NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

COURSE CODE: POL 312

COURSE TITLE: LOGIC AND METHODS OF POLITICAL INQUIRY

1
Course Team:

Course Developer/ Writer: Dr. Surajudeen Oladosu Dasiru

Department of Political Science
Faculty of Social Sciences
Lagos State University Ojo

Course Coordinator: Abdul-Rahoof Adebayo Bello

School of Arts and Social Sciences
National Open University of Nigeria
Lagos Headquarters

Programme Leader: Prof. A. F. Ahmed

Dean, School of Arts & Social Sciences
National Open University, Lagos

2
NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

National Open University of Nigeria,

Headquarters,

e-mail: [email protected]

URL: www.nou.edu.ng

Published by:

National Open University of Nigeria

Printed 2015

1st Printed 2015

Reviewed 2020

ISBN: 978-058-951-1
All Rights Reserved

3
CONTENTS PAGE

Introduction………………………………………………………………………

Course Aim………………………………………………………………………

Course Objectives………………………………………………………………

Working Through This Course…………………………………………………

Course Materials………………………………………………………………….

Study Units………………………………………………………………………

Textbooks and References..……………………………………………………..

Assessment Exercise…………………………………………………………….

Tutor-Marked Assignments (TMAs)……………………………………………

Final Examination And Grading………………………………………………….

Course Marking Scheme………………………………………………………….

Course Overview/Presentation Schedule………………………………………..

What you will Need in this Course……………………………………………………..

Facilitators, Tutors and

Tutorials……………………………………………………………..

How to Get the Most from this Course…………………………………………

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………

Summary……………………………………………………………………….

4
INTRODUCTION

POL 312: Logic and Methods of Political Inquiry is a one semester course in
the third year of undergraduate students of Political Science. It is three-credit
unit course to enable students have a comprehensive knowledge of logical
political inquiry in the field of political Science. The purpose of this is to
provide an overview of the methodological issues relating to the study of
Political Science. The course examines logic, approaches and methods that
underpin the study of politics, political inquiry and other researches in social
sciences. The course explains the relationship between logic, approaches and
methods in political science research; it explains the nature, features and basic
assumptions underlying each of the methodological issues surrounding the
study of political science, and provides an understandingand knowledge of how
these issues frame the research methods in political science. The study units are
structured into modules. Each module is structured into five units. A unit guide
comprises of instructional materials. It gives a brief of the course content,
course guide lines and suggestions and steps to take while studying. You can
also find self-assessment exercise for your study.

COURSE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this course is to provide students of political science with a
comprehensive knowledge of logic and political inquiry. However, on
successful completion of this course you should be able to:

 have working knowledge of logic and scientific method of political

inquiry in the field of political science;

 be familiar with issues such as the formation and introduction of

scientific methods of inquiry in political science; the functions of
concepts and methods; andthe various forms of generating data for
political inquiry;

 understand the challenges of the use of logic in substantiating political

science as a science by methods of investigation.

The specific objectives of each study unit can be found at the beginning and
you can make references to it while studying. It is necessary and helpful for you
to check at the end of the unit, if your progress is consistent with the stated
objectives and if you can conveniently answer the self-assessment exercises.
The overall objectives of the course will be achieved, if you diligently study
and complete all the units in this course.
5
WORKING THROUGH THE COURSE
To complete the course, you are required to read the study units and other
related materials.

You will also need to undertake practical exercises for which you need a pen, a
note-book, and other materials that will be listed in this guide. The exercises are
to aid you in understanding the concepts being presented. At the end of each
unit, you will be required to submit written assignment for assessment purposes.
At the end of the course, you will be expected to write a final examination.

THE COURSE MATERIAL

In this course, as in all other courses, the major components you will find are as
follows:
1. Course Guide
2. Study Units
3. Textbooks
4. Assignments

STUDY UNITS
There are 5 Modules broken into 25 study units in this course. They are:

MODULE 1: Characterizing Logic

Unit 1: Meaning and Nature of Logic
Unit 2: History of Logic
Unit 3: Types of Logic
Unit 4: Logic of Social Sciences
Unit5: Logical or Critical Thinking

MODULE 2: Understanding Political Inquiry

Unit 1: Analyzing Political Inquiry
Unit 2: The Rationale for Political Inquiry
Unit 3: Fundamentals of Political Inquiry
Unit 4: Generalizations
Unit 5: Explanations and Predictions in Political Inquiry

MODULE 3: The Nexus between Logic and Political Inquiry

Unit 1: Logic of Political Inquiry
Unit 2: Research Paradigms
Unit 3: Approaches to Political Inquiry
6
Unit 4: Contemporary Methods ofPolitical Inquiry
Unit 5: Logical Patterns of Explanations

MODULE 4: Concepts in Political Inquiry

Unit 1: The Meaning of Concepts
Unit 2: Theories in Political Inquiry
Unit 3: Functions of Theories in Political Inquiry
Unit 4: Models in Political Inquiry
Unit 5: Functions of Concepts in Political Inquiry

MODULE 5: Techniques of Data Generation

Unit 1: Data and Political Inquiry
Unit 2: The Questionnaire Method
Unit 3: The Interview Method
Unit 4: Participant/Observation Method
Unit 5: Documentary/Content Analysis Method

As you can observe, the course begins with the basics and expands into a more
elaborate, complex and detailed form. All you need to do is to follow the
instructions as provided in each unit. In addition, some self-assessment
exercises have been provided with which you can test your progress with the
text and determine if your study is fulfilling the stated objectives. Tutor-marked
assignments have also been provided to aid your study. All these will assist you
to be able to fully grasp knowledge of logic and political inquiry.

TEXTBOOKS AND REFERENCES

At the end of each unit, you will find a list of relevant reference materials which
you may yourself wish to consult as the need arises, even though made efforts
have been to provide you with the most important information you need to pass
this course. However, you are encouraged, as a third year student to cultivate
the habit of consulting as many relevant materials as you are able to within the
time available to you. In particular, be sure to consult whatever material you are
advised to consult before attempting any exercise.

ASSESSMENT

Two types of assessment are involved in the course: the Self-Assessment

Exercises (SAEs), and the Tutor-Marked Assessment (TMA) questions. Your
answers to the SAEs are not meant to be submitted, but they are also important
since they give you an opportunity to assess your own understanding of the
course content. Tutor-Marked Assignments (TMAs) on the other hand are to be
7
carefully answered and kept in your assignment file for submission and
marking. This will count for 30% of your total score in the course.

TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

At the end of each unit, you will find tutor-marked assignments. There is an
average of two tutor-marked assignments per unit. This will allow you to
engage the course as robustly as possible. You need to submit at least four
assignments of which the three with the highest marks will be recorded as part
of your total course grade. This will account for 10 percent each, making a total
of 30 percent. When you complete your assignments, send them including your
form to your tutor for formal assessment on or before the deadline.

Self-assessment exercises are also provided in each unit. The exercises should
help you to evaluate your understanding of the material so far. These are not to
be submitted. You will find all answers to these within the units they are
intended for.

FINAL EXAMINATION AND GRADING

There will be a final examination at the end of the course. The examination
carries a total of 70 percent of the total course grade. The examination will
reflect the contents of what you have learnt and the self-assessments and tutor-
marked assignments. You therefore need to revise your course materials
beforehand.
COURSE MARKING SCHEME

The following table sets out how the actual course marking is broken down.

ASSESMENT MARKS
Four assignments (the best Four assignments, each marked out of 10%, but
four of all the assignments highest scoring three selected, thus totaling 30%
submitted for marking)
Final Examination 70%of overall course score
Total 100% of course score

8
 COURSE OVERVIEW PRESENTATION SCHEME

Units Title of Work Week Assignment

Activity (End-of=Unit)
Course Guide Logic and Methods of Political Inquiry

Module 1 Characterizing Logic

Unit 1 Meaning and Nature of Logic Week 1 Assignment 1
Unit 2 History of Logical Laws Week 2 Assignment 2
Unit 3 Types of Logic Week3 Assignment 3
Unit 4 Logic of Social Sciences Week 4 Assignment 4
Unit 5 Logical or Critical Thinking Week 5 Assignment 5
Module 2 Understanding Political Inquiry
Unit 1 Analyzing Political Inquiry Week 6 Assignment 1
Unit 2 The Rationale for Political Inquiry Week 7 Assignment 2
Unit 3 Fundamentals of Political Philosophy Week 8 Assignment 3
Unit 4 Generalization in Political Inquiry Week 9 Assignment 4
Unit 5 Explanation and Prediction Week 10 Assignment 5
Module 3 The Nexus between Logic and Political Inquiry
Unit 1 Logic of Political Inquiry Week 11 Assignment 1
Unit 2 Research Paradigms Week 12 Assignment 2
Unit 3 Approaches to Political Inquiry Week 13 Assignment 3
Unit 4 Contemporary Methods in Political Inquiry Week 14 Assignment 4
Unit 5 Logical Patterns of Explanations Week 15 Assignment 5
Module 4 Concepts in Political Inquiry
Unit 1 The Meaning and Nature of Concepts Week 16 Assignment 1
Unit 2 Theories in Political Inquiry Week 17 Assignment 2
Unit 3 Function of Theories in Political Inquiry Week18 Assignment 3
Unit 4 Models in Political Inquiry Week 19 Assignment 4
Unit 5 Functions of Concepts in Pol. Inquiry Week 20 Assignment 5
Module 5 Techniques forData Generation
Unit 1 Data and Political inquiry Week 21 Assignment 1
Unit 2 The Questionnaire Method Week 22 Assignment 2
Unit 3 The Interview Method Week 23 Assignment 3
Unit 4 Participant Observation Method Week 24 Assignment4
Unit 5 Documentary/Content Analysis Methods Week 25 Assignment 5

9
At the end of each unit, you will find tutor-marked assignments. There is an
average of two tutor-marked assignments per unit. This will allow you to
engage the course as robustly as possible. You need to submit at least four
assignments of which the three with the highest marks will be recorded as part
of your total course grade. This will account for 10 percent each, making a total
of 30 percent. When you complete your assignments, send them including your
form to your tutor for formal assessment on or before the deadline.

WHAT YOU WILL NEED IN THE COURSE

This course prepares you on how to carry out your research work especially
your project in your 400 Level. It will be helpful if you try to review what you
studied earlier. Second, you may need to purchase one or two texts
recommended as important for your mastery of the course content. You need
quality time in a study friendly environment every week. If you are computer-
literate (which ideally you should be), you should be prepared to visit
recommended websites. You should also cultivate the habit of visiting reputable
physical libraries accessible to you.

FACILITATORS, TUTORS AND TUTORIALS

There are 15 hours of tutorials provided in support of the course. You will be
notified of the dates and location of these tutorials, together with the name and
phone number of your tutor as soon as you are allocated a tutorial group. Your
tutor will mark and comment on your assignments, and keep a close watch on
your progress. Be sure to send in your tutor marked assignments promptly, and
feel free to contact your tutor in case of any difficulty with your self-assessment
exercise, tutor-marked assignments or the grading of an assignment. In any
case, you are advised to attend the tutorials regularly and punctually. Always
take a list of such prepared questions to the tutorials and participate actively in
the discussions.

ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

There are two aspects to the assessment of this course. First is the Tutor-
Marked Assignments; second is a written examination. In handling these
assignments, you are expected to apply the information, knowledge and
experience acquired during the course. The tutor-marked assignments are now
being done online. Ensure that you register all your courses so that you can
have easy access to the online assignments. Your score in the online
assignments will account for 30 per cent of your total coursework. At the end of
10
the course, you will need to sit for a final examination. This examination will
account for the other 70 per cent of your total course mark.

TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENTS (TMAs)

Usually, there are four online tutor-marked assignments in this course. Each
assignment will be marked over ten percent. The best three (that is the highest
three of the 10 marks) will be counted. This implies that the total mark for the
best three assignments will constitute 30% of your total course work. You will
be able to complete your online assignments successfully from the information
and materials contained in your references, reading and study units.

FINAL EXAMINATION AND GRADING

The final examination for POL 312: Logic and Methods of Political Inquiry
will be of two hours duration and have a value of 70% of the total course grade.
The examination will consist of multiple choice and fill-in-the-gaps questions
which will reflect the practice exercises and tutor-marked assignments you have
previously encountered. All areas of the course will be assessed. It is important
that you use adequate time to revise the entire course. You may find it useful to
review your tutor-marked assignments before the examination. The final
examination covers information from all aspects of the course.

HOW TO GET THE MOST FROM THIS COURSE

1. There are 25 units in this course. You are to spend one week in each unit. In
distance learning, the study units replace the university lecture. This is one of
the great advantages of distance learning; you can read and work through
specially designed study materials at your own pace, and at a time and place
that suites you best. Think of it as reading the lecture instead of listening to the
lecturer. In the same way a lecturer might give you some reading to do. The
study units tell you when to read and which are your text materials or
recommended books. You are provided exercises to do at appropriate points,
just as a lecturer might give you in a class exercise.

2. Each of the study units follows a common format. The first item is an
introduction to the subject matter of the unit, and how a particular unit is
integrated with other units and the course as a whole. Next to this is a set of
learning objectives. These objectives let you know what you should be able to
do, by the time you have completed the unit. These learning objectives are
meant to guide your study. The moment a unit is finished, you must go back
and check whether you have achieved the objectives. If this is made a habit,
11
then you will significantly improve your chance of passing the course.

3. The main body of the unit guides you through the required reading from
other sources. This will usually be either from your reference or from a reading
section.

4. The following is a practical strategy for working through the course. If you
run into any trouble, telephone your tutor or visit the study centre nearest to
you. Remember that your tutor‘s job is to help you. When you need assistance,
do not hesitate to call and ask your tutor to provide it.

5. Read this course guide thoroughly. It is your first assignment.

6. Organize a study schedule – Design a ‗Course Overview‘ to guide you

through the course. Note the time you are expected to spend on each unit and
how the assignments relate to the units.

7. Important information; e.g. details of your tutorials and the date of the first
day of the semester is available at the study centre.

8. You need to gather all the information into one place, such as your diary or a
wall calendar. Whatever method you choose to use, you should decide on and
write in your own dates and schedule of work for each unit.

9. Once you have created your own study schedule, do everything to stay
faithful to it.

10. The major reason that students fail is that they get behind in their
coursework. If you get into difficulties with your schedule, please let your tutor
or course coordinator know before it is too late for help.

11. Turn to Unit 1, and read the introduction and the objectives for the unit.

12. Assemble the study materials. You will need your references for the unit
you are studying at any point in time.

13. As you work through the unit, you will know what sources to consult for
further information.

14. Visit your study centre whenever you need up-to-date information.

15. Well before the relevant online TMA due dates, visit your study centre for
12
relevant information and updates. Keep in mind that you will learn a lot by
doing the assignment carefully. They have been designed to help you meet the
objectives of the course and, therefore, will help you pass the examination.

16. Review the objectives for each study unit to confirm that you have achieved
them. If you feel unsure about any of the objectives, review the study materials
or consult your tutor. When you are confident that you have achieved a unit‘s
objectives, you can start on the next unit. Proceed unit by unit through the
course and try to space your study so that you can keep yourself on schedule.

17. After completing the last unit, review the course and prepare yourself for
the final examination. Check that you have achieved the unit objectives (listed
at the beginning of each unit) and the course objectives (listed in the course
guide).

CONCLUSION

This is a practical course so you will get the best out of it if you cultivate the
habit of relating it to the practice of political research and investigation as you
progress in your studies.

SUMMARY

Logic and Methods of Political Inquiry introduces you to general logical

political research and the intricacies of research methodology in social sciences
generally and political science in particular. All the basic course materials that
you need to successfully complete the course are provided. At the end, you will
be able to:
 explain concepts in political research;
 discuss methodological sequence in political science inquiry;
 have an understanding of the importance of scientific research to political
science and;
 be familiarwith the major concepts in political inquiry such as theories,
models, data collection and analysis.

13
LIST OF ACRONYMS

POL – POLITICAL SCIENCE

SC – SCIENCES
SOC -- SOCIAL SCIENCES

SDL --- STANDARD DEONTIC LOGIC

DP -DUTY PARADOX

ANOVA—ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

MANOVA---MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

COVARIANCE FDG----FOCUS DISCUSSION GROUP

IDI---IN-DEPT INTERVIEW

KII ---KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW

REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Adcock R. and Bevir M. (2010), Political Science, inThe History ofthe Social
Sciences Since 1945 Roger B. and Phillip F. (eds.) Cambridge University Press.

National Research Council (1996)National Science Education Standard;

Washington DC; The National Academies Press

Thomas S Kuhn (2002 ) Norms for Rational Theory Choice, Rationality and
Theory Choice; in James C, and John H. (ed.); The Road Since Structure;
Philosophical Essays(2nd ed.); University of Chicago Press

Mark Colyvan (2001).The Indispensability of Mathematics; Oxford University

Press

Stephen Hawking; Leonard Mlodinow (2010) What is reality?The Grand

Design Random House Digital, Inc.model-dependent Realism

14
Simon Fitzpatrick (2013).Simplicityin the Philosophy of Science Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Baker, A. (2010).SimplicityEdward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition).

Bird,A. (2011).Methodological Incommensurability; Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition).

Brian Davies (2006)Epistemological Pluralism PhilSci. Archive

Mobile Reference (2011)Famous Quotes from 100 Great PeopleThe Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer, 2011 Edition).

Karl Raimund Popper (2002). The Logic of Science DiscoveryRoutledge/Taylor

& Francis Group

Blaikie, N. (2007) Approaches to Social Inquiry, 2nd Edition; Cambridge, UK:

Polity Press.

Bond J.(2007) The Scientification of the Study of Politics: Some Observations

on the Behavioral Evolution in Political Science,” The Journal of Politics 69,
897-907.DOI : 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00597.x

Brady H. (2011), The Art of Political Science: Spatial Diagrams as Iconic and
Revelatory,Perspectives on Politics, 9 (2), 311-
31.DOI:10.1017/S1537592711000922

Crimp D. and Shulman (2007), ―Complexity Into Sloganeering,‖ Interview #74,

ACT-UP Oral History Project – Available online at
[actuporalhistory.org/interviews/interviews_13.html].

Collier, D. (1993) The Comparative Method, in Finifter, Ada (ed.). Political

Science: The State of the Discipline II; Washington, DC: APSA.

Brewer, J. (2000) Ethnography; Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

Adedeji, G.M.A, M.O. Aderibigbe and M.I.S. Onyibor (2003)An Introduction

to Philosophy and Logic Ibadan; Hope Publications

Bello, A.G.A (1999) Formal Logic,Ibadan, New Horn Press.

15
Morse, W. (1971) Study Guide for Logic and Philosophy, California,
Wardsworth Publishing Company

Nancy and Gene (1976) Elementary Logic, California, Wardsworth Publishing

Company

Popkin, R. and Stroll, A. (1993)Philosophy Made Simple(2nd Edition), New

York, Bantain Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

Wesley C. Salmon (2006)Four Decades of Scientific Explanation,in Kitcher P.

and SalmonW.C.(eds.) Scientific Explanation, volume XIII of Minnesota
Studies in the Philosophy of Science ed.). University of Pittsburgh Press

16
TABLE OF CONTENTS

MODULE 1: Characterizing Logic

Unit 1: Meaning and Nature of Logic
Unit 2: History of Logic
Unit 3: Types of Logic
Unit 4: Logic of Social Sciences
Unit 5: Logical or Critical Thinking

MODULE 2: Understanding Political Inquiry

Unit 1: Analyzing Political Inquiry
Unit 2: The Rationale for Political Inquiry
Unit 3: The Fundamentals of Political Inquiry
Unit 4: Generalization
Unit 5: Explanation and Prediction

MODULE 3: The Nexus between Logic and Political Inquiry

Unit 1: Logic of Political Inquiry
Unit 2: Research Paradigms
Unit 3: Approaches to Political Inquiry
Unit 4: Contemporary Methods in Political Inquiry
Unit 5: Logical Patterns of Explanations

MODULE 4: Concepts in Political Inquiry

Unit1: The Meaning and Nature of Concepts
Unit 2: Theories in Political Inquiry
Unit 3: Functions of Theories in Political Inquiry
Unit 4: Models in Political Inquiry
Unit 5: Functions of Concepts in Political Inquiry

MODULE 5: Techniques for Data Generation

Unit 1: Data and Political Inquiry
Unit 2: The Questionnaire Method
Unit 3: The Interview Method
Unit 4: Participant/Observation Method
Unit 5: Documentary/Content Analysis Method

17
MODULE 1: Characterizing Logic

Introduction
This module provides an overview of the logic of methodological issues relating
to the study of political inquiry. The module examines logic, approaches and
methods that underpin the study of political inquiry. This module examines the
methods of political investigation, defines and explains the meaning of logic,
characterizes logic, identifies and x-rays the branches of logic, and highlights
the essence of logical political inquiry. The module is structured into five units
comprising of; meaning, nature, types, branches, and importance of logic in
political inquiry.

Unit 1: Meaning and Nature of Logic

Unit 2: Types of Arguments and Laws of Logic
Unit 3: Branches of Logic
Unit 4: Logic of Social Sciences
Unit 5: Logical or Critical Thinking

18
UNIT 1: MEANING AND NATURE OF LOGIC

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Defining Logic
3.2. Characteristics of Logic
3.3. Argument and Logic

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit introduces you to the definition and nature of logic. It explains the
various meanings of the term logic and the complexity in the conceptualization
of the term logic. It analyzes and gave a working definition for the purpose of
this course. The unit explains the characteristics of logic and the link between
logic and argument.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 understand the term logic and identify the characteristics of logic

 explain the link between argument and logic

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Defining Logic

The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos, which is sometimes
19
translated as "sentence", "discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio". Of course,
these translations are to help us understand the more specialized meaning of
"logic" as it is used in this course. Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the
study of the principles of correct reasoning. This is a rough definition, because
how logic should be properly defined is actually quite a controversial matter.

This because there is no universal agreement as to the exact definition and

boundaries of logic, and this is why the issue still remains one of the main
subjects of research and debates. Notwithstanding, it has traditionally included
the classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the logical forms,
the validity andsoundnessof deductive reasoning, thestrength of inductive
reasoning, the study of formal proofs and inference (including paradoxes and
fallacies), and the study of syntax and semantics. Logic is the systematic study
of the forms of inference, the relations that lead to the acceptance of one
proposition, on the basis of a set of other propositions, thepremises. More
broadly, logic is the analysis and appraisal of inquiries. Completeness,
consistency, decidability, and expressivity, are further fundamental concepts in
logic. The categorization of the logical systems and of their properties has led to
the emergence of a met theory of logic known as metalogic.

3.2: Characteristics of Logic

Informal logic is the study ofnatural languagearguments. The study of fallacies
is an important branch of informal logic. Since much informal argument is not
strictly speaking deductive, on some conceptions of logic, informal logic is not
logic at all.

Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference
possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular
application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any
particular thing or property. Traditional syllogistic logic, also known as term
logic, and modern symbolic logic, the study of symbolic abstractions that
capture the formal features of logical inference, are examples of formal logic.
Symbolic logic is often divided into two main branches: propositional logic and
predicate logic. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study
of the syllogism. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle. In
many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal
content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous,
because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural language.

Logic is generally considered formal when it analyzes and represents the form
of any valid argument type. The form of an argument is displayed by
representing its sentences in the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical
20
language to make its content usable in formal inference. Simply put, to
formalize simply means to translate English sentences into the language of
logic. This is called showing the logical form of the argument. This is necessary
because indicative sentences of ordinary language show a considerable variety
of form and complexity that makes their use in inference impractical. It
requires, first, ignoring those grammatical features irrelevant to logic replacing
conjunctions irrelevant to logic with logical conjunctions and replacing
ambiguous, or alternative logical expressions with expressions of a standard
type. The importance of form was recognized from ancient times. Aristotle uses
variable letters to represent valid inferences. There is a big difference between
the kinds of formulas seen in traditional term logic and the predicate calculus
that is the fundamental advance of modern logic. The formula A(P,Q) (all Ps are
Qs) of traditional logic corresponds to the more complex formula in predicate
logic, involving the logical connectives for universal quantification and
implication rather than just the predicate letter A and using variable arguments
where traditional logic uses just the term letter P. With the complexity come
power, and the advent of the predicate calculus inaugurated revolutionary
growth of the subject.

3.3: Argument in Logic

Logic arose from a concern with correctness of argumentation. Modern
logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those arguments that arise
from appropriately general forms of inference. For example, Thomas Hofber
writes in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that logic "does not,
however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of
rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to
the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be
they linguistic, mental, or other representations."

The idea that logic treats special forms of argument, deductive argument, rather
than argument in general, has a history in logic that dates back at least to
logicism in mathematics (19th and 20th centuries) and the advent of the
influence of mathematical logic on philosophy. A consequence of taking logic
to treat special kinds of argument is that it leads to identification of special
kinds of truth, the logical truths (with logic equivalently being the study of
logical truth), and excludes many of the original objects of study of logic that
are treated as informal logic. Robert Brandom has argued against the idea that
logic is the study of a special kind of logical truth, arguing that instead one can
talk of the logic of material inference (in the terminology of Wilfred Sellars),
with logic making explicit the commitments that were originally implicit in
informal inference.

21
 A good argument not only possesses validity and soundness (or strength, in
induction), but it also avoidscircular dependencies, it's clearly stated, relevant,
and consistent; otherwise it's useless for reasoning and persuasion, and is
classified as a fallacy. In ordinary discourse, inferences may be signified by
words such as therefore, thus, hence, ergo, and so on.

The concepts of logical form and argument are central to logic. An argument is
constructed by applying one of the forms of the different types of logical
reasoning: deductive, inductive, and adductive. In deduction, the validity of an
argument is determined solely by its logical form, not its content, while the
soundness requires both validity and that all the given premises are actually
true.

