Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:44:20.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compared to What? A Comment on “A Robust Transformation Procedure for Interpreting Political Text” by Martin and Vanberg

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2007

Kenneth Benoit  and
Michael Laver
Kenneth Benoit*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Michael Laver
Affiliation:
Wilf Family Department of Politics, New York University, 726 Broadway, Room 756, New York, NY 10003-9580, e-mail: michael.laver@nyu.edu
*
e-mail: kbenoit@tcd.ie (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In “A Robust Transformation Procedure,” Martin and Vanberg (2007, hereafter MV) propose a new method for rescaling the raw virgin text scores produced by the “Wordscores” procedure of Laver, Benoit, and Garry (2003, hereafter LBG). Their alternative method addresses two deficiencies they argue exist with the transformation of virgin text scores proposed by LBG: First, that the LBG transformation is sensitive to the selection of virgin texts, and second, that it distorts the reference metric by failing to recover the original reference scores when reference texts are scored and transformed as if they were virgin texts. Their proposed alternative is “robust” in the sense that it avoids both shortcomings. Not only is MV's transformation a welcome contribution to the Wordscores project but also the critical analysis on which it is based brings to light a number of assumptions and choices that face the analyst seeking to estimate actors' policy positions using statistical analyses of the texts they generate. When first describing the possibility of rescaling the raw virgin text estimates, we emphasized that our

particular approach to rescaling is not fundamental to our word-scoring technique but, rather, is a matter of substantive research design unrelated to the validity of the raw virgin text scores… Other transformations are of course possible. (LBG, 316)

To explore more fully into the assumptions and choices behind alternative transformations and the research designs which motivate them, we offer the following comments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , Winter 2008 , pp. 101 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors' note: We thank Georg Vanberg and Lanny Martin for comments and discussions during the drafting of this Comment.

References

Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael, Arnold, Christine, Hosli, Madeleine O., and Pennings, Paul. 2005. Measuring national delegate positions at the convention on the future of Europe using computerized wordscoring. European Union Politics 6: 291–313.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call voting: A unified approach. American Political Science Review 98: 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabel, Matthew, and Huber, John. 2000. Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left-right ideological positions from party manifesto data. American Journal of Political Science 44: 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Garry, John. 2000. Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Science 44: 619–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2002. Locating TDs in policy spaces: Wordscoring Dáil Speeches. Irish Political Studies 17(1): 59–73.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth, and Garry, John. 2003. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review 97: 311–31.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth, and Sauger, Nicholas. 2006. Policy competition in the 2002 French legislative and presidential elections. European Journal of Political Research 45: 667–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2007. A robust transformation procedure for interpreting political text. Political Analysis (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Monroe, Burt, and Maeda, Ko. 2004. Talk's cheap: Text-based estimation of rhetorical ideal-points. Working paper, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slapin, Jonathan, and Proksch, Sven-Oliver. 2007. A scaling model for estimating time-series policy positions from texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton and Towers, Chicago, IL, April 12, 2007.Google Scholar