[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.
No comments:
Post a Comment