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

Differentiate between logic and argument.

4.0: CONCLUSION
It is expected that after reading this unit, students should be able to define and
explain the meaning and nature of logic. Explain the link between argument and
logic.

5.0: SUMMARY
In this unit, we have explained the meaning of logic, the relationship between
logic and argument and the types of argument and the characteristics of logic in
inquiry.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

1. Explain what you understand by logic.
2. List the characteristics of logic you have studied.
3. Differentiate between argument and logic.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Adedeji, G.M.A, M.O. Aderibigbe and M.I.S. Onyibor (2003) An Introduction

to Philosophy and Logic, Ibadan, Hope Publications.

Bello, A.G.A (1999) Formal Logic, Ibadan, New Horn Press.

Cohen and Nagel (1978) An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method,

Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Copi, M.I. (1986) Introduction to Logic (7th Edition), New York, Macmillan
22
Publication Company

Unah, J. (2001)Lectures on Philosophy and Logic; Lagos; Nel Printers

Copi, M.I. (1986) Introduction to Logic, New York, Macmillan Publication

UNIT 2: HISTORY OF LOGIC

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. History of Logic

3.2.Semantics of Logic
3.3. Logic and Rationality

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This unit introduces you to the developmental stages of logic in the course of
study. It goes further to explain how the Aristotle's system of logic was
responsible for the introduction of hypothetical syllogism stance of symbolic
logic. This will offer you a clearer understanding of the stance of semantics of
logic while carrying out any inquiry.

2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit,you should be able to:

 explain developmental stages of logic

 understand the semantics of logic
23
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1HISTORY OF LOGIC
Logic comes from the Greek word logos, originally meaning "the word" or
"what is spoken", but coming to mean "thought" or "reason". In the Western
World, logic was first developed by Aristotle, who called the subject 'analytics'.
Aristotelian logic became widely accepted in science and mathematics and
remained in wide use in the West until the early 19th century. Aristotle's system
of logic was responsible for the introduction of hypothetical syllogism,
temporalmodal logicand inductive logicas well as influential vocabulary as such
terms- predicables, syllogisms and propositions. There was also the rival Stoic
logic.

In Europe during the later medieval period, major efforts were made to show
that Aristotle's ideas were compatible with Christian faith. During the High
Middle Ages, logic became a main focus of philosophers, who would engage in
critical logical analyses of philosophical arguments, often using variations of
the methodology of scholasticism. The syllogistic logic developed by Aristotle
predominated in the West until the mid-19th century, when interest in the
foundations of mathematics stimulated the development of symbolic logic (now
called mathematical logic).

The development of logic since Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein had a profound
influence on the practice of philosophy and the perceived nature of
philosophical problems (see analytic philosophy) and philosophy of
mathematics. Logic, especially sentential logic, is implemented in computer
logic circuits and is fundamental to computer science. Logic is commonly
taught by university philosophy, sociology, advertising and literature
departments, often as a compulsory discipline.

3.2: Semantics of Logic

The validity of an argument depends upon the meaning or semantics of the
sentences that make it up. Aristotle's Organon, especially De Interpretatione,
gives a cursory outline of semantics which the scholastic logicians, particularly
in the thirteenth and fourteenth century, developed into a complex and
sophisticated theory, called Supposition theory. This showed how the truth of
simple sentences, expressed schematically, depend on how the terms 'supposit'
or stand for certain extra-linguistic items. For example, in part II of his Summa
Logicae, William of Ockham presents a comprehensive account of the
necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of simple sentences, in order to
show which arguments are valid and which are not. Thus "every A is B' is true
24
if and only if there is something for which 'A' stands, and there is nothing for
which 'A' stands, for which 'B' does not also stand."

Early modern logic defined semantics purely as a relation between ideas.

Antoine Arnauld in the Port Royal-Logic, says that 'after conceiving things by
our ideas, we compare these ideas, and, finding that some belong together and
some do not, we unite or separate them. This is called affirming or denying, and
in general judging. Thus truth and falsity are no more than the agreement or
disagreement of ideas. This suggests obvious difficulties, leading Locke to
distinguish between 'real' truths, when our ideas have 'real existence' and
'imaginary' or 'verbal' truth; where ideas like harpies or centaurs exist only in the
mind.

Modern semantics is in some ways closer to the medieval view, in rejecting

such psychological truth-conditions. However, the introduction of
quantification, needed to solve the problem of multiple generality, rendered
impossible the kind of subject-predicate analysis that underlies medieval
semantics. The main modern approach is model-theoretic semantics, based on
semantic theory of truth. The approach assumes that the meaning of the various
parts of the propositions are given by the possible ways we can give a
recursively specified group of interpretation functions from them to some
predefined domain of discourse; an interpretation of first-order predicate logic is
given by a mapping from terms to a universe of individuals, and a mapping
from propositions to the truth values "true" and "false".

Model-theoretic semantics is one of the fundamental concepts of model theory.

Modern semantics also admits rival approaches, such as the proof-theoretic
semantics that associates the meaning of propositions with the roles that they
can play in inferences, an approach that ultimately derives from the structural
proof theory.

3.3: Logic and Rationality

As the study of argument is of clear importance to the reasons that we hold
things to be true, logic is of essential importance to rationality. Here we have
defined logic to be "the systematic study of the form of arguments"; the
reasoning behind argument is of several sorts, but only some of these arguments
fall under the aegis of logic proper.

Deductive reasoning concerns the logical consequence of given premises and is

the form of reasoning most closely connected to logic. However, on a narrow
conception, logic concerns just deductive reasoning; although such a narrow
conception controversially excludes most of what is called informal logic.
25
There are other forms of reasoning that are rational but that are generally not
taken to be part of logic. These include inductive reasoning, which covers forms
of inference that move from collections of particular judgments to universal
judgments, and adductive reasoning, which is a form of inference that goes from
observation to a hypothesis that accounts for the reliable data (observation) and
seeks to explain relevant evidence. Thus, to adduce a hypothetical explanation
from an observed surprising circumstance is to surmise that may be true because
then would be a matter of course. Thus, to adduce from involves determining
that is sufficient (or nearly sufficient), but not necessary.

While inductive and adductive inferences are not part of logic proper, the
methodology of logic has been applied to them with some degree of success.
For example, the notion of deductive validity (where an inference is deductively
valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are
true but the conclusion false) exists in an analogy to the notion of inductive
validity, or "strength", where an inference is inductively strong if and only if its
premises give some degree of probability to its conclusion. Whereas the notion
of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for systems of formal logic in
terms of the well-understood notions of semantics, inductive validity requires us
to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations. The task of
providing this definition may be approached in various ways, some less formal
than others; some of these definitions may use logical association rule
induction, while others may use mathematical models of probability such as
decision trees.

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

What do you understand by rational reasoning?

4.0: CONCLUSION
It is expected that after reading this unit, students should be able to understand
developmental stages of logic the relevance of semantics of logic to the history
of logic, Political Science and logical laws of scientific research and reasoning
and relate logic and rationality to political inquiry.

5.0: SUMMARY
In this unit, we have traced the journey of logic, the relationship between the
history of logic and semantics of logic. The unit also discussed logic and
rationality in details.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

1. Describehistory of logic.
26
2. Discuss the developmental stages.
3. What do you understand by semantics of logic?

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Adedeji, G.M.A, M.O. Aderibigbe and M.I.S. Onyibor (2003) An Introduction

to Philosophy and Logic, Ibadan, Hope Publications.

Bello, A.G.A (1999) Formal Logic, Ibadan, New Horn Press.

Cohen and Nagel (1978) An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method,

Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Copi, M.I. (1986) Introduction to Logic (7th Edition), New York, Macmillan
Publication Company

Popkin, R. and Stroll, A. (1993)Philosophy Made Simple (2nd Edition), New

York, Bantain Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

Morse, W. (1971) Study Guide for Logic and Philosophy, California,

Wardsworth Publishing Company

Neff, S. (2012),A Short History of

logicwww.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199565665/evans3e_ch01.pdf

UNIT 3: TYPES OF LOGIC

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Propositional Logic

3.2. Predicate Logic and Modal Logic
3.3. Mathematical Logic
3.4.Philosophical Logic
3.5. Computational Logic
27
3.6. Informal Logic and Dialectic

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignments

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
There are many types of logic. This unit introduces students to the various types
of logic available. Each of the type of logic has its own peculiarities that make
logic very reliant to any meaningful political inquiry that can produce a reliable
result for general acceptance for generating social guide. Branches of the types
of logic is also identified and discussed in detail.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

 identify and explain basic types of logic in details

 relate branches of logic to their understanding of logical thinking.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Propositional Logic

A propositional calculus or logic (also a sentential calculus) is a formal system
in which formulae representing propositions can be formed by combining
atomic propositions using logical connectives, and in which a system of formal
proof rules establishes certain formulae as "theorems". An example of a
theorem of propositional logic is, which says that if A holds, then B implies A.

3.2: Predicate Logic and Modal Logic

Predicate logic is the generic term for symbolic formal systems such as first-
order logic, second-order logic, many-sorted logic, and infinitely logic. It
provides an account of quantifiers general enough to express a wide set of
arguments.

Whilst Aristotelian syllogistic logic specifies a small number of forms that the
relevant part of the involved judgments may take, predicate logic allows
sentences to be analyzed into subject and argument in several additional ways—
allowing predicate logic to solve the problem of multiple generality that had
28
perplexed medieval logicians.

The analytical generality of predicate logic provides the foundation of modern

mathematical logic. In languages, modality deals with the phenomenon that
sub-parts of a sentence may have their semantics modified by special verbs or
modal particles. More abstractly, modality affects the circumstances in which
an assertion is taken to be satisfied. Confusing modality is known as the modal
fallacy. Aristotle's logic is in large parts concerned with the theory of non-
modalized logic. The earliest formal system of modal logic was developed by
Avicenna.

The theoryofframesemantics, revolutionized the formal technology available to

modal logicians and gave a new graph-theoretic way of looking at modality that
has driven many applications in computational linguistics and computer
science, such as dynamic logic.

3.3: Mathematical Logic

Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in
particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and
computability theory.Mathematical logic comprises two distinct areas of
research; the first is the application of the techniques of formal logic to
mathematics and mathematical reasoning, and the second, in the other direction,
the application of mathematical techniques to the representation and analysis of
formal logic. The earliest use of mathematics and geometry in relation to logic
and philosophy goes back to the ancient Greeks such as Euclid, Plato, and
Aristotle. Many other ancient and medieval philosophers applied mathematical
ideas and methods to their philosophical claims.

One of the boldest attempts to apply logic to mathematics was the logicism
pioneered by philosopher-logicians. Mathematical theories were supposed to be
logical tautologies, and the programme was to show this by means of a
reduction of mathematics to logic. Recursion theory captures the idea of
computation in logical and arithmetic terms. Today recursion theory is mostly
concerned with the more refined problem of complexity classes—when is a
problem efficiently solvable?—and the classification of degrees of insolvability.

3.4: Philosophical Logic

Philosophical logic deals with formal descriptions of ordinary, non-specialist
("natural") language, that is strictly only about the arguments within
philosophy's other branches. Most philosophers assume that the bulk of
everyday reasoning can be captured in logic if a method or methods to translate
ordinary language into that logic can be found. Philosophical logic is essentially
29
a continuation of the traditional discipline called "logic" before the invention of
mathematical logic. Philosophical logic has a much greater concern with the
connection between natural language and logic. As a result, philosophical
logicians have contributed a great deal to the development of non-standard
logics (e.g. free logics, tense logics) as well as various extensions of classical
logic (e.g. modal logics) and non-standard semantics for such logics.

Logic and the philosophy of language are closely related. Philosophy of

language has to do with the study of how our language engages and interacts
with our thinking. Logic has an immediate impact on other areas of study.
Studying logic and the relationship between logic and ordinary speech can help
a person better structure his own arguments and critique the arguments of
others. Many popular arguments are filled with errors because so many people
are untrained in logic and unaware of how to formulate an argument correctly.

3.5: Computational Logic

A simple toggling circuit is expressed using a logic gate and a synchronous
register.Logic cut to the heart of computer science as it emerged as a discipline.
The general purpose computer was of fundamental importance to the designers
of the computer machinery in the 1940s.

In the 1950s and 1960s, researchers predicted that when human knowledge
could be expressed using logic with mathematical notation, it would be possible
to create a machine that mimics the problem-solving skills of a human being.
This was more difficult than expected because of the complexity of human
reasoning.

In logic programming, a program consists of a set of axioms and rules. Logic

programming systems such as Prolog compute the consequences of the axioms
and rules in order to answer a query. Today, logic is extensively applied in the
field of artificial intelligence, and this field provides a rich source of problems
in formal and informal logic. Argumentation theory is one good example of
how logic is being applied to artificial intelligence.

3.6:Informal Logic,Dialectic and Argumentation Theory

The motivation for the study of logic was to distinguish good arguments from
bad arguments.Typically dialectical logic forms the heart of critical thinking.
Dialectic has been linked to logic since ancient times and now as an attempt to
provide mathematical foundations for logic and dialectic by formalizing
dialectical logic. Dialectical logic is also the name given to the special treatment
of dialectic in Hegelian and Marxist thought.

30
There have been pre-formal treatises on argument and dialectic. Theories of
defensible reasoning can provide a foundation for the formalization of
dialectical logic and dialectic itself can be formalized as moves in a game,
where an advocate for the truth of a proposition and an opponent argue. Such
games can provide a formal game semantics for many logics. Argumentation
theory is the study and research of informal logic, fallacies, and critical
questions as they relate to every day and practical situations. Specific types of
dialogue can be analyzed and questioned to reveal premises, conclusions, and
fallacies. Argumentation theory is now applied in social sciences;artificial
intelligence; and law.

3.7: Rejection of Logical Truth

Thephilosophical vein of various kinds of skepticism contains many kinds of
doubt and rejection of the various bases on which logic rests, such as the idea of
logical form, correct inference, or meaning, typically leading to the conclusion
that there are no logical truths. Thus, agreement on what logic actually is has
remained elusive.This is in contrast with the usual views in philosophical
skepticism, where logic directs skeptical enquiry to doubt received wisdoms.

There are many reasons using formal logic. One is that formal logic helps us
identify patterns of good reasoning and patterns of bad reasoning, so we know
which to follow and which to avoid. This is why studying basic formal logic
can help improve critical thinking. Formal systems of logic are also used by
linguists to study natural languages. Computer scientists also employ formal
systems of logic in research relating to Artificial Intelligence. Finally, many
scholars also like to use logic when dealing with complicated problems, in order
to make their reasoning more explicit and precise.
SELF -ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Discuss Philosophical logic

4.0: CONCLUSION
After reading this unit, students should be able to identify and explain types of
logic and explain their relationship to one another. They should also be able to
explain the characteristics ofeach type in relation to the link of logic and inquiry

5.0: SUMMARY
In this unit, explanations were made on the types of logic and their relationship
with one another. The unit also explained in detail the nature of each of the
branches.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Discuss your understanding of computational logic
31
2.Explain the relevance ofinformal logic and dialectic.
3. Differentiate between mathematical logic and modal logic.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Adedeji, G.M.A, M.O. Aderibigbe and M.I.S. Onyibor (2003) An Introduction

to Philosophy and Logic, Ibadan, Hope Publications.

Bello, A.G.A (1999) Formal Logic, Ibadan, New Horn Press.

Cohen and Nagel (1978) An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method,

Routledgeand Kegan Paul Ltd.

Copi, M.I. (1986) Introduction to Logic (7th Edition), New York, Macmillan
Publication Company

Nancy and Gene (1976) Elementary Logic, California, Wardsworth Publishing

Company

Udoidem, S.I. (1991)Understanding Philosophy, Calabar, Calabar Government

Printing Press.

Popkin, R. and Stroll, A. (1993) Philosophy Made Simple (2nd Edition), New
York, Bantain Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

UNIT 4: THE LOGIC OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction
2.0. Objectives
3.0. Main Content
3.1. Philosophy of Social Sciences
3.2. Interpretive Sociology
3.3. Marxism and Social Sciences
3.4. Methodological Individualism

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary
32
6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignments

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit introduces you to the relationship between logic and Social Sciences.
It explains the attributes of Social Sciences and the necessity of applying logical
thinking to social and political inquiry. It analyzes the philosophy of Social
Sciences and its relationship with Natural Sciences. It also explains the
connectivity between philosophy, natural and social sciences.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 understand the philosophy of social sciences

 explain the various positions and methods advocated by scholars on
socio-political investigation.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Logic and Social Sciences

The philosophy of Social Science, like the philosophy of natural science, has
both descriptive and prescriptive sides. On the one hand, the field is aboutthe
social sciences, the explanations, methods, empirical arguments, theories,
hypotheses, etc, that actually occurs in the social science literature, past and
present. This means that the philosopher needs to have extensive knowledge of
several areas of social science research, in order to be able to formulate an
analysis of the social sciences that corresponds appropriately to scientists'
practice. On the other hand, the field is epistemic. It is concerned with the idea
that scientific theories and hypotheses are put forward as trueor probable, and
are justified on rationalgrounds (empirical and theoretical). The philosopher
therefore wants to be able to provide a critical evaluation of existing social
science methods insofar as these methods are found to be less truth enhancing
than they might be.

These two aspects of the philosophical enterprise suggest that philosophy of

social science should be construed as a rational reconstruction of existing social
science practice—a reconstruction that is guided by existing practice but that
goes beyond that practice by identifying faulty assumptions, forms of reasoning,
or explanatory frameworks. Philosophers have disagreed over the relation
between the social and natural sciences.
33
One position is naturalism according to which the methods of the social
sciences should correspond closely to those of the natural sciences. This
position is closely related to physicalismthe doctrine that all higher-level
phenomena and regularities--including social phenomena--must be ultimately
reducible to physical entities and the laws, which govern them. On the other
side is the view that the social sciences are inherently distinct from the natural
sciences.

This perspective holds that social phenomena are metaphysically

distinguishable from natural phenomena because they are intentional-they
depend on the meaningful actions of individuals. On this view, natural
phenomena admit of causal explanation, whereas social phenomena require
intentional explanation. The anti-naturalist position also maintains that there is a
corresponding difference between the methods appropriate to natural and social
science.

One important school the verstehenmethod within philosophyholds that there is

a method of intuitive interpretation of human action, which is radically distinct
from methods of inquiry in the natural sciences.Social science takes its origin in
this fact of the meaningfulness of human action.

3.2: Interpretive Sociology

Interpretive Sociology maintains that the goal of social inquiry is to provide
interpretations of human conduct within the context of culturally specific
meaningful arrangements. This approach draws an analogy between literary
texts and social phenomena: both are complex systems of meaningful elements,
and the goal of the interpreter is to provide an interpretation of the elements that
makes sense of them. Thus, Social Science involves ahermeneuticinquiry which
requires that the interpreter should tease out the meanings underlying a
particular complex of social behaviour, much as a literary critic pieces together
an interpretation of the meaning of a complex literary text.

Interpretive sociologists often take the meaningfulness of social phenomena to

imply that social phenomena do not admit of causal explanation However, it is
possible to accept the idea that social phenomena derive from the purposive
actions of individuals, without relinquishing the goal of providing causal
explanations of social phenomena. For it is necessary to distinguish between the
general idea of a causal relation between two circumstances and the more
specific idea of "causal determination through strict laws of nature." It is
certainly true that social phenomena rarely derive from strict laws of nature;
wars do not result from antecedent political tensions in the way that earthquakes
34
result from antecedent conditions in plate tectonics.

However, when we admit the possibility of non-deterministic causal relations

deriving from the choices of individual persons, it is evident that social
phenomena admit of causal explanation and in fact, much social explanation
depends on asserting causal relations between social events and processes.

3.4: Methodological Individualism

This is the position that asserts the primacy of facts about individuals over facts
about social entities. This doctrine takes three forms: a claim about social
entities, a claim about social concepts, and a claim about social regularities. The
first version maintains that social entities must be reducible to ensembles of
individuals-- as an insurance company might be reduced to the ensemble of
employees, supervisors, managers, and owners whose actions constitute the
company. Likewise, it is sometimes held that social concepts must be reducible
to concepts involving only individuals--for example, the concept of a social
class might be defined in terms of concepts pertaining only to individuals and
their behaviour. Finally, it is sometimes held that social regularities must be
derivable from regularities of individual behaviour.

There are several positions opposed to methodological individualism. At the

extreme, there is methodological holism--the doctrine that holds that social
entities and facts are autonomous and irreducible. And there is a position
intermediate between these two that holds that every social explanation require
micro-foundations--an account of the circumstances at the individual level that
lead individuals to behave in such ways as to bring about the observed social
regularities. If we observe that an industrial strike is successful over an extended
period, it is not sufficient to explain this circumstance by referring to the
common interest that members of the union have in winning their demands.
Rather, we need to have information about the circumstances of the individual
union member that induces him or her to contribute to this public good.

A fruitful research framework in the social sciences is the idea that men and
women are rational, so it is possible to explain their behaviour as the outcome
of a deliberation about means of achieving their individual ends. This fact in
turn gives rise to a set of regularities about individual behaviour that may be
used as a ground for social explanation. We may explain some complex social
phenomenon as the aggregate result of the actions of a large number of
individual agents with a hypothesized set of goals within a structured
environment of choice.

35
SELF- ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
(i) Critically examine the relationship between logic and social sciences.

4.0: CONCLUSION
After reading this unit, students should be able to identify the various schools of
thought in the explanation of the relationship between logic and social sciences
and between social sciences and natural sciences.

5.0: SUMMARY In this unit, we have explained the various schools of thought
that explain the relationship between logic and social sciences on the one hand,
social sciences and natural sciences on the other hand. We have also highlighted
the various explanations used by social scientists to analyze human behaviour
and attitudes.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

1. Identify the schools of thought in the explanation of social relationship
2. Discuss your understanding of Interpretive Sociology
3. What do you understand by Methodological individualism?

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Audi, R. (1995) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge,
Cambridge University
Dukor, F.M. (1994) Theistic Humanism: Philosophy of Scientific Africanism,
Lagos, Noble Communications Network

Goldman, L. (1969) The human Sciences and Philosophy, London, Jonathan

Press
Omoregbe, J. (1990) Knowing Philosophy: A General Introduction, Lagos, Joja
Educational Research and Publishers Ltd

UNIT 5: LOGICAL OR CRITITCAL THINKING

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Critical Thinking and Political Inquiry
36
3.2. Character of Critical Thinkers
3.3. The Concepts of Critical Thinking

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignments

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit explains the usefulness of logical thinking to political inquiry. It
examines the usefulness of assumptions in the understanding of social
phenomena by identifying the hidden values of facts, and evaluating evidences
and assessing conclusions. It explains the ability to understand and find
workable solutions to a complex political problem.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 explain the term critical thinking

 discuss the usefulness of critical thinking to political inquiry

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Logical Thinking and Political Inquiry

Logical or criticalthinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns
hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses
conclusions. "Critical" as used in the expression "critical thinking" connotes the
importance or centrality of thinking to an issue, question or problem of concern.
"Critical" in this context does not mean "disapproval" or "negative." There are
many positive and useful uses of critical thinking, for example formulating a
workable solution to a complex personal problem, deliberating as a group about
what course of action to take, or analyzing the assumptions and the quality of
the methods used in scientifically arriving at a reasonable level of confidence
about a given hypothesis. Using strong critical thinking we might evaluate an
argument, for example, as worthy of acceptance because it is valid and based on
true premises.

Critical thinking can occur whenever one judges, decides, or solves a problem;
in general, whenever one must figure out what to believe or what to do, and do
37
so in a reasonable and reflective way. Reading, writing, speaking, and listening
can all be done critically or uncritically. Critical thinking is crucial to becoming
a close reader and a substantive writer. Expressed most generally, critical
thinking is "a way of taking up the problems of life."

"Fluid intelligence" directly correlates with critical thinking skills. You are able
to determine patterns, make connections and solve new problems. When you
improve your critical thinking skills, you also improve your fluid intelligence,
which also helps increase your problem solving skills and deep thinking
elements. All of these skills relate to one part of the brain, and the more you use
them the easier it will be to put your skills to the test.

The list of core critical thinking skills includes observation, interpretation,

analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation and meta-cognition. There is a
reasonable level of consensus among experts that an individual or group
engaged in strong critical thinking gives due consideration to the following;
Evidence through observation; Context of judgment; Relevant criteria for
making the judgment well; Applicable methods or techniques for forming the
judgment; Applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and
the question at hand.

In addition to possessing strong critical thinking skills, one must be disposed to

engage problems and decisions using those skills. Critical thinking employs not
only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy,
precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and fairness. Critical thinking
calls for the ability to: Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting
those problems; Understands the importance of prioritization and order of
precedence in problem solving; Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant)
information; Recognize unstated assumptions and values; Comprehend and use
language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination; Interpret data, to appraise
evidence and evaluate arguments; Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of
logical relationships between propositions; Draw warranted conclusions and
generalizations; Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one
arrives; Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience
and; Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday
life.

Irrespective of the sphere of thought, "a well cultivated critical thinker": raises
important questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it
effectively; comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them
against relevant criteria and standards; thinks open-mindedly within alternative
38
systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions,
implications, and practical consequences; and communicates effectively with
others in figuring out solutions to complex problems; without being unduly
influenced by others' thinking on the topic.

Critical thinking is about being both willing and able to evaluate one's thinking.
Thinking might be criticized because one does not have all the relevant
information – indeed, important information may remain undiscovered, or the
information may not even be knowable – or because one makes unjustified
inferences, uses inappropriate concepts, or fails to notice important
implications. One's thinking may be unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, irrelevant,
narrow, shallow, illogical, or trivial, due to ignorance or misapplication of the
appropriate skills of thinking. On the other hand, one's thinking might be
criticized as being the result of a sub-optimal disposition.

