METHODS USED BY BEHAVIORISTS, PART II

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

The last posting reviewed data collection protocols utilized by political scientists.  This topic is being highlighted because of the influence political science has on the content of civics courses in American classrooms.  Civics teachers should have a solid understanding of that content and, in turn, a general understanding of that discipline’s research methods.  To the extent they do, therefore, what political scientists discover, generally, can and does have a guiding effect on what is taught in secondary classrooms.

          This posting will proceed to describe how discovered findings in the form of generalizations function to develop the models of political behavior that that discipline promotes.  The last posting ended with how behavioral studies report on correlations.  Correlations are relationships between or among factors (variables) that basically establish what happens to one or a set of factors when one or a set of other factors varies.  The first type of factor is known as a dependent variable and the second type is an independent variable.  The point was made, correlations are not statements of cause and effect.

          Cause and effect relationships are theorized in either theories or models.  Political science mostly relies on models – their proposed cause and effect claims are not grounded enough to be theory or elements of a theory.  So, Davies “J” curve model, that states that people who experience improving conditions but then see their fates in short order turn negative, will be disposed to behave disruptively or rebelliously due to their unmet rising expectations is an example.  That model has some support in the real world, but one can probably find non supportive evidence as well.

Stated in other words, a theoretical claim cannot be established simply by discovering a correlation.  Correlations can only hint at cause and effect, they do not prove them (although, they can, if extensive enough, disprove a theory).  Basically, that is what behavioral studies can do, hint at theoretical relationships, but that is no small contribution.  These findings become the “where as” or “since” elements of reasoned arguments that propose causations.

An ensuing issue is whether this research approach is ignored in classrooms that rely on didactic techniques – which have been the common instructional approaches of secondary schools.  By not demonstrating how this more interactive form of research might be conducted, civics students are deprived any experience at engaging with political factors or events.  They instead are lectured at about what behavioral studies reveal, however non-determinant such descriptions are.

If the academic field that provides the basic information avoids normative questioning, which behavioral studies do, then the resulting secondary school instruction will most likely avoid any semblance of controversy or relevancy.  It made the question of moral or immoral politics seem irrelevant.  This general observation should be kept in mind as this blog, in a future posting, reviews the content of the leading high school textbook in US schools.

But what about the previously cited post behavioral revolt that came about in the 1980s, which was pointed out in a previous posting?  One should keep in mind that the aim of the initial behavioral revolt was to allow political scientists to develop an overall theory that would explain why humans behave politically as they do.  The revolt came about because political science could not develop an overall theory as the individual natural sciences had been able to do over their subject matters. 

In an earlier posting, for example, it is pointed that out biology has the theory of natural selection to guide its research.[1]  Not so for political science; it instead is characterized as having a multitude of models that strive to explain or shed light on what determines various aspects of political phenomena.  And that goes for more recent research over societal problems that characterize post-behavioral studies.

To this point, the discipline, according to influential leaders in the field, needs to shift its attention to addressing pressing political problem areas, such as discriminatory policies by government or other powerful entities.  This, in turn, reintroduces a level of normative concerns that pure behavioralist studies purposely avoided so as to be more objective in their approach of their subject matter.  Here is a summary statement of this shift of concerns by a blogger this writer feels captures the it,

Post-Behaviroural Approach is both a movement and academic tendency.  It opposed the efforts of the Behavioural Approach to make Political Science a value free science.  The Post-Behavioural Approach is a future oriented approach which wants to solve problems of both present and future.  To this approach, the study of Political Science should put importance on social change.  To it political science must have some relevance to society.  Along with relevance, this approach believes that action is the core of … political science [study].  It accepts that political science needs to study all realities of politics, social change, values, etc.[2]

It turns out Elazar’s concerns[3] have not been totally forgotten or ignored.

          With the next posting, this blog will more directly address how the elements of political science research and theorizing affect civics instruction.  This effect, in line with the message of this posting, is not a cause and effect relationship.  It turns out that both the progression of political science and the evolution of civics curriculum seem to be affected by the same cultural force, the overall dominance of the natural rights view of governance and politics.

---

[1] A book that extensively reports on findings based on research that utilizes natural selection theory in the study of the human mind see Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1997).

[2] Pankaj, “Behavioral and Post Behavioral Approach to Political Science,” Samaj the Society” – a blog, April 4, 2011, accessed February 19, 2020, http://samaj-thesociety.blogspot.com/2011/04/behavioral-and-post-behavioral-approach.html .

[3] Daniel J. Elazar identifies aims for political science (reported in a previous posting).  They are:  the pursuit of political justice in government’s role in establishing and maintaining order; discovering the generalizable factors that correlate with the various political actions that characterize a polity; and discover, communicate, and promote those policies that create a functional civic environment – through a civil society and a civil community. 

METHODS USED BY BEHAVIORISTS, PART I

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

This blog ends its review of behavioral political study by reporting on the basic methodology the political scientists of that movement – the behavioral movement – utilize.  Every academic field of study has an established method by which the practitioners of the field do their research.  This is not a haphazard endeavor; extraordinary steps are taken to define these methodologies. 

Practitioners take these methods seriously to ensure that the ways in which information is gathered and analyzed are legitimate according to thought-out rationales.  In addition, neophytes are strenuously trained in those methods.  In order to have their work taken seriously, scholars are critiqued on the methods they apply.  Their work will be judged on a variety of related issues such as statistical procedures, interviewing techniques, and analyses of physical evidence. 

