Sovereignty and Intervention in the Middle East: From the Fall of the Ottoman Empire to the Arab Spring

This research provides an institutional explanation of the practices of external intervention in the Arab state system from the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 to the Arab Spring. My explanation consists of two institutional variables: sovereignty and inter-state borders. I examine the changes in regional and international norms of sovereignty and their impact on the practices of external intervention in the Arab state system. I also examine the impact of the level of institutionalization of inter-state borders in the Arab World on the practices of external intervention. I argue that changes in regional and international norms of sovereignty and changes in the level of institutionalization of inter-state borders have constituted the significant variation over time in both the frequency and type of external intervention in the Arab state system from 1922 to the present. My institutional explanation and findings seriously challenge the traditional accounts of sovereignty and intervention in the Arab World, including the cultural perspectives that emphasize the conflict between sovereignty, Arabism, and Islam, the constructivist accounts that emphasize the regional norm of pan-Arabism, the comparative politics explanations that focus on the domestic material power of the Arab state, the post-colonial perspectives that emphasize the artificiality of the Arab state, and the realist accounts that focus on great powers and the regional distribution of power in the Middle East. This research also contributes to International Relations Theory. I construct a new analytical framework to study the relations between sovereignty, borders, and intervention, combining theoretical elements from the fields of Role Theory, Social Constructivism, and Institutionalization. Methodologically, this research includes both quantitative and qualitative analysis. I conduct content analysis of official documents of Arab states and the Arab League, Arabic press documents, and Arab political thought. I also utilize quantitative data sets on international intervention.

Validation of the Item-Attribute Matrix in TIMSS-Mathematics Using Multiple Regression and the LSDM

The purposes of this study were (1) to validate of the item-attribute matrix using two levels of attributes (Level 1 attributes and Level 2 sub-attributes), and (2) through retrofitting the diagnostic models to the mathematics test of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), to evaluate the construct validity of TIMSS mathematics assessment by comparing the results of two assessment booklets. Item data were extracted from Booklets 2 and 3 for the 8th grade in TIMSS 2007, which included a total of 49 mathematics items and every student's response to every item. The study developed three categories of attributes at two levels: content, cognitive process (TIMSS or new), and comprehensive cognitive process (or IT) based on the TIMSS assessment framework, cognitive procedures, and item type. At level one, there were 4 content attributes (number, algebra, geometry, and data and chance), 3 TIMSS process attributes (knowing, applying, and reasoning), and 4 new process attributes (identifying, computing, judging, and reasoning). At level two, the level 1 attributes were further divided into 32 sub-attributes. There was only one level of IT attributes (multiple steps/responses, complexity, and constructed-response). Twelve Q-matrices (4 originally specified, 4 random, and 4 revised) were investigated with eleven Q-matrix models (QM1 ~ QM11) using multiple regression and the least squares distance method (LSDM). Comprehensive analyses indicated that the proposed Q-matrices explained most of the variance in item difficulty (i.e., 64% to 81%). The cognitive process attributes contributed to the item difficulties more than the content attributes, and the IT attributes contributed much more than both the content and process attributes. The new retrofitted process attributes explained the items better than the TIMSS process attributes. Results generated from the level 1 attributes and the level 2 attributes were consistent. Most attributes could be used to recover students' performance, but some attributes' probabilities showed unreasonable patterns. The analysis approaches could not demonstrate if the same construct validity was supported across booklets. The proposed attributes and Q-matrices explained the items of Booklet 2 better than the items of Booklet 3. The specified Q-matrices explained the items better than the random Q-matrices.