Below are a series of causal statements about recent events (disclosure: these statements do not reflect the instructor’s views). For each event, please do the following:
Please read “Voter Mobilization 101: Presidential Campaign Visits to Colleges and Universities in the 2016 Election” by Christoper J. Devine (, April 2019, 261-266) and answer the following questions about its research design.
What is the research question? [5 Points] The study examines whether presidential campaign visits to colleges and universities during the 2016 election affected voter mobilization.
What are the hypotheses? What is the causal logic underpinning this? [10 Points]
Hypothesis 1: Campaign visits increase political
engagement among college students.
Hypothesis 2: The impact of visits is stronger
in competitive states.
Causal Logic: Direct engagement by candidates raises awareness and enthusiasm, leading to higher turnout.
What data is used and how is it collected? [5 Points]
Data includes records of campaign visits and voter turnout data
from the 2016 election.
The data is collected from official campaign schedules and voting records.
How are the authors’ dependent and independent measured/operationalized? [5 Points]
Dependent Variable: Voter turnout in college
precincts.
Independent Variable: Frequency of campaign visits to college campuses.
What are the authors’ findings? [5 Points] The study finds that presidential campaign visits to colleges and universities had a limited but statistically significant effect on voter turnout. The impact was more pronounced in battleground states, where campaign activity was generally higher. However, the overall effect size was small, suggesting that other factors—such as pre-existing political engagement and external mobilization efforts—played a larger role in turnout.
Assess the internal and external validity of this study. Should we believe the findings the author presents? [20 Points]
Internal Validity (Causal Credibility) The study attempts to establish a causal relationship between campaign visits and voter turnout. However, confounding factors could undermine internal validity.
Potential issues:
Selection bias: Candidates tend to visit campuses in areas where they are already competitive, meaning that observed effects might not be solely due to the visits. Reverse causality: Higher expected turnout might have attracted campaign visits rather than the other way around. Omitted variable bias: Other mobilization efforts (e.g., local activism, social media campaigns) could explain increased turnout rather than the campaign visits alone. The study likely uses statistical controls (e.g., regression models) to address these concerns, but isolating the true effect remains challenging.
External Validity (Generalizability) The study focuses on a specific election (2016) and a specific demographic (college students), which limits generalizability.
Works of fiction (books, movies, TV shows) often explore alternate histories to consider how their plots would have differed if for one difference earlier on in the work (or in the time before the work picks up). Identify one such instance in a work of fiction and please do the following (a paragraph or less will suffice for each part):
Summarize the initial plot of the work of fiction (i.e., the factual, or the events that occur before consideration of the counterfactual)
Identify the one change in the plot imagined that leads to the realization of the counterfactual
Describe how the plot differs in this counterfactual world
Explain how this alternate history exercise fits into the work of fiction more broadly
Is the counterfactual presented in the work of fiction plausible? That is, is it plausible that the plot would differ in the ways described if that one change were made?
Initial Plot: The Axis powers won World War II,
leading to a divided U.S. under Japanese and Nazi rule.
Key Change: The Allies lost the war instead of
winning.
Counterfactual Plot: The world is governed by
fascist powers, with resistance movements operating in secret.
Broader Significance: The story explores
historical contingency and the fragility of democracy.
Plausibility: While the outcome is extreme, the idea that small changes (e.g., a failed D-Day invasion) could alter history aligns with historical scholarship.