Approaches to the study of Political Science

Most authors do not make a distinction between the term approach and method
to the study of political science as they are synonyms. However in view of Dr J C
Johari, „an approach is a way of looking at and then explaining a given phenomenon
which includes everything related to the collection and selection of evidence
necessary for investigation and analysis of hypotheses. Methods on the other hand is a
way of organising a theory for application to data. According to Salvadori, method
refers to the technical devices used for gathering data and the points of view of the
specialists. According to Van Dyke, “approaches consist of criteria for selecting
problems and relevant data whereas methods are procedures for getting and utilising
data”. Accordingly approaches to the study of political science may be classified
under two categories: the traditional approach and the modern approach.

Traditional Approach

The traditional approach is value based and lays emphasis on the inclusion of
values to the study of political phenomena. The adherents of this approach believe
that the study of political science should not be based on facts alone since facts and
values are closely related to each other. Since the days of Plato and Aristotle „the
great issues of politics‟ have revolved around normative orientations. Accordingly
there are a large number of traditional approaches like legal approach, philosophical
approach, historical approach, institutional approach etc.

Philosophical approach to the study of political science could be traced in the

writings of ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Leo Strauss who was one of
the ardent supporters of this approach believed that “the philosophy is the quest for
wisdom and political philosophy is the attempt truly to know about the nature of
political things and the right or good political order.” This approach lays stress on
ethical and normative study of politics and is idealistic in nature. It deals with the
problems of nature and function of state, issues of citizenship, rights and duties etc.
 Historical approach believes that political phenomena could be
understood better with the help of historical factors like age, place, situations etc.
Political thinkers like Machiavelli, Sabine and Dunning believe that politics and
history are intricately related and the study of politics always should have a historical
perspective. Sabine is of the view that Political Science should include all those
subjects which have been discussed in the writings of different political thinkers from
the time of Plato. Every past is linked with the present and thus the historical analysis
provides a chronological order of every political phenomenon.

Institutional approach lays stress on the study of political institutions and

structures like executive, legislature, judiciary, political aprties, interests groups etc.
Among the ancient thinkers Aristotle is an important contributor to this approach
while the modern thinkers include James Bryce, Bentley, Walter Bagehot, Harold
Laski, etc.

Legal approach regards state as the creator and enforcer of law and deals with
legal institutions, and processes. Its advocates include Cicero, Jean Bodin, Thomas
Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, Dicey and Sir Henry Maine.

Based on the definition of traditional approach to political issues, the

following features of traditional approach could be deduced 1:

Accent on large questions: the issues of larger concern such as how the authority
should be organised, what should be the criteria for citizenship, what should be the
functions of state etc. are the subject matter of traditional approach and appear with
greater degree of regularity.

Normative overtone: normative orientation or statement of preferences (value

questions) occurs frequently in traditional thinking. The traditional thinkers as such do
not make a distinction between political and ethical questions. Therefore thinkers like
Plato have raised questions like what should be the size of state, what should be an
ideal state etc.

1
Ray Amal and Bhattacharya……………….
Philosophical orientation: an important feature of traditional political thought has
been its philosophical orientation. In the words of Wasby, “the philosophical
approach takes in all aspects of man‟s political activities and has as its goal a
statement of underlying principles concerning those activities 2”. Actual political
activities have often been judged against ideals postulated as „state of nature‟, natural
law, ideal polity and so on. Plato‟s Republic and Hobbes Leviathan will always be
remembered as treatise which searched for deeper general principles underlying the
actual political activities3.

Legal institutional bias: formal aspects of government such as constitution, the organs
of government, the laws of election and so on have been the concern of traditional
political thought. The institutional approach has legal orientation as emphasis is
placed on laws, rules and regulations that determine the structure and processes of
governmental institutions4.

Thus traditional approach with all its intrinsic feature has made tremendous
contribution to the understanding of political problems. Even now political
researchers adhere to traditional approach for understanding issues of government and
politics which shows significance of traditional approach.

Modern Approach

The modern approach is fact based and lays emphasis on the factual study of
political phenomenon to arrive at scientific and definite conclusions. The modern
approaches include sociological approach, economic approach, psychological
approach, quantitative approach, simulation approach, system approach, behavioural
approach, Marxian approach etc.

2
Wasby, L Stephen (1972), “Political Science- The Discipline and its Dimensions, an Introduction”,
Scientific Book Agency, Calcutta.
3
Ray and Bhattacharya………
4
Ibid
Modern Approaches

Normative methods generally refer to the traditional methods of inquiry to the

phenomena of politics and are not merely concerned with „what is‟ but „what aught to
be‟ issues in politics. Its focus is on the analysis of institution as the basic unit of
study. However with the advent of industrialisation and behavioural revolution in the
field of political science, emphasis shifted from the study „what aught to‟ to „what is‟.
Today political scientists are more interested in analysing how people behave in
matters related to the state and government.

A new movement was ushered in by a group of political scientists in America

who were not satisfied with the traditional approach to the analysis of government and
state as they felt that tremendous exploration had occurred in other social sciences
like sociology, psychology anthropology etc. which when applied to the political
issues could render new insights. They now collect data relating to actual political
happenings. Statistical information coupled with the actual behaviours of men,
individually and collectively, may help the political scientists in arriving at definite
conclusions and predicting things correctly in political matters5. The quantitative or
statistical method, the systems approach or simulation approach in political science
base their inquiry on scientific data and as such are known as modern or empirical
method.

