Question: Current debates in political science focus primarily on striking a proper balance between empirical data and normative concerns. Based on your reading gained of this article below, explain your view of the appropriate role of the scientific method in political science research. Evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of using empirical methods in the study of political science. Assess whether the scientific method allows political scientists to study the big questions of politics such as justice, freedom, and the nature of democracy. SCIENCE AND POLITICAL SCIENCE The study of politics dates back to Ancient Greece, where it was embodied in the works of philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. For most of the history of the study of politics, philosophers were interested in tackling normative, or value-laden, questions, so they studied questions revolving around the idea of what should be. Justice, human nature, and the ideal state were the primary focus of the study of politics until the twentieth century. Advancements in computer technology, particularly the ability to gather and store large amounts of empirical data, allowed researchers to more systematically apply the scientific method to the major questions of politics. With this shift toward the use of the scientific method, it became possible to describe the study of politics as political science, thus beginning to close the gap between the physical sciences and the social sciences. The Scientific Method Political scientists and other social scientists share with physical scientists a commitment to the modern scientific method, first articulated by René Descartes (1989) in Discourse on Method. Descartes asserts that a scientist must begin with no assumptions about the world, thereby I think hence I am (p. 30), and it is from this position of skepticism he argues that everything about the world can be discovered by the scientist. Based on this viewpoint, the modern scientific method prescribes the following process: 1. Observe some phenomena in the world. 2. Formulate a tentative hypothesis to assert a relationship between these phenomena. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions through experimentation. 5. Revise the hypothesis based on the results of the experiment. 6. Repeat the experiment until the results of the experimental process correspond to the predictions made by the revised hypothesis (Hoover & Donovan, 2010). In addition to a commitment to the scientific method, research in both the physical and social sciences can be considered scientific only if it meets a number of specific criteria. 1. The study must deal with an empirical question. That is a question of what is based on evidence drawn from observation or experimentation (Johnson & Reynolds, 2012). An empirical research study cannot answer normative questions, or questions of what should be. The purpose of a scientific study is to both explain phenomena and to predict, based on these explanatory observations, what is likely to occur. 2. A scientific study should be parsimonious. The theory of Occams razor can be applied here. Given a number of explanations for a phenomenon, the scientist should choose the simplest one (Johnson & Reynolds, 2012). In practical terms, parsimony is the guide used by researchers in determining what variables to include in a scientific model. 3. The study must be transmissible. Transmissibility gives other researchers the opportunity to verify the results of the experimental process (Johnson & Reynolds, 2012). To ensure transmissibility, a researcher must explicitly describe the methods used and must make the data they based their findings on available to other researchers. The easiest way to dispute the validity of a scientific study is when a researcher is vague about his methods or does not make his data available. Social Sciences and the Use of Human Subjects Although the social sciences and the physical science
s share common characteristics, one aspect of the social sciences sets it apart, namely, the fact that the social sciences involve the study of human beings. Significant debates have occurred in the field of political science over the applicability of the scientific method when human subjects are involved. First, ethical standards restrict the types of studies that can be conducted, given the fact that researchers must protect the well-being of their subjects at all times. Second, human beings can behave in unpredictable ways. At the most fundamental level, human beings know when they are being observed and react to this knowledge, often altering the way they behave in a research setting. This phenomenon is known as the Hawthorne effect (Pollock, 2009). This effect can lead a researcher to call into question the validity of his or her experiment. Take, for example, the Ultimatum Game (ABC News, 2010). Supporters of the findings of this game often argue that it leads to the rejection of the notion that human beings are rational and self-interested. Instead, they are motivated by normative, non-quantifiable motives such as morality and fairness. A critic, however, might argue that the participants in this game are simply altering the way they are behaving based on the fact that they know they are being observed. They are, in a word, on their best behavior, acting in a way they believe they should act, rather than acting as they would if they were not part of an experiment. Whereas these factors in no way invalidate the use of the scientific method in political science, they do force a researcher to account for these often-unquantifiable factors. Methodological Debates in Political Science Methodological debates in political science have historically revolved around the issue of the appropriateness of the scientific method in studying questions involving human subjects. In the 1950s, technological advances allowed the behavioralist school of political science to achieve dominance. Behavioralists emphasized the strict application of empirical methods to the study of politics, arguing that normative questions no longer had a place in an increasingly scientific field (Easton, 1969). According to Easton, political science had become too narrow and provincial, focusing on research questions that were disconnected from wider debates in the actual practice of politics. As a remedy for this problem, Easton proposed the idea that substance must always precede technique. If empirical methods had to be abandoned in order to examine a substantive question, then the researcher should pursue the substance, sacrificing the attachment to scientific methodology. In essence, Easton argued that the best political science would be both normative and empiricalnormative claims supported by scientific research. The methodological debates that began in the 1960s continue to this day. Political scientists continue to engage in a debate concerning what methods are most appropriate in the study of political science and what the proper balance between normative claims and empirical knowledge should be. References ABC News. (2010). The amazing Ultimatum Game and realistic hope. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/video/amazing-ultimatum-game-realistic-hope-11007573 Descartes, R. (1989). Discourse on method and the meditations (J. Veitch, Trans.). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Easton, D. (1969). The new revolution in political science. The American Political Science Review, 63(4), 10511061. Retrieved from http://www.apsanet.org/media/pdfs/presidentialaddresses/1969addreaston.pdf Hoover, K. R., & Donovan, T. (2011). The elements of social scientific thinking (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Johnson, J. B., & Reynolds, H. T. (2012). Political science research methods (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: CQ Press. Pollock, P. H., III. (2012). The essentials of political analysis (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Question: