Theory and Methods in Political Science (4th Edition) PDF

Political Analysis 4th Edition EDITED BY VIVIEN LOWNDES, DAVID MARSH, & GERRY STOKER Series Editors: B. Guy Peters, Jon Pierre and Gerry Stoker Political science today is a dynamic discipline. Its substance, theory and methods have all changed radically in recent decades. It is much expanded in range and scope and in the variety of new perspectives – and new variants of old ones – that it encompasses. The sheer volume of work being published, and the increasing degree of its specialization, however, make it difficult for political scientists to maintain a clear grasp of the state of debate beyond their own particular subdisciplines. The Political Analysis series is intended to provide a channel for different parts of the discipline to talk to one another and to new generations of students. Our aim is to publish books that provide introductions to, and exemplars of, the best work in various areas of the discipline. Written in an accessible style, they provide a ‘launching-pad’ for students and others seeking a clear grasp of the key meth- odological, theoretical and empirical issues, and the main areas of debate, in the complex and fragmented world of political science. A particular priority is to facilitate intellectual exchange between academic communities in different parts of the world. Although frequently addressing the same intellectual issues, research agendas and literatures in North America, Europe and elsewhere have often tended to develop in relative isolation from one another. This series is designed to provide a framework for dialogue and debate which, rather than advocacy of one regional approach or another, is the key to progress. The series reflects our view that the core values of political science should be coherent and logically constructed theory, matched by carefully constructed and exhaustive empirical investigation. The key challenge is to ensure quality and integrity in what is produced rather than to constrain diversity in methods and approaches. The series is intended as a showcase for the best of political science in all its variety, and demonstrates how nurturing that variety can further improve the discipline. Series Editors: B. Guy Peters, Jon Pierre and Gerry Stoker Editorial Advisory Group: Frank R. Baumgartner, Donatella Della Porta, Scott Fritzen, Robert E. Goodin, Colin Hay, Alan M. Jacobs, Eliza W. Y. Lee, Jonathon W. Moses, Craig Parsons, Mitchell A. Seligson and Margit Tavits. Published David Beetham The Legitimation of Power Ioannis Papadopoulos (2nd edition) Democracy in Crisis? Politics, Governance Peter Burnham, Karin Gilland Lutz, and Policy Wyn Grant and Zig Layton-Henry B. Guy Peters Research Methods in Politics Strategies for Comparative Research in (2nd edition) Political Science Lina Eriksson Jon Pierre and B. Guy Peters Rational Choice Theory: Potential Governance, Politics and the State and Limits Heather Savigny and Lee Marsden Jean Grugel and Matthew Louis Bishop Doing Political Science and International Democratization: A Critical Relations Introduction (2nd edition) Rudra Sil and Peter J. Katzenstein Colin Hay Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism Political Analysis in the Study of World Politics Colin Hay, Michael Lister and David Martin J. Smith Marsh (eds) Power and the State The State: Theories and Issues Gerry Stoker, B. Guy Peters and Andrew Hindmoor and Brad Taylor Jon Pierre (eds) Rational Choice (2nd edition) The Relevance of Political Science Johanna Kantola and Emanuela Cees van der Eijk and Mark Franklin Lombardo Elections and Voters Gender and Political Analysis Keith Dowding Vivien Lowndes and Mark Roberts The Philosophy and Methods of Political Why Institutions Matter Science Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Dimiter Toshkov Gerry Stoker (eds) Research Design in Political Science Theory and Methods in Political Science (4th edition) Theory and Methods in Political Science Fourth edition Edited by Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker © Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 2018 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First edition published 1995 Second edition published 2002 Third edition published 2010 Fourth edition published 2018 by PALGRAVE Palgrave in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978–1–137–60352–4 hardback ISBN 978–1–137–60351–7 paperback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Contents Lists of Figures, Tables and Boxes xiii Preface to the Fourth Edition xv Notes on Contributors xvi 1 Introduction 1 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker What is politics? What is it that political scientists study? 7 What is a scientific approach to politics? 9 The discipline of political science: a celebration of diversity? 11 PART 1 THEORY AND APPROACHES Introduction to Part 1 17 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 2 Behavioural Analysis 20 David Sanders The rise of the behavioural movement and its core characteristics21 Criticisms of the behavioural approach 25 Objections to the positivist claim that statements which are neither definitions (useful tautologies) nor empirical are meaningless 25 The tendency towards mindless empiricism 26 The assumed independence of theory and observation 28 The strengths of the behavioural approach: an example 30 Conclusion: the behavioural legacy in the twenty-first century 37 Further reading 38 3 Rational Choice 39 Andrew Hindmoor and Brad Taylor Introduction 39 The methods of economics (and rational choice) 40 The logic of collective action 43 Collective action and the environment 46 What’s wrong with rational choice theory? 48 From imperialism to peaceful co-existence 52 Conclusion 52 Further reading 53 v vi Contents 4 Institutionalism 54 Vivien Lowndes The ‘traditional’ institutional approach 55 The emergence of the ‘new institutionalism’ 57 The ‘three new institutionalisms’ 58 Core features of new institutionalism 59 Institutions as rules not organisations 60 Institutions as informal as well as formal 61 Institutions as dynamic as well as stabilising 62 Institutions as embodying values and power 62 Institutions as contextually embedded 63 New institutionalist dilemmas 64 What is an institution anyway? 64 Where do institutions come from, and how do they change? 67 Are the normative and rational choice approaches compatible?70 Conclusion 73 Further reading 74 5 Constructivism and Interpretive Theory 75 Craig Parsons Origins of constructivism 76 What is and isn’t distinctive about constructivism? 78 Variations within constructivism 83 Epistemological variations 83 Different mechanisms and different social constructs 85 Different methods 87 Conclusion 90 Further reading 91 6 Feminist and Gendered Approaches 92 Meryl Kenny and Fiona Mackay What is feminism? 92 Political science: gendered foundations 93 Women in political science 96 Gender and political science 97 Political representation 102 Feminising political parties 103 Gendering the state and state feminism 104 Dilemmas and challenges 105 Conclusion 107 Further reading 107 Contents vii 7 Marxism: A Global Perspective 109 Ray Kiely Marxism and capitalism: structuralist economism or agency-led contingency? 110 Marxist economism and base and superstructure 110 Marx and capitalism 112 Marxism, capitalism and nationalism 114 Marxism and globalisation: economistic unilinearity or contingent uneven development? 115 Marxist economism and capitalist diffusion 115 Marx and the unequal international order 116 Marxism, imperialism and uneven development as dependency118 Marxism and hegemony: the significance of Gramsci 119 Debating globalisation in the twenty-first century 120 Contemporary globalisation defined 120 The continued relevance of Marxist ideas I: globalisation as uneven and combined development 121 The continued relevance of Marxist ideas II: hegemony and the international order 122 Conclusion 123 Further reading 124 8 Poststructuralism 125 Mark Wenman French structuralism 127 From structuralism to poststructuralism 129 Poststructuralism in politics and international relations 130 The ontological and epistemological assumptions of poststructuralism133 Criticism and evaluation 137 Conclusion 140 Further reading 141 9 Political Psychology 142 Frank Mols and Paul ‘t Hart An interdisciplinary enterprise 142 Political conflict and contention 144 Political leadership and followership 146 Who leads matters 147 How groups create leaders, and leaders gain followers147 Political beliefs and voter attitudes 151 Perceiving the political world 151 viii Contents Causes and consequences of political attitudes 152 Radicalisation and extremism: pathology or politics? 152 Understanding political decision-making 154 From homo economicus to homo psychologicus 154 Groups as asset or problem in policy decision-making?155 Methods and prospects of the field 155 Further reading 157 10 Normative Political Theory 158 Chris Armstrong Introduction 158 Methods in normative political theory 159 Rawls on reflective equilibrium 159 Cohen on facts and values 162 Normative theory and global justice 164 Political ideals and feasibility 166 Further reading 170 PART 2 METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN Introduction to Part 2 173 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 11 A Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science 177 David Marsh, Selen A. Ercan and Paul Furlong Ontology and epistemology introduced 178 The meaning of ontology and epistemology (and methodology)178 The relationship between ontology and epistemology 179 Distinguishing ontological and epistemological positions 181 Distinguishing broad ontological positions 182 Distinguishing broad epistemological positions 183 Interrogating different approaches to ontology and epistemology185 Positivism 186 Interpretivism 189 Critical realism 193 Ontology and epistemology in empirical research 194 Empirical research on deliberative democracy – positivism versus interpretivism 195 Conclusion 197 Further reading 198 Contents ix 12 Meta-Theoretical Issues 199 David Marsh Conceptualising structure, agency and the ideational realm 200 Structure 201 Agency 202 The ideational realm 204 Dialectical approaches to the relationships between structure and agency and the material and the ideational 204 Structure and agency: the dialectical approaches 204 Structuration theory 205 The Morphogenetic approach 205 The strategic-relational approach 206 Bourdieu and habitus 208 The material and the ideational: thin and thick constructivism 209 Stability and change 211 Hay: a linear conception of time 212 Tonkiss: a non-linear conception of time 212 A flexi-time model: a circadian conception of time 213 More on punctuated evolution 213 Conclusion 217 Further reading 218 13 Research Design 219 Dimiter Toshkov What is research design? 