Political Science For Dummies. Marcus A. Stadelmann
natural sciences and consist of universal laws. A universal law is a relationship that holds true everywhere and also over time. For example, x has to cause y everywhere and over time.
VIEWING A PARADIGM
The concept of a paradigm was developed in 1962 by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press). A paradigm is a scientific worldview (ideology) that shapes and guides a researcher in political science. The paradigm tells the political scientist what to research, how to research the specific problem, and what type of conclusions the researcher can draw. In other words, it sets the parameters for research. Paradigms can help with research but are also very restrictive. For example, traditionalism is a paradigm. It tells the political scientist what to study, in this case, institutions and constitutions, how to study the two, by describing them, and what type of conclusions to draw. To study actual human behavior would be outside of the paradigm and wouldn’t be acceptable to the rest of academia. The researcher would be shunned by his colleagues and his research wouldn’t be published. The researcher’s career would be over.
To gain respect from the other real sciences, political science started to attempt to turn itself into a hard science beginning in the 1950s. Suddenly, political scientists tested theories and attempted to create grand theories, necessary to qualify as a natural science.
Being a behavioralist
By 1954, behavioralism successfully replaced traditionalism as the dominant paradigm (see nearby sidebar) in political science. It brought about the following changes to political science research.
Trying to explain
Traditionalism made a point to describe only institutions and constitutions. It didn’t analyze the people running these institutions or try to explain their behavior. Behavioralism changed this. Now, political scientists begin to study human behavior and actually explain and analyze the inner working of institutions and constitutions. For example, instead of just describing Congress, the researcher now focuses on members of Congress and why and how they vote a certain way. Instead of describing the great battles of World War II, the political scientist now tries to explain why war broke out and how decisions were made during the war. In a nutshell, explanation replaced description in political science research. Today only a few traditionalist political scientists remain, mostly in Europe.
Emphasizing human behavior
Instead of focusing on institutions and constitutions as traditionalism did, behavioralism focuses on actual human beings and how they act. Instead of just describing human behavior, researchers now want to explain human behavior. Why do people engage in certain acts? How do they act when they suddenly find themselves in positions of power? Why do members of Congress vote in a certain way? Why do people go to war? All of these are questions political scientists now ask. Behavioralists therefore try to explain human behavior.
Employing empirical theory
Empirical theory explains human behavior and events and tests them to see whether they’re true. The political scientist stops assuming when trying to explain, and testing of theories becomes the norm for the discipline.
Traditionalism uses normative theory (see earlier section on traditionalism) when engaging in research. It was acceptable for traditionalists to bring their own personal preferences and values into their research. There was no need to test theories. Behavioralists reject this type of research. For them, bringing personal values into research makes findings not just unscientific but also unacceptable and biased. Political science for them needs to be a real science, using theories that have been tested and are value-neutral. For this reason, instead of creating explanations of behavior and events based on personal preferences, behavioralists want to test their theories. This is possible only if you employ empirical theory.
Using mathematics
Mathematics is one of the most objective disciplines in academia. It’s a natural or hard science, and people believe that it’s impossible to bring values (personal influences) into mathematical research. It makes no difference whether a person is a liberal, conservative, or even communist; when political scientists undertake research using mathematics, they all come to the same conclusions. Adding, subtracting, and using advanced mathematical formulas are all objective and value-free activities.
Not surprisingly, using mathematics to test theories appeals to behavioralists, who believe in objectively testing theories. The best way to tell the academic world that you’re being truly scientific and objective is to test a theory using mathematics, especially statistics. How can people bring their personal norms and values into statistics? Beginning with behavioralism, the use of mathematics in political science is encouraged, and today quantitative analysis has become the norm.
Being truly objective
Like natural scientists, behavioralists believe that researchers can be truly objective when they’re conducting their research. Personal beliefs and preferences don’t matter and can be set aside during research. For example, a behavioralist believes that both an American researcher and a Russian researcher can look upon a certain event the same way and draw the same conclusions from the event, regardless of time and location.
For example, when studying the outbreak of war, the American political scientist could have researched an event 200 years ago and the Russian researcher could have studied it today. Both would come to the same conclusion. It is therefore possible to perceive events the same way, regardless of time, location, cultural upbringing, and personal preferences. This school of thought is called positivism or the French school of thought.
Being liberal
Unlike traditionalism, behavioralism is based on the classical liberal school. It begins to question government decisions but at the same time also works with governments to find solutions to present-day problems.
For example, the Kennedy administration worked closely with political scientists to tackle issues such as spreading democracy or maintaining political stability in the newly created nation-states in Africa and Asia. While traditionalism supports government policies, thereby creating legitimacy for many governments, behavioralism isn’t afraid to critique governments and regimes and often gets involved with government in the policy-making process.