3.2. Character of Critical Thinkers

The dispositional dimension of critical thinking is logical character. Its focus is
in developing the habitual intention to be truth-seeking, open-minded,
systematic, analytical, inquisitive, confident in reasoning, and prudent in
making judgments. Those who are ambivalent on one or more of these aspects
of the disposition toward critical thinking, or who have an opposite disposition
(intellectually arrogant, biased, intolerant, disorganized, lazy, heedless of
heedless of consequences, indifferent toward new information, mistrustful of
reasoning, or imprudent) are more likely to encounter problems in using their
critical thinking skills. Failure to recognize the importance of correct
dispositions can lead to various forms of self-deception and closed-mindedness,
both individually and collectively.

In reflective problem solving and thoughtful decision making, using critical

thinking one considers evidence like investigating evidence, the context of
judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable
methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical
constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand. The
deliberation characteristic of strong critical thinking associates critical thinking
with the reflective aspect of human reasoning. Those who would seek to
improve our individual and collective capacity to engage problems using strong
critical thinking skills are recommending that we bring greater reflection and
deliberation to decision making.

Critical thinking is based on self-corrective concepts and principles, not on hard

and fast, or systematic, procedures. Critical thinking employs not only logic
(either formal or, much more often, informal) but broad intellectual criteria such
39
as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth,
significance and fairness.

The positive habits of mind which characterize a person strongly disposed

toward critical thinking include a courageous desire to follow reason and
evidence wherever they may lead, open-mindedness, foresight attention to the
possible consequences of choices, a systematic approach to problem solving,
inquisitiveness, fair-mindedness, maturity of judgment, and confidence in
reasoning.

3.3 The Concepts and Principles of Critical Thinking

The concepts and principles of critical thinking can be applied to any context or
case but only by reflecting upon the nature of that application. Critical thinking
forms, a system of related, and overlapping, modes of thought such as
anthropological thinking, sociological thinking, historical thinking, political
thinking, psychological thinking, philosophical thinking, mathematical thinking,
chemical thinking, biological thinking, ecological thinking, legal thinking,
ethical thinking, musical thinking, thinking like a painter, sculptor, engineer,
businessperson, etc. In other words, though critical thinking principles are
universal, their application to disciplines requires a process of reflective
contextualization.

Critical thinking is considered important in the academic fields because it

enables one to analyze, evaluate, explain, and restructure their thinking, thereby
decreasing the risk of adopting, acting on, or thinking with, a false belief.
However, even with knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning,
mistakes can happen due to a thinker's inability to apply the methods or because
of character traits such being ego-centric.

Critical thinking includes identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-

deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. Given research in cognitive
psychology, some educators believe that schools should focus on teaching their
students critical thinking skills and cultivation of intellectual traits.
SELFASSESSMENT EXERCISE
(i) Assess the relevance of critical thinking to political inquiry

4.0: CONCLUSION
After reading through this unit, students should be able to understand the
meaning of logical or critical thinking, its relationship with political inquiry and
the features or characteristics of a critical thinker.

5.0: SUMMARY
40
In this unit, we have explained the meaning of logical or critical thinking and its
relationship with political inquiry. Also, we have explained the features of a
critical thinker and the expected role of a critical thinker in solving socio-
political problems in his or her society.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Explain what you understand by logical or critical thinking
2. Identify and explain the concepts of critical thinking.
4. Analyze the instruments used in critical thinking

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Dauer, F.W. (2007) Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Reasoning, Facione

Glaser, E.M. (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking;

New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Sumner,

William (1906). Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages,

Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. New York: Ginn and Co.

Paul, R., Elder, L. (2008), The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts
and Tools Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

Linda (2002) Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional
and Personal Life; Financial Times, Prentice Hall

Udoidem, S.I. (1991) Understanding Philosophy, Calabar, Government Printing

Press.

MODULE 2: UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL INQUIRY

INTRODUCTION
Module one in this course introduce the meaning and nature of logic; branches
of logic; argument and types of argument; differentiated logic and argument
showing the importance of the concepts and their contribution to credible
political inquiry. This is very important because without a good understanding
of the meaning, character, and nature of logic one may not be able to properly
link logic and political inquiry and apply the identified nexus to have a robust
understanding of scientific research method in political science. This module 2
will dwell on political inquiry defining and characterizing political inquiry. The
module is divided into five units to examine meaning and nature of political
inquiry, methods and scientific inquiry in an inter-depended form.
41
Unit 1: Analyzing Political Inquiry
Unit 2: The Rationale of Political Inquiry
Unit 3: The Fundamentals of Political Inquiry
Unit 4: Generalization in Political Inquiry
Unit 5: Explanation and Prediction in Political Inquiry

UNIT1: ANALYZING POLITICAL INQUIRY

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Analysis of Political Inquiry
3.2. Forms of Political Philosophy Analysis

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignments

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit explains the meaning of political inquiry and the techniques involved
in carrying out political investigation. It further explains the views of scholars
on the revolutionary shift in the approaches to the study of political inquiry. It
analyzes the movement from the traditional approach to the behavioural or
scientific approach.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 explain the traditional approach to the study of politics

 discuss the opinions of political scientists on the paradigmatic shift.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

42
3.1: Traditional Political Inquiry
Since the beginning of recorded history, people have observed, thought about,
evaluated, and analyzed politics. Those who have analyzed politics on a fairly
regular and systematic basis are called political philosophers; they include such
well known figures as Plato, Aristotle, Locke, and Rousseau. The product of
their analyses can be regarded as traditional political philosophy or traditional
political theory. But there is a more precise and fruitful way of characterizing
traditional political philosophy, which involves sorting out its main activities
and indicating which of these activities of political philosophers have spent
most of their time on. Each activity is really a type of analysis. In the same
manner, it is possible to discern political inquiry in this manner. Traditional
political inquiry also is possible to discern political inquiry in this manner.
Traditional political inquiry also suggests that certain orientations in political
investigation are carried out in this traditional manner.

Analysis is a word that has a variety of meanings. To chemists, ―analysis‖,

means breaking things down into their constituent parts; to biologists, it means
sorting things into categories; to mathematicians, it means deriving conclusions
from premises; to social scientists, it means identifying the causes of various
kinds of human behavior; to moral philosophers, it means showing which
actions are good and which ones are bad.

What all of these activities have in common is the attempt to answer one kind of
question or another. Thus, ―to analyze,‖ something means to ask a question,
give an answer after thorough investigation, and then give reasons for the
answer. In conducting political inquiry, the answers to these questions can only
be provided after certain investigations must have been carried out. This may
take different methods, which constitute the subject matter of this course.

3.2. Forms of Political Philosophy Analysis

Under political philosophy analysis, there are four activities of conducting
political inquiry, each of a type of analysis that political philosophers have
engaged in have been labeled scientific, normative, instrumental and analytical
(also called logical).

Describing a political system, an aspect of it, or a general political phenomenon,

and explaining or accounting for such facts are scientific inquiry. The primary
activities of political philosophers have probably been normative. These are
activities, which involve moral, ethical, or value judgments. While scientific
activities deal with what is, value judgments express what a political
philosopher believes ought to be. There are several varieties of normative
43
activity. First, many political philosophers spend much time prescribing the best
state or political system. However, this is not to say that traditional political
philosophers have not engaged in scientific activity. Traditional political
philosophers have alwaysbeen engaged in such scientific activities the political
philosopher has rarely been a very good scientist, especially when it comes to
explaining political phenomena.

This is probably attributable to several factors. First, and largely beyond his
control, was the lack of sophisticated scientific and methodological technology
and hardware. The statistical and mathematical tools so essential to modern
social scientists were not available. Secondly, is the fact that scientific activities
have never been the main concern of the political philosopher. The third nature
of political inquiry can be found in the instrumental or applied value judgment,
which is often confused with normative statements. There is a fundamental
difference in that instrumental judgments recommend the best way of achieving
a given end, but they do not attempt to justify the end itself. This is the
significance of an alternate label, means-ends analysis.

The last kind of activity in political inquiry is the analytic or logical activity.
This category includes both the analysis of political words and concepts and the
examination of certain aspects of political arguments, for instance, their logical
consistency. Plato, using the dialectical method, analyzes and criticizes a
number of definitions of justice in his attempt to arrive at its ‗real‘ meaning.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Describe the activities in political philosophy analysis

4.0: CONCLUSION
After reading through this unit, students should be able to understand the
meaning of political inquiry, identify the various activities in political inquiry
and be able to analyze these activities.

5.0: SUMMARY
In this unit, we have explained the meaning of political inquiry, the activities of
political philosophy analysis and the contribution political philosophers to
traditional and behavioural or scientific inquiry in political science.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

(a) Define political inquiry
(b) Critically examine the range of political inquiry.
(c) Analyze the paradigmatic shift in the understanding of political inquiry.

44
7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Adams, I. and Dyson,R. (2004) Fifty Great Political Thinkers, London and New
York, Routledge Publishers.

Baker, E. (1958), The Politics of Aristotle; New York: Oxford University Press

Wesley C. Salmon (2006). Four Decades of Scientific Explanation University

of Pittsburgh Press

UNIT 2: THE RATIONALE FOR POLITICAL INQUIRY

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Reasons for the Study of Political Inquiry

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignments

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit explains the various reasons for the study political investigation and
social research by students of political science. Political scientists are interested
in acquiring knowledge about and understanding of a variety of important
political phenomena. The unit used normative method of political inquiry as an
example to establish various reasons for inquiry in social sciences and political
science in particular.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
45
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 understand the reasons for the study of political inquiry

 explain the importance of normative method of inquiry.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Reasons for the Study of Political Inquiry

Political scientists are interested in acquiring knowledge and understanding of a
variety of important political phenomena. Some of us are interested, for
example, in the conditions that lead to stable and secure political regimes
without civil unrest, rebellion, or government repression. Some are interested in
the relationships and interactions between nations and how some nations
exercise power over other nations. Other political scientists are more interested
in the relationship between the populace and public officials in democratic
countries and in particular, in the question of whether or not public opinion
influences the policy decisions of public officials.

There are two major reasons why students should learn about how political
scientists conduct empirical research. First, citizens in contemporary society are
often called upon to evaluate empirical research about political phenomena.
Debates about the wisdom of the death penalty, for example, frequently hinge
on whether or not it is an effective deterrent to crime, and debates about term
limits for elected officials involve whether or not such limits increase the
competitiveness of elections. Similarly, evaluating current developments in
Africa, Asia, Europe, America and Latin America requires an understanding of
the role of competitive elections, rights of expression, religious tolerance, and
the ownership of private property in the development of democratic institutions
and beliefs. In these and many other cases, thoughtful and concerned citizens
find that they must evaluate the accuracy and adequacy of the theories and
research of political (and other social) scientists.

A second reason for learning about Political Science research methods is that
students often need to acquire scientific knowledge of their own, whether for a
term paper for an introductory course on Nigerian government and politics, a
research project for an undergraduate seminar, or a series of assignments in a
course devoted to learning empirical research methods. Familiarity with
empirical research methods is generally a prerequisite to making this a
profitable endeavour.

The prospect of learning empirical research methods is often intimidating to

students. Sometimes students dislike this type of inquiry because it involves
46
numbers and statistics. Although to understand research well one must have a
basic knowledge of statistics and how to use statistics in analyzing and reporting
research findings, the empirical research process that we describe here is first
and foremost a way of thinking and a prescription for disciplined reasoning.
Statistics will be introduced only after an understanding of the thought process
involved in scientific inquiry is established, and then in a nontechnical way that
should be understandable to any student familiar with basic algebra.

Political inquiry is methodologically diverse and appropriates many methods

originating in political and social research. In Political Science, approaches
include positivism, interpretivism, rationalchoicetheory, behavioural,
structuralism, post-structuralism, realism, institutionalism, and pluralism.
Political Science, as one of the Social Sciences disciplines, uses methods and
techniques that relate to the kinds of inquiries sought. Primary sources are such
as historical documents, and official records; secondary sources such as
scholarly journal articles, statistical analysis, case studies, and model building.

Political inquiry makes use of different methods, which can be categorized as

normative and empirical research methods. The use of normative method is as
important as the empirical method. In most cases, the two methods are
combined to allow for comprehensive and eclectic analysis of political
phenomena.

The normative method of political inquiry denotes emphasizing what ought to

be. It is characterized by statements which purport to explain what should or
should not be valued. This method is closely related to ethical and philosophical
methods in orientation. It sets to examine the forces operating upon or within an
entity or group of entities, and focuses on certain definable guidelines for the
conduct of state affairs. There are four dominant aspects of the normative
method, namely: historical, legalistic and philosophical and these are rooted in
the classical political philosophy represented by Plato and Aristotle, the church
fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, and also modern philosophers
like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rosseau, Immaneul Kant,
Hume, Burke and Mill. The fundamental question asked by these philosophers
concerning the affairs of the state borders on the issues of rights, justice, duties
and obligations.

The Italian Statesman Niccolo Machiavelli, in his philosophical work

ThePrince, enunciated how rulers should deal with other rulers if they are to
advance the interests of the state and maintain stability in the state. In other
words, sovereign heads should employ whatever means necessary to attain the
47
goals of the state. Immanuel Kant, in his Perpetual Peace, proposed an
organized state in order to get out of the state of nature, which breeds conditions
of war. From the historical perspective, normative method presupposes that the
study of Political Sciences was initially part of history and that it gives credence
to the understanding of historical background of political system as the basis for
understanding or comparing political systems. This explains the analysis of
political phenomena from the perspective of the historiography. However, this
method has been criticized of falling short of necessary instrument for
comprehensive understanding of political phenomena.

Also, the legalistic aspect of normative method indicates that the study of
Political Science was also part of the study of Law as a discipline. It
presupposes the understanding of political phenomena from the legal point of
view or through the understanding of constitutional framework of political
systems. It emphasizes the legal norms of a state, while the philosophical
orientation emphasizes the ideas of the various philosophers on the ideal state. It
portends the ideal situation of what the structure of the state should be. It is
otherwise referred to as the apriori or armchair method of reasoning. However,
the normative method generally is faced with a problem. It does not rely on
facts or scientific orientation.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Differentiate between normative and empirical methods of political inquiry.

4.0: CONCLUSION
After reading through this unit, students should be able to understand the
importance of normative and empirical methods of political inquiry. Also, they
should be able to explain the reasons for the study of political inquiry by
political science students.

5.0: SUMMARY
In this unit, we have explained the usefulness of normative and empirical
methods of political inquiry and their relationship to each other and the
importance of the study of political inquiry by social scientists.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

(a) Critically examine the meaning of normative research.
(b)Identify and explain the reasons for the study of political inquiry

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

48
Apter, D. (1977)Introduction to Political Analysis, New Delhi: Prentice Hall.

Dahl, R.A. (1976) Modern Political Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
PrenticeHall

Pollock, F. (1923) An Introduction to the History of the Science of Politics;

London:Macmillan Press

Quniton, A. (1967) Political Philosophy;London, Oxford University Press

Ranney, A. (ed.) (1962) Essays on the Behavioural Studies of Politics; Urbana:

University of Illinois Press

UNIT 3: THE FUNDAMENTALS OF POLITICAL INQUIRY

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. The Traditional Political Inquiry
3.2. The Behavioural Political Inquiry

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignments

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION

This unit examines the origin and foundational steps to scientific inquiry in the
study of political science. It explains the traditional and behavioural methods of
political inquiry. It explains the importance of the two in political investigation.
It establishes the need for consideration of traditional method of political
inquiry for holistic and comprehensive political investigation rather than solely
49
relying on behavioural method. The unit further explains the activities of the
traditional method of political inquiry and its heuristic value as the foundation
of political investigation while analyzing the contributions of different scholars
to the revolutionary movement in the study of Political Science and the
contributions of different renowned scholars to the development of scientific
orientation in Political Science investigation.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 explain what is meant by traditional method of political inquiry.

 understand the justification for the scientific inquiry in politics.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: The Traditional Method of Political Inquiry

The traditional method of political inquiry includes several methods of
analyzing politics in which the three most important approaches are the
historical, legalistic, and the institutional.

From its 19th century beginnings, political science was looked upon by many of
its practitioners as primarily an historical discipline. Little difference was
recognized between History and Political Science. The latter was considered a
branch or division of the former. According to Richard Jensen (1969), the motto
of this generation of political scientists was ―History is past politics and politics
present history‖. Thus, Political Science was really Political History, and
included such fields as the history of political parties, foreign relations, and
great political ideas.

While the historical approach had its heyday in the last century, it is still evident
at present. This is why it is possible to say, for instance, that Historians and
Political Scientists use the same methods. A variation on the historical approach
is used by those Political Scientists who might be labeled historians of the
present. They give detailed descriptions of contemporary political events, in the
narrative style of the historian. The results are often called ―case studies‖. The
well done case study‘s realistic portrayal of politics is no doubt useful. The
notion links study of politics to law or the legal system. This provides the basis
for the legalistic approach, an approach that views political science as primarily
the study of constitutions and legal codes. This explains the importance of
legality in many definitions of politics.

50
Reaction to the historical and legalistic approaches probably stimulated the third
traditional school of thought, the institutional approach. As Political Scientist
realized that there was more to politics than legal codes and constitutions, a shift
in emphasis took place. There was talk about studying political realities, that is,
what politics actually is, not just its history or legal manifestations. The most
obvious reality of politics is the political institutions; legislatures, executives,
and courts receive the primary attention of the institutionalism. What we have is
normative empiricism, which manifests itself, for the work done and mainly
descriptive – detailed descriptions of political institutions, not explanations of
the political system, are the goals of the institutionalism.

3.2: The Behavioural Method of Political Inquiry

The traditional approach gains most of its meaning as a single orientation when
it is contrasted with the behavioural approach. The latter seems to have begun
after World War II as a sort of protest movement by some Political Scientists
against traditional Political Science. The general claims of the new
behaviouralists were; first, that earlier Political Science did not measure up as a
producer of reliable political knowledge. Political Scientists working in
important wartime decision-making positions made this discovery when they
had to draw upon existing knowledge of domestic and international politics.
Secondly, and on a positive note, more reliable knowledge of politics could be
achieved through different approaches and methods.

The scientific aspiration known as political behaviour is definitely one of the

latest development in the study of political science. In fact, it touches the root of
the designation of Political Science as a discipline and initiates the change from
government to politics. Thus, the assertion by (Bamisaye and Raforji that the
study of politics is nothing without the study of man, for man‘s personality and
behavioural pattern dominate the development of political actions‖ (Bamisaye
and Raforji 2009). This was a very important because the traditional approach
was characterized by configurative description, parochialism, formal legalism,
conservative methodological insensitivity, non-scientific pre-occupation.

Thus, David Easton laid down certain assumptions and objectives of

behaviouralism which he would regard as the intellectual foundation stones on
which the scientific movement has been constructed. They consist of: (i)
regularities (ii) verification (iii) techniques (iv) quantification (v) values (vi)
systematization (vii) pure science (viii) integration. Behaviouralism employs the
use of observation as an instrument of scientific inquiry for the purpose of
analysis and explanation. For instance, observing a political rally provides a
Pollster an opportunity to make explanation and provides analysis of the
programme of a political party or an individual.
51
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Analyze the behavioural method of political inquiry

4.0: CONCLUSION
After reading this unit, students are expected to understand the meaning of
political inquiry, the methods of political investigation as found in traditional
and behavioural methods. They should be able to identify and explain the
opinion of different Political Scientists on the revolutionary change in the
methods of political inquiry. The students should also be able to distinguish
normative and empirical methods or approaches to the study of political science.

5.0: SUMMARY
In this module, we have explained the meaning of political inquiry and the
developmental methods of political investigations in political science. We have
also explained the views of scholar and empirical method of inquiry; the
traditional method of inquiry and the scientific or behavioural method of
inquiry.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

(a) Critically examine the method of political inquiry.
(b) Discuss various activities of traditional method of political inquiry
(c) Relate political investigation to other disciplines in the Arts that you may
know.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Apter, D. (1977) Introduction to Political Analysis, New Delhi: Prentice Hall of
India.

Bamisaye and Faforji (2009) ResearchGuide for Students in the Social

Sciences; Ibadan; Infodata Limited

Dahl, R.A. (1961) The Behavioural Approach,American Political Science

Review, 55, 763-72

Easton, D. (1965) A Framework for Political Analysis;Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice- Hall.

Pollock, F. (1923) An Introduction to the History of the Science of Politics;

London: Macmillan Press.

52
Isaak, A. (1984)Scope and Methods of Political Science, Illinois; The Dorsey
Press.

Merriam, C.E. (1924) New Aspects of Politics;Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

UNIT 4: GENERALIZATIONS

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Meaning of Generalization in Political Inquiry
3.2. Utilities of Generalization
3.3: Types of Generalization

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignments

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit introduces you to the meaning of generalization in political inquiry. It
explains the need for generalization and the broad understanding of the term
generalization. It also explains the activities of generalization as well as the
usefulness of generalization in political inquiry. This unit also explains the
importance of generalization in political inquiry.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 define generalization in political inquiry

 explain the need for generalization in political inquiry
 examine the nature of generalization

53
3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Meaning of Generalization

Generalization expresses a relationship between concepts. To identify those
nations that have democratic political system (according to a dichotomous
classificatory concept) is significant. To discover that democratic nations tend
to have a higher level of education, human rights respect and economic
prosperity is probably more significant, for our knowledge is broadened; the
world of politics makes more sense because we begin to see their pattern, that
is, the relationship between apparently individual facts. It is at the point when
concepts are connected and the connections tested and either confirmed or
rejected that science begins to take off.

3.2. Utilities of Generalization

Generalizations are important to political science because they give us a more
sophisticated and wide-ranging description of political phenomena. The second
reason for the importance of generalizations flows from the nature of scientific
explanation and prediction.Furthermore, very sound explanation and prediction
contains at least one generalization; without generalizations, there could be no
explanations or predictions. Thus, the development of generalization is essential
if Political Science is not only to describe political phenomena, but also to
explain and predict them. The goal of every Political Scientist is the
development of a systematic knowledge of politics. Here, systematic means are
generalized.

It has been asserted that the purpose of scientific generalizations is the

explanation and prediction of political behavior. The explanatory power of
generalization may be distinguished from its explanatory appeal. The concept of
explanatory power relies on the distinction between the ability to predict an
event before its assumption in a generalization and the ability to predict the
event after its assumption. If the assumption of an event in a generalization
substantially increases the ability to predict the event, the generalization has
great explanatory power. Explanatory power is thus an objective concept insofar
as the distinction between the probability of an accurate prediction of an event
before its assumption in a law or theory and the probability of an accurate
prediction after such an assumption can be measured.

The concept of explanatory appeal, on the other hand, is strictly a subjective

phenomenon. A generalization with explanatory appeal engenders satisfaction
that an event has been understood. The explanatory appeal of a theory in terms
of its ―integrative potential‖ refers to the extent to which a wide variety of
apparently disparate events is ―seen in the light of the theory to be related‖. But
54
a generalization can provide a satisfying explanation even though its integrative
potential is low, a satisfaction that may be the result of an unjustifiably inferred
causation.

Obviously, in the social and behavioural sciences, the explanatory power of

generalizations is much lower than those of the natural sciences in that the
predictive power generated by propositions in the social sciences affords a
rather low probability of accuracy. The probability of accurate prediction is a
direct function of the other-things-being-equal (ceteris paribus) qualifier.

3.3: Types of Generalizations

There are two forms of generalization i.e. hypotheses and laws. Both are
generalizations because they share certain characteristics; they have the same
form and most meet the same structural requirements. We cannot tell whether
the sentence ―Democratic political systems tend to be stable‖ is a law or a
hypothesis if we are unaware of its context. The major difference can be traced
to the claim that is made about each.

A hypothesis is a guess about relationship between concepts. After being tested

against available evidence according to the principle of scientific method, it is
accepted or rejected. If accepted, it is labeled a law. We might say that a law is a
true hypothesis; or for those who prefer a weaker notion than truth, a well-
confirmed hypothesis. The later formulation might be more desirable, for it
implies that unnecessary or contingent nature of all scientific knowledge. The
use of ―truth,‖ on the other hand, seems to imply to many that scientific laws
express eternal and immutable relationships. For the scientist, however, the
difference between ―true‖ and ―well-confirmed‖ is largely semantic, for he
realizes the conditional nature of scientific knowledge, whichever label is used.

Since hypotheses and laws have the same form and differ only in regard to
whether or not they have been empirically confirmed, we can, in a
methodological analysis talk about ―generalizations‖ without concerning
ourselves with the distinction between its two main varieties.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Explain generalization in Political Inquiry.

4.0: CONCLUSION
In this unit, we have established the relationship between political inquiry and
generalization and explained how they interact to provide lucid explanation of
political phenomena. The unit has also analyzed the importance of
generalization in political inquiry and the activities involved in generalization to
55
show relationship between concepts in political investigation.

5.0: SUMMARY
This unit has explained the meaning of generalization and its relationship with
concepts in political inquiry. The unit has also explained the various importance
of generalization as they relate to the activities involved in generalization.6.0:

TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

(a) Describe the role of generalization in political inquiry
(b) Analyze the relationship between concepts and generalization.
(c) Identify and explain the importance of generalization in political inquiry.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Gibson, Q. (1960) The Logic of Social Enquiry;London: Routledge & Kegan

Paul. Mills, (1956) The Power Elite;New York: Oxford University Press.

Nagel, E. (1961) The Structure of Science, New York: Harcourt Brace

JovanovichJensen, R. (1969) History and the Political Scientist, in Seymour

Martin (ed.) Politics and the Social Sciences, New York: Oxford University
Press.

Quniton, A. (1967)Political Philosophy; London, Oxford University Press.