219 The research process 220 The elements of research design 222 Research questions and research goals 222 Theory and empirical research 225 Conceptualisation and operationalisation 227 Types of research methodologies 228 Case and variable selection for different types of research 230 Experimental research 230 Large-N observational research 232 Comparative research 233 Single-case studies and within-case analysis 234 Conclusion: the power and promise of research design 235 Further reading 236 14 Qualitative Methods 237 Ariadne Vromen Debates on qualitative methods: the rediscovery of qualitative analysis237 What is distinctive about qualitative methods and analysis? 243 x Contents Qualitative research techniques 244 Primary research: interviews, group discussion and ethnography246 Secondary research: using text/document-based techniques 249 Conclusion: the use and future use of qualitative methods in political science 252 Further reading 253 15 Quantitative Methods 254 Peter John The collection and management of data 255 The power of description 257 Tables and inferential statistics 259 Multivariate analysis 261 Testing and reporting models 265 Recent developments 268 Conclusion 269 Further reading 270 16 The Comparative Method 271 Matt Ryan Introduction 271 Comparative politics and comparative method – politics beyond the armchair? 271 Comparative method and the scientific method – why small-N research strategies? 272 Mill’s methods of experimental inquiry and their influence on comparative political science 274 Method of agreement 274 Method of difference 276 Joint method 277 Most different and most similar strategies 279 The changing nature of comparative research strategies – qualitative comparative analysis 280 Case studies, within-case comparison and process-tracing 284 Case selection 284 Within-case analysis 286 Conclusion: evolving comparison in response to challenges 288 Further reading 289 17 The Experimental Method 290 Helen Margetts and Gerry Stoker What is the experimental method? 290 The rise of experimentation 292 Learning from laboratory experiments 293 Contents xi Learning from field experiments 296 Learning from internet-based experiments 297 Learning from natural experiments 299 Pitfalls in the experimental method 300 Ethical challenges 300 Practical problems 302 Conclusion 304 Further reading 305 Acknowledgements 305 18 Big Data: Methods for Collection and Analysis 306 Michael J. Jensen Introduction 306 Defining big data 307 Big data and data collection 309 Data formats 310 Extensible markup language (XML) 310 Application programming interfaces (APIs) 311 Web crawling 313 Web scraping 314 Big data and data analysis 315 Combining heterogeneous kinds of data 317 Limitations to big data 317 Conclusion: big data and the future of social science 318 Further reading 319 19 The Relevance of Political Science 321 Gerry Stoker, B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre Position 1: political science should do good science and if the science is good it will be relevant 322 Position 2: political science should be better at communicating its results; if it were it would be more relevant 323 Position 3: political science should be prepared to have its agenda set by problem-solving or puzzle-solving concerns that matter to policymakers and citizens; if it did it would be more relevant 324 Position 4: political science should be prepared to develop a capacity not just for analysing problems but also for developing solutions; that move would enhance its capacity for relevance 325 Position 5: political science needs to develop a more engaged co-production approach to research, working alongside actors outside academia to address their concerns and so advance the relevance of research 327 xii Contents Position 6: political science needs to embrace a wider role in creating a civic culture essential to democracy; if it does that it will be relevant 328 Where next for relevance? 330 Bibliography 332 Index 380 List of Figures, Tables and Boxes Figures 3.1 The prisoner’s dilemma 44 11.1 Connecting ontology, epistemology and methodology 179 12.1 Archer’s three-phase cycle of change 205 12.2 Structure, strategy and agency in the strategic-relational approach206 13.1 Three levels of generality of research design considerations 220 13.2 A schematic representation of the research process 221 18.1 Clinton–Trump–Johnson polling margin 313 Tables 1.1 Approaches to political science 4 2.1 Relationship between conflict onset and group political inclusion/exclusion 33 2.2 Political horizontal inequality and group-level onset of civil war 34 2.3 Top-ten countries in 2009 with the highest shares of excluded populations 36 4.1 Modes of institutional constraint 72 6.1 Waves of democracy with and without women’s suffrage 98 14.1 Contrasting qualitative and quantitative methods and techniques 246 16.1 Method of agreement – a basic example 275 16.2 Method of difference – a basic example 277 16.3 The joint method 277 16.4 Truth table example 282 Boxes 4.1 The traditional institutional approach in action 56 4.2 Different strands of new institutionalism 60 4.3 New institutionalist analysis in action 65 4.4 New institutionalist methods 68 5.1 ‘Interpretivists’ in political science and international relations (IR) 79 6.1 Gender, voting and the Scottish independence referendum 95 6.2 Defining democracy 97 6.3 Defining gender 99 6.4 Men and masculinities in politics 100 6.5 Race-gendered institutions 101 xiii xiv List of Figures, Tables and Boxes 7.1 Structure and agency: the case of slavery and abolition 112 7.2 The case of Apple 121 8.1 The Essex School 132 9.1 The field of political psychology 144 9.2 Research into the origins of group conflict 146 9.3 Charismatic leadership: nature, nurture, or both? 150 9.4 Research into elections and voter attitudes 153 9.5 Are politicians good decision-makers? 156 13.1 Types of engagement of research projects with theory in political science 226 15.1 Non-parametric models 263 16.1 Qualitative, quantitative and comparative 281 16.2 Case study selection strategies 285 18.1 Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan under the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation 311 18.2 Accessing the Huffington Post Pollster API 312 Preface to the Fourth Edition The first discussions about the idea of Theories and Methods took place about a quarter of a century ago and the first edition of the book emerged in 1995. So, it is with a combination of surprise and pleasure that we can welcome the fourth edition in 2017. For this edition, the original editors David Marsh and Gerry Stoker have been joined by one of the chapter contributors from the second edition onwards, Vivien Lowndes. The new energy and ideas for the project provided by Vivien have been gratefully received by her fellow editors. We would like to thank all our authors who have responded to our demands for copy and changes with good grace. In this fourth edition, we have again added some new authors and some new topics to reflect devel- opments in the discipline. All the chapters have been extensively updated and, in our view, improved. The framing and development of the fourth edition was also helped a great deal by Andy Hindmoor and Liam Stanley, who organised a workshop for contributors in Sheffield, UK in 2015. We thank them and the Politics Department of Sheffield University for the funding. The referee comments we received on the first draft of the book were very helpful and speedily provided. The input from Palgrave editor Lloyd Langman was invaluable. We thank Maximilian Lemprière and Abena Dadze-Arthur of the University of Birmingham, UK, for their assistance in preparing the manuscript. We also thank our families for their forbearance through the production stages of the book. Most of all we acknowledge the help and support of all those teachers and students who use the book. We constantly learn from your comments and feedback. We hope that you will continue to find the book what we intend it to be: an accessible introduction to the way that political scientists carry out their work in today’s world. Vivien Lowndes David Marsh Gerry Stoker xv Notes on Contributors The editors Vivien Lowndes is Professor of Public Policy at the University of Birmingham, UK. She is the author (with Mark Roberts) of Why Institutions Matter (Palgrave, 2013). Her research focuses on institu- tional design and change in subnational governance, focusing on the sources and dynamics of local variation. She also works on gender and institutions, including recent research on police governance. David Marsh is a Fellow at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, Australia. Gerry Stoker is Professor of Governance at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, Australia, and the University of Southampton, UK. The contributors Chris Armstrong is Professor of Political Theory at the University of Southampton, UK. He works in normative political theory, and especially global justice, climate justice, and territorial rights. Selen A. Ercan is Senior Research Fellow in Political Science at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, Australia. She works in the area of deliberative democracy focusing particularly on the capacity of this approach to address intractable policy controver- sies in contemporary democracies. Her recent publications appeared in International Political Science Review, Policy and Politics, Critical Policy Studies and Policy Studies among others. Paul Furlong is Emeritus Professor of European Studies at Cardiff University, UK. He has written widely on European politics and on politi- cal theory. His next book is entitled The new politics of Italy: In search of the Second Republic and will be published by MUP in Spring 2018. Paul ‘t Hart is Professor of Public Administration at the Utrecht School of Governance, The Netherlands. He currently leads an ERC Advanced Grant program on Successful Public Governance, supplanting his prior research focus on public leadership, crisis management and political psychology. xvi Notes on Contributors xvii Andrew Hindmoor is Professor of Politics at the University of Sheffield, UK. He is engaged in work on British politics and