Courses:

Please bring a 1-page theory-framing and prediction-inferring memo to class on lecture 3 and again on lecture 6.

For each memo, please select a reading from among those assigned for that week or the previous week and:

1. In one or two sentences, frame the main theory or hypothesis that the reading advances.
   
   If the reading advances several theories, frame your favorite.
   
   
2. Draw an arrow-diagram of this theory. Hand-drawn is fine.
   
   
3. Frame several more important general predictions (also called "observable implications") that you infer from the theory. An important prediction is: (a) unique, i.e., this prediction is not made by other theories; and (b) definite, i.e., your theory definitely makes this prediction--there is no plausible argument that it doesn't. If you have more than one prediction (and you probably will, but no more than three please), rank them, listing first the one you would focus on testing.
   
   Predictions describe phenomena you would expect to observe if the theory is valid. They define expectations about the incidence, sequence, location, and structure of these phenomena.
   
   Try to avoid framing tautological predictions that forecast simply that we expect to observe the theory in operation ("if the theory is valid, I predict we will observe its cause causing its effect"). Thus the hypothesis that "democracy causes peace" yields the following tautological prediction: "we should observe democracy causing peace." A non-tautological prediction would be: "we should observe that democratic states are involved in fewer wars than authoritarian states."

Come to class prepared to comment on whether tests of your predictions would constitute strong or weak tests of the theory.

Please confine each memo to one page or less.

These memos will be ungraded.

For your first paper you have the option of doing a stock-taking paper or a case-study paper. (For your second paper, due one week after the last class--I will ask for a case study paper, different in format from your first paper if you did a case study.)

Please write a 6-9 page paper that evaluates the stock of theories on the causes of war that social scientists have so far developed. State your criteria for evaluating a theory--what distinguishes good from bad theories--and then assess social science work on the war problem to date. Make clear the cause-effect statements that lie at the core of the theories you discuss. Support your argument with specifics. Feel free to do outside reading.

Your paper can take either of two forms:

1. You can offer a general assessment of a particular family of theories (for example, psychological theories of misperception; military power theories; domestic politics theories; etc.) Feel free to suggest and defend arguments or theories that are missing from the existing literature.
   
   
2. You can select what you regard as the very best one or two theories in the existing stock, and explain why you think them the best.

As always, make sure your paper includes a clear summary introduction of perhaps a paragraph. This paragraph should clearly state your question(s) and summarize your answer. Please also make some reference to relevant historical evidence.

You are encouraged to share thoughts among yourselves as you prepare this paper.

Please doublespace your paper and use standard 1-inch margins. Nine pages translate to 2400-3200 words; please observe that limit!

Please write a 6-9 page paper that uses one of the cases covered in this course as a case study. You may:

1. Use the case to test general theories previously discussed in this course. Or you can use the case to test other ideas (including common-sense or "folk" theories) if you prefer.
   
   
2. Use theories previously discussed in this course to explain the case. Or you can use other ideas (including common-sense or "folk" theories) to explain the case, if theories discussed in this course don't seem adequate to you, or don't speak to important aspects of the case.
   
   
3. Use the case to infer a new theory (or theories) of the causes, widening, or escalation of war.

You are encouraged to do several or all of the above.

If you use your case as a lab to test general theories (Format #1), please test at least two theories, and comment on which performs better on your tests.

If you attempt to explain your case (Format #2 or #3), please compare your favored explanation to its most plausible competitor, and explain why you find the competing explanation less persuasive. This requires testing both your favored explanation and its competitor, with a special eye on tests where the two explanations make opposite predictions about the same event, and which both therefore cannot pass.

Also, make sure you state clearly what aspect of the case you intend to explain. (The causes of the war? Background conditions that activated these causes? The motives of the governments or individuals involved? The consequences of specific policies, or of the major events of case? Make sure you are explicit.)

Please bear these considerations in mind as you proceed:

1. If you are testing a general theory or explaining a case, your general format should follow that of a science experiment: first frame your theory or explanation, then look for observable phenomena predicted by the theory. You should take four specific steps:
   
   
   • Frame your theory or explanation.
     
     For clarity I strongly recommend that you provide an arrow-diagram of each theory or explanation you discuss.
     