Ranney, A. (ed.) (1962) Essays on the Behavioural Studies of Politics; Urbana:

University of Illinois Press

UNIT 5: EXPLANATION AND PREDICTION IN POLITICAL INQUIRY

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

56
2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Logical Identity

3.2. The Completeness of Explanation

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit explains the meaning of explanation and prediction in political
inquiry. It analyzes the importance of explanation to political phenomena and
how observable activities can be explained to offer prediction of the political
activities. The unit explores the conditions necessary for explanation and the
importance of prediction in political inquiry. Also, the unit examines the
relationship between explanation and prediction in political inquiry. In this
regard, the unit explores the possibility of making explanation without
prediction and vice-versa.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 understand explanation and prediction in political inquiry

 explain the relationship between explanation and prediction in inquiry
 discuss the conditions necessary for explanation.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Logical Identity

One of the reasons for a Political Scientist taking an interest in explanation is
the fact that all Political Scientists have to predict. This justification is valid
because of the logical identity between explanation and prediction. The identity
is based upon the fact that both explanation and prediction require laws and
initial conditions. Thus, if one has a valid explanation, he should be able to
employ it to predict, and vice versa. If, given the proper initial conditions, one
could not have predicted the event that was explained, the explanation was not
57
adequate in the first place. If it is possible to explain adequately without having
a potential prediction, then the door is left open for any pseudo-explanation of a
given phenomenon.

An explanation may be incomplete and yet be accepted by Political Scientists.

This has led some to argue that while one can explain, using such partial
explanations, prediction is impossible. In the strictest sense, they are not
explanations, and so naturally, they do not predict. In this period of developing
science of politics, we must often content ourselves with partial explanations, or
even less. But this practical concession does not weaken the model of
explanation to the point that it no longer explains.

SELF- ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

Explain your understanding of political inquiry

3.2: The Completeness of Explanations

In examining the nature of scientific explanation, we have ‗not meant to give
the impression that Political Scientists ought to sit on their hands until they have
before them full-blown deductive or statistical explanations. At this stage, such
a requirement seems unrealistic and overly restrictive. Thus, the arguments
against the possibility of a science of politics (and therefore the scientific
explanation of political phenomena), which we attempted to refute on
methodological grounds are often of practical significance. For instance, while
the complexity of political phenomena presents no logical barrier to
homological explanation, it can create difficulties for the political scientist
conducting research. No claim is being made that Political Science is simple
and that complete homological explanation is immediately achievable.

On the other hand, we have argued that explanation in any science must meet
certain requirements, and it will only prove disillusioning to attempt to achieve
explanation by drastically weakening these requirements. Taking a moderate
position, one ought to realize that there are various degrees of completeness
possible in explanation; one can make a series of distinctions between degrees
of completeness and yet draw the line at inadequate explanations. In other
words, if we are explicit, the class of incomplete but pragmatically acceptable
explanation types can be distinguished from pseudo-explanations, arguments
that have no explanatory value. The addition of one or several elements (usually
laws) to an incomplete explanation makes it complete. But no addition could
make a pseudo-explanation acceptable short of complete revision.

Carl Hempel has explicated this criterion of completeness for explanations

rather thoroughly. Using his analysis as a guide, we can spell out a typology of
58
completeness for Political Scientists. First are complete explanations, those that
explicitly state all laws and initial conditions. Hempel points out that such
perfectly complete homological explanations are rarely achieved by scientists.

In the natural sciences, this is usually because the explainer assumes that certain
laws will be presupposed, and so only the necessary facts are formally stated.
―If judged by ideal standards, the given formulation of the proof is elliptic or
incomplete, but the departure from the ideal is harmless; the gaps can readily be
filled in.‖ In other words, if asked, the scientist could easily provide the missing
laws (or initial conditions) that would completely account for the phenomenon
in question. The number of elliptical explanations in Political Science is not
great. The discipline is not well enough developed to allow a Political Scientist
the luxury of assuming that others are aware of the laws he is implying. This is
one reason for asking that Political Scientists explicitly formulate their
generalizations.

3.3. Partial Explanation

Hempel‘s scheme has a category that is more relevant to Political Science. This
he calls the partial explanation. Like the elliptical type, it fails to explicitly
formulate all the generalizations it is based upon. But even when the
generalizations are made evident, the explanandum is not completely accounted
for. By explanandum, it means the elements that are used to explain a
phenomenon. All that is demonstrated is that something in a particular general
class is to be expected. An explanation is partial because its laws cannot
completely account for its explanandum; this is the nature of most, if not all
laws about political phenomena.

One might have an explanation of sorts, but still not think it meets even the
requirements of the partial explanation. In this case, we might classify the
argument as an explanation sketch. Such an argument is characterized by a lack
of explicitness and logical rigor; yet it points to an explanation. Thus, it serves
as a sort of outline or sketch to direct one‘s attention toward possible
relationships and ultimately a more complete explanation. The Social Sciences,
including Political Science, abound with such explanation sketches. They are
valuable if it is remembered that a complete explanation is still far in the future.

Once again, we must admit that in its present stage of development, Political
Science must often be satisfied with the explanation sketch. But that is an
empirical, not a logical, shortcoming. The formulation of explanation sketches
is closely related to the development of hypotheses. Both involve speculation
and educated guesses. An explanation sketch will have hypotheses as a major
component which if shown to be scientific laws, will allow the sketch to
59
become a full-fledged explanation.

All of these incomplete explanation types can be distinguished from the pseudo
or non-explanation according to one main criterion; ‗No matter how incomplete,
it will be possible to test even an explanation sketch‘ (admittedly, this may take
some doing). That is, even in its rough state, the incomplete explanation makes
some reference to empirical entities to the world of experience. Such is not the
case with non-explanations. ―In the case of non-empirical explanations or
explanation sketches the use of empirically meaningless terms makes it
impossible even roughly to indicate the type of investigation that would have a
bearing upon these formulations‖. This distinction between incomplete and
pseudo-explanations is important to our analysis. Many of the explanations that
one finds in Political Science are incomplete rather than pseudo.

Thus, while they should be evaluated and criticized according to the standards
of sound scientific explanation, they should not be dismissed as useless. To the
contrary, their explication should lead to more explanations that are complete
when more sophisticated laws are available.

SELF -ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

What do you understand by explanation in political inquiry?

4.0: CONCLUSION
This unit has explained the criterion for complete explanation. It has identified
the conditions for complete and incomplete explanation and the implications of
these for prediction. Apart from this, the unit has explained the meaning of
explanation and prediction in political inquiry and their importance for
understanding political inquiry.

5.0: SUMMARY
After reading this unit, students should be able to understand the meaning of
explanation and prediction in political inquiry. They should also be able to
identify the criteria for making complete explanation and the elements for
complete and incomplete explanation.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

(a) Critically examine the meaning of explanation in political inquiry.
(b) Analyze the usefulness of prediction in political inquiry.
(c) Examine the criteria for complete explanation in political inquiry.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

60
Brown, R. (1963) Explanation in Social Sciences; Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldine
Publishing.

Hempel, C.G. (1952) The Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical

Science;Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hempel, C.G. and Oppenheim, P. (1953) The Logic of Explanation; in Herbert

Feigl and May Brodbeck Readings in the Philosophy of Science;New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Kaplan, A. (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry,;San Francisco:Chandler Publishing

Co. Nagel, E. (1961) The Structure of Science;New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Reichenbach, H. (1951) The Rise of Scientific Philosophy;Berkeley: University

of California Press.

MODULE 3:THE NEXUS BETWEEN LOGIC AND POLITICAL

INQUIRY

INTRODUCTION
The major task of this module is to throw enabling light on the connection
between logic and political inquiry for the benefit of the justification of any
political inquiry as a scientific inquiry. This is important because an adroit
understanding of the deep connections between politicalinquiry and
logicalreasoning lays the foundations for greater scientific research works and
other issues relating to political investigation which will be discussed in later
modules. At the end of this module you should be versatile in every aspect of
politicalinvestigation as a scientific investigation.

Unit 1: Logic of Political Inquiry

Unit 2:Research Paradigms
Unit 3: Approaches to Political Inquiry
Unit 4: Contemporary Research Methods
Unit 5: Logical Patterns of Explanations in Political Inquiry

61
UNIT 1: LOGIC OF POLITICAL INQUIRY

CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction

2.0 Objectives

3.0 Main Content

3.1Methodological Underpinnings
3.2: Deduction and Induction

3.2. Logic and Study of Politics

4.0 Conclusion

5.0 Summary

6.0 Tutor- Marked Assignments

7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This unit summarizes the methodological issues surrounding the study of
political science scientific research. The unit highlights the nature, features and
interconnections between logic, approaches and methods of political inquiry.
The unit presents a synopsis of these three aspects of the study of political
science.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 know the contribution of logic to political inquiry;

 apply logical reasoning while carrying out any scientific investigation.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

62
3.1 Methodological Underpinnings
There is a close connection between logic, approaches and methods of political
inquiry. The logic of political inquiry refers to the underlying ontological and
epistemological justification of the approaches and methods of political inquiry
(Brewer 2000). This provides the framework within which approaches and
methods of political inquiry are couched. It is a common practice in the social
sciences to locate research approaches and methods within broader ontological
and epistemological foundation of knowledge. In fact, a specific field of study
examines the ‗fit‘ between research methods and the logic that validates them.
This field of knowledge is known as the philosophy of social research.

Unlike the logic of scientific political inquiry, an approach to the study of

politics simply means ―a general strategy for studying political phenomena‖. It
is the theoretical and philosophical standpoint that determines the focus of a
research; that informs the choice of questions a researcher could ask, and the
kind of data to consider. In this sense, a particular approach may emphasize
economic, institutional, behavioural, or normative issues, while others may
focus on gender and discursive issues. In all, approaches to the study of politics
are the theoretical and philosophical focal point which informs data collection
and analysis.

3.2: Deduction and Induction

Deductive logic is the reasoning of proof, orlogical implication. It is the logic
used in mathematics and other axiomatic systems such as formal logic. In a
deductive system, there will be axioms (postulates) which are not proven.
Indeed, they cannot be proven without circularity. There will also be primitive
terms which are not defined, as they cannot be defined without circularity. For
example, one can define a line as a set of points, but to then define a point as the
intersection of two lines would be circular. Because of these interesting
characteristics of formal systems, Bertrand Russell humorously referred to
mathematics as "the field where we don't know what we are talking aboutor
whether or not what we say is true".

All theorems and corollaries are proven by exploring the implications of the
axiomata and other theorems that have previously been developed. New terms
are defined using the primitive terms and other derived definitions based on
those primitive terms. In a deductive system, one can correctly use the term
"proof", as applying to a theorem. To say that a theorem is proven means that it
is impossible for the axioms to be true and the theorem to be false.

Inductionlearning about the physical world requires the use of inductive logic.
63
This is the logic of theory building. It is useful in such widely divergent
enterprises as science and crime scene detective work. One makes a set of
observations, and seeks to explain what one sees. The observer forms a
hypothesis in an attempt to explain what he/she has observed. The hypothesis
will have implications, which will point to certain other observations that would
naturally result from either a repeat of the experiment or making more
observations from a slightly different set of circumstances. If the predicted
observations hold true, one feels excitement that they may be on the right track.
However, the hypothesis has not been proven.

The hypothesis implies that certain observations should follow, but positive
observations do not imply the hypothesis. They only make it more believable. It
is quite possible that some other hypothesis could also account for the known
observations, and may do better with future experiments. The implication flows
in only one direction, as in the syllogism used in the discussion on deduction.

3.3. Logic and Study of Politics

The logic and approaches to the study of politics are linked to the methods of
political inquiry. Methods of political inquiry are the technical rules that lay
down the procedures for how data can be obtained and analyzed (Brewer 2000).
As procedural rules, they tell people what to do and what not to do if they want
to produce knowledge. Research methods can be distinguished according to the
stage of research. There are methods of inquiry, which state how the study will
be carried out – whether it will be a case study, comparative analysis or survey.
There are also methods of data collection, which assert how data will be
collected – whether data will be collected through interview, questionnaire or
documents. Finally, there are methods of data analysis, which specify how data
will be analyzed – whether the research will use statistical or non-statistical
methods.

In sum, it is argued that knowledge production in political science follows the

interconnectedness between the logic (the ontological and epistemological
justification for approaches and methods), the approaches (the theoretical and
philosophical basis for data collection and analysis), and methods (the
procedural rules for data collection and analysis).

The logic of political inquiry revolves around two major issues – determining
research paradigms and strategies. Research paradigms are the broad
ontological and epistemological traditions through which scholars attempt to
understand the social world. On the other hand, research strategies are the
processes required to answer research questions, to solve intellectual puzzles,
and to generate new knowledge (Blaikie 2007). Research strategies specify the
64
starting point, series of steps, and the end point of any research endeavor.
Together, research paradigms and strategies underpin the various approaches
and methods of political inquiry.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
What are the major methodological issues on the political science research?

4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit you are made to understand that logical approaches to the study of
political science are linked to the methods of political inquiry. This is a
procedural rule that tells researchers what to and what not to do when they want
create impetrative knowledge in the field of political science.

5.0 SUMMARY
Investigation in political science follows the interconnectedness between the
ontological and epistemological justification from approaches, the theoretical
and philosophical basis for data collection and analysis.

6.0 TUTOR- MARKED ASSIGNMENT

(i) What do you understand by logic and political approach?
(ii) Explain the two major issues that determine research paradigms.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Adler, E. (1997)Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,
EuropeanJournal of International Relations 3: 19-63.

Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca:

Cornell University Press.

Finnemore, M. and K. Sikkink (2001) Taking Stock: The Constructivist

Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics, Annual
Review of Political Science 4: 391-416

Blaikie, N. (2007)Approaches to Social Inquiry, 2nd Edition; Cambridge, UK:

Polity Press.

Collier, D. (1993). The Comparative Method, in Finifter, Ada (ed.). Political

Science: TheState of the Discipline II; Washington, DC: APSA.

Dahl, R. (1961)The Behavioural Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a

Monument to aSuccessful Protest, The American Political Science Review
65
55(4): 763-772

UNIT 2: RESEARCH PARADIGMS

CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction

2.0 Objectives

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Positivist Paradigm
3.2 The Interpretativist Paradigm
3.3 Research strategies
4.0 Conclusion

5.0 Summary

6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment

7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Research paradigms are different ontological and epistemological perspectives
from which researchers approach the study of politics. Two major research
paradigms are dominant in political science – the positivist and interpretative
paradigms. This unit expatiate these two major paradigms in details for easy
understanding by the students. This is in conformity with other sectors of the
course as a whole.

2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit,you should be able to:

 define research paradigms;

 differentiate ontological perspectives from epistemological perspectives.

66
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 The Positivist Paradigm

The positivistparadigm is modeled on the methods of the natural sciences. It
posits that all sciences, whether natural or social, should use the epistemology
of empiricism. The epistemology of empiricism emphasizes the search for and
discovery of reality. Positivists regard reality as consisting of discrete events
that can be observed by human senses.
They seek knowledge based on systematic observation and experiment, with the
goal of discovering social laws analogous to the natural laws uncovered by the
methods of natural sciences. Positivist analysis seeks to hypothesize and then
evaluate causal inferences about social phenomena that will be generalizable
beyond the specific data analyzed.

A fundamental assumption of the positivist paradigm is the existence of

objective reality and facts, which can be known, understood or approximated
through appropriate research methods. Positivist analyses must be both
replicable and testable across cases, and the validity of the analysis can be
evaluated accordingly. The positivist paradigm maintains that a true explanation
or cause of an event or social pattern can be found and tested by scientific
standards of verification.

Auguste Comte is believed to be the father of positivism (Ritzer 1996: 13).

Comte was confident that scientific knowledge about the society can be
accumulated and used to improve human existence. He insists that scientific
study of the society is possible if scholars would restrict themselves to
collecting data about phenomena which can be objectively observed and
classified. Comte argued that social scientists should not be concerned with the
internal meanings, motives, feelings and emotions of individuals, since these
mental states exist only in a person‘s consciousness and thus, cannot be
observed and measured in any objective way. Comte believes that it is possible
to classify the social world in an objective way.

Using these classifications, it was possible to count sets of observable social

facts and so produce statistics. To Comte, positivist analysis entails a search for
correlations and causalconnections. A correlation is the tendency for two or
more things to be found together and may refer to the strength of the
relationship between them. A strong correlation between two or more social
phenomena may prompt positivists to suspect that one of the phenomena is
causing the other to occur. However, this might sometimes not necessarily be
the case. Thus, it is important to analyze data carefully in a logical manner
before concluding that one phenomenon causes another.
67
3.2 The Interpretativist Paradigm
The interpretativistparadigm has its roots in the field of anthropology. It is
closely associated with the work of Clifford Geertz. Geertz (1973) proposed a
shift away from positivist analyses towards the study of communally defined
subjective understanding. Geertz notes that objective truth cannot be known
since all attempts to understand ―facts‖ are viewed through various subjective
lenses, including the researchers‘. This view sees people‘s understandings, and
therefore subjectively constructed social reality, as ―fleeting, dynamic, and
constantly changing‖ (Roth and Mehta 2002). Geertz (1973) insists that the
study of culture for instance, is not an experimental science in search of law but
an interpretative one in search of meaning. He contends that what we construe
as fact in our data cannot be truly objective because they are really ―our own
constructions of other people‘s constructions of what they and their compatriots
are up to‖. Because interpretative analysis is linked to specific cultural systems,
it is hard to systematically theorize, assess or to empirically test its validity.
Rather, interpretative analyses are taken to be self-validating.

The legitimacy of the analysis is judged by how well the phenomenon is

explained with the corroboration of the evidence put forth. The interpretativist
paradigm does not seek an objective truth so much as to unravel patterns of
subjective understanding. It assumes that all versions of the truth are shaped by
the viewer‘s perceptions and understanding of their world. In sum, the
interpretativist paradigm seeks to illuminate social meanings that reflect cultural
beliefs and values while the positivist paradigm seeks to establish causal laws to
explain objectively viewed phenomena.

3.3 Research Strategies or Style of Reasoning

There are two major research strategies or style of reasoning in the field of
political science, namely the inductive and deductive research strategies. An
inductive research strategy begins with a number of specific statements and
concludes with a general or universal statement. The premises of the inductive
argument are statements about specific instances of some events or state of
affairs and the conclusion is a generalization drawn from the premises. In an
inductive argument, the conclusion makes claims that exceed what is contained
in the premises; it promises to extend knowledge by going beyond observed
instances of some phenomenon.

Inductive research strategy consists of four stages that correspond to a popular

conception of the activities of a scientist. These stages include: Make careful
observations, that is, all facts are observed and recorded without selection as to
their relative importance; Conduct of experiments or tests, including
68
comparison and classification of facts without the use of hypotheses; rigorously
analyze the data obtained and from this analysis, inductively draw
generalizations as to the relations between them and; Produce new discoveries,
theories and generalizations, which will be subjected to further testing (Hempel
1966).

Opposed to the inductive research strategy is the deductive research strategy.

Whereas inductivists look out for evidence to confirm their generalization
deductivists try to falsify their hypotheses, that is, unconfirmed speculations
about phenomenon. A deductive argument moves from premises, at least one of
which is a general or universal statement, to a conclusion that is a specific
statement. The deductive research strategy begins with a question or a problem
that needs to be understood or explained. Instead of starting with observation, it
begins by producing a possible answer to the question; to look for an
explanation for the problem in existing theory, or to invent a new theory.
(Popper,1959).

The deductive and inductive strategies follow the division between positivism
and interpretativism. While the main concern of positivists is to establish causal
explanation of social phenomena through theory testing, interpretativists seek to
arrive at plausible interpretation of social phenomena through theory building.
Theory building emphasizes the exploration of meanings, as such, it involves an
inductive strategy. Scholars attempting to build theory begins with data
collection through observations, proceed to data analysis through comparison
and classification of facts, and then end with the production of new discoveries,
theories and generalizations that will be subjected to further testing.

On the other hand, researchers interested in theory testing are focused on

establishment of truth or law. Following a deductive strategy, these scholars
begin by putting forward a tentative idea or a hypothesis, with the help of other
previously accepted hypotheses, or by specifying conditions under which
hypotheses are expected to hold, they deduce a conclusion(s), and test the
conclusion by gathering appropriate data and making the necessary
observations/experiments. If the data are not consistent with the conclusion, the
theory must be false, but if the conclusion passes the test, then the theory is
corroborated. Thus, there is a close relationship between research paradigm and
strategy. The choice of research paradigm and strategies has serious
implications for research approaches and methods that scholars can adopt,
especially in terms of determining the questions and methods that would lead to
establishment of the truth or discovery of meanings.

SELF -ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

69
Examine the importance of research strategies to the conduct of political inquiry

4.0 CONCLUSION
This unit has justified the position that opposed to the inductive research
strategy is the deductive research strategy. Whereas inductivists look out for
evidence to confirm their generalization deductivists try to falsify their
hypotheses, that is, unconfirmed speculations about phenomenon. A deductive
argument moves from premises, at least one of which is a general or universal
statement, to a conclusion that is a specific statement.

5.0 SUMMARY
The epistemologies of empiricism emphasize the search for and discovery of
reality. Positivists regard reality as consisting of discrete events that can be
observed by human senses.

6.0 TUTOR- MARKED ASSIGNMENT

(i) Explain the two major style of reasoning in the field of political science.
(ii) What do you understand by research paradigm?
(iii) Discuss the differences between the positivist and interpretative paradigms.

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Finnemore, M. and K. Sikkink (2001) Taking Stock: The Constructivist
Research Program inInternational Relations and Comparative Politics, Annual
Review of Political Science 4: 391-416

Gandhi, D. (2006). Rational Choice Theory in Political Science: Interesting,

But Flawed inImplementation Unpublished Memoir

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of

Culturein TheInterpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz.
New York: Basic Books. George,

Bennett, A.(2005)Case Studies and Theory Development in Social

SciencesCambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a Case Study and What is it Good for?American

PoliticalScience Review, 98(2):341-354.

Glaser, D. (1997). Normative Theory in David Marsh and Garry Stoker

(eds.)Theory andMethods in Political Science New York: St. Martin‘s Press.

Green, S. (2002). Rational Choice Theory: An Overview. Paper prepared for the
70
BaylorUniversity Faculty Development Seminar on Rational Choice Theory

UNIT 3: APPROACHES TO POLITICAL INQUIRY

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Objectives

3.0 Main Content

3.1The Behavioural Approach

3.2 The Institutional Approach
3.3 The Rational Choice Approach
3.4 The Constructive Approach
3.5 The Feminist Approach
3.6 The Normative Approach

4.0 Conclusion

5.0 Summary

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION
There are several approaches to political inquiry, each stressing different ideas
and political reality. This unitexamines the following approaches; the
behavioural, institutional, rational choice, constructivist, feminist, and
normative approaches. This is to give the students a sense of what a research
approach really means.

2.0 OBJECTIVES
71
At the end of this unit you should be able to:

 identify and use the different approaches to political inquiry;

 differentiate the approaches and their applications to different styles of
political inquiry.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1The Behavioral Approach
Historically, the behavioural approach originated as a protest movement within
political science. Behaviouralists share a strong sense of dissatisfaction with the
achievements of conventional political science, especially the historical,
philosophical, and descriptive-institutional approaches. The advent of the
behavioral approach signals the absorption of scientific method into political
science. It also underscores the efforts within political science to give meaning
to behaviour by relating it to some empirical theoretical context. Thus, the
behavioural approach sought to improve our understanding of politics by
seeking to explain the empirical aspects of political life through the means of
methods, theories, and criteria of proof that are acceptable according to the
canons, conventions, and assumptions of modern empirical science.

The behavioural approach emanated as a psychological concept adopted to help

eliminate from scientific research all reference to subjective issues such as
intentions, desires, or ideas (Easton 1967). To the behaviouralists, only those
observations obtained through the use of the sense organs or mechanical
equipment were to be accepted as data. The subject matter of behavioural
research is the observable behaviour generated by external stimuli rather than
inferences about the subjective state of mind of the person being observed. As a
psychological concept, the behavioural approach is concerned with the
individual, especially the face-to-face relationship among individuals.
Behaviouralists look at actors in the political system as individuals who have
the emotions, prejudices, and predispositions of humanbeings. As such, they
tend to elevate human beings to the centre of research attention. They argue that
the traditionalists have been reifying on institutions, treating them as entities
that stand apart from the individuals that constitute them (Easton 1953).
Behaviouralists therefore study the political process by looking at how it relates
to the motivations, personalities, or feelings of human actors.

The key idea behind the behavioural approach is the conviction that there are
certain fundamental units of analysis relating to human behaviour out of which
generalizations can be made, and that these generalizations might provide a
common base on which the specialized science of man in society could be built
72
(Easton 1967). This has led to the search for a common unit of analysis that
could easily feed into the special subject matters of each of the social science
disciplines. Ideally, the units would constitute the particles out of which all
social behaviour is formed and which manifest themselves through different
institutions, structure, and processes. The adoption of the label ―behavioural
science‖ symbolizes the expectation that some common variable may be found,
variables of a kind that will stand at the core of a theory useful for the better
understanding of human behaviour in all fields.

3.2The Institutional Approach

The institutional approach focuses on the construction and operation of political
institutions. Political scientists place emphasis on four basic types of political
institutions. The first is the rule making institutions that make collectively
binding decisions about how to regulate the common interests in the society.
The second is rule applying institutions that implement collectively binding
decisions. The third is rule adjudicating institutions that deal with disputes about
how to interpret the general rules laid down by rule making institutions. Finally,
the rule enforcing institutions punish rule breakers. The study of the above
institutions has occupied a central place in political science as a discipline. For a
long time, political scientists studied these institutions as formal, static
organizations such as parliaments, bureaucracy and courts.