banking and finance as well as public choice theory. What’s Left Now? The History and Future of Social Democracy was published by Oxford University Press in 2017. His earlier book on the 2008/9 financial crisis, Masters of the Universe but Slaves of the Market, was published by Harvard University Press in 2015. Michael J. Jensen is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, Australia. He is a politi- cal communication scholar studying political parties, campaigns, and social movements using predominantly digital methods. His research has appeared in the International Journal of Press/Politics, Information, Communication and Society, and the Journal of Information Technology and Politics. Peter John is Professor of Public Policy, King’s College London, UK. Peter uses field experiments in his research on nudges and political participa- tion. His book, Field Experiments in Political Science and Public Policy, was published by Routledge in 2017. Meryl Kenny is Lecturer in Gender and Politics at the University of Edinburgh, UK. She is Co-Director of the Feminism and Institutionalism International Network (FIIN) and has published widely on aspects of gender and political institutions, political parties and representation, including Gender and Political Recruitment (Palgrave, 2013). Ray Kiely is Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University of London. His publications include The BRICS, US ‘Decline’ and Global Transformations (2015) and The Neoliberal Paradox (2018). Fiona Mackay is Professor of Politics at the University of Edinburgh, UK. Her research interests include gender and politics, political representation, and gender and institutional theory. Her most recent co-edited collection is Gender Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism (2011/2015). Helen Margetts is Professor of Society and the Internet and Director of the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford, UK. Her research focuses on government and politics in a digital world. Her most recent book is Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action (Princeton University Press, 2016), with Peter John, Scott Hale and Taha Yasseri. Frank Mols is Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Queensland, Australia. His political psychology research has been published in leading international journals, such as the European Journal of Political Research, Political Psychology, West European Politics, Journal of Common Market Studies, Public Administration, Evidence and Policy, and the Australian Journal of Public Administration. xviii Notes on Contributors Craig Parsons is Head of Department and Professor of Political Science at the University of Oregon, USA. He is a specialist of the European Union, political economy, and comparative federalism. B. Guy Peters is Maurice Falk Professor of Governance at the University of Pittsburgh, USA. His research is primarily in comparative public policy and public administration. His recent books include Governance and Comparative Politics (with Jon Pierre) and Pursuing Horizontal Management. Jon Pierre is Professor of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden and Professor of Public Governance at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is also Adjunct Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, USA. His research interests are theories and empirical research on governance, public administration and urban politics. Matt Ryan is Lecturer in Governance and Public Policy at the University of Southampton, UK. His research in comparative politics and public policy focuses in particular on changing relationships between citizens and institutions of governance. His most recent publications appear in European Journal of Political Research, PS: Political Science and Politics, and Political Studies Review. David Sanders is Regius Professor of Government at the University of Essex, UK. He is currently working on the character, sources and conse- quences of authoritarian populism in Europe. Brad Taylor is Lecturer in Economics and Political Economy at the University of Southern Queensland, Australia. His main research interests are in political rationality, competitive governance, and analytic political philosophy. Dimiter Toshkov is Associate Professor at the Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University, The Netherlands. He studies compara- tive public policy, European integration and research methodology. His book Research Design in Political Science was published by Palgrave in 2016. Ariadne Vromen is Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Sydney, Australia. She has long-term research interests in political partici- pation and digital politics, and her latest book Digital Citizenship and Political Engagement was published in early 2017. Mark Wenman is Senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of Birmingham, UK. He has published numerous articles on pluralism, poststructuralism, and contemporary democratic theory, and is author of Agonistic Democracy: constituent power in the era of globalisation published in 2013 by Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1 Introduction VIVIEN LOWNDES, DAVID MARSH AND GERRY STOKER This book introduces the theories and methods that political scientists use, which we think tells us a great deal about the nature of political science. To us, political science is best defined in terms of what political scientists do. Of course, there are thousands of political scientists around the world and we have tried to capture and clarify the variety of ways they seek to understand, explore and analyse the complex processes of politics in the modern era. We are interested in how they differ in their approach, but also in what they share. Our book identifies nine approaches used by political scientists and then explores some of the specific research meth- ods, which are used in different combinations by scholars from these different approaches. All disciplines tend to be chaotic, to some extent, in their development (Abbott, 2001) and political science is certainly no exception. However, we would argue that the variety of approaches and debates explored in this book are a reflection of its richness and growing maturity. When trying to understand something as complex, contingent and chaotic as politics, it is not surprising that academics have developed a great variety of approaches. For those studying the discipline for the first time, it may be disconcerting that there is no agreed approach or method of study. Indeed, as we shall see, there is not even agreement about the nature of politics itself. But, we argue that political scientists should celebrate diversity, rather than see it as a problem. The Nobel Prize winner Herbert Simon makes a powerful case for a plurality of approaches, which he sees as underpinning the scientist’s commitment to constant questioning and searching for understanding: I am a great believer in pluralism in science. Any direction you pro- ceed in has a very high a priori probability of being wrong; so it is good if other people are exploring in other directions – perhaps one of them will be on the right track. (Simon, 1992: 21) Studying politics involves making an active selection among a variety of approaches and methods; this book provides students and researchers with the capacity to make informed choices. However, whatever your choice, we hope to encourage you to keep an open mind and consider whether some other route might yet yield better results. 1 2 Introduction The study of politics can trace its origins at least as far back as Plato (Almond, 1996); as such, it has a rich heritage and a substantial base on which to grow and develop. More specifically, it has been an academic discipline for just over a century; the American Political Science Asso- ciation was formed in 1903 and other national associations followed. As Goodin and Klingemann (1996) argue, in the last few decades the discipline has become a genuinely international enterprise. Excellent and challenging political science is produced in many countries and this book reflects the internationalisation of the discipline in two senses. First, we have authors who are based in the UK, elsewhere in Europe, the USA and Australia. Second, many of the illustrations and exam- ples provided by authors offer up experiences from a range of coun- tries, or provide a global perspective. Our authors draw on experiences from around the world and relate domestic political science concerns to those of international relations. This makes sense in an ever more globalised world. The increasing influence of global forces in our everyday lives makes globalisation a central feature of the modern era. Debates about collec- tive decisions which we observe at the international, national and local levels take place through a dynamic of governance (Chhotray and Stoker, 2009). In the world of governance, outcomes are not determined by cohe- sive, unified nation states or formal institutional arrangements. Rather, they involve individual and collective actors both inside and beyond the state, who operate via complex and varied networks. In addition, the gap between domestic politics and international relations has narrowed, with domestic politics increasingly influenced by transnational forces. Migra- tion, human rights, issues of global warming, pandemics of ill-health and the challenges of energy provision cannot, for example, be contained or addressed within national boundaries alone. A new world politics (different from ‘international relations’) is emerg- ing, in which non-state actors play a vital role, alongside nation states (Cerny, 2010). The study of world politics is not a separate enterprise, focused on the study of the diplomatic, military and strategic activities of nation states. Non-state and international institutions, at the very least, provide a check to the battle between nation states. At the same time, the role of cities and sub-national regions has expanded, as they make links across national borders in pursuit of economic investment in a global marketplace, while seeking also to collaborate in tackling complex gov- ernance challenges (such as migration and global warming), which do not themselves respect national boundaries. Indeed, some analysts go as far as to suggest that cities may become the ‘new sovereign’ in inter- national orders in which both nation states and multilateral bodies are challenged (Barber, 2013; Katz and Bradley, 2013). Moreover, the breadth of