Lesson Report:
## Title: Operationalizing Competing Hypotheses & Planning “Hypothesis Fights� (Realism vs. Constructivism) Before Spring Break
**Synopsis (2–3 sentences):**
This session focused on moving from *having* competing hypotheses to *testing* them: students revisited their two competing explanations for assigned conflicts and began operationalizing each hypothesis into observable, primary-source-based indicators. The class practiced converting abstract independent variables (e.g., “security dilemma,� “identity antagonism,� “superpower status�) into concrete evidence plans, then previewed the next step for Thursday: comparing hypotheses using “smoking gun� evidence through a simplified process-tracing approach.
—
## Attendance
– **Students explicitly mentioned absent:** 0
– (One student, Hermine, was asked to sit with her group; no absences were stated.)
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with detailed activity flow)
### 1) Course Framing & Goal for the Day: From Explanation to Evidence-Based Assessment
– Instructor previewed **spring break** timing and emphasized the need to **wrap up the analytical thread** developed over the last two weeks.
– Core analytical skill emphasized:
– Analysts must move beyond fact collection/triangulation to provide **causal explanations** for why events occur.
– Explanations must not be:
– Mere opinion
– Arguments from authority (e.g., “CNN says…,â€� “the U.S. government says…â€�)
– Instead, they should be grounded in **real, ideally empirical evidence**, and clearly linked to the proposed causal mechanism.
### 2) “Freeze Time� Instruction to Control Scope and Keep Hypothesis Testing Fair
– Instructor noted that **major global events occurred over the weekend** that would complicate the cases.
– Class directive: **freeze the timeline “as of Thursday.â€�**
– Students should **not update** ground truth or hypotheses with weekend developments.
– Evidence plans must focus on what could be known/argued **as of Thursday**.
### 3) Group Setup: Retrieve and Confirm Two Competing Hypotheses per Regional Desk
– Students were instructed to quickly consolidate the group’s two hypotheses into **one document** so they could be called on.
– Instructor then went group-by-group and wrote/confirmed hypotheses on the board, asking students to confirm if those were the versions they were “sticking with today.â€�
#### A) Case: U.S.–Greenland Tensions
– **Realist hypothesis (as recalled/confirmed):**
– The U.S. is motivated to “saveâ€�/secure Greenland to **prevent rivals (e.g., Russia/China) from taking/controlling it**.
– **Constructivist hypothesis (as recalled/confirmed):**
– U.S. threats/actions are driven by a desire to **remain a superpower** and be **recognized by others as a superpower** (status/reputation logic).
#### B) Case: U.S.–Iran Tensions
– **Realist hypothesis (as recalled/confirmed):**
– **Regional instability creates a window of opportunity** for the U.S. to interfere in Iranian affairs.
– **Constructivist hypothesis (as recalled/confirmed):**
– Tensions are driven by **antagonistic identities** (values, regime type, etc.).
#### C) Case: China–Taiwan Tensions
– **Realist hypothesis (as recalled/confirmed):**
– Tensions rising due to:
– **Shifting balance of power**
– **Security dilemma**
– **Window of opportunity** for China
– **Geographic vulnerability** of Taiwan
– **Constructivist hypothesis (as recalled/confirmed):**
– Tensions are driven by:
– **Historical context** between China and Taiwan
– **Cultural similarities** / “one peopleâ€� framing
– **CCP ideology** (identity/ideological drivers)
### 4) Main Skill-Building Activity #1: Break Hypotheses into Independent Variables & Operationalize Evidence
**Instructor framing:**
– Each hypothesis is composed of **specific claims/independent variables (IVs)**.
– Student task: for each IV, determine:
1) **What “reality� would look like** if the IV is true
2) What **primary sources** could show it
3) What **specific language/signals** within those sources would count as evidence
**Key methodological emphasis:**
– This is **operationalization**: converting abstract concepts into observable indicators.
– Students were told they are **not yet required to find** the evidence—this step is a *plan of action*.
#### Instructor examples and guidance (primary sources emphasized)
– Preferred source types:
– Speeches (e.g., Xi Jinping)
– Party documents / ideological texts
– Official statements
– Memos/communications where possible
– Students were discouraged from relying only on “secondary sources that say tensions exist.â€�
– Instructor repeatedly clarified logical rigor:
– Evidence must show the **actor’s belief/perception**, especially when the hypothesis is about identity/status (constructivism).