Under the new institutional approach, institutions can be both formal and
informal. A formal institution is constituted by a set of formal rules that can be
derived from codified legal orders such as a written constitution. On the other
hand, an informal institution encompasses informal rules derived from
particular established norms, conventions or codes of conduct, which shape the
behaviour of people who implicitly or otherwise have a loyalty to that code and
are subject to certain level of controls if they violate the norms. Formal
institutions are often secured by the means of the employment of physical
violence against non-compliance, while informal institutions are usually
guaranteed by the means of non-violent sanctions such as expulsion and
shaming (Lane and Ersson 2000:34).

Institutions can also be divided into micro-, macro-, and meta-institutions. A

typical micro-institution operates at the individual level and it is characterized
by rules set by agents who are few that they can meet in a face-to-face situation
and regulate their own common interests. On the other hand, a macro-level
institution operates at the state level and it is represented by a general law
decided by a government to steer the behaviour of actors who may or may not
have participated directly in deciding the rule. Finally, a meta-institution
73
acknowledges the heterogeneity of institutions and serves to bring together
several inter-related institutions. Meta-institutions allow different institutions to
intersect with each other so that ambiguities in the operations of the different
institutions can be resolved. Meta-institutions are particularly useful in plural
and complex societies where there are different groups and interests pursuing
their own logic of action; through meta-institutions such societies can establish
order, consensus and contain divisive class and ethnic conflicts.

Although the new institutional approach has a coherent mission, it does not
constitute a unified body of thought. There are three new institutionalisms. The
first is historical institutionalism which borrowed ideas from group theories and
structural-functionalism, and sees institutions as ―formal and informal
procedures, routines, norms and conventions embedded in the organizational
structure of the polity or political economy‖ (Hall and Taylor 1996). Historical
institutional scholars emphasize path dependence and unintended consequences
in the process of institutional development. They call for the integration of
institutional analysis with contributions that other factors, such as ideas, can
make to political outcomes.

Rational choice institutionalism is the second perspective within the new

institutionalism. Rational choice institutionalism developed out of the study
congressional behaviour in America. This perspective draws its analytical tools
from the ―new economics of organization‖, arguing that the relevant actors in an
institutional set up have a fixed set of preferences, behave entirely
instrumentally so as to maximize the attainment of these preferences, and do so
in a highly strategic manner that presumes extensive calculation (Hall and
Taylor 1996). Rational choice institutional scholars claim that an actor‘s
behaviour is likely to be driven, not by impersonal historical forces, but by a
strategic calculus – a calculus that is deeply affected by the actor‘s expectations
about how other actors are likely to behave. Thus, the process of institutional
evolution, continuity and change depends largely on the agreement of the
relevant actors.

The sociological institutionalism is the last perspective of the new

institutionalism. This perspective grew out of the subfield of organizational
theory. Sociological institutional scholars define institutions ―much more
broadly than political scientists do to include, not just formal rules, procedures
or norms, but the symbol systems, cognitive scripts, and moral templates that
provide the ‗frames of meaning‘ guiding human action‖. They argue that many
of the institutional forms and procedures used by modern organizations were
culturally-specific practices that draw from the myths and ceremonies devised
by many societies and assimilated into organizations. Thus, they call for cultural
74
explanation of the formal life, including bureaucratic practices. In summary, the
institutional approach provides us with a diversified perspective of looking into
how the polity is organized and the role of political institutions in the society.

3.3The Rational Choice Approach

Rational choice approach is concerned with understanding human behaviour. It
began as an approach in the field of economics, but over the years, it has
become more widely used in political science. The basic assumption of the
rational choice approach is that complex social phenomena can be explained in
terms of elementary individual actions of which they are composed (Scott
2000). The rational choice approach is based on the standpoint of
methodological individualism. This standpoint holds that the elementary unit of
social life is the individual human action. According Elster (1989) ―to explain
social institutions and social change is to show how they arise as the result of
the action and interaction of individuals‖.

In the rational choice approach, individuals are seen as motivated by the wants
or goals that express their preferences as well as other incentives like reward or
promise of reward. In pursuit of their preferences, individuals act within specific
constraints such as punishment, threat of punishment, or lack of adequate
information about the condition under which they are acting. The rational
choice approach assumes that the choices made by actors are the choices that
best help them achieve their objectives, given all relevant factors that are
beyond their control. In other words, people do their best to achieve their
interests under the prevailing circumstances shaped by incentives and
constraints.

3.4 The Constructive Approach

The constructivist approach focuses on the role of ideas, norms, knowledge,
culture, and argument in politics, stressing in particular the role of collectively
held ideas and understandings on social life (Finnemore and Sikkink 2001). The
constructivist approach is opposed to materialist approaches, which see political
behaviour as determined by the physical world alone, and the individualist
approaches, which treat collective understanding as simply an off-shot of
individual action. Unlike the materialist and individualist approaches, the
constructivist approach focuses on understanding the processes by which
identities and interests originate and change. It seeks to understand how actors
are shaped by the social environment in which they live and the consequences
of these social transformations. The fundamental assumptions of the
constructivist approach include holds that human interaction is shaped primarily
by ideational factors, and not simply material ones; the most important
75
ideational factors are widely shared beliefs, which are not reducible to
individuals; these shared beliefs construct the interests and identities of
purposive actors.

In terms of method of inquiry, constructivists adopt several research tools to

capture inter-subjective meanings. These tools include discourse analysis,
process tracing, genealogy, structured focused comparison, interviews,
participant observation, and content analysis. They assume that all research
involves interpretation, and thus, there is no neutral stance from which they can
gather objective knowledge about the world (Price and Reus-Smith 1998).
However, constructivists are divided over how interpretation should be done
and what kinds of explanation it can yield (Putnam 1993).

3.6 The Normative Approach

The normativeapproach involves the discovery or application of moralnotions
in the study of politics. It represents all sorts of theory making about ―what
ought to be‖, as opposed to ―what is‖ in political life. Normative thinkers focus
on social institutions, especially those concerned with the exercise of public
power, and the relationship between individuals and those institutions. They
also evaluate the justifications given for the existing political arrangements and
the justifiability of possible alternative arrangements (Glaser 1997). The
outcome of normative analysis is usually prescriptive or recommendatory.

Normative scholars undertake their analysis using three major methods. First,
they ensure that their moral arguments are internally consistent. They adopt
argumentation styles from sources such as formal logic and analytic philosophy
to measure this element. Secondly, normative scholars are concerned with the
correctness of the empirical premises of their arguments. In this regards, they
draw from social science disciplines such as history and social anthropology.
Thirdly, normative scholars measure the conclusions of their arguments against
their own moral intuitions. Since the 1970s, normative scholars have split into
three major groups: the utilitarian, liberals, and communitarians.

4.0 ONCLUSION
In this unit the major approaches to scientific inquiry in the study of political
science has been examined given the students the real meaning of research in
the study of political science. The approaches are treated in details.

5.0 SUMMARY
The different approaches to political inquiry are identified and explained in
details and each approach differentiated by their applications to different styles
of political inquiry
76
6.0 TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENT
(i) Discuss the method used by Normative scholars to undertake their analysis
(ii) Explain the main focus and the significance of institutional approach.
(iii) Compare and contrast the rational choice and the behavioural approaches.

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Green, S. (2002). Rational Choice Theory: An Overview. Paper prepared for the
BaylorUniversity Faculty Development Seminar on Rational Choice Theory

Hall, P. and R. Taylor (1996) Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalisms,Political Studies XLIV: 936-957.

Hempel, C. E. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science; Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall. Hughes,

J. A. (1990). The Philosophy of Social Research; London: Longman.

Isaak, A. (1969)Scope and Methods of Political Science; Homewood; The

Dorsey Press.

Jepperson, R. (1991). Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalization

in WPowell and P. DiMaggio (eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Koelble, T.(1995). The New Institutionalism in Political Science and

SociologyComparative Politics, 27(2):231-243.

Ersson S.(2000)The New Institutional Politics: Performance and

Outcomes;London: Routledge.

77
UNIT 4: CONTEMPORARY METHODS IN POLITICAL INQUIRY

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Objectives

3.0 Main Content

3.1Methods of Inquiry
3.2 The Case Study Method
3.3. The Comparative Method
3.4. The Survey Method
3.5. Forms of Data Analysis

4.0 Conclusion

5.0 Summary

6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment

7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the last unit each of the approaches discussed adopt different research
methods. Thus, this unit is a review offundamental research methods that most
contemporary political scientists adopt for their investigation. The review is
through three analytical standpoints – methods of inquiry, methods of data
collection, and methods of data analysis.

2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 describe the fundamental methods of political inquiry

 exhibit good knowledge on the methods of data collection and analysis
78
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 METHODS OF INQUIRY

There are two main methods of inquiry, namely experiment and observation.
However, students of politics rarely undertake experiments due to the
complexity of political phenomena, especially their lack of regularity arising
from indeterminacy and reactivity of political actors. Most analyses in political
science are based on observation. There are three observational methods of
political inquiry.

3.2. The Case Study Method

The first is known as case study and it is based on a singlecaseobservation. The
case study method involves a detailed examination of a phenomenon or an
aspect of a phenomenon to develop or test explanations that may be general
sable to other cases. Case studies can serve five main purposes namely; creation
of theories; testing of theories; identification of antecedent conditions; testing of
the importance of antecedent conditions and; explanation of important issues,
events or phenomena.

Some scholars see case studies as the weakest method of inquiry for two
reasons vise; they argue that case studies provide the least opportunity to control
for the effect of intervening variables and they argue that the results of case
studies cannot be easily generalized to other cases. The above weakness
notwithstanding, case study method has two strengths that make it appealing to
many scholars. First, because case studies show the causal processes, it is
usually easier to infer and test explanations that define how independent
variable causes the dependent variable. Secondly, case studies often produce
strong tests because their explanations/predictions are usually unique (George
and Bennett 2005).

3.3. The Comparative Method

Comparative method is the second observational method of inquiry in political
science. Comparative method is the analysis of a small number of cases,
entailing at least two observations. The main goal of comparative analysis is to
assess rival explanation as well as to examine two or more cases in order to
highlight how similar or different they are. This helps in the process of
developing a framework for interpreting how parallel processes of continuity or
change are played out in different ways within each context. According to
Collier (1993) comparison sharpens our power of description and plays a central
role in concept-formation by bringing into focus suggestive similarities and
differences among cases. Also, comparison is frequently used in testing
79
hypotheses and it can contribute to the inductive discovery of new hypotheses
and theory-building.

The main strength of the comparative method is that given the inevitable
scarcity of time, energy and resources, the intensive analysis of a few cases
seems more promising than the observation of many cases. However, the
comparative method is flawed by its weak capacity to sort out rival
explanations. Because comparative analysis studies few cases, there is the
danger of having more rival explanations to assess than cases to observe.
Regarding this problem, comparativists have suggested three solutions: (1)
increase the number of cases, (2) focus on comparable cases, and (3) reduce
number of variables by combining variables or employing more parsimonious
theory ((Lijphart 1971in Collier 1993).

3.4. The Survey Method

The third observational method of inquiry in political science is the survey
method. A survey is a method of inquiry in which information is gathered from
large number of individuals, called respondents, by having them respond to
questions (Monette et al 1994). The survey method possesses a number of
identifiable characteristics. First, surveys typically involve collection of data
from large samples of people; therefore, they are ideal for obtaining data
representative of populations too large to be dealt with by other methods.
Secondly, surveys involve presenting respondents with a series of questions to
be answered. These questions may address issues of fact, attitudes, opinions and
future expectations. The most important strength of the survey method is the
generalization of its findings. Because the survey method makes use of
standardized methods of drawing respondents, it is usually attractive as an
objective method and its findings are held to be truly general.

An important point to note about surveys is that they only assess what people
say about their thoughts, attitudes, behaviours, and beliefs. Surveys do not
measure those thoughts, attitudes and behaviours directly. For instance, if public
officials say in a survey that they are not corrupt, their actual attitude towards
corruption has not been measured but only what they report about that
behaviour. Thus, one can conclude that people report not being corrupt, but it
cannot be concluded that people are not corrupt. Surveys therefore usually
involve data on what people say about what they do, not what they actually do.

3.3 Forms of Data Analysis

Data in political science comes in two major forms i.e. words and figures. The
data in the form of words are called qualitativedata while the data in the form of
figures are called quantitativedata. Quantitative data are statistics based. In
80
contrast, qualitative data come in various forms such as interview transcripts,
recorded observations, and other documents – published and unpublished. What
distinguishes qualitative and quantitative data is a set of assumptions, principles
and values about truth and reality. Researchers that are inclined to quantitative
data believe that the goal of science is to discover the truths that exist in the
world and to use scientific method as a way to build a more complete
understanding of reality.

Although some qualitative data operate from similar epistemological position,

most of them recognize that the relevant reality in the social world is that which
takes place in subjective experience. Thus, qualitative are often more concerned
about uncovering knowledge about what people think and feel about particular
events or phenomena that they are making judgments about whether these
thoughts and feelings are valid.

Quantitative data can be analyzed by the used of statistics. There are two broad
types of statistics; descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics are
procedures that assist in organizing, summarizing, and interpreting data.
Inferential statistics are procedures that allow us to make generalizations from
sample data to the populations from which samples were obtained. Descriptive
statistics include such simple statistical techniques as frequency distribution,
measures of central tendency, dispersion etc. Inferential statistics include
procedures such as Chi-square, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multivariate
analysis of variance and covariance (MANOVA).

Analysis of qualitative data is a bit more complex. This involves three

concurrent flows of activity, namely data reduction, data display, and
conclusion drawing (Miles and Huberman 1984). Data reduction refers to the
process of selecting, simplifying, focusing, and transforming the raw data
collected from the field research. Qualitative data can be reduced through
selection, summary, paraphrase, and sub-gumptions of data in a large pattern or
metaphor. Data display is the organized assembly of information that permits
conclusion drawing. Looking at displays helps us to understand the situations or
phenomena and to conduct further analysis. Data displays come in the form of
descriptive or explanatory figures and matrices such as charts and tables.
Conclusion drawing involves drawing meanings from reduced and displayed
data. This takes the form of noting the meanings of specific regularities,
patterns, themes, configurations and causal flows. In recent times, several
computer-based qualitative analysis programmes have been devised to
undertake the process described above.

4.0 CONCLUSION
81
This unit examined the general methods of scientific inquiry, exploring the
methods of inquiry, data collection and data analysis.In recent times, several
computer-based qualitative analysis programmes have been devised to
undertake the process described in this unit.

5.0 SUMMARY
The main methods of inquiry, namely experiment and observation of every
research have been detailed under this unit. The unit also explained why
students of political science rarely undertake experiments. It noted that it is due
to the complexity of political phenomena, especially the lack of regularity
arising from indeterminacy and reactivity of political phenomenon.

6.0 TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENT

(i) How can quantitative data beanalyzed using statistics?
(ii) What do you understand by quantitative data and qualitative data?
(iii) What is data?
7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING
Price, R. andReus-Smith, C. (1998)Dangerous Liaisons, Critical International
Relations Theory and Constructivism;European Journal of International
Relations 4: 259-294

Putnam, R. (1993)Making Democracy Work: Civil Traditions in Morden Italy;

Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press

Reinharz, S. (1983) Experiential Analysis: A Contribution to Feminist

Theory;in G. Bowlesand R. D. Klein (eds.)Theories of Women‘s Studies.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Ritzer, G. (1996) Modern Sociological Theory, 4th Edition; New York:

McGraw-Hill. Roth,

W. and J. Mehta (2002) The Rashomon Effect: Combining Positivist and

Interpretativist Approaches in the Analysis of Contested Events; Sociological
Methods and Research 31(2): 131-173.

Rothstein, B. (1996) Political Institutions: An Overview in GoodinR. and Hans-

DieterK. (eds.) A New Handbook of Political Science Oxford; Oxford
University Press.

Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What Makes the World Hang Together: Neo-

Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge;International

82
Organization 52: 855-887.

Scott, J. (2000) Rational Choice Theory in Browning,G.Halcli,A. and

WebsterF.(eds.)Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present;
London: Sage.

UNIT 5: LOGICAL PATTERNS OF EXPLANATIONS

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Patterns of Explanation in Political Inquiry

3.2. The Dispositional Pattern
3.3. The Intentional Pattern
3.4. The Rational Pattern
3.5. The Genetic pattern

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit introduces the various patterns of explanation in political inquiry. It
identifies the patterns and explains them in their various categories bringing out
the qualities of each pattern and their usefulness in political investigation. The
unit identifies about four patterns in this regard which include dispositional,
intentional, rational, and genetic patterns. The unit further explains the
possibility of adopting two or more patterns in a particular explanation which is
a common phenomenon in Political Science.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:
83
  know the patterns of explanation in political inquiry.
 explain the various patterns of explanation in political inquiry.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Patterns of Explanation

There are six patterns of explanations in political science research. The first
three, dispositional, intentional, and rational, employ human characteristics as
independent variables. The others are macro-institutional, system maintaining,
and genetic. It has become clear that a single criterion has not been used to
classify patterns. For instance, dispositional explanations are distinguished from
macro explanations mainly by content, that is, the different types of concepts
used as independent variables in their generalizations.

3.2: The Dispositional Pattern

The dispositional pattern in Political Science is so labeled because it uses
dispositional concepts. A disposition is a tendency to respond in a certain way
in a given situation. Included in the class of dispositional concepts are attitudes,
opinions, beliefs, values, and personality traits. The dispositional pattern can be
distinguished from the intentional pattern because the former makes no
reference to conscious motives. In other words, the link between the disposition
and behaviour is not ―out in the open.‖

There are as many types of dispositional explanations as there are kinds of

dispositions. However, there are several other dimensions according to which
dispositional explanations can be classified. Dispositions may be attributed to
individuals, decision makers, groups, and types of people, classes, nations, or all
men. The law or relationships can be explicitly stated, consciously assumed, or
unconsciously implied; and based on controlled analysis of statistical evidence,
observation and experience, or commonsense speculation. A succinct statement
of these dimensions can be made in a series of questions, the answers to which
provide a clear categorization of any dispositional explanation.

3.3: The Intentional Pattern

The existence of a dispositional pattern indicates that much political behaviour
is not intentional. Still, there is a class of actions that seem to manifest such
purposive behaviour. This is the basis for the inclusion of an intentional pattern.
The term intention refers to all actions (not necessarily successfully carried out)
that are consciously purposive. Political scientists often attempt to explain
political phenomena by showing that the explanandum is the result of some
intentional action.
84
Intentional explanations, like all other sound explanations, are nomological.
They differ from the other patterns only in the type of concepts used and the
way in which generalizations are arranged. Intentional explanation is a unique
way of accounting for social phenomena - a method of explanation logically
distinct from the nomological model. The basis of this position is a belief that
citing of intentions explains by showing the meaningfulness of the behaviour in
question. The explanatory force of learning the agent‘s intention depends upon
the author‘s familiarity with intentional behaviour; the explanation must solve a
puzzle and in order for the puzzle to exist there must be a ‗previous stock of
knowledge and beliefs‘ with which the perplexing event is at variance.‖

3.4: The Rational Pattern

A rational-type of explanation is based on the presumed or demonstrated
rationality of men. This pattern may be considered as a special case of
intentional explanation in the most general sense. However, it is sufficiently
distinct and wide enough in use among political scientists to justify separate
consideration.

There is a general belief that people are rational insofar as they behave
rationally. An action is rational to the extent that it is correctly designed to
maximize goal achievement, given the goal in question and the real world as it
exists. An individual is rational if his pursuit of goals is as efficient as possible.
The importance of goals to rationality indicates what we could say at the outset
of explanation in the most general sense. According to the definitions all
rational behaviour is goal-seeking. The only difference between it and the
intentional pattern is the claim that rational action is the best way to achieve a
goal.

3.5: The Genetic Pattern

Out of the patterns of explanation we are discussing, the one that is the most
distinctive structurally is the genetic pattern. The task of genetic explanations is
to set out the sequence of major events through which some earlier system has
been transformed into a later one.‖ Thus, a genetic explanation does not fit the
other schema because it involves several stages. It is clear that the factors in the
schema occur at different times. This is why the genetic pattern is characterized
by stages.Genetic explanation is marked by at least two explanation stages, each
of which can be considered a separate explanation, which together show why a
political phenomenon is as it is or was what it was. In other words, an
explanation fitting the genetic pattern first explains a state of affairs X and then
proceeds to explain, on the basis of X, another state of affairs, etc.

85
The genetic pattern accounts for the present state of a political phenomenon by
showing how it developed over time from previous stages. It differs from other
patterns because of this developmental element and the multiplicity of stages.
From what we have said so far it seems reasonable to conclude that the genetic
pattern is often identified with historical explanation. It is also interesting to
note that much of the methodological analysis of the genetic pattern has been
carried out by philosophers of history. Many of the explanations provided by
Political Scientists that can be classified as genetic are actually historical.
There are genetic explanations that are not historical in the technical sense, for
instance, the explanation of the development of party identification. The main
characteristic of many genetic explanations is a narrative style or chronicling of
events. However, in accounting for a political phenomenon, not every
antecedent event is relevant. We can say genetic explanations account for
political phenomena by describing a series of relevant events, which in a chain-
like fashion determine the state of the explanandum.

SELF -ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

Discuss in details genetic pattern of explanation.

4.0: CONCLUSION
At the end of this unit, it could be observed that patterns of explanation in
political inquiry vary based on the concept being explained. These patterns have
different structures even though some are structurally similar.

5.0: SUMMARY
This unit has explained the various patterns of explanation in political inquiry
by identifying the major characteristics of each and their usefulness. It has also
categorized them into various orientation based on the structure of these
patterns.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

(a) Explain some patterns of explanation in political inquiry
(b) Identify the various patterns of explanation examined in this unit
(c) Critically assess the genetic pattern of explanation in political inquiry.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Brown, R. (1963) Explanation in Social Sciences, Hawthorne, N.Y.; Aldine
Publishing Co

Hempel, C.G. (1952) The Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical

Science; Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

86
Hempel, C.G. and Oppenheim, P. (1953) The Logic of Explanation; in Herbert
Feigland May Brodbeck (eds.) Readings in the Philosophy of Science, New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Kaplan, A. (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry;San Francisco: Chandler Publishing

MODULE 4: CONCEPTS IN POLITICAL INQUIRY

INTRODUCTION
Module three dealt with the nexus between logic and politicalinquiry. It
comprehensively treated complex links between logic and scientific research
thereby introducing the students to the intricacies of project writing and other
forms of political investigations. This module introduces the student to the
different meanings and types of concepts that are used for political inquiry to
further enhance their knowledge of research. The module examines the main
concepts of political inquiry and generally explained their usefulness in
scientific investigation. It further examines the central role of scientific
concepts in political investigation and its various interpretations. The module is
divided into five units to examine meaning and nature of concepts, theory, and
importance of theory,model forms, importance of concepts, all in inter-related
form while explaining their different roles to inquiry. The units are as follows:

Unit 1: The Nature and Meaning of Concepts

Unit 2: Theory as a Concept
Unit 3: The Importance of Theory
Unit 4: Models in Inquiry
Unit 5: Patterns of Inquiry

UNIT 1: THE MEANING AND NATURE OF CONCEPTS

CONTENTS
87
1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. The Meaning of Concepts

3.2. Theories of Concepts
3.3. Contending Issues on Concepts

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit explains the meaning and nature of scientific concepts in political
inquiry. It examines the definition of concepts generally and its usefulness in
scientific orientation. It further examines the central role of scientific concepts
in political investigation and its various interpretations. The unit further
explores the idea of philosophers on the meaning and the usefulness of the term
concept to political inquiry.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 define the term concept

 discuss the abstractive notion of concept.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Meaning of Concepts in Political Inquiry

Simply, a concept is an abstract notion or idea, something that is not concrete.
As noted by Theodorson and Theodorson (1969), concepts can be regarded as ‗a
word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of
something or the relations between things, often providing a category for the
classification of phenomena‘.A concept, therefore, is mainly a construct of the
mind, an idea.
88
Thus, a concept is an abstract summary of characteristics that we see as having
something in common. Concepts are created by people for the purpose of
communication and efficiency. A concept has no set meaning and it is up to us
to define what we mean by the concept. But if concepts have no set meaning
then anyone can define a concept in any way that they wish. But if everyone can
define the concept in any way they like the concept becomes worthless; unless
there is agreement on the meaning communication is impossible. A concept
therefore has to be defined, but in such a way that it has a degree of acceptance.
Experts in the field usually propose such definitions. Asking a psychologist,
philosopher, or a linguist what a concept is, is much like asking a physicist what
mass is. An answer cannot be given in isolation. Rather, the term plays a certain
role in a larger world-view that includes the nature of language, of meaning, and
of mind. Hence the notion of a concept cannot be explicated without at the same
time sketching the background against which it is set, and the ‗correctness‘ of a
particular notion of concept cannot be evaluated without at the same time
evaluating the world-view in which it plays a role.

There is a fundamental tension in the ordinary language term concept. On one

hand, it is something out there in the world; the Newtonian concept of ‗mass‘ is
something that is spoken of as though it exists independently of whom actually
knows or grasps it. Likewise, grasping a concept evokes comparison to grasping
a physical object, except that one somehow does it with one‘s mind instead of
one‘s hand. On the other hand, a concept is spoken of as an entity within one‘s
head, a private entity, a product of the imagination that can be conveyed to
others only by means of language, gesture, drawing, or some other imperfect
means of communication.

A concept is a cognitive unit of meaning – an abstract idea or a mental symbol

sometimes defined as a ―unit of knowledge‖, built from other units which act as
a concept‘s characteristics. A concept is typically associated with a
corresponding representation in a language or symbology such as a single
meaning of a term.

