[SOLVED] POLI235 Democratisation Data Project 2024/25

POLI235 Democratisation

Data Project 2024/25

The coursework assignment for the module is a project that will require you to think about how we define democracy, and the different types of influences that can affect whether democracy emerges and survives in a country.

Sounds difficult? Don’t worry! This document and the lab sessions will show you how to complete every component of the project. But you will need to engage with the sessions to be able to complete the project with confidence.

The deadline for submission of the project is 14:00 Wednesday the 13^th of November. Submission of the project is electronic, via Canvas.

The word limit is 1,750 absolute maximum, not including references and bibliography.

1. Rubric

Briefly discuss the debate over the definition of democracy, select a definition and explain your conceptual choice. Explain what 3 variables from the dataset you will use to measure democracy as you define it. Provide descriptive data about patterns of democracy in the world.

Discuss a variable from the dataset that you think might measure one type of institutional safeguard for democracy. Examine the correlation between your measure of democracy and your measure of institutional safeguards.

Discuss a theory of democratisation from the course and the relationships between socio-economic factors and democracy it highlights. Examine the correlations between your measure of democracy and a social or economic variable that is relevant to the theory you are examining.

Draw some brief conclusions, summarising what your analysis indicated about patterns of democracy in the world, and how they relate to the institutional safeguards and socio-economic context of different countries.

2. Completing your Project

The project can be completed step-by-step, following on from the lectures and lab sessions. A path to completion has been planned out for you. You don’t need to wait until you have done all your research before starting your project. All technical vocabulary will be explained in the labs.

Step 1: Concepts and Operationalisation

Provide a brief overview of some of the disagreements over the concept of democracy. Make a case for adopting a particular definition of democracy, showing awareness of arguments in political theory for and against the approach you are taking. This should be the product of research and reading you have done.

Building on this discussion, combine 3 variables to make your measure of democracy. Explain your choice of measures (your operationalisation of the concept of democracy), in your own words, with reference to the codebook.

You could discuss particular countries with high or low scores for your measure of democracy, or note countries that have quite different scores for your component variables.

Step 3: Descriptive stats

Provide some descriptive statistics on the state of democracy in the world as of 2020, using your measure of democracy. This might include averages, rankings, the interquartile range and information about which percentile your country is in. You could include a histogram or other graphs at this point. You could also look in a particular region of the world, such as Africa or Southeast Asia.

Step 5: Institutional safeguards

Choose one institutional variable from the dataset that you think is a safeguard for democracy. This shouldn’t be something that, in your view, is part of democracy itself, but some institutional factor that protects democracy or is required for it endure. In this section you should rely more on your own reasoning, we will look at academic debates about these issues later on the course.

You could note individual countries that have high, low or otherwise notable safeguard variable scores.

Assess whether there is a correlation between your safeguard variable and your measure of democracy for the world in 2020, noting whether the relationship is positive or negative. You may wish to display your findings in the form. of a scatter plot – but you must still calculate the correlation, as a line of best fit is insufficient.

Step 6: Explaining democratisation

Introduce a theory of democratisation from the course, outlining the explanation for patterns of democracy offered by the theory and briefly noting any potential problems or criticisms. Identify one variable from the dataset that correspond to causal factors that are important for the theory (or more if you have space). Explain what sort of relationship between these factors (independent variables) and your measure of democracy (dependent variable) the theory suggests we should find. The relationship is the hypothesis you will look at in the next two steps.

Assess whether there is a correlation between your socio-economic variable(s) and your measure of democracy across the world in 2020, noting whether the relationship is positive or negative. Explain the implications of this relationship for your chosen theory of democratisation, bearing in mind the limits of correlational analysis. You may wish to display your findings in the form. of a scatter plot – but you must still calculate the correlation, as a line of best fit is insufficient.

You could note individual countries that fit the general pattern you found, or go against the pattern you found.

Step 7: Conclusion

Write your conclusion, noting anything interesting that you found or that you noticed. Summarise what your analysis indicated about patterns of democracy in the world, and how they relate to the institutional safeguards and socio-economic context of different countries.

Write your introduction, briefly outlining what you will do in the project and what ideas and arguments you are engaging with.

Step 8

Your project is complete! Make it all fits together as a nicely-presented project, do a proof-read and check your data is presented accurately before submission.

3. Extension Activities

You can gain extra marks for each of the following activities. I will not look to deduct marks for attempting an extension activity, but you should probably attempt them only if you are reasonably confident. You can still gain a first even if you don’t carry out any of these activities. Additional slides for the weekly lab sessions will explain how to carry out these activities.

Report the skewness and kurtosis of the distribution of your measure of democracy.

Generate a correlation matrix.

Calculate the partial correlation between your independent and dependent variables.

4. Structure of the Project

The following structure is recommended for your project:

· Introduction (about 150 words)

· Conceptual discussion of democracy, measuring democracy (about 400 words)

· Descriptive statistics (about 250 words)

· Institutional safeguards, conceptual discussion and analysis (about 300 words)

· Explaining democratisation and statistical analysis (about 500 words)

· Conclusion (about 150 words)

Sources

You will need to draw on appropriate sources from the reading list. A small number of good-quality sources should be enough for each of the sections.

5. Assessment

The project will be assessed in accordance with standard marking criteria, with marks awarded for comprehension, factual accuracy, attractive presentation, clarity of expression, use of sources and strength of argument. As well as making sure each section of the project is satisfactory, try to ensure that each section flows smoothly from the last and the overall project is a coherent piece of work.

Failure to adhere to the rules regarding good academic practice and academic integrity may result in a penalty of up to 10 marks, a cap at 40 marks, a mark of 0 or even more severe penalties. On this module, self-plagiarism is not accepted and all work is expected to be your own, not generated. See the University’s code of practice on academic integrity:

Https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/tqsd/code-of-practice-on-assessment/appendix_L_cop_assess.pdf

Here are the grade boundaries, adapted from the University’s criteria:

70+, 1st

Candidates will have demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the whole range of material relevant for the assessment. Answers will be clear, well-structured, directly relevant and logical. There will be a high level of accuracy in the presentation of factual or numerical work, and flair and some originality in dealing with interpretative (qualitative and theoretical) material.

60-69, 2.1

Candidates must demonstrate a sound understanding of the material and provide evidence of general reading. Answers will be clear, competently structured, logical and have general relevance. There will be a good level of accuracy in the presentation of factual and numerical work. The methodology and arguments employed must be largely accurate. In dealing with interpretative (qualitative and theoretical) material, candidates must demonstrate a competent level of critical evaluation.

50-59, 2.2

The candidate’s treatment of data and literature will be basically sound but underdeveloped. Arguments must be clear, although they may not be well developed or reflect a wider appreciation of the subject. Small errors and omissions are likely to be present.

40-49, 3rd

Candidates will display adequate but limited understanding and knowledge of the concepts but the range of data used will be very limited and its treatment basic and unimaginative. Answers are likely to be somewhat lacking in structure. There are likely to be errors and omissions and the evidence provided to support arguments will be very limited.  The methodologies and arguments employed will contain some flaws.

35-39

Marks awarded in this range indicate that the candidate has narrowly failed to achieve the standards required for a third class mark but this failure may be compensated by better levels of achievement in other components of their studies.

34 and below

Candidates will be unable to demonstrate adequate knowledge and understanding of the subject area or to sustain arguments. Significant errors and omissions will be present in the work. Work is likely to be unstructured and ill-presented and may not address the question or task set.