– Foreign statements matter **only insofar as** they affect or are referenced by the focal actor’s beliefs (e.g., Europe’s view matters if U.S. officials respond to it).
### 5) Group Check-Ins & Instructor Coaching on Operationalization (Case-by-case)
#### A) U.S.–Greenland: Operationalizing realism vs. superpower-status constructivism
– **Realist IV operationalization (prevent rivals):**
– Students/instructor proposed: look for **high-level U.S. statements** indicating Greenland action is needed because **Russia/China pose an imminent threat** to seize influence/control.
– **Constructivist/status IV operationalization (superpower identity & recognition):**
– Initial student idea: use Russian/Chinese statements about U.S. actions.
– Instructor correction:
– That introduces a **logical jump**: a Russian statement alone doesn’t prove U.S. motive.
– Need evidence for two distinct claims:
1) U.S. **sees itself** as a superpower and fears decline
2) U.S. fears it is **no longer perceived** as a superpower
– Better evidence: **U.S. official statements** expressing concern about loss of status/credibility, possibly in response to allied criticism (Europe) but centered on **American belief**.
#### B) U.S.–Iran (Realist): clarifying IVs and tightening logic
– A group proposed IVs such as **shift in balance of power**, **security dilemma**, **window of opportunity**, plus examples like troop movements, Israeli strikes, Iran’s nuclear program, protests.
– Instructor noted the hypothesis framing had drifted and encouraged returning to the **standard hypothesis** from last week while still using workable IVs.
**Balance of power (difficult IV):**
– Instructor challenged students:
– Balance of power requires evidence that something is **changing** and is **perceived** as changing.
– Suggested a possible path:
– Iran’s proxies/weapons threaten U.S. allies (esp. Israel) → could imply erosion of U.S. position by proxy.
– Allowed students to **discard** the balance-of-power IV if evidence would be too complex, but noted it can be argued if carefully evidenced.
**Security dilemma (refined):**
– Students initially focused on U.S. troop deployments as evidence.
– Instructor clarified what must be shown:
– A security dilemma involves one side’s defensive measures being interpreted as offensive by the other.
– Since the U.S. is the one “interfering,â€� students must articulate how **Iran’s actions** create a security dilemma for the U.S./Israel (or vice versa, but from the relevant perspective of the hypothesis).
– Instructor gave a concrete angle:
– Longstanding rhetoric about **Iran pursuing nuclear weapons/missiles** (U.S./Israel claims vs. Iran’s defensive framing) fits the logic well.
– This could also connect back to a balance-of-power concern if framed as Iran developing capabilities that would contest U.S. regional dominance.
**Window of opportunity (as of Thursday):**
– Students suggested Iranian protests as a window of opportunity.
– Instructor pushed for the crucial evidentiary link:
– Not only that protests existed, but that **U.S. leaders explicitly treated them as an opportunity to act**.
– Need primary-source statements indicating U.S. perception of a time-sensitive opening.
#### C) U.S.–Iran (Constructivist): defining “antagonistic identities� more precisely
– Students identified identity/value conflicts:
– Theocracy vs. democracy
– Religious/theological differences
– Human rights/freedom issues (e.g., women’s protests, social restrictions)
– Referencing historical antagonism (e.g., hostage crisis mentioned as contextual anchor)
– Instructor’s key challenge:
– Prove not only “different values,â€� but that identity difference **caused** tensions (not mere “cheap talkâ€�).
– Look for **public declarations** from both sides that explicitly link conflict to values/identity—and then show those declarations plausibly drove action.
#### D) China–Taiwan (Realist): evidencing perception, not just capability
**Shift in balance of power:**
– Students suggested U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan.
– Instructor clarified:
– The indicator is not just weapons sales; it’s **China’s reaction/perception** of those sales (if China doesn’t perceive it, it can’t drive behavior).
**Security dilemma:**
– Students proposed:
– Taiwan submarine deterrent
– Taiwan military readiness exercises (defensive framing) vs. Chinese interpretation (offensive)
– Instructor emphasized:
– Prefer evidence showing **Chinese interpretation** of Taiwan’s defensive moves.
– Suggested that the security dilemma may be more credibly framed via **China–U.S. dynamics**, where Taiwan becomes a potential U.S. foothold/base near China’s coast.
**Window of opportunity:**
– Students argued China may see an opportunity when the U.S. is distracted by multiple crises.