3.2: Theories of Concept

There are prevailing theories in contemporary philosophy, which attempts to
explain the nature of concepts. The representational theory of mind proposes
that concepts are mental representations, while the semantic theory of concepts
holds that they are abstract objects. Ideas are taken to be concepts, although
abstract concepts do not necessarily appear to the mind as images as some ideas
do. Many philosophers consider concepts to be a fundamental ontological
category of being. The meaning of ―concept‖ is explored in mainstream
89
cognitive science, metaphysics and philosophy of mind. The term ―concept‖ is
traced back to 1554-60 (latin conceptum – something conceived) but what is
today termed ―the classical theory of concepts‖ is the theory of Aristotle on the
definition of terms (Nwachukwu, 2014).

John Locke's description of a general idea corresponds to a description of a

concept. According to Locke, a general idea is created by abstracting, drawing
away, or removing the common characteristic or characteristics from several
particular ideas. This common characteristic is that which is similar to all of the
different individuals.

In the same tradition as Locke, John Stuart Mill stated that general conceptions
are formed through abstraction. A general conception is the common element
among the many images of members of a class. ―... [W]hen we form a set of
phenomena into a class that is, when we compare them with one another to
ascertain in what they agree, some general conception is implied in this mental
operation". Mill did not believe that concepts exist in the mind before the act of
abstraction. "It is not a law of our intellect, that, in comparing things with each
other and taking note of their agreement, we merely recognize as realized in the
outward world something that we already had in our minds. The conception
originally found its way to us as the result of such a comparison. It was obtained
(in metaphysical phrase) by abstraction from individual things".

By contrast to the above philosophers, Immanuel Kant held that the account of
the concept as an abstraction of experience is only partly correct. He called
those concepts that result of abstraction "aposteriori concepts" (meaning
concepts that arise out of experience). An empirical or an aposteriori concept is
a general representation (Vorstellung) or non-specific thought of that which is
common to several specific perceived objects. A concept is a common feature or
characteristic. Kant investigated the way that empirical aposteriori concepts are
created (Nwachukwu, 2014).

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
What is the importance of Concepts in scientific investigation?

4.0: CONCLUSION
At the end of this unit, students are expected to understand the meaning of
concepts, their usages and importance in political inquiry. They should also be
able to analyze the theories of the nature of concept as a representation of mind
and as semantics. Their ability to differentiate between these two should be
displayed without any difficulty.

90
5.0: SUMMARY
While it is difficult to define the term concept, we have tried in this unit to
explain the various definitions of the term as offered by philosophers and the
usages of the term. Also, this unit has analyzed the usefulness or importance of
the term concept and its nature and theories as espoused by scholars like John
Locke, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and others.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

(a) Critically examine the meaning of concept.
(b) What is the usefulness of concept in political inquiry?

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Asika, N. (2009) Research Methodology in the Behavioural Sciences; Lagos:
Longman Nigeria Plc.

Nwachukwu O. (2009) The Study of Politics: Logic, Approaches and

Methods;Eugene Nweke and Nkwachukwu Orji (eds.) A Handbook of Political
Science; Department of Political Science, Ebonyi State University.

Bergmann, G. (1957) Philosophy of Science; Madison: University of Wisconsin

Press.

Hempel, C.G. (1952) Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical

Science; Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dickenson, McGaw, and George Watson, (1976) Political and Social Inquiry;
New York:

John Wiley and SonsFrank, P.G. (1961) The Validation of Scientific

Theories;New York: Collier Books.

Wallace, W. (1971) The Logic of Science in Sociology; Chicago: Aldine-

Atherton.

Reichenbach, H. (1951) The Rise of Scientific Philosophy; Berkeley: University

of California Press

UNIT 2: THEORIES AND POLITICAL INQUIRY

91
CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0 Objectives

3.0 Main Content

3.1. The Notion of Political Theory

3.2. The Nature of Political Theory

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignments

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit explains the meaning and development of theory in Political Science.
The unit explores the similarity between theory and models in political analyses
and explains their usefulness. It analyzes the importance of theory to political
analysis and investigation and shows how to build a theory for political
investigation.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 understand the meaning of theory in political inquiry

 discuss the usefulness of theory in political investigation

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: The Notion of Political Theory

When a hypothesis has survived a sufficient number of tests, it may be
promoted to a scientific theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has survived many
tests and seems to be consistent with other established scientific theories. Since
a theory is a promoted hypothesis, it is of the same 'logical' species and shares
the same logical limitations. Just as a hypothesis cannot be proven but can be
disproved, that same is true for a theory. It is a difference of degree, not kind.
Arguments from analogy are another type of inductive reasoning. In arguing
92
from analogy, one infers that since two things are alike in several respects, they
are likely to be alike in another respect. This is, of course, an assumption. It is
natural to attempt to find similarities between two phenomena and wonder what
one can learn from those similarities. However, to notice that two things share
attributes in several respects does not imply any similarities in other respects. It
is possible that the observer has already noticed all of the attributes that are
shared and any other attributes will be distinct. Argument from analogy is an
unreliable method of reasoning that can lead to erroneous conclusions, and thus
cannot be used to establish scientific facts.

It is useful to begin an analysis of scientific political theory with two

distinctions. The first distinction points out that the political theory now under
consideration is not the same as that venerable activity that often goes by the
same name but which in some cases is labeled political philosophy. Let us recall
the normative character of political philosophy, its emphasis is on ought
questions. What should be the goals of the political system? What is the best
political system?

These activities can be contrasted with the scientific-empirical nature of

political theory, which has to do with its questions. Confusion arises from the
traditional interchangeability of political philosophy and political theory. While
an ever-increasing number of Political Scientists are accepting one form or
another of the distinction just mentioned, the confusion lingers. This is
attributable not so much to the failure of Political Scientists to understand the
nature of scientific theory, although this is one source of difficulty, as to the
continued substitution of theory for philosophy, based on the unquestioned
assumption that the two refer to the same activity.

A second distinction is often made between theory and practice. As manifested

in the popular statement ―That‘s fine in theory, but it won‘t work in practice,‖ it
assumes that theory or theoretical thinking is false or unrealistic. However, it
should be noted that there is no divorce in the above sense between theory and
practice. Rather than being unrealistic or false, a sound theory is the basis for
reliable knowledge of politics. Theories help us explain and predict political
phenomena, and ultimately help us to make well-founded, practical decisions
(Bamisaye and, 2009).

Another related and more sophisticated interpretation of the ―theory versus

practice‖ distinction views the former as the result of speculation. Its key phrase
is, ―That‘s fine in theory, but will it work in practice?‖ The distinction is still a
fundamental one, but theory is given a higher status. Now, at least, a theory is
not necessarily false, for according to this interpretation it is an elaborate
93
hypothesis, a set of guesses to be tested. Thus, to be theoretical is to be
hypothetical, potentially true. While this view is more generous than the first, it
is misleading.

3.2: The Nature of Political Theory

There are variations that are popular among Political Scientists on the nature of
political theory. Quentin Gibson gave a basic definition of theory as ―Sets or
systems of statements logically inter-connected in various complex ways‖. In a
similar vein, Nelson Polsby et al wrote that, ―A scientific theory … is a
deductive network of generalizations from which explanations or predictions of
certain types of known events may be derived‖. The simplest interpretation of
theory views it as set of related empirical generalizations.

Therefore, several generalizations about a particular area of politics can be

classified as a theory. Take, for instance, the laws derived from voting studies.
Since each law describes the relationship between a social, economic, political,
or psychological variable and a type of voting act (men tend to vote more than
women), the conjunction of several can explain voting behavior in a more
general way. It is an attempt to relate a number of generalizations from the
literature of party behavior and organize them into a systematic theory.

The notion of political theory as a collection of empirical generalizations about

a particular field or subject is a popular one among many Political Scientists. To
others it represents a simplified version of the interpretation of theory that is
more commonly accepted by the scientific community at large. According to
this interpretation, a theory is characterized by the use of theoretical constructs.
Thus, a theory might be defined as ―a set of generalizations containing concepts
we are directly acquainted with and those that are operationally defined; but,
more importantly, theoretical concepts that, although not directly tied to
observation, are logically related to those concepts that are.‘ This provides the
basis for a distinction between theories and empirical generalizations. While the
latter can be empirically tested (confirmed or rejected), because their concepts
are directly tied to observation, we can‘t test in the same way a generalization
that contains theoretical (or, by definition, no observable) concepts. However,
this is not to say that theories cannot be tested and evaluated ( Osuala, 1985).

Despite their characteristic use of theoretical concepts, sound theories are

empirical. Hence, it is believed that a scientific theory has two features i.e.
structural, and substantive; one referring to the relationship between its
concepts, the other to its empirical content. Any scientific theory may be
conceived of as consisting of an un-interpreted, deductively developed system
and of an interpretation which confers empirical import upon the terms and
94
sentences of the later. It can begin with a purely formal logical system such as
Euclidean geometry, where concepts are implicitly or internally defined, and
then directly define (tie to observables) some of its concepts. This would then
give the other concepts, labeled theoretical, indirect empirical import. There is a
difference between an un-interpreted mathematical or logical system and a
scientific theory, and the difference is the empirical nature of the latter.

4.0: CONCLUSION
It is obvious that scientific inquiry of political phenomena will not be possible
without the construction of theory. This stems from the formulation of
hypothesis and law. Therefore, theory construction is a common phenomenon in
establishing the scientific orientation of Political Science.

5.0: SUMMARY
In this unit, we have tried to explain the meaning of theory as well as
establishing its uses in political inquiry. Also, this unit has analyzed the
heuristic value of theories to the understanding of the science of political
inquiry.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

1. Critically examine the role of theory in political investigation.
2. What is Theory?

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Brodbeck, M. (1959) Models, Meanings, and Theories; in Leonard Gross (ed.)
Symposium on Sociological Theory, Evanston, III: Row, Peterson.

Osuala, E.C. (1985) Introduction to Research Methodology; Onitsha, Nigeria:

African PEP.

Riker, W. (1962) The Theory of Political Coalitions;New Haven: Yale

University Press Simon,

J. (1969) Basic Research Methods in Social Sciences;New York: Random

House.

Stogdill, R.M. (1970) The Process of Model-Building in the Behavioural

Sciences;New York, W.W. Norton.

UNIT 3: FUNCTIONS OF THEORIES IN INQUIRY

95
CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Analysis of Theory

3.2. Functions of Scientific Theory
3.3. The Place of Theory in Political Science

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignments

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit explains the functions of theory in Political Science. It analyzes the
various functions as performed by theory in political investigation bringing to
fore the role of theory in the analysis of concept formation and introduction. It
also explains the place of theory in Political Science discipline as a whole and
how this affects orientations in political inquiry.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 list and explainthe functions of theory in Political Science

 know how to construct theory for political analysis.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Analysis of Theory

Since theories are empirical, they can be evaluated according to their soundness.
A close analysis of a proposed theory should indicate whether it is properly
constructed and empirically based. But perhaps a more fruitful approach to the
nature of scientific theory is through an examination of the functions it
performs. One way to evaluate a theory is to determine how well it is doing
96
what it is expected to do. Several comments have suggested that a theory‘s
major function is importantly to explain singular facts and occurrence, but
perhaps more importantly to explain empirical generalizations. This latter
function is what gives the scientific theory its power.

Generally, a theory can explain empirical generalizations because it is more

general, more inclusive than they are. The great power of Newtonian
mechanics, demonstrate over the centuries, is based upon the ability of a rather
small set of theoretical laws to explain a great number of empirical laws about
bullets, missiles, and other moving objects.

The same situation exists in Political Science, although it is misleading to talk

about an existing theory of politics (in the second, more sophisticated sense of
theory). Let us suppose that general stimulus-response learning theory can
explain a wide range of empirical laws, all the way from the voting behavior of
individuals to the military activity of nation-states. The point is that if learning
theory were a sound theory of political behavior, a set of general laws using
such theoretical concepts as ―demand‖ and ―habit‖ would explain or imply a
number of generalizations that previously had appeared to be independent, or at
least not closely related.

This implies that in one sense a theory is not to be judged true or false, but more
or less useful as an explainer of empirical laws. Since laws describe our
knowledge in a particular field, the sound theory explains the knowledge more
generally and completely, indicating to use the interconnection between
seemingly isolated facts. In taking this position, the controversy that exits
among philosophers of science over the status of theories cannot be overlooked.
Some say they are true or verified in the sense that empirical laws are. That is,
they are real descriptions of the world of observation.

This position, usually labeled the realist, recognizes no local or philosophical

distinction between theoretical and non-theoretical concepts, since they both
refer to real entities. The opposing school of thought, the instrumentalist, takes
another position closer to one we adopted in the last paragraph. It argues that
there is no point in trying to determine whether a theory is true or false, since it
is neither. It does not describe the world, but explains or predicts worldly
phenomena.

A theory is tested according to how well it performs its major functions; thus,
the label ―instrument.‖ This is close to our notion of theory. However, the strict
instrumentalist‘s complete rejection of the realist theories is questionable. While
a theory contains theoretical concepts, it is also tied to observation through an
97
empirical interpretation. Thus, it more or less describes the world. The
theoretical concepts fill in the gaps and allow the theory to explain in more
general terms what has been explained by individual empirical laws.

3.2: Functions of Scientific Theories

Scientists use theories to organize, systematize, and coordinate existing
knowledge in a particular field. According to the first notion of theory, a set of
related empirical generalizations, a theory is systematization. A theory of voting
behaviour would be a set of relevant generalizations that have been collected
and put into logical juxtaposition. According to the higher level notion of
theory, a theory organizes as it explains. As several diverse generalizations are
accounted for by the theoretical propositions of the theory, they are also related
and made parts of a system of knowledge.

Theories explain and organize existing knowledge. They also suggest potential
knowledge by generating hypothesis. A theory can, on the basis of its highly
abstract generalizations, often predict an empirical generalization – predict that
a particular relationship holds. The hypothesis can then be tested and accepted
or rejected. Thus, in addition to its explanatory and organizational functions,
theory has a heuristic one – to suggest and to generate hypotheses.

3.2: The Place of Theory in Political Science

In determining the role of theory in Political Science, we ought to remember the
two notions of theory, for a different conclusion may be arrived at in regard to
each. The first question is: ―Do we have any scientific theories in political
science?‖ From what has been said in this unit, the answer would appear to be
no, if we are talking about the higher – level notion of theory. But if this is the
case, is there any point in talking about theories? There are probably other
mythological topics more significant to contemporary Political Scientists.
While, because of limited resources and time, there is some wisdom in this
position, it is perhaps too restrictive. For even without a sound scientific theory
in hand, the Political Scientist is not wasting his time if he takes an interest in
theory-construction.

If ―theory‖ means a collection of empirical generalizations, then our answer to

the original question about the existence of political theories can be more
generous. For there are theories, or at least near-theories, of certain kinds of
political behavior considering our knowledge of voting behaviour. The
collection of laws can serve as the foundation of an abstract theory. The
collected laws of voting behavior can be classified as a near-theory. In any case,
the condition of theory in political science is not as bleak as it might appear,
98
although at this point in the discipline‘s development the political scientist‘s
time and effortmight be more profitably spent on pre-theoretical activities.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Examine the place of theory in Political Science.

4.0: CONCLUSION
While it is discernible to stress that theory plays a vital role in any scientific
investigation, it is also important to explain that theory construction has to do
with socio-cultural environment of the builders and the users. In most cases,
scholars examine event in their peculiar environment to construct theory, which
may and may not be applicable in other environments. This explains the
heuristic value of theory in explaining political phenomena based on scholar‘s
orientation.

5.0: SUMMARY
After reading this unit, it would be observed that we have explained the
functions of theory and its place in political investigation in particular and
Political Science in general. The unit has also explained the relationship of the
environment to the construction of theory.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

(a) Critically examine the place of theory in Political Science investigation.
(b) Identify and explain the functions of theory in Political Science.
(c) Explain the factors to be considered in constructing a veritable theory.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Brodbeck, M. (1959) Models, Meanings, and Theories, in Leonard Gross (ed.)

Symposium on Sociological Theory, Evanston, III: Row, Peterson.

Osuala, E.C. (1985) Introduction to Research Methodology; Onitsha, Nigeria:

African PEP.

Simon, J. (1969) Basic Research Methods in Social Sciences;New York:

Random House.

Stogdill, R.M. (1970) The Process of Model-Building in the Behavioural

Sciences;NewYork,

99
UNIT 4: MODELS IN POLITICAL INQUIRY

CONTENTS
1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Defining Model

3.2. Controversies over Models in Political Inquiry
3.3. Model-Building in Political Science
3.4. Other Heuristic Devices in Political Science

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit explains the basic application of models to political analysis and the
possibility of misusing models. The unit also explains other available devices in
the explanation of political analysis and investigation. The unit further explores
the orientations of various scholars in building models for political analysis and
the extent to which these models are realizable or unrealizable in Political
Science arena.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 discuss the various usages of models for political analysis

 identify various ways by which models can be misused.
 understand the analysis of models as constructed by scholars.

100
3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Defining Model

The technical or the professionally acceptable meaning of model is based on the
notion of isomorphism, which refers to the similarity between one thing and
another (its model). More technically, isomorphism requires the followings;
―there must be a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the model
and the elements of the thing of which it it‘s the model, and that ―certain
relations are preserved‖. Models of this sort are found in all areas of life (for
instance, scale-model airplanes); in science, the isomorphism is usually thought
to hold between two theories, or more explicitly, their laws. This is what we
will take as the core meaning of model.

This type of model - an isomorphism between two empirical theories - is

nonexistent in Political Science; the reason is the lack of any sound scientific
theories of politics. However, following May Brodbeek, we can mention
another notion of model that also involves isomorphism, the time between an
empirical theory (in the sense of a set of empirical generalizations) and a set of
purely arithmetical truths. If this is the case, then the latter is called an
arithmetical representation of the empirical theory. This meaning may be more
relevant to Political Science, largely because of the increasing use of game
theory, which is an ―arithmetical representation.‖

3.2. Contentions over Models in Political Inquiry

The argument begins with the realization that those Political Scientists who
construct models often characterized them as unrealistic or idealized. This
seems to be the most popular use of model or conceptual scheme in Political
Science (although it diverges from the more technical meaning). While asserting
its idealized nature, the Political Scientist will often attempt to use his model to
explain phenomena. Or more accurately, the creator of a model realizes its
limitations as an explanatory device, while those who come after and use the
model for their own purposes are prone to make more extravagant claims about
its explanatory usefulness. These claims, in their extravagance, are unfounded.

The fact is that the function of models is not to explain. Let us first consider
arithmetical representations. Our primary example will be game theory, since it
is one of the most popular and promising models in Political Science. Game
theory is arithmetic because it defines rationality - maximizing one‘s gains and
minimizing one‘s losses - in terms of probability calculus and set theory. It is
supposedly isomorphic because the Political Scientist attempts to connect it to
laws about political behavior. In this regard, Anthony Downs has provided a
model of party politics, William Riker has provided a model of coalition
101
formation, and L.S. Shapley and Martin Shubik have provided a model of
power in a committee system.

However, the trick for the social scientist is to find appropriate descriptive terms
which when coordinated to the arithmetical ones result in true empirical laws of
human behavior. We would argue that, thus far, the confirmed empirical laws
have not been discovered. But more importantly, the model-builders usually
admit their model as unrealistic. For instance, Anthony Downs say of his model
of rational decision-making, ―The model is not attempt to describe reality
accurately. Like all theoretical constructs in the Social Sciences, it treats a few
variables as crucial and ignores others, which actually have some influence.
Notice that beside the model‘s isomorphic nature (not obvious from this quote)
there is reference to idealizing and abstraction. While admitting that his model
is unreal, Downs claim that, ―it proposes a single hypothesis to explain
government decision making and party behavior in general. At another point, he
argues, ―Theoretical models should be tested primary by the accuracy of their
predictions rather than by the reality of their assumptions. Our criticism of this
argument rejects the explanatory power of models. In admitting that his model
is ideal, unreal, and so forth, Downs has articulated its inability to explain
political phenomena. Constructing a theory of rational behavior and then stating
that no one really behaves rationally undercuts the model‘s explanatory value.

Furthermore, models such as game theory contain idealizations referring to

concepts like ―rational political behavior‖. Insofar as they are unreal - because
they leave out variables - they cannot explain. May Brodbeck have said of such
ideal types in economic, ―The better the theory, the more knowledge we have
about the conditions under which the neglected variable do or do not make a
difference. If there are no economic men or if the ideal type of capitalism does
not exist, and then certain suggested theories are false. Calling the models will
not make them truer‖. This is the heart of the matter; the formulators of such
models often use them as if they were theories; in other words, they confuse
models with theories (Brodbeck, 1959).

The truth is that idealized concepts, which are admittedly unreal, cannot be
equated with theories that contain theoretical concepts. A theoretical concept is
so labeled, not because it is divorced from reality, but because it is derived from
observational terms within a theory. Theoretical notions cannot be understood
apart from the particular theory that implicitly defines them. Furthermore, to be
explanatory, such a theory must have some empirical content, so that the
theoretical constructs are linked, at least indirectly, to observational phenomena.
The theoretical concepts are non-empirical, idealized, or admitting unreal, but
instead, they are not observable; they fit within the empirical theory.
102
Thus, we see that a model (in the idealizing sense) is not an empirical theory.
Idealized concepts are not equivalent to theoretical concepts. Insofar as they are
ideal they are unreal. The empirically sound theories refer to experience; thus,
they can explain experience. If a mathematical model is truly isomorphic with a
segment of political phenomena, it will have empirical referents, and so be able
to explain; at this point, it becomes a theory. The fact remains that models, as
they are usually construed by Political Scientists, do not explain as theories can;
this includes both notions of theory - a set of related observational-empirical
laws, or a set of theoretical laws.

But, in criticizing the assumption that models in Political Science explain, we

have not meant to detract from their overall scientific value. Models such as
game theory can be of heuristic value. It is not difficult to see how. If the
Political Scientist is trying to accumulate basic knowledge in his field, it
probably helps to have something available that stimulates his imagination and
sharpens his insight. It is probably not an exaggeration to say that in Political
Science, such stimulation and sharpening is necessary. Some models admirably
perform these functions. If the model is a simplified interpretation of reality, the
researcher is forced to consider what the situation would be like if the model did
describe reality and to what extent the model is unreal. If the model is based on
a formal theory such as game theory, there is a host of relationships suggested
that can be tested. If a model of politics is based upon a structure or theory in
another area, a biological model for instance, the researcher has a potentially
rich supply of hypotheses generated as he compares his field with the other.

The distinction between the explanatory and heuristic value of theories and
models is based upon the more fundamental distinction between scientific
justification and discovery. Throughout the analysis of the nature of
generalizations, explanation, and the function of theories in political inquiry, we
have been dealing with scientific justification, the relationship of evidence to
hypotheses. As we have seen, this is amenable to logical analysis. There are
methods of distinguishing between a good and a bad explanation or no
explanation at all, between a sound or unsound theory, and between an
acceptable and unacceptable generalization (Young, 1958).

Scientific discovery, on the other hand, has to do with where the concepts,
hypotheses, and theories come from, how the scientist conceives of them. This
deals with the psychology of scientists and is an activity that emphasizes
creativity, imagination, even genius. Therefore, it is a more difficult process to
analyze; so difficult that some have concluded it is possible. Donald Schon, in
writing about those who have studied the subject of innovation in science, notes
103
that their ―theories on the subject fall into one of two categories: either they
make the process mysterious and therefore, intrinsically unexplainable; or they
regard novelty as illusory and, therefore, requiring no explanation. However,
since models are an integral part of the process of discovery, and since models
can be analyzed, certain aspects of the process can be analyzed.

3.3: Model-Building in Political Science

There is a kind of model-building in Political Science that is seemingly remote
from isomorphic analysis. It is characterized instead by idealized sets of
assumptions about given areas of political phenomena. As implied, this activity
is perhaps the most prevalent of those that go under the name of model building.
Less elaborate models, of party systems, are analyzed by Samuel Eldersveld. He
clearly uses them in a heuristic fashion to suggest relationships that can be
tested. This use of ideal models can be traced back to German Sociologist Max
Weber‘s notion of ideal types. In his studies of Bureaucracy, Weber found that
if he began with an idealized or perfect concept of bureaucracy, he could use it
as a standard to compare real world bureaucracies. By ―idealized‖ Weber meant
―intentionally unreal.‖ Likewise, the ideal models of modern political scientists
are not meant to be of reality but useful heuristic devices.

As already implied, some Political Scientists call the kind of model discussed a
―conceptual scheme.‖ The term seems to imply a set of ideal assumptions about
a given subject area. Thus, William C. Mitchell has said in introducing his own
―structural-functional‖ conceptual scheme that a conceptual scheme or
framework is an essential tool in all ideas, and directives that guide the selection
and interpretation of facts. Again, models or conceptual schemes are more
important for their suggestiveness than their explanatory power.

SELF -ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

Identify the various misuses of models in political inquiry

4.0: CONCLUSION
After reading this module, students should be able to understand the meaning of
models in Political Science. They should be able to identify the functions of
model in political inquiry. They should also be able to understand the uses and
misuse of model in Political Science generally.

5.0: SUMMARY
In this unit, we have explained the meaning and use of models in political
inquiry. We have also established the relationship between theory and models in
political inquiry and identified its importance in Political Science investigations.

104
6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT
(i) Define a theory.
(ii) Explain the relationship between theory and model.
(iii) Identify and explain other heuristic devices in political inquiry.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Brodbeck, M. (1959) Models, Meanings, and Theories; in Leonard Gross (ed.)
Symposium on Sociological Theory, Evanston, III: Row, Peterson.

Osuala, E.C. (1985)Introduction to Research Methodology; Onitsha, Nigeria:

African PEP.

Riker, W. (1962) The Theory of Political Coalitions;New Haven, Conn.: Yale

University Press.

Simon, J. (1969) Basic Research Methods in Social Sciences; New York:

Random House.

Stogdill, R.M. (1970) The Process of Model-Building in the Behavioural

Sciences; New York, W.W. Norton.

