Crisis Foreign Policy Making in Venezuela: The Case of Nicolás Maduro’s Left-Wing Militaristic Cabinet in Venezuela’s Blockade Policy towards Brazilian Aids

Venezuela has experienced a turmoil of economic crisis since 2014 under the administration of President Nicolás Maduro. This crisis has been spilling towards social and political issues, with one being the emergence of opposition group led by Juan Guaidó. This crisis, at first, has invited sympathy from various international actors, both states and non-states, one of them being Brazil. However, in February 2019, President Maduro decided to fully-blockade Venezuela-Brazil borders for any human or goods movement. This paper aims to analyze the presence of President Maduro’s cabinet towards Brazil borders blockade in Venezuelan Crisis in 2019. This paper utilizes qualitative social science methodology by analyzing primary and secondary data. By using the groupthink paradigm in foreign policy analysis, this paper argues that there is a position convergence between the members of the cabinet with the background of: (1) the dominance of nationalist military group loyal to President Maduro; (2) the same ideology of left-wing political spectrum. This paper also argues that beside the two internal factors above, the external factors of regional and global tension towards Venezuela also create an isolation as an element of stress towards this government. This paper concludes that the combination of the three factors above become the main factors that formulated the blockade policy.

Multicausality and Equifinality

This chapter evaluates multicausality and equifinality, which refer to a research situation whereby an outcome is explained by more than one causal factor. The term ‘equifinality’ stems from systems analysis, and refers to a situation in which ‘the same final state may be reached from different initial conditions and in different ways’. ‘Equifinality’ also appears in related disciplines such as psychology, archaeology, or environmental studies, while ‘multicausality’ is often used in literature on social science methodology. Ultimately, multicausality and equifinality are important reasons why social phenomena are particularly challenging to study. Multicausality and equifinality are often explored by research traditions and methods of social inquiry that approach causal processes through a ‘causes-of-effects’ approach, rather than an ‘effect-of-causes’ approach.

Perceptions and Responses of Residents to the Nuisance Black Fly Simulium jenningsi (Diptera: Simuliidae) in the Mid-Atlantic United States

Current management practices of nuisance black flies are conducted on an area-wide level and rely on the support of the public to implement programs. In Maryland, a vocal group of residents campaigned their representatives to begin a management program for the black fly Simulium jenningsi Malloch. To determine how residents in Maryland and its surrounding states perceived the severity of black fly nuisance, we deployed surveys online and in-person on the ways their outdoor activities were impacted and the preventive methods used to mitigate nuisance. Online respondents, those with children, and those who had lived in the region for a shorter amount of time were more likely to report black flies as ‘extremely annoying’. Quality-of-life concerns stemming from black fly swarms were primarily related to avoiding outdoor exercise and recreation. The majority of respondents used at least one method of personal protection against black fly annoyance, but satisfaction with any method was low. Methods used by respondents included the removal of standing water and rotting vegetation from their properties, indicating a lack of knowledge about black fly breeding habitats. The results contextualized the needs of residents in future management and topics for outreach efforts to address misconceptions about black fly biology. This study offers an example of the application of social science methodology in understanding the needs of stakeholders in area-wide pest management.

Rethinking the Formalism-Substantivism Debate in Social Science: A Perspective from Recent Developments in Economic Methodology

Taking as its point of departure the 1960s formalism-substantivism debate in social science methodology, this article argues that what is distinctive about the new development of formalism in economics since then is mainly the prevalence of using “complete models”—tractable, manipulable, and fully specified mathematical objects—to construct and express theories. The objective of complete models is not to establish general laws, but to formulate auxiliary devices of cognition to facilitate the explanation of targeted aspects of the empirical world; not to create idealistic or ideological discourses, but to derive implications with empirically delimited utility—this in order to make inferences that cannot be achieved via purely qualitative methods. This methodological trend is to some extent a substantivization of formalist economics. Exploring its nature can help clarify the unique cognitive value of contemporary formalism and answer the question of why substantivism is still an irreplaceable approach to social scientific studies, even in an age dominated by formalism.

Instrumentalizing and Naturalizing Social Ontology: Replies to Lohse and Little

This article addresses Simon Lohse’s and Daniel Little’s responses to my article “Is Social Ontology Prior to Social Scientific Methodology?.” In that article, I present a pragmatic and deflationary view of the priority of social ontology to social science methodology where social ontology is valued for its ability to promote empirical success and not because it yields knowledge of what furnishes the social world. First, in response to Lohse, I argue that my view is compatible with a role for ontological theorizing in the social sciences. However, the view that results instrumentalizes social ontology. Second, in my response to Little, I argue that the same considerations I made in my article apply to naturalistic attempts to motivate a non-deflationary view, repeating some of the central issues of that article.

The Study on the Social Science Methodology: Focusing on change in the behavior of Policymakers

This study aims to study on the research methodology. The methodology of social science can be divided into quantitative research and qualitative research. However, the dichotomous logic of research methodology is not enough to understand social phenomena and methodological researchers have not been able to broaden academic horizons so far. Therefore, this study aims to expand the horizon of the methodology and contribute to the academic and social consensus. The researchers sought to extend the methodology. This study was compared. The process of describing behavior change by applying phenomenology, hermeneutics, and criticism is the changes in behavior of policy decision makers.

To Whose Benefit? At What Cost?

This chapter takes a conceptual approach to addressing issues of ethics in research with human participants. The author proposes preliminary questions at the onset of a research study that deal with the issue of addressing researcher responsibility. The chapter argues ethical considerations surround epistemology and impact when conducting mixed methods research. Moreover, defining the interaction between researchers and participants is crucial. The author challenges early career practitioners to ask the question ‘To whose benefit is the research?' but more importantly ‘At what cost when conducting research?' Recommendations for engaging in an applied social science methodology include understanding critical epistemological and philosophical perspectives and grappling with the potential impact and outcomes of research. This level of critical awareness enables research to display complex processes that address social, political, and moral ideals that resonate with and value human experience as knowledge.