– Instructor reminder: **freeze time as Thursday**; however, as of Thursday the possibility of escalation existed, and U.S. global distraction/belligerence could still be framed cautiously.
**Student question about demographics/window closing:**
– Student raised think-tank argument: demographic decline makes a “closing window.â€�
– Instructor response:
– Usable, but must show **China’s own concern** (e.g., CCP documents/statements indicating fear of future military/economic constraints).
**Geographic vulnerability:**
– Mentioned but deferred due to time constraints.
#### E) China–Taiwan (Constructivist): operationalizing history/culture/ideology
– Students suggested primary-source indicators:
– CCP officials stating “Taiwan has always been part of Chinaâ€�
– Claims of “inevitability/destinyâ€� of reunification
– Appeals to “one country, two systemsâ€�
– Potential claim (to investigate): whether China asserts that Taiwanese people **want** reunification
– CCP ideology discussion:
– Students suggested:
– Communist ideological framing (Marx/Lenin; “spread communismâ€�)
– “National rejuvenationâ€� and recovering “lostâ€� territories
– Instructor redirected:
– Avoid sliding into realist explanations (chips/resources/geography) when tasked with constructivism.
– Focus on **identity**, China’s **self-image**, and how reunification relates to China’s perceived role/status and historical narrative.
### 6) Main Skill-Building Activity #2: Identify at Least One Primary Source per Independent Variable
– Instructor assigned the next step:
– For **each IV**, find **at least one primary source** likely to contain the needed evidence.
– Target: **2–3 sources total** (depending on number of IVs), ideally **one per IV**.
– Example in discussion:
– A student referenced evidence about Russia and China activity in the Arctic; instructor said to keep it but ensure the logical connection is made back to the U.S. identity/status claim (for Greenland case).
### 7) Practical Note: Collaboration Tools / E-course Uncertainty
– A brief logistical conversation occurred about whether e-course supports collaborative work (Google Doc-like collaboration).
– Instructor indicated the answer received was ambiguous, interpreted as “no,â€� and suggested a **hybrid approach** going forward.
### 8) Next-Stage Preview: Evaluating Hypotheses with “Smoking Gun� Evidence (Process Tracing Lite)
– Instructor introduced the rule for deciding which hypothesis is “betterâ€� (simplified for class):
– **Count the number of “smoking gunsâ€�** supporting the IVs of each hypothesis.
– More smoking guns → stronger hypothesis (for course purposes).
– Quick review of process tracing test vocabulary (hoop tests, smoking gun, etc.), with students not recalling “smoking gunâ€� on the spot.
– Instructor definition + example:
– Smoking gun = closest evidence to “horse’s mouthâ€� (decision-maker explicit statement).
– Example: Russia–Ukraine window-of-opportunity would be proven by a memo/statement from Putin/Shoygu explicitly stating urgency (“If we don’t act now, we lose the chance…â€�).
### 9) Homework Assignment (end-of-class): Think Tank Article (as-of-Thursday constraint)
– Change to reading plan:
– Instructor noted they are **no longer assigning Walt** as external reading; instead they will **read Walt in class on Thursday**.
– Homework:
– Each student should find **one think tank article** about their assigned event explaining why it is happening **no later than last Thursday** (consistent with the frozen timeline).
– Iran group explicitly warned:
– Do **not** use think tank articles explaining why the U.S. is “bombing Iran right nowâ€� (weekend escalation); keep it as-of Thursday.
– Planned use on Thursday:
– Extract hypotheses from those articles
– Deconstruct IVs
– Search for/identify smoking gun evidence in class
### 10) Post-class Clarification: What Kind of “Two Competing Theories� Are Expected?
– Students asked whether the competing theories must map directly to **realism vs. constructivism**.
– Instructor clarified:
– Not necessarily: the goal is not purely theoretical labeling.
– The assignment may instead compare **different analysts/think tanks’ explanations** (practical theories).
– Instructor acknowledged ambiguity about whether the unit is “one author vs. anotherâ€� or “one ideology vs. anotherâ€� and said they would **finalize instructions by tomorrow** and post them.
—
## Actionable Items (Short bullets, organized by urgency)
### High Urgency (Before Thursday’s Class)
– **Students:** Bring **1 think tank article** per case study explaining the event **as of last Thursday** (not updated for weekend events).