Young, R. (1958) Approaches to the Study of Politics; Evanston, Northwestern

University Press

Stanley, L. and S. Wise (1983); Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and

Feminist ResearchLondon: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Easton, D. 1953. The Political System; New York: Knopf.

Lane, J. (1967)The Current Meaning of Behaviouralism; in James Charlesworth

(ed.)Contemporary Political Analysis; New York; The Free Press

Elster, J. (1989). The Cement of Society; Cambridge: Cambridge University

Pres

105
UNIT 5: FUNCTIONS OF CONCEPTS IN POLITICAL INQUIRY

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Functions of Scientific Concepts in Political Inquiry

3.2. Classificatory Function of Concept
3.3. Comparative Function of Concept
3.4. Quantification Function of Concept

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit explains the basic functions that concepts perform in political inquiry
or any scientific investigation. It explores the three interwoven functions of
concepts in scientific investigation and analyzes their usefulness. This is done
with basic examples of each of these functions. This is not to say that there
cannot be other functions being performed by concepts but these three are what
concern students in this course.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 explain the functions performed by concepts in political inquiry

 analyze their usefulness in political inquiry
 discuss other functions of concepts.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Functions of Scientific Concepts in Political Inquiry

Concepts are used to describe political phenomena. More can be said about the
106
descriptive qualities of concepts than that they are used to identify political
phenomena. In other words, there is more to description than identification. For
any serious orientation and development of scientific activities in Political
Science, scientific concepts perform more function than definition and
identification. Concepts can also be used to classify, compare and measure.
More specifically, concepts perform classificatory, comparative and quantitative
functions.

3.2: Classificatory Function of Concept

Some concepts provide the basis for classification – the placing of political
actions, systems, or institutions into classes or categories. As is true of science
generally, classificatory concepts have commonsensical basis. A substantial
portion of our everyday thinking is spent classifying, arranging, and sorting out
phenomena that confront us. This is a primary method for making sense out of
the word. Similarly, it is the way the scientist begins his scientific analysis.

The scientist sharpens the classificatory apparatus of common usage. Instead of

characterizing all nations as Communist or Pro-American, as the average person
is inclined to do, the Political Scientist might formulate a concept of democracy
and then classify all political systems as either democratic or non-democratic.
This is an example of dichotomousclassification, the simplest variety. It
involves defining a concept, democratic, according to the scientific procedures
already outlined, linking it to observables, such as ―number of political parties
and their rate of turnover‖ or ―ratio between total adult population and eligible
voters‖ and then treating it as a characteristic of political systems, placing all
systems that have the characteristic in one slot or category, and all those that do
not in another. A dichotomy is thus created because there are only two
categories according to this classificatory concept. If the concept has been
soundly defined and is applicable to the population being considered, then the
classification will be exhaustive.

Some variables seem to be naturally dichotomous. We assume that people either

right-handed or left-handed and, therefore, it should be easy to formulate a
dichotomous concept that describes this characteristic. Likewise, it makes sense
to assume that in any democratic political system, everyone is either a democrat
or non-democrat. While this line of thinking is commonsensical true, it
overlooks the possibility that what appear to be either-or concepts are actually
situations that allow for gradations and additional categories; we know that
there are ambidextrous people i.e. people who can use their left hand as
skillfully as they can use their right hand. This is why, for instance, in most
studies of political-party identification, and voting behaviour, the population is
broken down into the categories of Weak Democrat, Strong Democrat,
107
Independent, and so forth.
3.3: Comparative Function of Concept
A comparative concept is a more complex and useful type of classificatory
concept. The members of a population are sorted out and placed in categories;
but in addition, because the categories represent a particular property, the
members are ranked according to how much of the property they each have. For
instance, we might want to compare those nations that are very democratic,
those nations that are moderately democratic, and those nations that are much
less democratic. This would be done by categorizing the empirical referents of
democracy. Those political systems that fall in the upper one third of a list of
ratios of total eligible voters to total population would be classified as very
democratic. So, we could say that a nation placed in the first category is more
democratic than those placed in the second or third categories.

In fact, a sophisticated comparative concept (such as ―hardness‖ in geology, or

―power‖ in Political Science) will allow us to compare every member of
population (whether a collection or rocks or a group of politicians) with every
other member; thus, practically speaking, the number of categories is
theoretically infinite, practically limited only by the number of members of the
population. The result of this analysis is a rank order of items, of every item – of
more or less democratic nations, or more or less powerful senators, or of harder
or softer rocks. In every case, the advantage of the comparative over the
classificatory concept is based upon the additional knowledge produced by the
fine distinctions of the concept and the fact that the question is not either-or, but
more or less.

3.4: Quantification Function of Concepts

Furthermore, concept can be used to quantify. Take a population that has been
ordered by a comparative concept; then give the concept certain mathematical
characteristics so as to allow one to say not just ―Senator John is more powerful
than Senator Lane‖, but ―John is twice as powerful as Lane‖. A quantitative
concept has been formulated. Our rank order of senatorial power tells us
nothing about how much more powerful one senator is than another. This gets
to the very nature of the comparative concept and is its basic limitation. More
significant to the Political Scientist interested in more reliable knowledge of
politics is the development of concepts that allow us not only to rank items on a
particular characteristic, but also allow us to say something about how much of
the characteristic each item has. And if ―how much‖ is the question, we have to
perform certain mathematical operations that are impossible when classificatory
or comparative concepts are being used; thus, the use of the label
―quantitative‖.

108
There are really two levels of quantitative concepts. The first, and less rigorous,
is usually introduced into our scientific language in the form of an interval
scale. In this case we can think of a scale as a device for ordering items. An
interval scale has the additional feature of equal intervals between its
categories. A good example of an interval scale we are all familiar with is the
thermometer. Thus temperature is a quantitative concept measurable on an
interval scale. The distance between, say, 30o and 40o Fahrenheit is equal to the
distance between 40o and 50o and so on. But notice that it is not the case that
60o is twice as warm as 30o. The significant fact about an interval scale is that
we can quantitatively compare (carry out certain kinds of mathematical
operations on) the intervals between items on the scale, but not the items
themselves. This is attributable to the interval scale‘s lack of an absolute zero,
or point of origin.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
(i) Analyze the quantification function of concepts in political inquiry.

4.0: CONCLUSION
After reading this unit, students should be able to understand the meaning of
concepts and its usefulness in political inquiry. They should also be able to
understand how to form concepts for political investigation and the introduction
of such concepts for purpose of clarity and understanding to a layman. In
addition, students should also be able to understand the functions of concepts in
political inquiry.

5.0: SUMMARY
This unit analyzed the usefulness of concepts to scientific inquiry and the ways
by which concepts can be formed and introduced in political inquiry. It also
explained the functions of scientific concepts in political inquiry.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Describe the classificatory function of concept in political inquiry.
2. Critically examine the comparative function of concepts in political inquiry?
3.Discuss the usefulness of quantification function of concept in political
inquiry.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Bergmann, G. (1957) Philosophy of Science, Madison: University of Wisconsin

Press.

Dickenson, McGaw, and George Watson, (1976) Political andSocial Inquiry,

109
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Frank, P.G. (1961) The Validation of Scientific Theories, New York: Collier
Books.

Lane, J. (1967). The Current Meaning of ‘Behaviouralism in James

Charlesworth ed. Contemporary Political Analysis New York: The Free Press.

Elster, J. 1989. The Cement of Society Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

110
MODULE 5: TECHNIQUES FOR DATA GENERATION

INTRODUCTION
The last module (module 4) examinedthe different types of concepts that are
used for political inquiry thereby enhancing the knowledge of the students on
political science research methodology. This module (module 5) examines the
steps, techniques and styles involved in initiating political investigation i.e.
sourcing and gathering data for research in political science. This module is
―working the talk‖. Therefore, in this module the students particularly the final
year students writing their projects are taken through the practical steps in
carrying out political research. The module is structure into five units
comprising methods of data gathering which include; questionnaire method;
interview method; participant observation method; documentary/ content
analysis method and hypothesis testing in inquiry.

UNIT 1: Data and Political Inquiry

UNIT 2: The Questionnaire Method
UNIT 3: The Interview Method
UNIT 4: Participant Observation Method
UNIT 5: Documentary/Content Analysis Method

111
UNIT 1: DATA AND POLITICAL INQUIRY

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. What is Data?

3.2: Data Collection
3.3: Data Analysis
3.4: Data Interpretation
3.5: Measurement

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit introduces you to the importance of data gathering in any scientific
inquiry, particularly political science research. It explores the need for
collection of data in order to be able to provide adequate analysis of social
issues and political phenomenon. It underscores the basis of selecting a subset
of the subject matter for analysis and on the basis of that making generalization
based on the results derived from the sample selected.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 discuss data gathering in political inquiry

 explain the usages of data in political inquiry.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: What is Data?
This perhaps is the most fundamental aspect of research in the Social Sciences,
as in other fields of study. Since social research has as its primary objectives as
112
the understanding of social life by discovering new facts, documenting or
rejecting old ones, tracing sequences and connections between events, and
formulating generalizations concerning interrelationships, data collection
becomes inevitable. Consequently, the fact of data collection needs to be
mastered, because it constitutes a major factor in determining the validity of
research findings and the essence of the scientific inquiry itself.

Data collection can be defined as ―the science and art of acquiring information
about sampled units that are likely to be of interest‖. It is the process of
obtaining relevant information regarding the major idea in a study. Data are not
just collected for collection sake but they are gathered regarding the major idea
in the study. Since data gathering is a primary efforts aimed at understanding
social life through discovering of new facts, documentation of old ones or its
rejection and also trying to establish relation between variables.

Sound measurement is not only simply a matter of careful concept explication

followed by selection of statistical model, which minimize error, but the quality
of data is inextricably tied to the methods and techniques used for generating
data. There is no amount of sophistication with statistical manipulation that can
fully overcome deficiencies inherent in data generated by an inappropriate
instrument. Today, survey research is a frequently used mode of observation in
the social sciences. In a typical survey, the researcher selects a sample of
respondents and administers a standardized questionnaire to them or conduct
interview for them.

3.2: Data Collection

A critical element for political inquiry is the actual research process employed
in seeking answers to questions. In the essence this process consists of data
gathering. Data thus collected in any inquiry provide information about some
object usually called ―unit analysis‖. The political science techniques of data
gathering are classified into document analysis, observation, interviewing and
experimentation-simulation.

3.3: Data Analysis

Data collected for any inquiry collected or generated must be analyzed in order
to interpret their meaning for the problem under investigation. Hayes and
Ronald (1970) notes that meaningful data improperly analyzed are as great an
impediment to the advancement of knowledge as are meaningless data. Valid
data and proper analysis are both essential to the orderly expansion of
knowledge.

Analysis therefore is the process of imparting meaning to data by interpreting

113
them. Data analysis consists of a number of individual steps, including data
manipulations, significance evaluation and data presentation. Usually before
analysis of data collected the interpretation of data must be planned. The
specific operations used in analysis of data include creating frequency
distribution, percentage tables, pie chart, pie chart, bar graph and a sophisticated
mechanical and electronic equipment like computer.

3.4: Data Interpretation

It is one thing to analyze and it is another task to interpret the data. Data
interpretation is more or an less the last step in a research procedure to finding
solution to the problem under investigation. The analysis of data leads to
comments by the investigators on the reliability of the testable hypothesis or
hypotheses under investigation. After the interpretation of the data collected the
working procedure can be replicated. This is necessary to be able to make a
firm conclusion that would be bias free. That is the investigators would briefly
go over all the steps aforementioned. This is necessary to detect some working
errors.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Define data and differentiate data analysis and interpretation.

4.0: CONCLUSION
After reading this unit, student should be able to understand the meaning of data
and importance of data collection. They should also be able to identify the
various techniques available to researcher in the social sciences. Also, students
should be able to identify the processes of data assessment which researchers
must adhere to in order to have a good result from their inquiries.
5.0: SUMMARY
In this unit, we have explained the meaning of data and explicitly analyzed the
importance of data collection to political inquiry. The unit has also examined
the process of assessment of data in order to produce a required result from any
political inquiry.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENTS

1. What is data?
2. Discuss in details data analysis and data interpretations.
3. Explain the importance of data to political inquiry

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Babbie, E. (2007) The Practice of Social Research;USA, Wadsworth.

Okoko, E. (2000) Quantitative Techniques in Urban Analysis; Ibadan, Kraft

114
Books

Hayes and Ronald (1970) The Conduct of Political Inquiry: Behavioural

Political Analysis; Egglewood Cliffs; Prentice Hall, Inc

UNIT 2: QUESTIONNAIRE METHOD

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. The Questionnaire Method

3.2. Open-ended and Close-ended questionnaire
3.3: Advantages of Questionnaire
3.4: Designing a Good Questionnaire

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit explains the meaning of the questionnaire method as a data collection
instrument in the Social Sciences. It explains the uses of questionnaire method
and the meaning of open-ended and close-ended types of questionnaire. The
unit also explains the steps to be taken in designing a good questionnaire and
the advantages and disadvantages of the questionnaire method for political
inquiry.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 know how to use questionnaire as a method of data collection

115
  distinguish between open-ended and close-ended types of questionnaire
 outline the steps in designing a good questionnaire

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: The Questionnaire Method

A questionnaire is an instrument specifically designed to elicit information that
will be useful for analysis. Questionnaire provides the best opportunity for the
collection of data, especially when administered appropriately. A questionnaire
normally contains a set of questions, the answers to which may constitute part
of, or the main data required in a research. In design, a questionnaire may be
arranged into several sections, each aimed at specific or group of information.
Normally, a heading, identifying the source of the question is needed, for
example, Department of Political Science, National Open University of Nigeria,
Lagos study center. This will be followed by a brief explanation of the use(s) to
which the information will be put, and possibly an assurance of anonymity
where necessary.

The body of the questionnaire may be arranged into questions A, B, C etc., with
A soliciting information on personal data, for example, sex, age, marital status,
name (where unavoidable) and B asking for information on social status, for
example, income, position in societal hierarchy etc.

The design of a questionnaire must reflect the type of contact that it will make
with respondents, and type of information requested for. Self administered
questionnaire is much more preferable to mailed questionnaire. Although some
of the specific points to follow are more appropriate to structured questionnaires
than to the open-ended questionnaires used in qualitative, in-depth interviewing.
The underlying logic is valuable whenever we ask people questions in order to
gather data.

Although the term questionnaire suggests a collection of questions, an

examination of a typical questionnaire will probably reveal as many statements
as questions. This is not without reason. Often, the researcher is interested in
determining the extent to which respondents hold a particular attitude or
perspective. If you can summarize the attitude in a fairly brief statement, you
can present that statement and ask respondents whether they agree or disagree
with it. Rensis Likert greatly formalized this procedure through the creation of
the Likertscale, a format in which respondents are asked to strongly agree,
agree, disagree, or strongly disagree, or perhaps strongly approve, approve, etc.

Both questions and statements can be used profitably. Using both in a given
116
questionnaire gives you more flexibility in the design of items and can make the
questionnaire more interesting as well.

3.2: Open-Ended and Close-Ended Questions

There are two options in asking questions. They can ask open-ended questions,
in which case the respondent is asked to provide his or her own answer to the
question. For example, the respondent may be asked, ―What do you think is the
problem with Nigeria‘s electoral system?‖ and be provided with a space to
write in the answer (or be asked to report it verbally to an interviewer).

In the case of closed-ended questions, the respondent is asked to select an

answer from among a list provided by the researcher. Closed-ended questions
are very popular in survey research because they provide a greater uniformity of
responses and are more easily processed than open-ended ones. Open ended
responses must be grouped before they can be coded for computer analysis
processing. The grouping process requires the researcher to isolate and
aggregate similar responses and code them. The coding process often requires
the researcher to interpret the meaning of responses, opening the possibility of
misunderstanding and researcher bias. There is also a danger that some
respondents will give answers that are essentially irrelevant to the researcher‘s
intent. Closed-ended responses, on the other hand, can often be transferred
directly into a computer format.

3.3: Advantages and Disadvantages of Questionnaire

The main shortcoming of closed-ended questions lies in the structuring of the
responses. When the relevant answers to a given question are relatively clear,
there should be no problem. In other cases, however, the structuring of
responses may overlook some important responses. In asking about ―the
problem with Nigeria‘s electoral system,‖ for example, checklist of issues
might omit certain issues that respondents would have said were part of the
problems.The construction of closed-ended questions should be guided by two
structural requirements.

First, the response categories provided should be exhaustive or totally inclusive;

they should include all the possible responses that might be expected. Often,
this is ensured by adding a category such as ―Others (Please specify)‖. Second,
the answer categories must be mutually exclusive; the respondent should not
feel compelled to select more than one. (In some cases, you may wish to solicit
multiple answers, but these may create difficulties in data processing and
analysis later on).

To ensure that your categories are mutually exclusive, carefully consider each
117
combination of categories, asking yourself whether a person could reasonably
choose more than one answer. In addition, it‘s useful to add an instruction to the
question asking the respondent to select the one best answer, but this technique
is not a satisfactory substitute for a carefully constructed set of responses.

One of the advantages of the questionnaire method is that it can be used to

cover a large sample where interview may not be appropriate. In most cases,
researchers have more respondents to interview and the only way to reduce the
stress is to adopt the questionnaire method. Also, it is appropriate for
quantitative analysis which allows for the use of computer for ease of analysis.
The fact that it gives room for wider coverage, it also allows for wider opinions
on issues.

However, questionnaire method is open to manipulations, like any other

quantitative method. Cases of dishonesty in filling questionnaire abound,
particularly where the research involves the use of inexperienced and
uncommitted research assistants. In this case, the commitment of the research
assistant is very important for the reliability and validity of the responses
through questionnaire method.

3.4: Guide to Design a Good Questionnaire

In designing a questionnaire, certain guides must be considered so as to make
the filling of the questionnaire interesting to the respondents. This is important
because some questionnaires are boring and time consuming and this may
create boredom thereby making the respondent to abandon the questionnaire
half way. This may not be in the interest of the researcher as this may occur in
several respects, even when the respondents are not in the same environment.
Therefore, the following guides should be taken into consideration when
designing a questionnaire;

(i) Make items clear: It should go without saying that questionnaire items need
to be clear and unambiguous, but the broad proliferation of unclear and
ambiguous questions in surveys makes the point worth emphasizing. We can
become so deeply involved in the topic under examination that opinions and
perspectives are clear to us but not to our respondents – many of whom have
paid little or no attention to the topic. The possibilities for misunderstanding are
endless, and no researcher is immune.
(ii) Avoid Double-Barreled Questions: Frequently researchers ask respondents
for a single answer to a question that actually has multiple parts. That seems to
happen most often when the researcher has personally identified with a complex
question. As a general rule, whenever the word and appears in a question or
questionnaire statement, check whether you are asking a double-barreled
118
question.

(iii) Respondents must be Competent to Answer: In asking respondents to

provide information, you should continually ask yourself whether they can do
so reliably. It is always important for researchers to act respondents when
designing and sending out questionnaire. In this manner, researchers will be
able to identify the competency of respondents to answer questions in a
questionnaire.
(iv) Questions should be Relevant: Similarly, questions asked in a questionnaire
should be relevant to most respondents. When attitudes are requested on a topic
that few respondents have thought about or really care about, the results are not
likely to be useful. When you obtain responses to fictitious issues, you can
disregard those responses. But when the issue is real, you may have no way of
telling which responses genuinely reflect attitudes and which reflect
meaningless answers to an irrelevant question.

(v) Short Items are best: In the interests of being unambiguous and precise and
of pointing to the relevance of an issue, researchers tend to create long and
complicated items. This should be avoided. Respondents are often unwilling to
study an item in order to understand it. The respondent should be able to read
an item quickly, understand its intent, and select or provide an answer without
difficulty.

(vi)Avoid Negative Items: The appearance of a negation in a questionnaire items

paves way for easy misinterpretation. For example, ask a respondents to agree
or disagree with this statement ―EFCC should not prosecute corrupt
politicians‖, a sizeable number of the respondents will read over the word not
and answer on that basis. Thus, some will agree with the statement when they
are indeed in favor of EFCC prosecuting corrupt politicians, and other will
agree when they oppose it (Polivka and Rothgeb, 1993).

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
List and explain five guides for the design of a good questionnaire

4.0: CONCLUSION
After reading this unit, students should be able to understand the use of
questionnaire method in collecting data for political inquiry. They should be
able to identify the different styles of designing a questionnaire and distinguish
between open-ended and closed-ended questions. Also, students should be able
to identify the merits and demerits of questionnaire method of data collection in
any scientific inquiry.

119
5.0: SUMMARY
This unit examines the meaning of questionnaire method as a technique of data
collection in scientific inquiry. It explains the uses of questionnaire and the
technicalities involved in the various format and styles of designing
questionnaire. Apart from this, the unit examines the structures of questionnaire
available and the applicability of these structures for different research
orientations and their method of analysis. The unit also explained the
advantages and disadvantages of using questionnaire method.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAs)

1. Distinguish between open-ended and closed-ended questionnaire.
2. List and explain five important guides to design a questionnaire.
3. List three advantages and three disadvantages of the questionnaire method.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Asika, N. (1991) Research Methodology in the Behavioural Sciences, Ikeja;

Longman.
Babbie, E. (2007) The Practice of Social Research;USA, Wadsworth.

Okoko, E. (2000) Quantitative Techniques in Urban Analysis; Ibadan, Kraft

Books

Bernard, H.R. (2002) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and

Quantitative Methods, Walnut Creek; AltaMira Press.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative

Research;Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

120
UNIT 3: INTERVIEW METHOD

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Meaning of Interview

3.2. Types of Interview Method
3.3. General Guidelines for Survey Interviewing
3.4: Choosing Interviewers
3.5: Use Pairs of Interviewers
3.6: Finding Respondents
3.7: General Guidelines for Survey Interviewing

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION
This unit examines the interview method as a technique of data collection in
scientific inquiry. It explains the uses of interview method and the types of
interview method employed for political inquiry. The unit also explains the
structure of interview method and their merits and demerits vis-à-vis other
methods of data collection.

2.0: OBJECTIVES
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 use interview method as a technique of data collection

 describe the various types of interview method
 explain the advantages and disadvantages of interview method.

121
3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Meaning of Interview

The interview is an alternative method of collecting data for an inquiry. Rather
than asking respondents to read questionnaires and enter their own answers,
researchers send interviewers to ask questions orally and record respondents‘
answers. In a way, interview is a data collection encounter in which one person
(an interviewer) asks questions of another (a respondent). Interview may be
conducted face-to-face or by telephone. Interviewing is typically done in a face-
to-face encounter, but telephone interviewing follows most of the same
guidelines.

Most interviews require more than one interviewer, although the researcher
might undertake a small-scale interview personally. Respondents seem more
reluctant to turn down an interviewer standing on their doorstep than to throw
away a mailed questionnaire. The presence of an interviewer also generally
decreases the number of ―don‘t know‖ and ―no answers‖. Further, if a
respondent clearly misunderstands the intent of a question or indicates that he
or she does not understand, the interviewer can clarify matters, thereby
obtaining relevant responses. Also, the interviewer can observe respondents as
well as ask questions.

Survey interview is of necessity based on an unrealistic stimulus-response

theory of cognition and behavior. Researchers must assume that a questionnaire
item will mean the same thing to every respondent, and every given response
must mean the same when given by different respondents. Although this is an
impossible goal, survey questions are drafted to approximate the ideal as
closely as possible. The interviewer must also fit into this ideal situation. The
interviewer‘s presence should not affect a respondent‘s perception of a question
or the answer given. In other words, the interviewer should be a neutral medium
through which questions and answers are transmitted. As such, different
interviewers should obtain exactly the same responses from a given respondent.
To save time and money, a given interviewer is typically assigned to complete
all the interviews in a particular geographic area – a city block or a group of
nearby blocks. If the interviewer does anything to affect the responses obtained,
the bias thus interjected might be interpreted as a characteristic of the area.

Interviewers must ask questions in such a way that respondents will answer
honestly and fully. To this end, interviewers must establish rapport, such as the
interviewer should not rush the respondents, and also must be a good listener. A
122
large school of thought favors the position that good interviewers are born, not
taught. Certainly, a skilled questioner needs ample supplies of personality,
training and experience. Interviews can be classified into three, vise; poll-type,
informal, and analytical. The poll type interview allows interviewers to read
questions precisely as they are written and otherwise adheres strictly to
instructions. Little skill is demanded. The informal or intensive or qualitative or
conversional or case history interview allows the interviewer moderate latitude.
He or she may select any one of several phrasings of a question, or he may
change the order of questions if the respondent leads him unexpectedly to a
topic that normally appears later in the interview. Interviewing has some
advantages. It can be used with almost all segments of the population provided
the interviewer is familiar with the language and culture of the segments of the
population concerned, particularly in a plural or multi ethnic society. Also, the
interviewing situation offers a better opportunity than the questionnaire method
to appraise validity of response since the interviewer meets face-to-face with
the respondents. Again, interview method is flexible in approach. It allows an
interviewer to respond adequately to the stimuli of respondents during the
interview. Finally, it is a more appropriate method for revealing information
about complex and emotion-laden subjects.

The disadvantages are; it is very much expensive as it involves cost of

transportation and telephone in most cases. It is inappropriate in a society where
the telecommunication gadget is unreliable such as Nigeria. Also, the
uncooperative attitude of respondents is usually the greatest headache of a
researcher when this method is used.

3.2: Types of Interview Method

Apart from the classification of interview method into face-to-face and
telephone interviews, it is also important to recognize that interview can be
classified into three main types. These are the Focus Group Discussion (FGD),
In-Depth Interview (IDI), and the Key Informant Interview (KII). These are
hereunder explained.