     
   • Infer predictions from the theory about how the case should unfold if the theory were valid (or if the theory explained the case), and how it should unfold if the theory were false (or could not explain the case).
     
     Please frame these predictions explicitly and explain them fully.
     
     
   • Examine the case, looking for congruence or incongruence between prediction and evidence.
     
     
   • Interpret the results of this examination.
     
     
2. Some predictions provide decisive negative tests: if the prediction fails the explanation fails, but if the prediction occurs the explanation is not proven. Some predictions offer decisive positive tests: if the prediction is fulfilled the explanation is proven, but if the prediction fails the explanation is not disproved. A few predictions are decisive both ways. Most are not decisive either way, but simply weigh in the total balance of circumstantial evidence. Your discussion should reflect these differences.

Case selection is up to you. All cases covered in this course are ok. (And you may do a case not covered in the course if you wish.)

Make sure your paper includes a clear summary introduction, of perhaps a paragraph. This paragraph should clearly state your question(s) and summarize your answer.

Please double space your paper and use standard 1-inch margins. Nine pages translate to 2400-3200 words. Please observe that limit!

You are encouraged to share thoughts among yourselves as you prepare this paper.

Please write a 6-9 page paper that uses one of the cases covered in this course, or another case of your own choosing, as a case study. You may:

1. Use the case to test general theories previously discussed in this course. Or you can use the case to test other ideas (including common-sense or "folk" theories) if you prefer.
   
   
2. Use theories previously discussed in this course to explain the case. Or you can use other ideas (including common-sense or "folk" theories) to explain the case, if theories discussed in this course don't seem adequate to you, or don't speak to important aspects of the case.
   
   
3. Use the case to infer a new theory (or theories) of the causes, widening, or escalation of war.

You are encouraged to do several or all of the above.

If you use your case as a lab to test general theories (Format #1), please test at least two theories, and comment on which performs better on your tests.

If you attempt to explain your case (Format #2 or #3), please compare your favored explanation to its most plausible competitor, and explain why you find the competing explanation less persuasive. This requires testing both your favored explanation and its competitor, with a special eye on critical tests (those where the two explanations make opposite predictions about the same event, and which both therefore cannot pass.)

Also, make sure you state clearly what aspect of the case you intend to explain. (The causes of the war? Background conditions that activated these causes? The motives of the governments or individuals involved? The consequences of specific policies, or of the major events of case? Make sure you are explicit.)

If you did a case study for your first paper, I suggest--but don't require--that you use a different format than you used in your first paper. That is, if your first paper explained the case you examined, you should test a general hypothesis in this paper. Or if you tested a general hypothesis in your first paper, you should explain the case you examine in this paper.

Please bear these considerations in mind as you proceed:

1. If you are testing a general theory or explaining a case, your general format should follow that of a science experiment: first frame your theory or explanation, then look for observable phenomena predicted by the theory. You should take four specific steps:
   
   
   • Frame your theory or explanation.
     
     For clarity I strongly recommend that you provide an arrow-diagram of each theory or explanation you discuss.
     
     
   • Infer predictions from the theory about how the case should unfold if the theory were valid (or if the theory explained the case), and how it should unfold if the theory were false (or could not explain the case).
     
     Please frame these predictions explicitly and explain them fully.
     
     
   • Examine the case, looking for congruence or incongruence between prediction and evidence.
     
     
   • Interpret the results of this examination.
     
     
2. Some predictions provide decisive negative tests: if the prediction fails the explanation fails, but if the prediction occurs the explanation is not proven. Some predictions offer decisive positive tests: if the prediction is fulfilled the explanation is proven, but if the prediction fails the explanation is not disproved. A few predictions are decisive both ways. Most are not decisive either way, but simply weigh in the total balance of circumstantial evidence. Your discussion should reflect these differences.

Case selection is up to you. All cases covered in this course are ok. And you may do a case not covered in the course if you wish.

Make sure your paper includes a clear summary introduction of perhaps a paragraph. This paragraph should clearly state your question(s) and summarize your answer.

Please double space your paper and use standard 1-inch margins. Nine pages translate to 2400-3200 words. Please observe that limit!

You are encouraged to share thoughts among yourselves as you prepare this paper.