– **Instructor:** Post **clarified homework instructions** (“by tomorrowâ€�) specifying:
– Whether students must compare **two think tank explanations** vs. **two theoretical lenses**
– Required components (e.g., number of hypotheses, number of IVs, minimum evidence expectations)
### Medium Urgency (Next Session Implementation)
– **In-class Thursday plan:**
– Use the think tank articles to **extract competing hypotheses**, break into IVs, and identify potential **smoking gun** evidence.
– **Students:** Be prepared to justify why each proposed primary source actually indicates the IV (avoid logical leaps; focus on actor beliefs/perceptions).
### Lower Urgency / Course Logistics
– **Collaboration workflow:** Decide a workable method for group co-authoring (since e-course collaborative capability was unclear). Options to resolve:
– Shared Google Docs + submission to e-course
– Hybrid: draft externally, upload final to e-course
– **Course content:** Instructor plans to cover **Walt reading in class Thursday** (students no longer expected to find/read independently for this date).
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Find a think tank article (frozen as of last Thursday)
You will locate a credible think tank article that explains why your group’s assigned event/conflict was happening **as of no later than last Thursday** (because we are “freezing time� to keep the analysis fair and to avoid incorporating major weekend developments). This will give you an analyst-style outside explanation that we can use in class to extract hypotheses and test them with evidence.
Instructions:
1. Identify your assigned case study/event (the one your group has been working on in class, e.g., US–Greenland tensions, US–Iran, China–Taiwan).
2. Find **one** article from a **think tank** (a policy research organization that publishes analysis and recommendations), where the author explains *why* the event is happening.
– Choose a source like (examples only): Brookings, CSIS, CFR, Carnegie, RAND, Chatham House, IISS, Atlantic Council, etc.
3. Confirm the article’s timing fits our “freeze time� rule:
– The article must have been published **no later than last Thursday** (do **not** use analysis written in response to developments after Thursday).
4. Check that the article is actually explanatory (not just a news recap):
– It should provide a causal story (e.g., “because X, Y is happeningâ€�), not just describe events.
5. Bring the article to class (link + title + author + date), and be ready to point to the part(s) where the author gives the main explanation for what is happening.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Extract two competing explanations and prepare to test them with “smoking gun� evidence
You will practice the core skill from this lesson—making hypotheses “fight�—by finding **two competing practical explanations** for your case study (not necessarily labeled “realist� vs. “constructivist�), breaking each explanation into its component claims/independent variables, and then identifying what *smoking gun* evidence would look like for each claim. This mirrors what we did in class when we operationalized abstract variables into things you could actually find in documents (especially primary sources).
Instructions:
1. Using your assigned case study, locate **two different explanations** for why the event is happening (as of last Thursday).
– These should be competing or meaningfully different (they don’t have to be opposites, but they should not be basically the same argument).
– You can use think tank analysis for these explanations (the goal is “practical theoriesâ€� from analysts/scholars), and you may use two different think tanks or two different authors.
2. For **Explanation/Hypothesis A**, write the hypothesis in 1–2 clear sentences in your own words.
– Example structure: “The event is happening primarily because ________.â€�
3. Deconstruct Hypothesis A into its component **independent variables/claims** (usually 2–4).
– These are the specific drivers the hypothesis depends on (like we did in class: window of opportunity, balance-of-power shift, security dilemma, antagonistic identities, historical narrative, etc.).
4. For each independent variable in Hypothesis A, operationalize it:
– Write what **you would expect to find in real-world sources** if that claim were true.
– Prioritize **primary sources** (as discussed in class): speeches, official statements, party/government documents, memos (if available), official press releases, doctrinal/ideological texts, etc.
5. Repeat Steps 2–4 for **Explanation/Hypothesis B** (your second competing explanation).
6. For each independent variable in both hypotheses, identify what would count as **smoking gun evidence**:
– A “smoking gunâ€� is the closest thing to the claim “coming from the horse’s mouthâ€�—e.g., a decision-maker explicitly stating the relevant logic (like the example discussed in class: a high-level memo/speech stating that the window of opportunity is closing and action must happen now).
7. Be prepared to compare Hypothesis A vs. Hypothesis B by asking:
– For which hypothesis do you expect you could find **more smoking guns** (one per independent variable, if possible)?
– Which hypothesis seems more testable with accessible primary-source evidence (rather than vague claims or purely secondary commentary)?