Chinese Political System

Four pillar of CPC power: Army; control of judiciary and internal security force; control of media; control of personnel appointment.

Bureaucratic ranks:
Full state （正国级） http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%E6%AD%A3%E5%9B%BD%E7%BA%A7%E5%8D%95%E4%BD%8D
Quasi state （副国级）http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%E5%89%AF%E5%9B%BD%E7%BA%A7%E5%8D%95%E4%BD%8D
Ministry Province （正省部级）http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%E6%AD%A3%E9%83%A8%E7%BA%A7%E5%8D%95%E4%BD%8D
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%E6%AD%A3%E7%9C%81%E7%BA%A7%E5%8D%95%E4%BD%8D
Quasi Ministry Province （副省部级）
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%E5%89%AF%E9%83%A8%E7%BA%A7%E5%8D%95%E4%BD%8D
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%E5%89%AF%E7%9C%81%E7%BA%A7%E5%8D%95%E4%BD%8D

POLITICAL STRUCTURE

PARTY STRUCTURE

five year national congress (党代会)＊; central committee meeting (plenum 全会)＊; 25 person politburo (政治局); 7 person standing committee of politburo (政治局常委)

＊the Party General Secretary’s report to the Congress, which serves as a statement of the Party’s positions and an outline of the Party’s agenda for the coming five years. 

＊Plenums usually focus on setting the direction for the country in a specific area, while also approving major personnel decisions. At the end of each plenum, the Party issues a public document, known as a communiqué, announcing the major decisions taken.

• The Party General Secretary serves concurrently as Chairman of the Party and State Central Military Commissions, which have identical memberships, and as State President. He also oversees foreign policy and, according to the Party constitution, has responsibility for convening Standing Committee and larger Politburo meetings and “presiding over” the work of the Party Secretariat.

• The second-ranked PSC member serves as Premier of the State Council, which manages the state bureaucracy. He is effectively China’s top economic official.

• The third-ranked PSC member serves as Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC), China’s unicameral legislature.

• The fourth-ranked PSC member serves as chairman of a political advisory body, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) National Committee. He is responsible for outreach to non-Communist groups, such as China’s eight minor political parties, all of which pledge loyalty to the Communist Party, and state-sanctioned religious associations.

• The fifth-ranked PSC member heads the Party Secretariat, which oversees the Party bureaucracy. He also has responsibility for ideology and propaganda.

• The sixth-ranked PSC member heads the Party’s Central Disciplinary Inspection Commission (CDIC), which polices the Party’s ranks for corruption and other forms of malfeasance.

• The seventh-ranked PSC member serves as the top-ranked State Council vice premier and assists the Premier with his duties.

PSC members also head Party “Leading Small Groups” (LSGs) for their policy areas. LSGs are secretive bodies intended to facilitate cross-agency coordination in implementation of Politburo Standing Committee decisions. The National Security Leading Small Group and the Foreign Affairs Leading Small Group, for example, are both headed by Party General Secretary Hu Jintao.

State structure

STATE STRUCTURE

the State system implements and executes policy. In recent decades, State leaders have been particularly focused on managing China’s economy, leaving “political” matters, such as ideology and personnel, to the Party.

Executive Committee（国务院办公厅）

Despite their subordination to the State Council and CCP, and the CCP’s role in appointing their leaders, the ministries can wield decisive tactical influence over policy by virtue of their role in drafting laws and regulations and implementing the sometimes ambiguous national policy goals set by top leaders. Not all ministries and commissions are created equal. MIIT （工信部） and the National Development and Reform Commission（发改委）, both considered “super-ministries,” are more powerful in policy debates than other ministries.

Party penetration down to township level.

ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL: Province（省）, Municipality（市）; Country（县）, Township（镇）, Village（乡村）

Statistics 3: Hypothesis between categorical variables

CHI SQUARE TEST

CHI-SQUARE GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST (only one category)

CHI-SQUARE TEST OF INDEPENDENCE (two categories)

Condition:

1. Use only absolute frequencies (not percentage) in the calculation.

2. Make sure that each individual is included in only one category

3. Check that all expected frequencies are at least 5.

Statistics 6: Non parametric statistics

When the data is about small sample or there is no homogeneity of variance between groups.

