Behavioural Approach in Political Science

Behavioural Approach in Political Science

• Behavioural political science significantly altered the mid-20th century political science landscape, a paradigm shift with both supporters and critics.
• Key reasons for its influence: innovative methodology, challenge to traditional approaches, focus on empirical data, and its enduring impact on how political phenomena are studied.

Shift Towards Empiricism and Scientific Rigor

• Empirical Focus: Political Science should focus on observable behaviours, rather than abstract philosophical or normative ideas. Researchers like David Easton advocated moving beyond constitutional description and normative theories to data-driven research.
• Quantitative Methods: Adoption of statistical and quantitative methods in political research. This contrasted with earlier descriptive or legalistic approaches, focused on measurable behavioural patterns (e.g., political actors' behavior). Heinz Eulau highlighted this in his work.
• Interdisciplinary Perspective: Drawing from psychology, economics, and sociology to support empirical, observable data over normative/institutional analysis.

Methodological Innovations and Systematic Inquiry

• Systematic Data Collection: Rigorous data collection methods were introduced, including large-scale surveys, public opinion research, voting behavior analysis, and the use of computers for statistical processing. Robert Dahl exemplified this emphasis on public opinion and electoral studies.
• Theory-Building and Hypothesis Testing: Building middle-range theories based on empirical evidence, seeking generalizable propositions about political behavior, and drawing closer to natural science standards.
• New Research Questions: Expanding the scope of political science by focusing on behaviour rather than legal frameworks, studying topics like political culture, attitude formation, leadership styles, and group behaviour. Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba’s work on political culture and democratic stability highlighted this.

Transformation of the Discipline

• Normative to Analytical: Political science shifted from focused on political theory, constitutional law, and comparative constitutions to a more 'scientific' or 'value-free' research model, inspiring debates about values in political science.
• Institutional Reorientation: A shift from studying formal political structures to the impact of institutions on individual/group behaviour.
• Professionalization of Political Science: Specialized training in research design, quantitative methods, and statistical analysis emerged. This led to university departments increasing their methods requirements.

Criticisms and Limitations

• Neglect of Normative Questions: Critics argued that behaviouralism ignored normative and philosophical questions about justice, power, and politics, focusing instead on empirical descriptions. Sheldon Wolin and Leo Strauss represent these viewpoints.
• Methodological Reductionism: Critics argued that overly focusing on measurable variables ignored historical, cultural, and institutional nuances. Positivistic tendencies were also questioned.
• Overemphasis on 'Value-Free' Research: The idea that pure description could legitimize existing power structures was raised. This led to new approaches emphasizing normative and interpretive dimensions. Theodore Lowi's work is a relevant example.

Lasting Influence

• Behaviouralism's legacy is undeniable.
• Contemporary subfields (voting behavior, political psychology, quantitative policy analysis) are rooted in these methodological shifts.
• Even critics acknowledge that both empirical and philosophical understanding remain crucial in contemporary political science.
• Mixed methods (combining quantitative and qualitative approaches) are common, reflecting the discipline's acknowledgment of the need for both types of insights.