the issues to be addressed at the international level has extended into a range of previously domestic concerns, with a focus on financial, employment, health, human rights and poverty reduc- tion issues. At the same time, the nature of politics at the international Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 3 level has become more politically driven, through bargaining, hegemonic influence and soft power – rather than driven solely by military prowess and economic strength, although the latter remain important. However, the questions to be asked about politics at local, national and global levels are fundamentally the same. How is power exercised to determine outcomes? What are the roles of competing interests and identities? How is coordination and cooperation achieved to achieve shared purposes? How are issues of justice and fairness of outcome to be identified and understood? Consequently, the examples and illustrations of the aca- demic study of politics in this book reflect the growing interlinkage of domestic politics and international relations. This book focuses upon the ways of thinking or theorising offered by political scientists and the methods they are using to discover more about the subject at the beginning of the twenty-first century. It is inevi- table that the book will neither be fully comprehensive in its coverage of political science, nor able to provide sufficient depth in approaching all of the issues that are considered. Rather, our intention is to provide an introduction to the main approaches to political science and a balanced assessment of some of the debates and disagreements that have charac- terised a discipline with several thousand years of history behind it, and many thousands of practitioners in the modern world. The book is divided into two broad parts. The chapters in the first part map the broad ways of approaching political science that have had, and are likely to have, a major effect on the development of politi- cal science: behaviouralism, rational choice theory, institutionalism, constuctivism, feminism, Marxism, poststructuralism and political psy- chology (see Table 1.1). Each of the approaches focuses upon a set of issues, understandings and practices that define a particular way of doing political science. We asked each of our authors not simply to advocate their approach, but also to explore criticisms of that approach. In this respect, we hope that each author offers a robust, but self-aware and critical, understanding of his or her way of doing political science. We have also asked authors to provide ‘worked examples’ of their approach in action within political science. As such, our understanding of theory is neither abstract, nor abstruse. In our experience, students often regard theory as a burden, something that gets in the way of studying real-life politics. We want to show how theory facilitates, rather than obstructs. The approaches discussed in this book show how theory frames new questions and provides important leverage for understanding political puzzles. Theory allows us to see things we wouldn’t otherwise see. Each of our approaches could be seen as a different pair of spectacles; when we put them on our focus changes, and different aspects of a phenome- non come into view. Beyond the academy, political science not only influ- ences the world of politics and governance by providing evidence from research, but also has the potential to shape the way in which political actors themselves regard their opportunities and develop their strategies (as reflected, for example, in the influence of rational choice theory on Table 1.1 Approaches to political science Scope of Political Studies Understanding of the Attitude to Normative Relationship to the Scientific Claim Political Theory Practice of Politics Behaviouralism Concentrates on processes The generation of general In early phase keen to Claims to be value of politics associated with laws and at a minimum the emphasise difference between free, neutral and mainstream politics and development of theoretical the new science and old detached government statements that can be armchair theorising. Now 4 Introduction falsified. Keen to subject gives due recognition to the claims to empirical test value of political theory through direct observation Rational Choice Concerned with conditions The generation of general Gives recognition to the Claims to be able Theory for collective action in main- laws and in particular laws value of political theory but to offer value-free stream political world with predictive power focus is less on what could be expert advice about and more on what is feasible how to organise politics Institutionalism Focus is on the rules, norms Science is the production of Keen to make connections Keen to make con- and values that govern politi- organised knowledge. The between empirical analysis nections, sees itself cal exchanges, tends to look best political science is em- and normative theory as working along- at institutional arrangements pirically grounded, theoreti- side the practition- in mainstream political world cally informed and reflective ers of politics Constructivism Politics is driven by the Understanding of human Tends towards the view that A mixed range meanings that actors attach activity is inherently different there is fusion between all of responses but to their actions and their to that of the physical world types of theorising. Political tendency is towards context. Politics can be broad analysis is essentially con- wry commentary on in scope, reflecting people’s tested and has a necessarily the narrative bat- diverse world views about normative content tles of the political what it involves world Psychological ap- Views politics through the How individuals identify and Tends to view assumptions Often seeks to offer proaches lens of the personality and frame the political challenges made about human nature insights into how cognition of the individuals they face can be studied in much political theory as politics works and who engage in its practice, in a way that allows for inadequate. Generally not how it could be primarily within the main- theoretical generalisations oriented towards normative made to work better stream political world to be tested by empirical theory investigation Feminism A broad process definition A mixed range of responses Normative theory, like all Political engage- and gendered that recognises that the per- to this issue but with strong aspects of political studies, ment is strongly approaches sonal can be political tendencies towards anti- needs to take gender issues part of the feminist foundational and critical seriously impulse realist perspectives Marxism Politics is a struggle between Critical realist: the discovery Normative theory is at its Committed to en- social groups, in particular of below-the-surface forces most useful when it provides gagement in strug- social classes that guide but do not deter- a guide to action: the point is gles of suppressed mine historical events to change the world social groups or classes Poststructuralism Politics takes place and There can be no scientific Some criticise it for ethical Arguably a major achieves impact across a claim as our experience of relativism. But the approach impact through range of social institutions ‘reality’ is intrinsically medi- does sustain a normative cri- popular culture and and environments and in a ated by language or discourse tique of power and domina- a strong capacity to variety of ways tion and promotes agonistic develop a critique of theories of democracy others’ truth claims Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 5 6 Introduction many right-wing governments, or of institutional approaches like gov- ernance on transnational bodies and development agencies). The final chapter in this first part of the book explores the issue of normative theory, although it is important to recognise that there are normative elements in all approaches. This is one of the most traditional approaches to political science, but it remains relevant today. Political science should be (and is) interested in understanding both ‘what is’, usually seen as the empirical dimension, and also ‘what should be’, the normative dimension. Further, we agree with Baubock (2008: 40) that ‘empirical research can be guided by normative theory; and normative theory can be improved by empirical research’. The distinctiveness of normative theory is clear, but the dialogue between normative theory and the other approaches is crucial. Empirical theorists can benefit from the specification and clarification of arguments provided by normative theory and, in our view, normative theorists need to look to empirical research, as well as hypothetical arguments, to help support their case. Moreover, the emergence of new empirically driven theoretical insights, for example those associated with the governance school (Chhotray and Stoker, 2009), may open up new issues and challenges for normative theory. The second half of the book moves to issues of methodology and research design. We begin, in Chapter 11, by introducing debates about the ontological and epistemological positions which shape our answers to the crucial questions of what we study, how we study it and, most significantly, what we can claim on the basis of our research. These onto- logical and epistemological positions also underpin what in Chapter 12 we term meta-theoretical issues, specifically, the relationships between structure and agency, the material and the ideational and continuity and change, which cut across all the different approaches. Subsequently, in Chapter 13, we turn to the important question of how we design our research project or programme. Finally, in the last five substantive chapters we examine different research methods. We examine the range of both qualitative and quantitative techniques that are available and how these techniques can be combined in meeting the challenge of research design, before moving on to consider the poten- tial and limitations of the comparative (often cross-national) method for understanding political phenomena. We then turn to two methods which have come to prominence in political science more recently, exper- imental methods and ‘big data’. In an increasingly digital age enormous volumes of data are generated outside the academy and can be used to reveal patterns of human behaviour and interaction that have political significance. The final chapter in the book assesses the