1. CHI SQUARE 

condition: one sample one test

X2(2)=20.6, p<0.05

1. df=r-1

2. p value

3. two tailed test only

p.188-189

Statistics 5: Hypothesis test between numerical variables

1. BIVARIATE CORRELATION

To test correlation ship between two variables

2. REGRESSION EQUATION

Line of best fit and Standard error of estimates

Y'=bX+a

Multiple regression: when you determine to include multiple independent variables, be sure of the correlation between each independent variable and dependent variable, and the independence between every pair of independent variables.

Excel

I. 选取图表类型

柱形图：用于比较

条形图：类型名称过长时

折线图：趋势。需注意时间序列等值连续

饼图：百分比

环形图：一到两个不同百分比比较

条形堆积图：百分比比较

XY分散图和气泡图：两到三个序列间相关关系

趋势线可初步显示相关性

II. 动态图表

参数表，源数据表，数据透视表

III. 图表美化和误差

使用图表重叠，填充和透明度美化

使用标注说明

注意图表长宽和数值区间

0值填充，隐藏数据不显示

IV. 特殊图表制作请再参阅

The art of writing proposals

A proposal's overt function is to persuade a committee of scholars that the project shines with the three kinds of merit all disciplines value, namely, conceptual innovation, methodological rigor, and rich, substantive content. Writing for committee competition is an art quite different from research work itself.

you should choose your form bearing in mind that every proposal reader constantly scans for clear answers to three questions:

• What are we going to learn as the result of the proposed project that we do not know now?
  
• Why is it worth knowing?
  
• How will we know that the conclusions are valid? 

Beginning

Say what you have to say immediately, crisply, and forcefully. The opening paragraph, or the first page at most, is your chance to grab the reviewer's attention.

Questions that are clearly posed are an excellent way to begin a proposal. Stating your central point, hypothesis, or interpretation is also a good way to begin. Even if only step-by-step argumentation can define the central problem, do not fail to leave the reviewer with something to remember.

Avoid Jargon
Remember that most proposals are reviewed by multidisciplinary committees. You should avoid jargon as much as you can, and when technical language is really needed, restrict yourself to those new words and technical terms that truly lack equivalents in common language.

Reference
Your proposal should tell the committee not only what will be learned as a result of your project, but what will be learned that somebody else does not already know. It is essential that the proposal summarize the current state of knowledge and provide an up-to-date, comprehensive bibliography. Both should be precise and succinct. They need not constitute a review of the literature but a sharply focused view of the specific body or bodies of knowledge to which you will add.   

• Dissertation Abstracts International and Social Science Periodical Index
• Review of Economic Literature and Contemporary Sociology
• Handbook of Latin American Studies
• International African Bibliography
• Social Science Citations Index
• Social Sciences Index

Innovation

The fact that less is known about one's own chosen case, period, or country than about similar ones may work in the proposer's favor. 

Citing the importance of the events that provide the subject matter is another and perhaps less dubious appeal. Appealing to current importance may also work. It's crucial to convince readers that such topics are not merely timely, but that their current urgency provides a window into some more abiding problem. Among many social scientists, explicit theoretical interest counts heavily as a point of merit. Help your reader understand where the problem intersects the main theoretical debates in your field and show how this inquiry puts established ideas to the test or offers new ones. Good proposals demonstrate awareness of alternative viewpoints and argue the author's position in such a way as to address the field broadly, rather than developing a single sectarian tendency indifferent to alternatives.



Approach

Surprises, puzzles, and apparent contradictions can powerfully persuade the reviewer whose disciplinary superego enforces a commitment to systematic model building or formal theorizing.
It is often worthwhile to help readers understand how the research task grows from the intellectual history or current intellectual life of the country or region that generated it.
It pays to remember that topics of current salience, both theoretical and in the so- called real world, are likely to be a crowded field. 

Methodology

First, the proposal must specify the research operations you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results of these operations in terms of your central problem.
Second, a methodology is not just a list of research tasks but an argument as to why these tasks add up Help readers from other fields recognize what parts of your methodology are standard, which are innovative. Be as specific as you possibly can be about the activities you plan to undertake to collect information, about the techniques you will use to analyze it, and about the tests of validity to which you commit yourself.  
A research design proposing comparison between cases often has special appeal. In evaluating a comparative proposal, readers ask whether the cases are chosen in such a way that their similarities and differences illuminate the central question. The proposal should prove that the researcher either possesses, or cooperates with people who possess, mastery of all the technical matters the project entails.