1. Focus Group Discussion:

This is a planned, facilitated discussion among a small group of stakeholders
designed to obtain perceptions in a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-
threatening environment. A focus group discussion (FGD) is a group discussion
of approximately 6 - 12 persons guided by a facilitator, during which group
members talk freely and spontaneously about a certain topic. A FGD is a
qualitative method. Its purpose is to obtain in-depth information on concepts,
perceptions and ideas of a group. A FGD aims to be more than a question-
answer interaction. The idea is that group members discuss the topic among
123
themselves, with guidance from the facilitator.

Focus groups are good for initial concept exploration, generating creative ideas
and determining differences in opinion between various stakeholders groups.
Focus groups are often used as a means of triangulation with other data
collection methods. They are not effective for responding to general questions,
building consensus or making decisions. Focus groups are relatively
inexpensive and the format is flexible, allowing participants to question each
other and to elaborate upon their answers. Guided discussion in focus groups
more closely captures the spontaneous give and take of social interaction that
goes into opinion formation, which is lost in a structured interview. The method
is relatively simple, allowing participants to readily grasp the process and
purpose. When the power differential between the participants and the decision-
makers is great enough to discourage frank participation, the focus group
provides the security of a peer group.

The multiple voices of the participants, as well as the flexibility in process

structure, results in limited researcher control over the focus group process.
Sometimes group expression can interfere with individual expression and the
results may reflect ‗groupthink‘. Alternatively, if facilitation is poor and/or the
group participants are not well selected, the results of the discussion may reflect
only the views of the most dominant participants.

2. In-Depth Interview:
In-depth interviewing is usually done at the beginning of a major research
project, when you will be studying a population that you have never researched
before. In-depth interviews - also called "semi-structured interviews", or
"informal interviews" - are very different from survey interviews. They are
much more similar to journalistic interviews. Some of the differences between
survey interviewing and in-depth interviewing are; a survey usually has at least
100 interviews, but with informal research, 20 respondents is often enough; a
survey has a fixed questionnaire. All the respondents are asked the same
questions (except those skipped), in the same order; however, with in-depth
interviewing, there are no specific questions. Instead of beginning with "Which
of the following statements..." an informal interviewer might say "Can you tell
me about a time when you...‖ with in-depth interviewing, there is no specific
order. The respondent may jump from one subject to another. The interviewer
has a list of things to be discovered, but the wording and sequence of the
"questions" depend on the "answers" the respondent gives;instead of using a
fully random sample, in-depth interviews are usually done with people who are
deliberately chosen to be as different as possible from each other.

124
The reason for these differences between survey interviewing and in-depth
interviewing is that their purposes are different. Unlike survey interviewing, in-
depth interviewing does not claim to obtain results that can be generalized to a
whole population. You normally use in-depth interviewing for collecting
background information, so that when you write a questionnaire, you will be
able to use questions and wording that are more relevant to the population being
studied.

3. Key Informant Interview:

The key informant interview is a standard anthropological method that is widely
used in health related and other social development inquiry. This is one method
used in rapid assessment for gathering information from the affected
community. The term ―key informant‖ refers to anyone who can provide
detailed information and opinion based on his or her knowledge of a particular
issue. Key informant interviews seek qualitative information that can be
narrated and cross checked with quantitative data, a method called
―triangulation‖. A key informant interview is a loosely structured conversation
with people who have specialized knowledge about the topic you wish to
understand. Key informant interviews were developed by ethnographers to help
understand cultures other than their own. A good key informant can convey this
specialized knowledge to you.

Key informant interviews have some advantages over other forms of data
collection. They are easier and less expensive than focus groups since they
involve only one respondent and one interviewer and do not require incentive
payments, refreshments, or special facilities. Other benefits include the
following; they are inexpensive and simple to conduct; they provide readily
understandable information and compelling quotations for reports they are
flexible, as questions and topics can be added or omitted during the interview.

3.3: Choosing Interviewers

As long as the questionnaire is well designed and instructions are clear,
interviewers can be relatively unskilled. With in-depth interviews, there are
only three rules vise; you need to decide in advance which main topics you
want the interview to cover; you need to decide whether everybody will be
asked the same questions, or you will change the questions, depending on the
respondent; the interview needs to be recorded in some way. Because there are
no fixed rules, there are no standard procedures, so the quality of the interview
depends very much on the skill of the interviewer. It is therefore normal to use
highly skilled interviewers, who have been working closely with the project
leaders, so that the interviewers know the main issues of interest in the study.
Often, it is the chief researchers themselves who do the informal interviews,
125
because they have a better knowledge than anybody else of the project's
purposes.

If the chief researchers are not experienced or confident interviewers, trained

interviewers can be used, but they should be chosen well in advance, and
participate in the development of the research.

3. 4: Use Pairs of Interviewers

It has been found that it is best for interviewers to go out in pairs. At the
beginning of each interview, one speaks to the respondent, while the other takes
notes and works the tape recorder. Part of the way through the interview, the
two interviewers swap their roles. The advantage of this is that different
interviewers think of different questions, and often a respondent will say
something to one interviewer but not to another.

As soon as the interview is concluded, the two interviewers can discuss the
findings. Before they do anything else, they should write up their notes on the
interview. Even if the interview has been taped, some nuances will be forgotten
as soon as the next interview is done. Also, having notes on each interview
makes it easier to interpret the results, and serves as a backup if the tape
recording fails.

After each interview, the two interviewers can also discuss their techniques of
interviewing, the wording they use, and decide on ways to improve. In each of
the first few interviews, some issues will arise that you had not thought of
before, and these will create questions to be asked in later interviews. In fact, it
is only when you stop finding new questions that you can be sure the sample
was large enough.

3. 5: Finding Respondents
The best way to obtain a true cross-section of the population is through random
sampling if it is survey. In-depth interviewing is different; it is usually a
preliminary exercise, designed to find the most appropriate questions to ask in a
later survey. So it is the survey that will provide the representative results: the
in-depth interviews by themselves do not produce definitive data. In-depth
interviews need to ensure that many different types of respondent are
interviewed. This is best done, not with random sampling, but with maximum-
diversity sampling. When the sample size is less than about 30, a random
sample will have a high chance of not being fully representative of the
population.

3.6: General Guidelines for Survey Interviewing

126
The manner in which interviews ought to be conducted will vary somewhat by
survey population and survey content. Nevertheless, some general guidelines
apply to most interviewing situations. Firstly, appearance and demeanor is
important in interview. As a rule, interviewers should dress in a fashion similar
to those they will be interviewing. A richly dressed interviewer will probably
have difficulty getting good cooperation and responses from poorer
respondents; a poorly dressed interviewer will have similar difficulties with
richer respondents. To the extent that the interviewer‘s dress and grooming
differ from those of the respondents, it should be in the direction of cleanliness
and neatness in modest apparel. If cleanliness is not next to godliness, it appears
at least to be next to neutrality. Dress and grooming are typically regarded as
signs of a person‘s attitudes and orientations. Torn jeans, green hair, and razor
blade earrings may communicate - correctly or incorrectly – that the interviewer
is politically radical, sexually permissive, favourable to drug use, and so forth.
Any of these impressions could bias responses or affect the willingness of
people to be interviewed.

Secondly, familiarity with the questionnaire is another important guide to a

good interview. If an interviewer is unfamiliar with the questionnaire, the study
suffers and the respondent faces an unfair burden. The interview is likely to
take more time than necessary and be unpleasant. Moreover, the interviewer
cannot acquire familiarity by skimming through the questionnaire two or three
times. He or she must study it carefully, question by question, and must practice
reading it aloud. Ultimately, the interviewer must be able to read the
questionnaire items to respondents without error, without stumbling over words
and phrases. A good model is the actor reading lines in a play or movie. The
lines must be read as though they constituted a natural conversation, but that
conversation must follow exactly the language set down in the questionnaire.
By the same token, the interviewer must be familiar with the specifications
prepared in conjunction with the questionnaire. Inevitably, some questions will
not exactly fit a given respondent‘s situation, and the interviewer must
determine how the question should be interpreted in that situation.

Thirdly, interviewer should be able to follow question wording exactly. A slight

change in the wording of a given question may lead a respondent to answer
―yes‖ rather than ―no‖. It follows that interviewers must be instructed to follow
the wording of questions exactly. Otherwise, all the effort that the developers
have put into carefully phrasing the questionnaire items to obtain the
information they need and to ensure that respondents interpret items precisely
as intended will be wasted.

Whenever the questionnaire contains open-ended questions, those soliciting the

127
respondent‘s own answers, the interviewer must record those answers exactly as
given. No attempt should be made to summarize, paraphrase, or correct bad
grammar. This exactness is important because the interviewer will not know
how the responses are to be coded. Indeed, the researchers themselves may not
know the coding until they have read a hundred or so responses. Therefore, it is
important that interviewer record the responses exactly as they are presented.

Finally, interviewers should be able to probe for responses. Sometimes

respondents in an interview will give an inappropriate or incomplete answer. In
such cases, a probe, or request for an elaboration, can be useful. Probes are
more frequently required in eliciting responses to open-ended than closed-ended
questions.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
List and explain three general guidelines for survey interviewing.

4.0: CONCLUSION
It is important to note that the interview method of data collection provides
opportunity for researchers to study the environment of the interviewee, apart
from asking question on the chosen subject. In most cases, the environment
plays important role in the responses of respondents. Also, the use of interview
method should be justified at every point in time, since there are different
classifications of this method.

5.0: SUMMARY
In this unit, we have explained the meaning of interview method, the uses of the
method and the various types or classification of the interview method. The unit
has also demonstrated the advantages of the method over other methods of data
collection in the social sciences.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

(i) List and explain the various classifications of interview method.
(ii) Distinguish between an In-Depth Interview and a Key Informant Interview.
(iii) Identify the major guidelines to conduct an interview.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Asika, N. (1991) Research Methodology in the Behavioural Sciences, Ikeja,

Longman.

Babbie, E. (2007) The Practice of Social Research, USA, Wadsworth.

128
Okoko, E. (2000) Quantitative Techniques in Urban Analysis, Ibadan, Kraft
Books

UNIT 4: PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION METHOD

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Meaning of Participant Observation Method

3.2. Disadvantages of Participant Observation Method
3.3. Importance of Participant Observation Method

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION

This unit introduces students to the meaning of participant observation as a

technique of data collection in the field of social sciences. It explores the
importance of the participant observation method and the uses of the method. It
analyzes the heuristic value of the method as well as the danger it portends for
some social inquiry.

2.0: OBJECTIVES

At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:


 define participant observation
 state the usefulness of participant observation in social research
 discuss the guidelines for the conduct of participant observation.

129
3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Meaning of Participant Observation

Participant observation is a qualitative method with roots in traditional

ethnographic research, whose objective is to help researchers learn the
perspectives held in study populations. As qualitative researchers, presume that
there will be multiple perspectives within any given community that are
interested both in knowing what those diverse perspectives are and in
understanding the interplay among them. Qualitative researchers accomplish
this through observation alone or by both observing and participating to varying
degrees, in the study community‘s daily activities. Participant observation
always takes place in community settings, in locations believed to have some
relevance to the research questions.

The method is distinctive because the researcher approaches participants in

their own environment rather than having the participants come to the
researcher. Generally speaking, the researcher engaged in participant
observation tries to learn what life is like for an ―insider‖ while remaining
inevitably, an ―outsider.‖

While in these community settings, researchers make careful, objective notes

about what they see, recording all accounts and observations as field notes in a
field notebook. Informal conversation and interaction with members of the
study population are also important components of the method and should be
recorded in the field notes, in as much detail as possible. Information and
messages communicated through mass media such as radio or television may
also be pertinent and thus desirable to document. Data obtained through
participant observation serve as a check against participants‘ subjective
reporting of what they believe and do. Participant observation is also useful for
gaining an understanding of the physical, social, cultural, and economic
contexts in which study participants live; the relationships among and between
people, contexts, ideas, norms, and events; and people‘s behaviors and activities
– what they do, how frequently, and with whom.

In addition, the method enables researchers to develop a familiarity with the

cultural milieu that will prove invaluable throughout the project. It gives them a
nuanced understanding of context that can come only from personal experience.
There is no substitute for witnessing or participating in phenomena of human
interaction – interaction with other people, with places, with things, and with
states of being such as age and health status. Observing and participating are
integral to understanding the breadth and complexities of the human experience
130
– an overarching research endeavor for any public health or development
project.

Through participant observation, researchers can also uncover factors important

for a thorough understanding of the research problem but that were unknown
when the study was designed. This is the great advantage of the method
because, although we may get truthful answers to the research questions we ask,
we may not always ask the right questions. Thus, what we learn from
participant observation can help us not only to understand data collected
through other methods (such as interviews, focus groups, and quantitative
research methods), but also to design questions for those methods that will give
us the best understanding of the phenomenon being studied.

3.2. Disadvantages of Participant Observation Method

The main disadvantage of participant observation is that it is time-consuming.

In traditional ethnographic research, researchers spend at least one year in the
field site collecting data through participant observation and other methods.
This is not practical for most applied research studies, which necessarily require
a shorter period of data collection. This weakness is partially mitigated in most
current international development projects by the tendency for the inquiry to be
more focused than in traditional ethnographic study and for the data collection
team to include researchers who are native rather than foreigners to the region.
Researchers who already possess a solid base of cultural awareness are better
able to concentrate on the research question itself.

A second disadvantage of participant observation is the difficulty of

documenting the data – it is hard to write down everything that is important
while you are in the act of participating and observing. As the researcher, you
must therefore rely on your memory and on your own personal discipline to
write down and expand your observations as soon and as completely as
possible. It is easy to tell yourself that you will do this task later, but, because
memory fades quickly, postponing the expansion of notes can lead to loss or
inaccurate recording of data. The quality of the data therefore depends on the
diligence of the researcher, rather than on technology such as tape recorders.

A third disadvantage of participant observation is that it is an inherently

subjective exercise, whereas research requires objectivity. It is therefore
important to understand the difference between reporting and describing what
you observe (more objective) versus interpreting what you see (less objective).
Filtering out personal biases may take some practice. One way to practice is to
write down objective observations of a given event on one side of a page, and
131
then offer more subjective interpretations of the same event on the other side of
the page. Alternately, in team-based research, field staff can review one
another‘s field notes and help identify objective versus subjective observations.

3.3: Importance of Participant Observation

Participant observation is a standard approach of anthropological and

sociological research through which you become immersed in the day-to-day
activities of the people you are trying to understand. Beyond simple observation
and participation, it is a process for establishing rapport and for learning to
blend into a community so that its members will act naturally while maintaining
the ability to remove oneself from the setting to be able to analyze and write
about the experience (Bernard, 2002).

Participant observation is useful for providing an in–depth and holistic view of

a community or of particular phenomena under study. Extended periods of
participant observation allow you to apprehend a people‘s knowledge, their
beliefs and practices, and how they interrelate. It is typically used in
conjunction with other qualitative and quantitative methods, such as surveys,
questionnaires and interviewing. By allowing you to collect various types of
data, it can increase the validity of your research and facilitate involvement in
sensitive activities that might otherwise remain hidden from an outsider. As a
community becomes more familiar with you, and as you become more a part of
the community, there are often fewer instances of what Bernard (2002), refers
to as ―reactivity‖ i.e. people acting in a certain way when they are aware of
being observed. Additionally, with greater cultural understanding and
awareness you can develop questions that make sense to the community and are
culturally relevant, thus eliciting answers that are more accurate and richer data.

Critics argue that information collected during participant observation is not

truly representative of a culture, as much of the data is based on a researcher‘s
background and goals, rather than on what actually happens within a
community. Accuracy of participant observation can be improved by reflecting
on how your gender, ethnicity, class, and theoretical approach may affect
observation, analysis, and interpretation. For example, because male and female
researchers have access to different people, settings and bodies of knowledge
they often elicit different information. An awareness of these differences will
allow you to accept your own subjectivity, to accurately represent your data and
to portray from which subset of the community they are derived. Additionally,
this awareness can ensure greater accuracy and respect from the community as
they come to accept that what you think is being said matches the intentions of
those observed.
132
SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Explain why you think participant observation is crucial in research?

4.0: CONCLUSION

The use of participant observation method for collection of data provides

researcher the opportunity to gather raw data and directly from the event or
people being observed. However, the addictive nature of the method may turn
the researcher or the participant into another object of research. This is because
it is not every social activity that is participant observable without paying price.
For instance, a researcher of drug use may eventually become another drug
addict if care is not taken, particularly in the case of dangerous drugs like
cocaine, heroin and morphine etc.

5.0: SUMMARY

In this unit, we have been able to establish the nature of participant observation
as a method of data collection in the social sciences. This unit has also been
able to highlight the advantages of participant observation over other methods
and the danger inherent in the use of the method for political inquiry.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Describe the usefulness of participant observation.

2. Examine the importance of participant observation.
3. Distinguish between participant observation and key informant interview.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Bernard, H.R. (2002) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and

Quantitative Methods, Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research,

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Fetterman, DM (1998) Ethnography Step by Step (Second Edition), Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jorgensen, DL (1989) Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human

Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

133
Spradley, James P. (1997) Participant Observation, New York: Holt Rinehart
& Winston Publishers

UNIT 5: DOCUMENTARY/CONTENT ANALYSIS METHOD

CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Objectives

3.0. Main Content

3.1. Meaning of Documentary Analysis Method

3.2. Merits and Demeritsof Documentary Research
3.3. Meaning of Content Analysis
3.4. Merits and Demerits of Content Analysis

4.0. Conclusion

5.0. Summary

6.0. Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0. References/Further Reading

1.0: INTRODUCTION

This unit examines documentary content analysis method of data collection for
political inquiry. The unit portrays documentary and content analysis as one of
the main methods employed by social scientists for their inquiries. The unit
explains the merits and the demerit of both methods for data collection and
stated that the usage of any of them depends on the understanding of the
researcher and the type of research.

2.0: OBJECTIVES

At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

 know the intricacies involved in the use of documentary method

134
  discuss the merits and the merits of the content method.

3.0: MAIN CONTENT

3.1: Meaning of Documentary Analysis Method

Documentary analysis is a social research method and is an important research
tool in its own right and is an invaluable part of most schemes of triangulation.
Documentary work involves reading lots of written material (it helps to scan the
documents onto a computer and use a qualitative analysis package). A
document is something that we can read and which relates to some aspect of the
social world. Official documents are intended to be read as objective statements
of fact but they are themselves socially produced.

Documentary research is the use of outside sources to support the viewpoint or

argument of an academic work. The process of documentary research often
involves some or all of conceptualizing, using and assessing documents. The
analysis of the documents in documentary research would be either quantitative
or qualitative analysis (or both). The process is utilized in most academic work
(in fact, most high school and certainly college level courses would insist on
references in academic work) in supporting the academic prose of the writer.

Documentary research involves the use of texts and documents as source

materials; government publications, newspapers, certificates, census
publications, novels, film and video, paintings, personal photographs, diaries
and innumerable other written, visual and pictorial sources in paper, electronic,
or other `hard copy' form. Along with surveys and ethnography, documentary
research is one of the three major types of social research and arguably has been
the most widely used of the three throughout the history of sociology and other
social sciences. It has been the principal method - indeed, sometimes the only
one - for leading sociologists. The key issues surrounding types of documents
and our ability to use them as reliable sources of evidence on the social world
must be considered by all who use documents in their research. The paucity of
sources available until now means that this compendium will be invaluable to
social researchers." (Scott 2006).

3.2: Merits and Demerits of Documentary Research

The first advantage of such an approach to doing research is that it is usually

readily available. The information to be used in documentary research can be
accessed by researchers by simply visiting the resource centers or just browsing
the internet.

135
The second advantage is that doing this research is less expensive as compared
to surveys and ethnography. For surveys, one has to do a pilot study and then do
actual field data collection incurring travelling expenses. Experimentation may
involve use of scientific apparatus that have to be purchased. The only costs
involved in documentary research may be bureau and miscellaneous expenses.

The third advantage is that some information may only be obtained by

secondary sources. For example, information on ancient histories which cannot
be found by interview surveys or archaeological data that has been documented
but the sites might have changed and can only be obtained from libraries or
museum.

Despite the above merits, documentary research has the following limitations;
(i) Information obtained may be biased;
(ii) Personal biases and prejudices could have influenced past work that was
documented by authors; (iii) such information may therefore lack credibility
and hence research findings based on such work may be discredited.

3.3: Meaning of Content Analysis

Content analysis has been defined as a systematic, replicable technique for

compressing many words of text into fewer content categories based on explicit
rules of coding. Holsti (1969) offers a broad definition of content analysis as,
"any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically
identifying specified characteristics of messages". However, the technique of
content analysis is not restricted to the domain of textual analysis, but may be
applied to other areas such as coding student drawings, or coding of actions
observed in videotaped studies (Stigler, Gonzales, Kawanaka, Knoll, &
Serrano, 1999). In order to allow for replication, however, the technique can
only be applied to data that are durable in nature.

Content analysis enables researchers to sift through large volumes of data with
relative ease in a systematic fashion. It can be a useful technique for allowing us
to discover and describe the focus of individual, group, institutional, or social
attention (Weber, 1990). It also allows inferences to be made which can then be
corroborated using other methods of data collection. Krippendorff (1980) notes
that "such content analysis research is motivated by the search for techniques to
infer from symbolic data what would be either too costly, no longer possible, or
too obtrusive by the use of other techniques".

136
3.4. The Merits and Demerits of Content Analysis

Content analysis can be a powerful tool for determining authorship. For

instance, one technique for determining authorship is to compile a list of
suspected authors, examine their prior writings, and correlate the frequency of
nouns or function words to help build a case for the probability of each person's
authorship of the data of interest. Mosteller and Wallace (1964) used Bayesian
techniques based on word frequency to show that Madison was indeed the
author of the Federalist papers; Foster (1996) used a more holistic approach in
order to determine the identity of the anonymous author of the 1992 book
Primary Colors.

Additionally, content analysis provides an empirical basis for monitoring shifts

in public opinion. Data collected from the mission statements project in the late
1990s can be objectively compared to data collected at some point in the future
to determine if policy changes related to standards-based reform have
manifested themselves in school mission statements.

Content analysis in particular:

Advantages

i. looks directly at communication via texts or transcripts, and hence gets at the
central aspect of social interaction;

ii.can allow for both quantitative and qualitative operations;

iii. can provide valuable historical/cultural insights over time through analysis
of texts;

iv. allows a closeness to text which can alternate between specific categories
and relationships and also statistically analyzes the coded form of the text;

v. can be used to interpret texts for purposes such as the development of expert
systems (since knowledge and rules can both be coded in terms of explicit
statements about the relationships among concepts);

vi.is an unobtrusive means of analyzing interactions and; provides insight into

complex models of human thought and language use.

Disadvantages
However, content analysis suffers from several disadvantages, both theoretical
137
and procedural.
i. Content analysis can be extremely time consuming;

ii. is subject to increased error, particularly when relational analysis is

used to attain a higher level of interpretation;

iii. is often devoid of theoretical base, or attempts to liberally draw

meaningful inferences about the relationships and impacts implied in
a study;

iv. is inherently reductive, particularly when dealing with complex texts;

v. tends too often to simply consist of word counts;

vi. often disregards the context that produced the text, as well as the state
of things after the text is produced and;

vii. can be difficult to automate or computerize.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
List five advantages and disadvantages of content analysis method.

4.0: CONCLUSION

The documentary method is easy to collect without much stress, but its pitfall is
to obey the doctrine of ―official secrecy‖ where it is strictly followed. In the
same manner, content analysis provides opportunity for researchers to
understand the work of others, even if they are no longer living. It allows for
true representation without misconception.
5.0: SUMMARY

This unit has explained the importance of documentary/content analysis method

in political science inquiry/ social sciences research. It is important to note that
both can be used in a particular research exercise. What is important is for the
user to be mindful of the advantages and disadvantages of these methods of data
collection.

6.0: TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Describe documentary analysis/research.
3. Differentiate between documentary analysis and content analysis.
138
4. Mention three advantages and three disadvantages of documentary analysis.

7.0: REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities;
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mosteller, F. and D.L. Wallace (1964); Inference and Disputed Authorship: The
Federalist. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Scott, J. (2006), Documentary Research, London, Sage Publications Ltd.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA

Wheelock, A., Haney, W.,& Bebell, D. (2000); What can Student drawings tell
us about high-stakes testing in Massachusetts? TCRecord.org. Available:
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=10634.

Festensein M. (2001), Inquiry as Critique: On the Legacy of Deweyan

Pragmatism for Political Theory,Political Studies 49, 730-48.DOI:
10.1111/1467-9248.00339

Grady J. (2006), Edward Tufte and the Promise of a Visual Social Science, in
Visual Cultures of Science, ed. Luc Pauwels, Dartmouth College Press

Hardin R.(2009), How Do You Know? The Economics of Everyday

Knowledge,Princeton University Press

Hauptman E. (2005), Political Science/Political Theory: Defining ‘Theory’ in

Postwar Political Science, in The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences:
Positivism and Its Epistemological Others, George Steinmetz. (eds.) Duke
University Press.

Jacoby W (1997), Statistical Graphics for Univariate and Bivariate Data, Sage
Publications.

Jacoby W (1998), Statistical Graphics for Visualizing Multivariate Data, Sage

Publications.
139
Knight J. and Johnson J (2011), The Priority of Democracy: Political
Consequences of Pragmatism, Princeton University Press/Russell Sage
Foundation.

Laudan L. (1981), A Problem-Solving Approach to Scientific Progress,in

Scientific Revolutions, Ian Hacking (eds.), Oxford University Press.

Laudan L. (1990) Science and Relativism, University of Chicago Press.

Lippmann W. (1927), The Phantom Public, Transaction Publishers.

Hempel, C.G. (1952) Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical

Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wallace, W. (1971) The Logic of Science in Sociology, Chicago: Aldine-

Atherton.

W.W. Norton.Downs, A. (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy; New

York: Harper and Brothers.

Easton, D. 1953. The Political System; New York: Knopf.

140