utility of politi- cal science not in terms of its methods, but by examining whether it has anything relevant to say to policymakers, public servants and, most importantly, citizens. In the remainder of this introductory chapter we aim to provide an analysis of the term ‘political’ and some reflections on justifications of Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 7 the term ‘scientific’ to describe its academic study. We close by returning to the issue of variety within political science by arguing that diversity should be a cause of celebration rather than concern. What is politics? What is it that political scientists study? When people say they ‘study politics’ they are making an ontological statement because, within that statement, there is an implicit understand- ing of what the polity is made up of, and its general nature. They are also making a statement that requires some clarification. In any introduction to a subject it is important to address the focus of its analytical attention. So, simply put, we should be able to answer the question: what is the nature of the political that political scientists claim to study? A disci- pline, you might think, would have a clear sense of its terrain of enquiry. Interestingly, that is not the case in respect of political science. Just as there are differences of approach to the subject, so there are differences about the terrain of study. As Hay (2002: chapter 2) argues, ontological questions are about what is and what exists. Ontology asks: what’s there to know about? Although a great variety of ontological questions can be posed (discussed in Chapters 11 and 12), a key concern for political scientists relates to the nature of the political. There are two broad approaches to defin- ing the political, seeing politics in terms of an arena or a process (Left- wich, 1984; Hay, 2002). An arena definition regards politics as occurring within certain limited ‘arenas’, initially involving a focus upon Parlia- ment, the executive, the public service, political parties, interest groups and elections, although this was later expanded to include the judici- ary, army and police. Here, political scientists, especially behaviouralists but also rational choice theorists and some institutionalists, focus upon the formal operation of politics in the world of government and those who seek to influence it. This approach to the political makes a lot of sense and obviously relates to some everyday understandings. For exam- ple, when people say they are fed up or bored with politics, they usually mean that they have been turned off by the behaviour or performance of those politicians most directly involved in the traditional political arena. The other definition of ‘politics’, a process definition, is much looser than the arena one (Leftwich, 2004: 3) and reflects the idea that power is inscribed in all social processes (for example, in the family and the schoolroom). This broader definition of the political is particularly asso- ciated with feminism, constructivism, poststructuralism and Marxism. For feminists in particular there has been much emphasis on the idea that the ‘personal is political’ (Hanisch, 1969). This mantra partly originated in debates about violence against women in the home, which had tradi- tionally been seen as ‘non-political’, because they occurred in the private 8 Introduction rather than the public realm. Indeed, in the UK at least, the police, his- torically, referred to such violence as ‘a domestic’, and therefore not their concern. The feminist argument, in contrast, was that such violence reflected a power relationship and was inherently ‘political’. Marxists have also generally preferred a definition of politics that sees it as a reflection of a wider struggle between social classes in society. Poli- tics in capitalist systems involves a struggle to assert the interest of the proletariat (the disadvantaged) in a system in which the state forwards the interests of the ruling class. Constructivists tend to see politics as a process conducted in a range of arenas, with the main struggles around political identity (hence the focus on identity politics). Poststructuralists take this position further, arguing that politics is not ‘contained’ within a single structure of domination; rather, power is diffused throughout social institutions and processes, and even inscribed in people’s bodies. Process definitions are usually criticised by those who adopt arena definitions, because of what is termed ‘conceptual stretching’ or the ‘boundary problem’ (see Ekman and Amnå, 2012; Hooghe, 2014). If politics occurs in all social interactions between individuals, then we are in danger of seeing everything as political, so that there is no sepa- ration between the ‘political’ and the ‘social’. The alarm bells might be ringing here since it appears that political scientists cannot even agree about the subject matter of their discipline. Yet our view is that both ‘arena’ and ‘process’ definitions have their value; indeed, the relation- ship between process and arena definitions may be best seen as a dual- ity, that is interactive and iterative, rather than a dualism, or an either/ or (Rowe et al., 2017). Moreover, all of the different approaches to political science we identify would at least recognise that politics is about power and that we need to widen significantly an arena defini- tion of politics. Goodin and Klingemann (1996: 7) suggest that a broad consen- sus could be built around a definition of politics along the lines: ‘the constrained use of social power.’ The political process is about collective choice, without simple resort to force or violence, although it does not exclude at least the threat of those options. It is about what shapes and constrains those choices and the use of power and its consequences. It would cover unintended as well as intended acts, and passive as well as active practices. Politics enables individuals or groups to do some things that they would not otherwise be able to do, while it also constrains indi- viduals or groups from doing what they might otherwise do. Although the different approaches to political science may have their own take on a definition of politics, contesting how exactly power is exercised or practised, they might accept Goodin and Klingemann’s broad definition. It is clear that politics is much broader than what governments do, but there is still something especially significant about political processes that are, or could be, considered to be part of the public domain. In a pragmatic sense, it is probably true to say that most political scientists tend to concentrate their efforts in terms of analysis and research on the Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 9 more collective and public elements of power struggles. But, it is impor- tant that we develop a sense of the collective or public arena that takes us beyond the narrow machinations of the political elite. What is a scientific approach to politics? As Goodin and Klingemann (1996: 9) comment, ‘much ink has been spilt over the question of whether, or in what sense, the study of politics is or is not truly a science. The answer largely depends upon how much one tries to load into the term “science”.’ If you adopt what they call a mini- malist approach the question can be answered fairly straightforwardly, namely that political science is science in the sense that it offers ordered knowledge based on systematic enquiry. There is no reason to doubt that political science in all its forms has achieved, or could achieve, that level of knowledge. But, beyond such a basic agreement, the approaches that we consider in this book take diverse views on the issue of ‘science’. What is at stake here is the various ontological and epistemological positions taken by the different approaches. As Marsh, Ercan and Fur- long argue in Chapter 11, ontology is concerned with what we can know about the world, and epistemology with how we can know it. There is a fundamental ontological difference between realists (or foundation- alists) and constructivists (or anti-foundationalists). The former argue that a real world exists independently of our knowledge of it and can be discovered as such if we use the right methods in the right way. Con- structivists, on the other hand, view the world as socially constructed and capable of being interpreted in different ways. Crucial for a con- structivist is the idea that there is a double hermeneutic (Giddens, 1987), that is, two levels of ‘understanding’. From this perspective, the world is interpreted by the actors (one hermeneutic level), and their interpretation is interpreted by the observer (a second hermeneutic level). For research- ers, the aim becomes to explore their own interpretation of the interpre- tations made by actors about their behaviour. If ontological realists are epistemological positivists rather than criti- cal realists (see Chapter 11), they are concerned to identify causal rela- tionships, developing explanatory, and, most often, predictive models (following natural scientists). Critical realists, in contrast, do not privi- lege direct observation; rather, they posit the existence of deep structures, which cannot be directly observed but shape the actions of agents. Con- structivists can draw upon a long tradition within social and political studies, but it is fair to say that this is an approach of growing impor- tance in the discipline which has seen a growth in research within the interpretivist school (see Chapter 5), alongside broader intellectual cur- rents associated with poststructuralism (see Chapter 8). It is by no means straightforward to divide the various approaches considered in this volume on the basis of their epistemological position. 