METHODS USED BY BEHAVIORISTS, PART I
[Note: If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings. The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html). Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]
This blog ends its review of behavioral political study by reporting on the basic methodology the political scientists of that movement – the behavioral movement – utilize. Every academic field of study has an established method by which the practitioners of the field do their research. This is not a haphazard endeavor; extraordinary steps are taken to define these methodologies.
Practitioners take these methods seriously to ensure that the ways in which information is gathered and analyzed are legitimate according to thought-out rationales. In addition, neophytes are strenuously trained in those methods. In order to have their work taken seriously, scholars are critiqued on the methods they apply. Their work will be judged on a variety of related issues such as statistical procedures, interviewing techniques, and analyses of physical evidence.
By being taught these methods, the aim is to have would be political scientists learn to analyze, synthesize, and solve socially related problems or mysterious manifestations of curious events or developments. In other words, such instruction teaches students how to view the world which, in turn, will affect what they “see” and what they do not “see.”
As to political systems theory and related approaches, David Easton in the 1950s led political science to analyze political processes in behavioral terms. That is, the focus of study became human political behavior.[1] This entails observing and measuring behaviors that relate to and affect political realities, such as voting, political group behavior, and conflict behavior.
As stated previously in this blog, during the mid-twentieth century period, systems theory became the prominent approach in political science. With this ascendancy, the main methodology became those associated with behavioral studies.
By the 1970s and 1980s, the emphasis shifted somewhat to what Easton called a post-behavioral revolution,[2] but the bulk of studies published in the field’s peer reviewed journals still rely predominantly on “hard science techniques” as is indicated by a statement from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at that time (1987).
Although political scientists are prone to debate and [have] disagreement[s], the majority views the discipline as a genuine science. As a result, political scientists generally strive to emulate the objectivity as well as the conceptual and methodological rigor typically associated with the so-called “hard” science (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics). They see themselves as engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions. Based on these revelations, they attempt to state general principles about the way the world of politics works. Given these aims, it is important for political scientists’ writing to be conceptually precise, free from bias, and well-substantiated by empirical evidence. Knowing that political scientists value objectivity may help you in making decisions about how to write [a political science related] paper and what to put in it.[3]
Initially, the political systems approach attempted to apply those research techniques and theory building processes that defined the natural sciences.
Surely, the reader can recall the simplified version taught in school known as the scientific method (a creation of science educators in order to teach what scientists do). For those who need a reminder, here it is:
1. identify and define a problem;
2. hypothesize an educated guess that would solve the problem;
3. gather relevant information;
4. analyze the information;
5. draw a conclusion as to the truthfulness of the hypothesis; and
6. apply the conclusion (mostly to substantiate or modify, if necessary, existing theory).
Due to a host of critiques that evolved during the 1960s and '70s, the “post-behavioral revolution” occurred and resulted in applying scientific techniques to societal problems which were political in nature.
Why were political scientists attracted to this more “scientific” approach? This is Easton’s answer to that question:
Unlike the great traditional theories of past political thought, new theory [of the behavioral movement] tends to be analytic, not substantive, general rather than particular, and explanatory rather than ethical. That portion of political research which shares these commitments to both the new theory and the technical means of analysis and verification thereby links political science to broader behavioral tendencies in the social sciences and, hence, its description as political behavior. This is the full meaning and significance of the behavioral approach in political science today [in 1967].[4]
In layman's terms, Easton first points out what the perceived problem with traditional, pre-1950, political study was. That is, behaviorists view traditional study as highly speculative, mainly consisting of interpretations by political writers who non-objectively selected historical events to support preconceived conclusions.
To combat this embedded bias, behavioral researchers would mimic natural scientists by incorporating their methods. They would strive to be value free by utilizing experiments or observed behaviors (including responses to survey questionnaires). More specifically, the resulting studies abstracted these observed behaviors from their social contexts.
The behaviors could be observed and measured from actual, real world activities or from simulated situations in which experimenters set up the politically relevant conditions. The behaviors, once observed, were broken down so they could be measured in quantitative units (a process philosophically known as reductionism).
For example, Congressional votes can be abstracted from their substantive context. They can be analyzed to see what patterns emerge. Patterns are correlations (noting what occurs when some other thing or things occur). Despite pure scientific standards, correlations were converted into cause and effect relationships by formulating theories or explanations for the studied phenomena. This latter activity is conducted apart from the data gathering activities by a separate cadre of political scientists.
An example of a correlation could be that becoming a US President and adherence to a Protestant religion have coincided in every case except one. All the presidents of the US have been Protestants apart from John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic. A cause and effect relationship would claim there is something about being a Protestant that allows or strengthens the chances of a person to become a President but that would be left to a theorist to interpret.
In some cases, to point a more insightful relationship, political scientists might correlate certain demographic factors such as geographic regions, religions, income, education, and the like, with voting behavior. Such correlations, if they exist, might suggest a generalization, such as poorly educated citizens might be too uninformed about issues to feel a necessity to vote. Generalizations are the building components of a theory or model.
The next posting will continue this review by looking at the role behavioral studies are meant to play in the development of theory. One should keep in mind that the ultimate aim of the behavioral revolt was to allow political scientists to develop an overall theory that would explain why humans behave politically as they do.
[1] David Easton, The Political System (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953). This source was not a call for behavioral study, but in its description of politics within systems naturally led to that methodology.
[2] John G. Gunnell, “Political Theory and Political Science,” in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, edited by David Miller, Janet Coleman, William Connolly, and Alan Ryan (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1987), 386-930.
[3] “Political Science,” The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, n. d., accessed February 19, 2020, https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/political-science/ .
[4] David Easton, “The Current Meanings of “Behavioralism,” in Contemporary Political Analysis, edited by James C. Charlesworth (New York, NY: The Free Press 1967), 11-31, 31. The reader should compare these aims with the aims Daniel J. Elazar identifies (reported in a previous posting). They are: the pursuit of political justice in government’s role in establishing and maintaining order; discovering the generalizable factors that correlate with the various political actions that characterize a polity; and discover, communicate, and promote those policies that create a functional civic environment – through a civil society and a civil community.