It seeks to point out the theoretical and substantive features of the three distinct techniques in elucidating context matters through empirical analysis, namely: multicausality, contextconditionality, and endogeneity. With its rigid focus in laying down the theoretical, methodological, as well as the statistical methods of empirical evaluation on context matters, the challenge does not formulate there. The problem is logically installed to the substantive propositions of multicausality, contextconditionality, and endogeneity and not mainly on the empiricalmethodological pproach taken to redress them.
As such, it abandons the use of descriptive methods (e. g historicalfactual, causal relationships) in explaining the sociopoliticoeconomic phenomena but rather concentrates the logicallyargumentative, positivetheoretical, and hypothetical assumptions, and assess these information through statistical evaluation. This strategy has, however, resulted to a more logically and theoretically challenging task rather than just being empirically complex. The sole fact that variables, causes, and outcomes in the social sphere of cience were being calculated and estimated in mathematical forms, makes it more impossible and difficult to understand.
Nevertheless, Franzese has effectively countered this difficulty by redressing qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis. The former method being in the form o f assumptions, theories, and arguments as interpretations to the phenomena occurring in the social world. Franzese was able to provide examples so as to elucidate the idea he is trying to convey, such as his assumption on the formula of democratization and the relevance of equal distribution and economic development. In other words, t hese factors provide the theoretical and substantive sources to effectively trace out their relation with the quality of democracy in a society.
He even used a Venn diagram to fully illustrate their relation with each other. On the other hand, the latter constitutes the scientific side of the study. This consists the profuse display of mathematical and statistical formula, terms, and methods in evaluating theoretical claims. One useful statistical method thoroughly employed by Franzese is the regression analysis, where systems of correlation between causal variables re relevant in determining the possible outcomes in a certain situation. Here, he attempts to demonstrate the application of statistical techniques in explaining the relation of the variables used in the given situation.
Hence, to perfectly answer the problem in achieving a justifiable and easytograsp solution in applying empirical methods to the study of context matters, it is apt to have a stable mixture of both qualitative and quantitative analyses. As a result in combining these ?o techniques, together with his attempt to simplify the complex nature of context matters, Franzese was able to ome up with sorne concluding points and insights which he injected on his article. According to him, in data gathering, information quantity is always greater than information quantity.
Excessive amounts Of information hastily gathered creates danger and could paralyze the entire study. However, sufficient amount of substantial information means lesser areas to be considered and much focus is given to these respective areas. This is to not confuse the contexts from one another and not shuffle the variables once all of them gets inside a single container. This principle of using minimal explanatory factors is ore appreciated when one uses the context matter techniques of multicausality, contextconditionality, and endogeneity in getting valid estimates, qualitative or quantitative, of effects.
The difficulty comes in when one could no longer distinguish the relation of one factor to the other or its sigificance to the subject. This proceeds his next idea that complexity hardly debars statistical empirical analysis. This is in response to the idea that attaining the goal of illustrating social setting in an empirical manner is not feasible since it has to consider varieties of factors that may alter the ntire social structure once there occurs a malfunction in the system or perversions of the persons involved.
One just have to explore to what is logically possible and what is not with regards to gaining empirical leverage to it. Hence, to condense Franzese’s main points, one has to be aware that substantive problems in comparative politics is rooted on the complex application of context matters techniques, not to mention the theoretical and logical interpretations one has to consider, but it is on the proper way of executing these techniques which w ll make it possible to obtain a desirable result and less confusing analysis.
Furthermore, Robert Franzese’s article on Context Matters has brought significant contribution in simplifying the complex nature of applying scientific and empirical enterprise in understanding comparative politics. It has provided a new way of looking at comparative analysis as it has ventured through a multitude of aspects and systematic methods, starting from the basic assumptions to the theories up to the statistical procedures; from the most complex down to the most minute and simplest details.
Indeed, this article is a great reference in studying context matters and comparative analysis. As a matter Of fact, I can personally acknowledge the greatness Of Franzese’s work as it can be useful in my aspiration to be a Political Scientist someday. With his ingenuity and artistic way of discussing the most complex matters, I have found lesser time to decipher every idea he cited in his article. Also, he was able to distinguish the challenges in facing his task of explaining context matters and successfully found solutions in his way out of the bewildering nature of context matters.