10 Introduction The behavioural and rational choice approaches are those that most obviously claim the positivist position. The former aims to identify gen- eral laws about political action/life, while the latter places more of an emphasis on the predictive capabilities of its models. At the same time, the epistemological positions underpinning the different approaches reviewed in this book have been subject to change and development. As Sanders points out in Chapter 2, behaviouralists have increasingly acknowledged the first level of the hermeneutic, acknowledging that an individual’s action may reflect the way in which s/he thinks about the world, as much as any external ‘reality’. So, in explaining voting behav- iour, they would recognise that a voter’s subjective perception of his/her class position is as important as his/her objective class position. Never- theless, a positivist, whether a behaviouralist or a rational choice theorist, does seek to establish causal relationships between political phenomena, which are reproducible and generalisable – a position which would be questioned by any constructivist. At the same time, as Marsh, Ercan and Furlong argue in Chapter 11, a positivist has great difficulty in accepting the second level of the hermeneutic, which emphasises that the research- er’s interpretation of what s/he discovers is partial, in both senses of the word. Most positivists would defend the idea that a researcher can be objective, with their conclusions unaffected by those partialities. A similarly nuanced stance on epistemological positions is taken by Parsons in relation to constructivist approaches. There are, as Parsons points out in Chapter 5, several different positions within the broad school of constructivism. One view argues that our concern should be with understanding, not explanation, thus challenging the scientific pre- tensions of positivists. In this view, there is no ‘real world’, independent of the social construction of it, for political scientists to study. As such, social science involves an interpretive search to understand the mean- ings attached to actions, rather than a scientific search for explanation, establishing causal relations between social phenomena. However, other constructivists do not break so sharply with science and causality, allow- ing for greater dialogue and exchange. Such constructivists would argue that, although action depends on meaning, this does not necessarily imply that there can be no explanation of why certain people do cer- tain things. If we can show that people’s action is shaped by meaningful social constructs, then a careful observer can show this to be the case, thus offering an explanation of that action (while being circumspect about the possibility of generalising from the case). Of the other approaches that we cover in the first part of the book it is clear that institutional, psychological and feminist approaches all include scholars who take different ontological and epistemological positions. The psychologists lean towards positivism, but many would be com- fortable with the modern behaviouralist position outlined by Sanders (Chapter 2). In contrast, institutionalism and feminism are marked by ontological and epistemological debates, as Lowndes shows in relation to institutionalism in Chapter 4. As for feminism, many contemporary Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 11 scholars adopt a constructivist position, while other feminist researchers consider how gender explains political action in a way that would fit with a positivist perspective (see Chapter 6). Poststructuralists, however, see epistemology as prior to ontology, and argue that our experience of ‘reality’ is intrinsically mediated by language and discourse; as such, we can never get beyond appearances to underlying essences (Chapter 8). We certainly cannot assume that (political) ‘reality’ takes the form of law-like relationships, nor are there any criteria (following Parsons) to establish the veracity of certain modes of interpretation or interpreta- tions; hence, this is a radical form of constructivism. The critical realist position dominates the Marxist camp (Chapter 7), although it is also evident among historical institutionalists; indeed, both approaches have given some ground to constructivist arguments. We finish this section by emphasising again that the different approaches reviewed in this book have been, and are, subject to change and development. Different parts of the discipline have listened to, and learnt from, each other. We strongly support the idea of further dialogue. The contributions in this book suggest that there may be more common ground than we usually acknowledge. In particular, we would empha- sise the need to be sensitive to the importance of meaning in explain- ing human action, and a willingness to explore arguments in a rigorous empirical manner, where appropriate. The discipline of political science: a celebration of diversity? Read many of the reviews of political science and they agree that politi- cal science has become more diverse and more cosmopolitan in character (see, for example, Almond, 1990; Goodin and Klingemann, 1996; and on the social sciences in general, see Della Porta and Keating, 2008). Some of those who pioneered what they called the scientific treatment of the subject expected that the scientific revolution would lead to a unity in the understanding of political science (Weisberg, 1986: 4). There can be little doubt that those ambitions have not been realised; indeed, constructivists would say they can’t be realised. There is a basis for some common agreement about what constitutes ‘minimal professional com- petence’, but as Goodin and Klingemann (1996: 6) note, when it comes to judging the value of work beyond some agreed baseline of coherence and craftsmanship ‘the higher aspirations are many and varied’. Conse- quently, there is a de facto plurality of views about the nature of political science endeavour. So, has peace broken out in the political sciences? There is a grudging public acceptance of plurality, but in private there is a quiet war going on. Some positivists are very dismissive of the ‘storytelling’ approaches of others. Some constructivists imply that philosophical ignorance and 12 Introduction naivety about human behaviour are associated with the ambitions of positivist, big data-driven and experimental political science. As James Mahoney and Gary Goertz (2006: 227–228) suggest, when it comes to the cultures of quantitative and qualitative methods each ‘is sometimes privately suspicious or skeptical of the other though usually more pub- licly polite. Communication across traditions tends to be difﬁcult and marked by misunderstanding. When members of one tradition offer their insights to members of the other community, the advice is likely to be viewed (rightly or wrongly) as unhelpful and even belittling.’ Our hope is that political science can move from at best grudging acceptance to something closer to a celebration of diversity. We started the chapter with Herbert Simon’s argument that, if you are not sure of what the answer is, then there is inherent value in having the option of several paths being travelled at the same time. Beyond this, we can think of three factors to support the case for a plurality of approaches. First, there is evidence of epistemological gain through the richness of approaches. Broadly, as Sanders shows in Chapter 2, behaviouralists have had to rethink and improve their approach under challenge from constructivist perspectives. Equally, as Parsons notes in Chapter 5, con- structivists have been encouraged to be more explicit about data collec- tion and methods of analysis under pressure from those coming from a more positivist tradition. Second, although there is a danger of too much plurality – in the sense that there could be so many varieties of political science that fragmenta- tion makes effective dialogue impossible – such a point has not yet been reached. There is the opportunity to learn from different approaches at present, although this is certainly challenging, given the enormous range and variety of journals, research outputs and books. Of course, part of the aim behind this book is to enable political scientists with different approaches to understand one another better. Perhaps we need more effective rules of engagement. There are implicit shared standards in most work – whatever tradition within which we are working – but we need to make these more explicit. Good work, whatever its approach, should be clear about its conceptual framing and also transparent, and reflective, about its methods of data collection and analysis. It should frame its arguments in the context of work that has gone before and, where relevant, it should aim to address (or at least engage with) con- cerns held by stakeholders and actors within society. Our third argument for a plurality of approaches concerns the rel- evance of political science to the wider world, which is the focus of the final chapter of the book. There are, as noted in Chapter 19, several ways for political scientists to address relevance; but what cannot be avoided is a commitment to addressing it. Political science exists in a society where politics plays a vital role and as such its findings should be made accessible (and of value) to our fellow citizens. At times, it has been argued that political scientists suffer from economist-envy. Because that discipline has a promoted a strong one-size-fits-all approach to Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 13 understanding policy problems, it has often been more successful in gain- ing the ear of policymakers (Bowles, 2016). Yet that strength has also proved to be a significant weakness, as the limits to the role of incen- tives and self-interested behaviour in steering good public policy have been increasingly exposed (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008; Bowles, 2016). Economists’ perceived capacity to make effective predictions has been challenged, notably in relation to the global financial crisis of 2008 (Wil- son, 2015). As political science steps up its commitment to relevance, having a plurality of approaches could be an advantage. Reaching out to a pluralistic world, where there is no one prince, principal or governor – as economists tend to imagine – seems likely to require a diversity of approaches. We believe that, at this stage in its development, it is important for political science not to depict itself as a small club of like-minded people. Rather, it is a broad church with different starting points and concerns, which also shares a commitment to developing a better understanding of politics. The key challenge is not to launch a campaign for unity, but to argue in favour of diversity, combined with dialogue. Almond (1990, 1996) warns that the discipline should avoid constructing itself into an uneasy collection of separate sects. There is a plurality of methods and approaches out there that should not be denied but, at the same time, there should be interaction between the approaches rather than isolation within an approach. Political science should be eclectic and synergistic; this is why we think it is important to celebrate diversity. We