Behavioural Approach

Until the middle of the 20 th century, political science was primarily concerned
with qualitative questions which had a philosophical, legalistic and descriptive
orientation. The discipline was in fact transformed by the behavioural revolution in
the 1950‟s which laid stress on scientific and empirical approach to the understanding
of political phenomena. The revolution got an impetus with the establishment of the
journal Experimental Study of Politics in 1970‟s. The central focus of behavioralism

5
book
is its emphasis on the study of political behaviour which refers to acts, attitudes,
preferences and expectations of man in political context 6. In the words of Barrow,
“behavoiralism‟s main methodological claim was that uniformities in political
behaviour could be discovered and expressed as generalizations but such
generalizations must be testable by reference to observable political behaviours such
as voting, public opinion or decision making 7”.

The main characteristics of behavioural revolution has been summed up as 8

and

- It rejects political institutions as the basic unit for research and identifies the
behaviour of individuals in political situations as the basic unit of analysis

- Identifies social sciences as behavioural sciences and emphasises the unity of

political science with the other social sciences

- Advocates the utilization and development of more precise techniques of observing,

classifying and measuring data and urges the use of statistical or quantitative
formulation wherever possible

- Defines the construction of systematic, empirical theory as the goal of political

sciences.

The intellectual foundations of behavioralism have been summed up by David

Easton as regularities, verification, technique, quantification, values, systematisation,
pure science and integration. Behaviouralism has been criticised on a number of
grounds some which may be summed up as 9

6
Ealau, Heinz (1964), “The Behavioural Persuasion in Politics”, Random House, New Delhi.
7
Barrow, Clyde W (2008), “Political Science” in the International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences, William A Darity Jr. (ed). pp 313.
8
Kirkpatric, M Evron (1962), “The Impact of the Behavioural Approach on Tradtitonal Political
science” in Austin Ranney (ed.) Essay on the Behavioural Study of Politics, University of Ellinois
Press, Urbana.
9
Introduction to approaches to the study of Political Science, URL:
http://www.kkhsou.in/main/polscience/approaches_polscience.html
- The movement has been criticized for its dependence on techniques and methods
ignoring the subject matter.

- The advocates of this approach were wrong when they said that human beings
behave in similar ways in similar circumstances.

- Besides, it is a difficult task to study human behaviour and to get a definite result.

- Most of the political phenomena are unquantifiable. Therefore it is always difficult

to use scientific method in the study of Political Science.

- Moreover, the researcher being a human being is not always value neutral as
believed by the behaviouralists.

Behaviouralism is not to be looked as a complete dissociation with the

traditional thinking. In fact it is a protest against and an extension and enrichment of
the traditionalist stance in political science 10. The goals of behavioural research have
been set as understanding, describing, analysing and if possible predicting political
phenomena.

Post- Behavioural

David Easton coined the term Post-Behaviouralism in his Presidential Address

at the 65th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in 1969. in
fact Easton was one of the key figures of behavioural revolution. Post-behavioralism
claimed that despite the fact that behaviouralism claimed to be value free there was
tendency in it towards social preservation and status-quo rather than social change.
Therefore the new movement led stress on action and relevance. Three key tenets of
the post behavioural movement were:

- It challenged the view of behaviouralists that research has to be value neutral and
stressed that values should not be totally neglected. Unlike natural sciences
generalizations can‟t be made in the field of social sciences because study of men in
the social context was a complicated affair.

10
Ray and Bhattacharya…………….
- Post behavoiuralism claimed that behavoiralists stress on observable and measurable
phenomena meant that too much emphasis was being placed on easily studies trivial
issue at the expense of more important topics. Easton himself declared that he felt
dissatisfied with the research made under the impact of behavoiralist movement as it
looked more of Mathematics than Political Science which had lost touch with the
reality and the contemporary world.

- Post behaviouralism stressed that research should have relevance to the society and
that intellectuals have a positive role to play. The new movement believed that the use
of scientific tools in political science could be beneficial only when it is able to solve
the various problems confronting society. It criticised behavoiuralism for ignoring the
realities of society while laying too much emphasis on techniques.

However it needs to be stressed that post- behavoiralism was a continuation of

the behavioural movement as it recognised the contributions of behaviouralism in the
realm of political science. By making use of different techniques and methods post-
behaviouralism try to overcome the drawbacks of behaviouralism and make the study
of political science more relevant to the society.

Structural-Functional Approach

The structural-functional theory postulates that political systems are comprised

of various structures that are relatively uniform in the sense that they are found in
most political systems throughout the world. The theory asserts that each of these
structures has a particular function that supports the establishment of an orderly,
stable system of governance within which individuals and other societal structures
fulfil roles of their own. Typical political structures include: legislative bodies, courts,
bureaucratic organizations, executive bodies, and political parties. (Powell, Dalton,
Strom, pg 35).

Structural functionalism became popular around 1960 when it became clear

that ways of studying U.S. and European politics were not useful in studying newly
independent countries, and that a new approach was needed. Structural functionalists
try to do find out the function a given structure (guerrilla movement, political party,
election, etc.) does within a political system (of country x)? Almond claimed that
certain political functions existed in all political systems. On the input side he listed
these functions as: political socialization, political interest articulation, political
interest aggregation, and political communication. The output functions included rule-
making, rule implementation, and rule adjudication. Other basic functions of all
political systems included the conversion process, basic pattern maintenance, and
various capabilities (distributive, symbolic, etc.)11. Structural functionalists argued
that all political systems, including Third World systems, could most fruitfully be
studied and compared on the basis of how differing structures performed these
functions in the various political systems. The structural functional approach could be
better summed up through the given diagram:

Source: http://udel.edu/~jdeiner/strufunc.html

Political system in the diagram refers to nation states while environment

refers to the interactions between the social, economic and political variables
including internal as well external.

11
Politics of Developing Nations (1999), URL: http://udel.edu/~jdeiner/strufunc.html
 Structural-functionalism has a bias towards status-quo as it is more interested
in the maintenance of equilibrium than in change. It favours evolutionary change in
place of a revolutionary one.