this is too much about what you did. what people care about in the
abstract is what you found, how our knowledge of the world changes because
of your results. the result as you write it is: no change. (also, if
the author did a bunch of dumb things like not be able to replicate their
results, it doesn't matter at all unless it matters for the substance, so
don't beat them up unless you have a reason and the reason has to be
substantive. i'd still mention this fact, but probably not in the
abstract unless you do find it is substantive.) so then i think the
message is: don't read this paper. now if that's what you find in the
end, then you have to live with that of course, but look further. there
is always something different. e.g., why don't you take the analysis and
extrapolate to what the turnout will be if internet news increases at the
same rate as it has for the last 5 years. would 99% of people be voting?
that would seem like something is wrong, or quite interesting. or maybe
you can find some results on the different types of news, or different
types of people who read it; who are those most likely to chnage from no
participation to participation? perhaps you can explain the results say
via simulation more clearly or more interestingly than the original
authors? maybe the results hold for whites but not blacks, etc...
if the paper is like the abstract, you'll certainly have completed the
assignment, but now see if you can take it to the next level and
satisfy a journal. for that, look for the angle. its there. you just
need to find it!
Gary
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Tyson Belanger wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm partnered with Brian Feinstein and Shauna Shames. We propose the
following title and abstract.
Sincerely,
Tyson
---
Title
Get It Together: Revisiting Tolbert and McNeal's "Unraveling The Effects of
the Internet on Political Participation?"
Abstract
The article entitled, "Unraveling the Effects of the Internet on Political
Participation?" appeared in Political Research Quarterly in June 2003 and
has been subsequently cited 26 times. The analysis used NES survey data to
argue that access to the internet and internet news increases the
probability of voting. If true, this finding has significant consequences
for predicting the future of American politics. Here, we revisit the
original article in order to confirm its results. Unfortunately, we
findthat it can no longer be replicated, even by the authors
themselves.
We therefore aim to retest the article in a fully replicable manner. We
begin by accepting all of the article's hypotheses and regenerating its data
according to the original procedures. We then test the data with an
improved methodology involving matching, multiple imputation, and
simulation. Our exact results differ somewhat from those in the original
article. However, our conclusion remains the same; Internet access and
internet news increase the probability of voting.