I know this seems insignificant and absurd, but I found it interesting to bring up to friends and thought it had to do with dominant personalities or more insecure tendencies. This class has helped me look at ideas such as this, and consider how I would go about setting up an experiment, the feasibility of data collection, and how I would code it. I do not think I will ever pursue research in this specific subject matter, but if I did, I would know what to expect of the process and be better equipped. I am thankful for the exposure, greater understanding, and confidence this class has given me.

Word Count: 803

Reaching our final research question was certainly not a seamless process. We moved in circles and tangential lines before ending where we are now, theorizing that individual discipline within the Corps is based on your company and the group norms and culture that are created within it. Lower ranking companies have less strict rules or a more lenient standard and therefore have more PT offenders. For example, Alpha is lower in the Corps order as displayed by lower Garnett Andrews scores and we would expect Alpha to be marching more PTs than Echo or Delta, companies who usually win Garnett Andrews and have the reputation of intense discipline.

Where we foresee issues is in dealing with outliers, collecting enough data, and making sure our logic is fluid. In troubleshooting conversation, one group member pointed out that a company with lower standards would bone less so the cadets within it would not be marching PTs. That is for excess demerits at least! Lack of boning at morning inspections is not enough to say a cadet is disciplined if there is much greater offenses that are handled by Comm Staff who delivers the punishment. Questions in our survey will make that distinction.

I hope once we push out the survey and get more feedback from you, we will feel like we are moving along in the right direction.

After years of attempting to learning but not retaining, and glazing through chapters on null hypothesis, I think I have finally reached a point that I actually understand the concept and what it looks like in data samples. This final worksheet was great to see my progress in data analysis and also key political science concepts.

I certainly rounded out by SPSS trip stronger than I thought I would. I felt comfortable in quickly swiping through functions and analyzing the data. It was amazing! I will say though, I echo a comment that was shared in class. I am still a little hesitant to think that I would be able to input and analyze my own data. Like SPSS, I think it will just take a couple times of working through it for me to slowly gain the confidence necessary. I hope our research project will turn out as well as my SPSS experience! My next post will talk more about the where my group is in the research process.

Sitting down to try to select our theory, I was worried it would be difficult to sort through our sources to find just one. Spending time to look at each resource, however, and thinking about it’s applicability to our environment at VMI, it was easy to see what components would work for our research. Step by step, we piece together a theory we could use and easily formed three possible hypothesis. This was my favorite part of the process as we could think creatively and about the examples we encounter everyday. We can up with hypothesis that explained rule breaking as a result of low position in the Corps hierarchy and therefore low motivation or norms; a systematic lack of freedom or harsh reaction of comm staff that creates indifference to punishment since so much is already received; or external factors that limit the desire to leave post on the weekend (which is when punishments are served) such as no significant other or local home to return to. I think I could work on the wording of our hypothesis to make sure they are as clear and concise as possible, but I think we have a good approach. Once we established this, it was easy to start thinking about what types of data we can collect and what questions we can ask of the survey, which will be our method of data collection. Although this project was intimidating at first, each step is falling into place as we work forward and see that research design is possible!

All I can say is: finally. After making small and frustrating mistake on my previous worksheets, I finally got a 100% on a section with daunting functions and computations. It required me to really take my time and go back and check my work. Although the binding and renaming variables were new, I realized how comfortable I am becoming with navigating SPSS. Obviously, I rely on the pictures for new functions we are using, but other than that, I do not hesitate to manipulate and analyze the data through charts and graphs. I certainly see my growth in this element of the class and again, understand the importance of being able to use a data analysis program such as this. I fell off the wagon last week due to poor time management, but I am back and stronger than ever on my SPSS kick! We’ll see how next week turns out!

Getting started in the SPSS book, I was excited. It is very clear and easy to use. As I followed along with the pictures, I felt more confident and my fears of dealing with new, complex data were lessened. After submitting my first worksheet, however, I realized it wasn’t smooth sailing like I expected. I slowly worked through the problems, but for some reason missed easy and small details. I ran into these same issues with my second worksheets, I would get the main questions with variable manipulation or where actual functions were necessary, but on simple questions just as coding valuable, I would get wrong. This is a reflection that maybe I don’t have the holistic understanding I thought I did. Not only will my next worksheet require me to take my time with the nuances of the chapter and data set, but more consulting with COL Sanborn will help with this as well. I need to get these issues worked out before we get into the thick of analysis with more complex functions and keystrokes.

Overall, I’ve enjoyed the learning how to analyze data. Although I did have these bumps in the road, overall I feel more comfortable with the functions than I thought I would. It has been interesting to learn more about this and actually go through the actions. It has certainly influenced my thinking on what type of research I’d like to conduct, specifically with my national security minor and future projects.

Our group project started with a very broad scope of possible research questions. We were all over the place to put it nicely. After two weeks of throwing ideas around, however, we finally landed with our research question: What makes cadets  follow the rules more than others. I know that other groups are doing research along the same lines, and while that was immediately discouraging, now I think it will make our research stronger. It will be interesting to see if we test the same factors or variables. If we do, and find similar results with the other group, it just strengthens our findings. One factor that I think we will consider heavily is what company you are in, i.e Alpha doesn’t follow the rules as closely as Delta. Is this because of the TAC officer? The CO? The company culture? These are the questions I would like to consider. I significant part of this process is going to be defining ‘following the rules’. Our group has leaned towards a definition that is based off demerits. How we collect this information, more than likely via survey because Commandant records might be hard to get,  is where we will run into issues and is something I will address in my next post.

Don’t worry they said, It will be easy they said. My first worksheet attempt was a flop and mighty discouraging. After working through the quiz several more times, I understood what steps I was missing and am much more comfortable with finding the full names and coding for variables. The textbook is incredibly helpful, and although I expect the data manipulations to become increasingly harder, I am reassured that I can rely on the textbook to guide me well enough through. It has been a really eye opening experience thus far. Previously, I just looked at data and didn’t think about the leg work or assumed it was just excel inputs. I was most definitely wrong. This will be challenging for me because it is new, but exciting because it will help me grow and understand the components of conducting thorough research. I would one day love to publish research or a formal paper and this class will help me have an understanding, even if just at the most basic level, of what that process entails. Here’s hoping worksheet 2 goes better than the first!

Having taken psychology in high school, I was already familiar with Milgram’s experiment and other researchers who had conducted questionable studies. I have never heard of the Reynolds experiment, however, and found it very interesting. I imagined that telling a young child they had a stutter would produce negative effects on their self-confidence but I did not consider these problems to extend into their adult lives. I wonder to what degree this issue would have been resolved if they had immediate debriefed the children on the experiment and an attempt to reverse the efforts. What I mean is, after the period of time in which the test was conducted, if the children were immediately told they didn’t actually have a stutter, would they still have the lasting effects through adulthood? Would they be able to ‘snap out’ of the stutter as quickly as they picked it up? If they did return to their normal speech pattern, would they still be scarred by the experience and suffer confidence issues long after?

The other component of the ethical readings of the week that I did not previously consider was it we should still be allowed to use the results found from these unethical tests. My initial reaction is yes. They have already been done, why not use the data if it will aid research? I do, however, see the argument of the other side – that it encourages more unethical research. I don’t think this is as strong of a point considering there is more oversight of research now that would not allow unethical experiments to occur or have validated data from it. I do  understand the sentiment. In all, the ethical readings of the week expanded my perspective on the topic.

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.