Ending

Convince readers that something is genuinely at stake in the inquiry, that it is not tendentiously moving toward a preconceived end, and that this leaven of the unknown will yield interesting, orderly propositions. Proposals should normally describe the final product of the project: an article, book, chapter, dissertation, etc. 

      

A guide to critical thinking

I do believe the value of asking questions, actually that applies to all kinds of critics, art critics, film critics, etc. the critical thinking is not only applied to evaluate the quality of other studies (literature critics), but also valuable for my own work. The main way is to identify the questions, evidence and conclusions, then question over the reasoning links that connect them into a logical and consistent text.

I. First, we need to identify the core questions and conclusions

Issues (core questions): 

a) Descriptive issues are those that raise questions about the accuracy of descriptions of the past, present, or future.

b) Prescriptive issues are those that raise questions about what we should do or what is right or wrong, good or bad. (normative/judgment)

II. Between the issue and conclusion lies the evidence and reasons which constitute the argument/reasoning.

III. Thus, we need first look at the question and conclusion itself: the ambiguity of the key terms used.

Define the main concepts: synonyms, examples, and what we will call "definition by specific criteria." synonyms and examples are inadequate.

IV. Evidence

The main difference between claims that are opinions/assertions and those are facts is the present state of the relevant evidence.

Sources:

a) intuition

b) personal experience

c) testimonials

d) appeals to authorities  

e) personal observations: The most reliable reports will be based on recent observations made by several people observing under optimal conditions who have no apparent, strong expectations or biases related to the event being observed.

f) case examples: We can generalize only to people and events that are like those that we have studied in the research!

g) research studies

h) analogies: The important analogies are the framing ons, which are used to not only explain a point, but also to influence the direction a discussion will take. Strong analogies will be ones in which the two things we compare possess relevant similarities and lack relevant differences. All analogies try to illustrate underlying principles. Relevant similarities and differences are ones that directly relate to the underlying principle illustrated by the analogy. even the best analogies are only suggestive. Thus can not directly support the conclusion.

PS: Statistics Traps

V. Reasoning

VI. Assumption

In all arguments, there will be certain ideas taken for granted as assumptions. Assumptions are needed for the reason to support the conclusion (as the base for logical reasoning), or just make the reason to be true.

Descriptive assumption: In the first case, we recall the typical model for scientific reasoning which needs a general theory, the specific description, the former is the assumption sometimes unstated, the second constitute the evidence. based on the assumption, we can make deductive reasoning from the evidence to the conclusion. Thus, we can identify the assumption and question its validity.

Prescriptive assumption: For some normative (prescriptive) conclusion, there exists also value assumptions, which indicates a value priority within typical value conflicts: Loyalty-honesty; competition-cooperation; freedom of press-national security; equality-individualism; order-freedom of speech; security-excitement; generosity-material success; rationality-spontaneity; tradition-novelty.

VII. Reasoning fallacies

a) Ad Hominem: against the person instead of his reasons.

b) Slippery Slope: Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events.

c) Searching for Perfect Solution: Falsely assuming that because part of a problem (which may not be the main objective of the solution) would remain after a solution is tried, the solution should not be adopted.

d) Equivocation: A key word is used with two or more meanings in an argument such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized.

e) Appeal to Popularity (Ad populum): An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favored by a large group is desirable.

f) Appeal to questionable authority: Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand. 

g) Appeals to Emotions: The use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence.

h) Straw Person: Distorting our opponent's point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist. 

i) Either-Or (Or False Dilemma): Assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two.

j) Wishful Thinking: Making the faulty assumption that because we wish X were true or false, then X is indeed true or false.

k) Explaining by Naming: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behavior that you have also adequately explained the event.

 l) Glittering Generality: The use of vague emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons.

m) Red Herring: An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue and help to "win" an argument by shifting attention away from the argument and to another issue.

n) Begging the Question: An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning. (cyclic reasoning)

o) Hasty Generalization Fallacy: A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group.

p) Faulty Analogy: Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities. 

q) Causal Oversimplification: Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.

r) Confusion of Cause and Effect: Confusing the cause with the effect of an event or failing to recognize that the two events may be influencing each other.

s) Neglect of a Common Cause: Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third factor.

t) Post hoc Fallacy: Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time. 

PS: If the conclusion supports an action, determine whether the reason states a specific and/or concrete advantage or a disadvantage; if not, be wary!