By being taught these methods, the aim is to have would be political scientists learn to analyze, synthesize, and solve socially related problems or mysterious manifestations of curious events or developments.  In other words, such instruction teaches students how to view the world which, in turn, will affect what they “see” and what they do not “see.”

As to political systems theory and related approaches, David Easton in the 1950s led political science to analyze political processes in behavioral terms.  That is, the focus of study became human political behavior.[1]  This entails observing and measuring behaviors that relate to and affect political realities, such as voting, political group behavior, and conflict behavior. 

As stated previously in this blog, during the mid-twentieth century period, systems theory became the prominent approach in political science.  With this ascendancy, the main methodology became those associated with behavioral studies. 

By the 1970s and 1980s, the emphasis shifted somewhat to what Easton called a post-behavioral revolution,[2] but the bulk of studies published in the field’s peer reviewed journals still rely predominantly on “hard science techniques” as is indicated by a statement from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at that time (1987).

Although political scientists are prone to debate and [have] disagreement[s], the majority views the discipline as a genuine science.  As a result, political scientists generally strive to emulate the objectivity as well as the conceptual and methodological rigor typically associated with the so-called “hard” science (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics).  They see themselves as engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions.  Based on these revelations, they attempt to state general principles about the way the world of politics works.  Given these aims, it is important for political scientists’ writing to be conceptually precise, free from bias, and well-substantiated by empirical evidence.  Knowing that political scientists value objectivity may help you in making decisions about how to write [a political science related] paper and what to put in it.[3]

 Initially, the political systems approach attempted to apply those research techniques and theory building processes that defined the natural sciences. 

Surely, the reader can recall the simplified version taught in school known as the scientific method (a creation of science educators in order to teach what scientists do).  For those who need a reminder, here it is: 

1.     identify and define a problem;

2.    hypothesize an educated guess that would solve the problem;

3.    gather relevant information;

4.    analyze the information;

5.    draw a conclusion as to the truthfulness of the hypothesis; and

6.    apply the conclusion (mostly to substantiate or modify, if necessary, existing theory). 

Due to a host of critiques that evolved during the 1960s and '70s, the “post-behavioral revolution” occurred and resulted in applying scientific techniques to societal problems which were political in nature.

Why were political scientists attracted to this more “scientific” approach?  This is Easton’s answer to that question:

Unlike the great traditional theories of past political thought, new theory [of the behavioral movement] tends to be analytic, not substantive, general rather than particular, and explanatory rather than ethical.  That portion of political research which shares these commitments to both the new theory and the technical means of analysis and verification thereby links political science to broader behavioral tendencies in the social sciences and, hence, its description as political behavior.  This is the full meaning and significance of the behavioral approach in political science today [in 1967].[4]

In layman's terms, Easton first points out what the perceived problem with traditional, pre-1950, political study was.  That is, behaviorists view traditional study as highly speculative, mainly consisting of interpretations by political writers who non-objectively selected historical events to support preconceived conclusions. 

To combat this embedded bias, behavioral researchers would mimic natural scientists by incorporating their methods.  They would strive to be value free by utilizing experiments or observed behaviors (including responses to survey questionnaires).  More specifically, the resulting studies abstracted these observed behaviors from their social contexts.

The behaviors could be observed and measured from actual, real world activities or from simulated situations in which experimenters set up the politically relevant conditions.  The behaviors, once observed, were broken down so they could be measured in quantitative units (a process philosophically known as reductionism). 

For example, Congressional votes can be abstracted from their substantive context.  They can be analyzed to see what patterns emerge.  Patterns are correlations (noting what occurs when some other thing or things occur).  Despite pure scientific standards, correlations were converted into cause and effect relationships by formulating theories or explanations for the studied phenomena.  This latter activity is conducted apart from the data gathering activities by a separate cadre of political scientists.

An example of a correlation could be that becoming a US President and adherence to a Protestant religion have coincided in every case except one. All the presidents of the US have been Protestants apart from John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic.  A cause and effect relationship would claim there is something about being a Protestant that allows or strengthens the chances of a person to become a President but that would be left to a theorist to interpret.

In some cases, to point a more insightful relationship, political scientists might correlate certain demographic factors such as geographic regions, religions, income, education, and the like, with voting behavior.  Such correlations, if they exist, might suggest a generalization, such as poorly educated citizens might be too uninformed about issues to feel a necessity to vote.  Generalizations are the building components of a theory or model.

          The next posting will continue this review by looking at the role behavioral studies are meant to play in the development of theory.  One should keep in mind that the ultimate aim of the behavioral revolt was to allow political scientists to develop an overall theory that would explain why humans behave politically as they do.

---

[1] David Easton, The Political System (New York, NY:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1953).  This source was not a call for behavioral study, but in its description of politics within systems naturally led to that methodology.

[2] John G. Gunnell, “Political Theory and Political Science,” in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, edited by David Miller, Janet Coleman, William Connolly, and Alan Ryan (Cambridge, MA:  Blackwell, 1987), 386-930.

[3] “Political Science,” The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, n. d., accessed February 19, 2020, https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/political-science/ .

[4] David Easton, “The Current Meanings of “Behavioralism,” in Contemporary Political Analysis, edited by James C. Charlesworth (New York, NY:  The Free Press 1967), 11-31, 31.  The reader should compare these aims with the aims Daniel J. Elazar identifies (reported in a previous posting).  They are:  the pursuit of political justice in government’s role in establishing and maintaining order; discovering the generalizable factors that correlate with the various political actions that characterize a polity; and discover, communicate, and promote those policies that create a functional civic environment – through a civil society and a civil community.