Critique of an article using the Scientific Method Essay

The paper Politics and variety in Latin America and the Caribbean is a research paper authored by Evelyne Huber, Francois Nielsen, Jenny Pribble, and John D. Stephens. This paper is a time series analytic thinking of the impact that politics and policy bring about on discrepancy in the scope of Latin America and the Caribbean. This research is based on various models consisting of sociological and economic vari fittings, plus the strength of the democratic tradition, as salutary as the statistical distribution of long-term legislative partisan governmental power and the social spending to explain variety variations.As a need that aims to analyze social factors and its effect on the inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean, this research was up to(p) to conform to the scientific Method, notwithstanding some instances where on that point argon some unsupported arguments. Basing on the Scientific Method of research, well first know what these researchers wanted to keep a n eye on out. What do these bulk want to learn about? The researchers primary concern was to determine what factors argon contributing to the inequality levels in Latin America and the Caribbean.Their initial expectations were political variables such as partisan legislative power, strength of democratic tradition, and the nature of social expenditures were the ones initially determining these inequality levels. some other assumption regarding this subject field is that these variables have weights different from the ones in advanced modern/industrial societies. mavin of their rear end for this assumption is that most advanced industrial countries have unceasing records of democracy as compared to that of Latin America. These countries were able to establish welfare states that distribute the income.Theyre basing their assumption on old records exchangeable the overall surface of welfare states and the structure of taxation expenditures. Closely looking at this matter, we stinkpot say that what these researchers wanted to find out was somehow in distinction with the use of scientific method. They came up with an inquiry which is based on prior data. They also gave their hypothesis as to what they expect about their assumption. In singing to this, their assumptions were given as an answer to their inquiry, and that will be the basis of how theyll go about with this research.They came up with a set of data gathered from front development from other studies and published articles. angiotensin-converting enzyme of the bases that they used was studies which utilized bigeminal regression analyses of inequality in developing countries. They used this study as a pattern or guide in conducting their own study. One study made by Morley is about the determinants of differences in inequality of income distribution among countries in Latin America. Here, he combined multiple regression psychoanalysis with case studies of nine countries.Because of this, he came up with variables which play an important single-valued function in his research. These variables include national income, inflation, education, economic reform indices and land distribution. These variables are essential because it can also be used for other researches like this one. Basing on the scientific method, we can say that it this research made all-embracing use of the information from previous studies. They were able to gather essential information which they could use in proving their assumptions for this study.However, they may have overused the information and relied on it besides much. There is a great resemblance of their research with that of Morleys, thats wherefore it ma have resulted to something similar. The point is, they could have altered several aspects in other researches and not just utilized everything from that one into their own. If they are expecting to find something new, then their research should be something new also. Other researches are there for additional information and guide, thats why they shouldnt dwell on it al focal points.The researchers came up with different hypotheses on democracy, political parties, social spending, economic development, inflation, demography, cultural composition, education, foreign direct investment, the informal sector, and land distribution. They were able to give arguments and relate studies as to how these factors were able to affect the inequality in Latin America. However, the way they presented these factors and how they reasoned out regarding its effect on the state of inequality in the area is questionable.The scientific method should be based on facts and cover evidences. Surely, they were able to provide associate literature for most of the factors, but in some, they also tried injecting their own opinion without giving any basis for saying that. The scientific method relies on how you will be able to back up your statements by using previous studies or materials f rom previous researches. If you are to say something without backing it up with concrete evidence, then the information you are relaying is questionable. The research posed a lot of information regarding these factors. hardly not all of the information that they gave were verifiable by evidence, so the believability of their statements are somewhat questionable, thus making their research somewhat weaker. The coterminous step of the scientific method involves gathering and organizing data for the research. Here, we see that the researches addicted enough time and effort to come up with sufficient data. Their principal(prenominal) sources of information were secondary data from various countrys statistics, and how it was related to that countrys social and economic situation.They utilized various analytic methods in interpreting this data, sorting it in manner where one could clearly see how it affected the inequality for the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. In this part, they were able to stick to the scientific method of conducting a study wherein they powerful gathered and sorted the data to be analyzed. As a result, they were able to come up with the necessary information which was interpreted. The results are there in order to verify and support the hypothetical claims that they made earlier on the study.This could either prove or disprove their assumptions. The next part of the scientific method is the discussion of the results before actually concluding the research. The results showed that the assumptions regarding the outcome of the study were strongly supported, wherein politics is really important in shaping the inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean countries. The democratic records were one of the strongest evidence for this, on with the cumulative record of the strength of left-of-center parties in the legislature, as well as the interaction of social security spending and democracy.It has left us with the expiration th at democracy is very important for inequality. This could be quantified in both ways, which are 1) it allows the leaders who are concerned with the welfare of the underprivileged to permit them build organizations in the form of political parties, and 2) allow those parties to establish a support base, and to gain necessary influence in the legislature and be able to use that influence to shape various policies is the direction of redistribution.The conclusion can be well associated with the scientific method, as it summarized the results and mentioned the possible implications of the research. Another problem is whether the research can easily be repeated for the consumption of verification. With all the necessary factors at hand, reproduction of this research may be hard because the political state of a country can be changed, thus affecting the variables it has previously possessed.