argue that political science is enriched by the variety of approaches that are adopted within the discipline. Each has something of considerable value to offer, but each can benefit from its interaction with other approaches. In giving space to a variety of ways of doing political science, our book aims to provide the essential ingredients for an ongoing exchange that can ena- ble different approaches to gain a baseline understanding of one another. In this introduction we have briefly addressed two questions. What is the scope of political studies? And can it claim the label of science? We conclude that, while political scientists are divided on these issues, there is scope for identifying some common ground. We argue that diversity within the field should be embraced at the present time. Utilising a plu- rality of approaches is the best way to face up to the challenging task of understanding a core human activity such as politics. Part 1 Theory and Approaches Introduction to Part 1 VIVIEN LOWNDES, DAVID MARSH AND GERRY STOKER Part 1 begins with the behavioural approach to political science in Chapter 2, written by David Sanders. It is appropriate to start with this approach since the behavioural revolution constitutes the key develop- ment in the establishment of modern political science against which all other approaches must situate themselves. Above all the behavioural movement confirmed the call to shift decisively attention away from the formal, legalistic study of political institutions and constitutions. That shift remains an accepted part of the terrain for all political scientists. All empirically oriented political science shares with the behaviouralists a concern with the way in which politics operates in practice. Sanders offers a subtle account of how the behaviouralist approach has evolved and provides a convincing and powerful account of where modern behaviouralism stands now. The second approach to be considered is rational choice theory (Chapter 3). It too claimed to bring a revolutionary new approach to the discipline. There can be little doubt about the impact of this approach. Some of its advocates argue that it constitutes the key approach for delivering a political science that is cumulative in its knowledge pro- duction and a powerful member of a wider social science community, unified through the adoption of axioms and methods initially derived from economics. While some emphasise the overweening virtues of an approach that favours formal theory and mathematical rigour, others now see rational choice approaches as one among a variety of paths that can be taken. That second option is certainly the position taken by Andy Hindmoor and Brad Taylor in their chapter, and one that is shared by the editors. The way of thinking and the challenge posed by rational choice analysis has something to offer all in the discipline but its claim to be a high priest is rightly regarded with scepticism. The third style of political science examined in the book is institu- tional analysis. As Vivien Lowndes points out in Chapter 4, those inter- ested in institutional studies may have found themselves out of favour as first behaviouralists and then rational choice theorists blazed a trail for a new political science unencumbered by the old interest in institutions and constitutions. However, a new intuitionalism has emerged, as a check to the undersocialised accounts of political action offered by behaviouralism and rational choice, which shares a core view that institutions shape political relationships in important ways. There are many ways in which that interest in institutionalism has been expressed, 17 18 INTRODUCTION TO PART 1 including through a focus on institutional rules, norms and narratives. Indeed, the new interest in institutions has provided a basis for a rap- prochement within the discipline, as both behaviouralists and rational choice students have come to grant increasing recognition to the importance of institutions. In Chapter 5 Craig Parsons gives full coverage to constructiv- ist approach and interpretive theory and in so doing challenges the approaches outlined in the previous chapters, although, as he notes, many institutionalists also make constructivist arguments. What is dis- tinctive about this approach is the claim that political action is related to the presence of certain ‘social constructs’ – ideas, beliefs, norms, iden- tities. These interpretive filters work through affecting the way people see the world; human action is in turn structured by the meanings that people attach to themselves and their circumstances. While these filters are downplayed in most versions of rational choice theory, they can be a focus of attention in many of the other approaches discussed in this book. Constructivism therefore offers a distinctive, plausible means of understanding why people act the way they do. Constructivists need to think about and engage with non-constructivist alternatives to their claims, but non-constructivists should also routinely consider construc- tivist competitors in their own research. Political science remains in need of challenge from all quarters. As Meryl Kenny and Fiona Mackay show in Chapter 6, feminist and gendered approaches share an understanding that politics needs to be defined in a broad sense, in that the personal can be political and that engagement with progressive change is part of the mission of research. The chapter reminds us that gender approaches are not only about women, discussing the role of men and masculinities in explaining une- qual political outcomes. Intersectional identities are also highlighted, with the authors showing how ‘race-gendered institutions’ distribute political power. Using a variety of different theoretical and methodological start- ing points, feminist and gendered scholarship enriches our understanding of major political issues – particularly around power and difference – and their implications for the ways in which we conduct research. In Chapter 7, Ray Kiely considers the question of the continued rel- evance of Marxism for understanding contemporary globalisation. By framing the understanding of politics within a broader political econ- omy, the chapter shows how it is possible – both historically and in the context of the contemporary world – to trace the way in which politics works, not in a vacuum, but within the context of a wider economic and social system. These dynamics shape both the challenges faced by politics and the solutions it can provide. Our understanding of the glo- balised world we live in – and its persistent and rising inequalities – would be the poorer if it lacked the insights from both traditional and present-day Marxism. Sharing with feminist approaches a commitment to progressive social change, Marxist analyses throw light on the rise of anti-globalisation and social justice movements (like Occupy) and the Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 19 emergence of influential new political parties such as Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece. Marxist analyses are often used in dialogue with poststructuralist approaches, which are the subject of Chapter 8, a new contribution for this fourth edition of the Theories and Methods. The inclusion of a chap- ter on poststructuralism reflects the growing volume and significance of work within this approach. Mark Wenman traces the origins of the approach and offers a clear commentary on its core claims, which chal- lenge many of the mainstream political science approaches covered in the book. The crucial argument is that there can be no scientific claim as our experience of ‘reality’ is intrinsically mediated by language or dis- course; the core strength of approach is a critique of others’ truth claims. The chapter provides readers with a robust defence against poststruc- turalism’s critics – notably by showing how the approach can be used in empirical as well as philosophical work, for example in research on the rise of populism. The chapter mounts a set of arguments that need to be addressed by all political scientists, and are taken up again in David Marsh’s discussion of meta-theoretical issues in Part 2 of the book. In Chapter 9, we remind readers of the importance of political psy- chology approaches which have also gained prominence in recent dec- ades. As Frank Mols and Paul ‘t Hart argue, political psychologists tap into a reservoir of concepts, propositions and paradigms about human and social behaviour that all mainstream political science should be willing to consider. Furthermore, its methodological sophistication and commitment to careful research design provide lessons for all political scientists. We should also not forget that normative political theory continues to play a key role in political studies. Chris Armstrong, in Chapter 10, provides an overview of key themes from normative political theory, focusing on both the feasibility and the achievability of political ideals. The discussion shows how core issues of justice and liberty remain at the heart of politics – notably in discussions around human rights and the future of democracy – and are therefore of continuing relevance to political science. Chapter 2 Behavioural Analysis DAVID SANDERS The behavioural approach to social and political analysis concentrates on a single, deceptively simple question: Why do people behave in the way they do? What differentiates behaviouralists from other social sci- entists is their insistence that (1) observable behaviour, whether it is at the level of the individual or the social aggregate, should be the focus of analysis; and (2) any explanation of that behaviour should be sus- ceptible to empirical testing. Behavioural scholars take the view that, whatever theoretical categories any analysis uses, social enquiry is fun- damentally about trying to understand what it is that (some) people do, think or say. Scholars working in the behavioural tradition have investigated a wide range of substantive problems. Behaviouralists have extensively analysed the reasons that underlie the main form of mass political par- ticipation in democratic countries: voting (for example, Heath et al., 1994; Clarke et al., 2009). They have also examined the origins of participation in other, more unconventional, forms of political activity such as demonstrations, strikes and even riots (for example, Barnes and Kaase, 1979; Parry et al., 1992; Anderson and Mendes, 2006). At the elite level, behaviouralists have analysed leadership behaviour, placing