Use the theory that you developed in week two. Improve it by using the information you have obtained in the intervening weeks. Use the Conceptual – Theoretical – Empirical Model (CTE) to link the operational definitions with the empirical indicators with the theoretical concepts and the conceptual model components. Post your revised theory and explain how you would measure the concepts and proposition in a research study.
However, even within this liberal view norms are seen as a superstructure over a material base, serving a regulative function. The aforementioned theories rely primarily on instrumental motivations, using behavioural models based on utility maximisation. While accounting for such instrumental behaviour, constructivist scholars go beyond it to highlight shared norms and culture, seeing states as social beings rather than purely rational ones. Constructivists highlight the social context of shared subjective understandings and norms that help constitute state identities and roles, while rejecting the possibility of objectively determined state interests. This an approach based on two assumptions: firstly, that the setting in which actors operate is social as well as material, and secondly that this environment can help shape actors’ understandings of their interests. Social contexts are thus able to give material structures meaning, and actors’ interests and preferences are derived and altered through social interaction. Constructivist explanations for treaty ratification thus often focus on international social pressures, where actors are socialised to fit in with social norms and peer groups. There are two sides to this constructivist argument. The first sees state acting in ways that improve their social approval by peers or the global community as a whole, and so look to gain non-material rewards. The second claim is that states may act to avoid social opprobrium, which is ‘real or perceived discomfort over (potential or actual) embarrassment and isolation’, and thus to avoid shunning, shaming and a loss of status. This analytical distinction between positive and negative reasons for acting is useful to evaluate whether rewards or conformity are significant motivators for ratification. Two broad constructivist views explaining human rights treaty ratification through a focus on socialisation have been specified by Checkel (2005). Type I socialisation sees agents adopt roles that they see as appropriate, without a significant ‘process of reflective internalisation driven by communicative processes’. This practice sees individuals and states adopt roles and act in accordance with expectations, irrespective of whether they truly believe in or like the role. This conscious role-playing requires agents to understand what is socially acceptable in a given environment. In this sense, norms don’t have to be internalised for them to be able to constrain behaviour. Causal mechanisms for this view include group pressures and considerations of social dynamics and self-perceptions of status, legitimacy and identity. By contrast, Type II socialisation goes beyond this role-playing and sees agents internalise norms more fully, adopting the interests and identity of the community. Norms achieve a ‘taken for granted’ quality and agents align their behaviour with them as they see it is the ‘right’ thing to do. This is a deeper, more stable form of socialisation that sees>GET ANSWER