particular emphasis on the connections between the way in which lead- ers view the world (their attitudes and values) and the particular actions that they take (for example, Allison, 1971; King, 1985; Sanders, 1990; Dunleavy and Jones, 1993; King, 2002). In terms of social aggregates, behavioural analysis has examined the actions of interest groups (for example, Grant and Marsh, 1977; Wilson, 1990; Nownes and Lipinski, 2005) and political parties (for example, Budge and Fairlie, 1983; Budge and Laver, 1992; Dalton, 2002; Ezrow, 2008). At the international level, behavioural analysis has also focused on the actions of nation states (for example, Rosenau, 1969; Lebovic, 2004), as well as on the behaviour of non‑state actors such as multinational corporations, international terrorist groups and supranational organisations such as the European Union (for example, Keohane, 1984; Baldwin, 1993; Cederman et al., 2013). In all these diverse contexts, the central questions that behaviour- alists seek to answer are simple: what do the actors involved actually do? How can we best explain why they do it? These are obviously not 20 David Sanders 21 the only questions that can be asked about individual and social actors. Behaviouralists simply believe that they are the most important ones. This chapter is divided into four sections. The first provides a brief outline of the origins of behaviouralism and summarises the core ana- lytic assertions that underpin it. The second section reviews the main criticisms that, with varying degrees of justification, have been lev- elled at the behavioural approach. The third part describes one major study – Cederman, Gleditsch and Buhaug’s analysis (2013) of the effects of inequality on the occurrence of civil war – which illustrates some of the more positive features of behavioural analysis. The final section considers the influence that behaviouralism continues to exert on con- temporary political researchers. The rise of the behavioural movement and its core characteristics The behavioural movement assumed an important position in the social sciences in the 1950s and 1960s. Its philosophical origins were in the writings of Auguste Comte (Comte, 1974) in the nineteenth cen- tury and in the logical positivism of the ‘Vienna Circle’ in the 1920s. Positivism, which was popularised in Britain by Alfred Ayer and in Germany by Carl Hempel, asserted that analytic statements made about the physical or social world fell into one of three categories. First, such statements could be useful tautologies; they could be purely definitional statements that assigned a specific meaning to a particular phenomenon or concept. For example, we might define families living on less than one‑third of the average weekly wage as ‘living below the poverty line’. Second, statements could be empirical, that is to say, they could be tested against observation in order to see if they were true or false. Third, statements that fell into neither of the first two categories were devoid of analytic meaning. For the positivists, in short, meaningful analysis could proceed only on the basis of useful tautologies and empirical statements; metaphysics, theology, aesthetics and even ethics merely introduced meaningless obfuscation into the process of enquiry. It would not be correct, of course, to assume that behavioural- ism accepted all the philosophical precepts of positivism. Even as behaviouralism was gaining increasingly wide acceptance among social scientists in the 1950s, positivism itself was being subjected to ferocious philosophical criticism – not least on the grounds that it was unclear whether positivism’s assertion that there were only three types of statement was itself tautological, empirical or meaningless. This said, behaviouralism’s view of the nature of empirical theory and of explanation was strongly influenced by the positivist tradition. Although there are many definitions of these two critical terms, most 22 Behavioural Analysis behaviouralists would probably accept something along the lines of the following: An empirical theory is a set of interconnected abstract statements, consisting of assumptions, definitions and empirically testable hypotheses, which purports to describe and explain the occurrence of a given phenomenon or set of phenomena. An explanation is a causal account of the occurrence of some phe- nomenon or set of phenomena. An explanation of a particular (class of) event(s) consists in the specification of the minimum non‑tauto- logical set of antecedent necessary and sufficient conditions required for its (their) occurrence. The importance of these definitions of theory and explanation lies in the implications that they have for theory evaluation. For positivists, the crucial question that should always be asked about any purport- edly explanatory theory is: How would we know if this theory were incorrect? Behaviouralism’s endorsement of the central importance of this question is precisely what demonstrates its intellectual debt to posi- tivism. For both positivists and behaviouralists there are three main ways in which explanatory theories can be evaluated: 1. A ‘good’ theory must be internally consistent; it must not make statements such that both the presence and the absence of a given set of antecedent conditions are deemed to ‘cause’ the occurrence of the phenomenon that is purportedly being explained. 2. A ‘good’ theory relating to a specific class of phenomena should, as far as possible, be consistent with other theories that seek to explain related phenomena. 3. And, crucially, genuinely explanatory theories must be capable of generating empirical predictions that can be tested against obser- vation. The only meaningful way of deciding between competing theories (which might appear to be equally plausible in other respects) is by empirical testing. This testing can be conducted either at the level of the individual s†ocial actor or at the level of the social aggregate – whichever is appropriate given the nature of the theory that is being tested. It is this emphasis on empirical observation and testing that produces the two characteristic features of the behavioural approach to social enquiry: The first – and least contentious – of these is behaviouralism’s com- mitment to the systematic use of all the relevant empirical evidence rather than a limited set of illustrative supporting examples. This com- mitment simply means that when a particular theoretical statement is being investigated, the researcher must not limit her/himself to a consid- eration of only those observed cases that provide ‘anecdotal’ support for David Sanders 23 the theoretical claims that are being made. Rather, the researcher must consider all the cases – or at least a representative sample of them – that are encompassed by the theoretical statement that is being evaluated. It is in this context that the use and development of statistical tech- niques is justified by behaviouralists – as a vehicle for analysing large amounts of ‘relevant empirical evidence’. It should be emphasised in the strongest possible terms, however, that behaviouralism is not synony- mous either with quantification or with the downgrading of qualitative research. Certainly, behavioural researchers have frequently used quan- titative techniques as heuristic devices for handling evidence. There is nothing intrinsic in behaviouralism’s epistemological position, however, that requires quantification. On the contrary, quantitative and qualita- tive forms of empirical analysis are equally acceptable to behavioural researchers. What matters for them is not whether evidence is quali- tative or quantitative but (1) that it is used to evaluate theoretical propositions; and (2) that it is employed systematically rather than illustratively. The second characteristic feature of behavioural analysis is slightly subtler in its implications – but no less important. It is simply that scien- tific theories and/or explanations must, in principle, be capable of being falsified. Note here that the reference is to ‘scientific’ rather than simply to ‘empirical’ or ‘explanatory’ theories. This usage reflects behavioural- ism’s commitment to Karl Popper’s revision of traditional positivism in which he (1) substituted the principle of falsifiability for that of verifica- tion; and (2) simultaneously identified the falsifiability criterion as the line of demarcation between ‘scientific’ and ‘pseudo‑scientific’ enquiry (Popper, 1959). In order fully to appreciate the import of this statement, a brief digres- sion is necessary. We need to consider precisely what is meant by a theory or an explanation being ‘falsifiable’. Consider the familiar statement that Popper himself used as an example: ‘All swans are white.’ Suppose that we observe a black swan. What does this tell us about the statement? One interpretation is that observing the black swan shows the statement to be empirically false; the statement was in principle capable of being falsified and it has been falsified. But there is another way of interpreting the statement in the light of a black swan being observed. The statement says that all swans are white. It follows that the black swan that we have observed cannot be a swan because it is not white; the statement, there- fore, is not false. Can both of these interpretations be correct? The answer is that they can. Each interpretation makes a different set of assumptions about the definition of a swan. The first assumes that a swan is a large bird with a long neck that looks very pretty when it paddles through water; it says nothing of the bird’s colour. In these circumstances, the definitions of ‘swan’ and ‘colour’ are independent; there is no overlap between them. In other words, it is possible to observe something that has all the char- acteristics of a swan regardless of its colour. We have observed a black 24 Behavioural Analysis swan and, therefore, the initial statement must have been false. The sec- ond interpretation assumes that a swan is a large bird with a long neck that looks very pretty when it paddles through water and that it is also white. In other words, this second interpretation assumes that whiteness is part of the definition of being a swan. In these circumstances, when a black ‘swan’ is observed it cannot be a swan, because part of the defini- tion of it being a swan is that it is white. What is clear from this disc

Theory and Methods in Political Science (4th Edition) PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue