Political Science: Scope and Methods - Essay Example

 Political Science: Scope and Methods 1. SCIENCE, POLITICAL SCIENCE, AND ITS POSTMODERN CRITICISM The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines science as the knowledge or practice acquired systematically. This is the broadest possible definition. However, and not only for the purpose of this essay, the science should first of all be understood as the systemic process of acquiring knowledge, primarily through the process, or better to say a method, of trials-and-errors, that can be understood as the postmodern procedural attachment, to the overall conception of science, stressing the importance of this scientific atribute as the only way how to acquire the real and true knowledge. The first scientific effort to rebuilt political science in the manner of natural sciences can be found in the work of Ch. Merriam and H. Lasswell. Merriam in his New Aspects of Politics written in 1920s criticised politology for the lack of scientism (Merriam) and recquired its integretion with other sciences such as sociology and psychology. Similarly G. Catlin also supported this criticism in his work Science and Method of Politics and the key assumption that power is the core and dominante subject that political science should focus on. Catlin also called for the strict freedom from values, originally M.Weber´s postulate, which played a significant role in formation of empirical theory of political power and behavior. It is little known that UNESCO influenced the development of political science as a science as well by its patronage over the establishment of IPSA (International Political Science Association) and the first international kongress on political science in Paris 1950. It was on this kongress where the basic scope of political science was defined and declared (Easton and Gunnel 155). The main scope of political science defined by these core areas of interest: political theory and methodology political institutions and organisations political parties, group and public opinion international relations and international politics Today the scope of political sciences has become much more complex, broader and deeper over the decades. The present (political) science and the society is experiencing the era of qualitative and structural shifts. A radical change is going on in front of our own eyes and it will undoubtedly modify the history of humanking irrespective of how we decide to thematize and define its symptoms. For example, the emergence of global civil society and domination of liberal democratic arrangements in political systems over the world. We can observe some specific postmodern trends in the field of science (and political science), its methods, approaches and “technologies” as well. The most relevant characteristic of postmodern science is its utilisation and benefit from the results of Second scientific revolution, especially the consequence of Einstein´s theory of relativity (1905, and 1911-1916), Heisenberg´s uncertainty principle (1927), Godel´s incompleteness theorem (1931), and later Thom´s theory of catastrophies (1975), Haken´s synergetics and theory of chaos and non-equilibrium systems (1974, 1983). The pragmatic paradoxes, paralogics, open and close systems, discontinuity, and turbulence, deterministic chaos became core themes and remained in the spotlight of postmodern science until now. The opportunity to conceptualize the unprecedented model of legitimization, that does not any longer account for effectivity but for the difference understood as paralogic (the unintentional breach of logic principles in process of reasoning), the inventive imagination development. The political science stands on the beginning of the new era imposing new demands on its focus and methods, and expecting new views and implications. This approach has been labelled as the triumph of postmodernism throughout last forty years. For this quite long period of time, postmodernism was successful in obtaining the status of selfconfident discourse, the status of specific constelation of knowledge and structure – new scientific approach proving the actuality of the present qualitative paradigm shift in American and European political science. At the present stage it is evident that the postmodern paradigm in science cannot be reduced to mere opposition to modern assumptions anyhow. The reason for this is the fact, that the basic positions and pillars of postmodern science are not complementary in modern sense, or put the other way – they are simply different and unprecendented in methods, concepts, and aspirations. In this respect, the postmodern paradigm can be understood as the definitive disenchantment from modernism, when the science is ultimately freed from manipulative rationality and obsolete scientific stereotypes. Postmodern environment provides excellent opportunity for science to seek and find better (qualitatively) scientific anchoring and exploration of social conditions, social interactions within the multispectral aspects of human existence as such, including political and cultural dimension. These are the essential aspirations of postmodern science. The broad and almost universal acceptance of postmodern approach in (political and social) science has become the integral part of western culture and gave birth to postmodern era. The postmodern discourse in science must be primarily understood as reflection of domination of rational approach and cultural universalism. Postmodernism attempts to disturb the idea of homogenity, singularity and totality that have been produced by rational methods and concepts. The postulate of “the end of universum and unity”, putting Hegel´s “the truth is the universus” against Adorno´s “the universus is untruth” (Natoli and Hutcheon 208) outlines the postmodern paradigm of simultaneous dispersion of individuality in social, cultural and group context and suggest the end of individual and individual identity as the scientific object. Furthermore, the postmodern science deals with the new type of social and societal situation that in terms of plurality, denial of time sequencing and ranking of societal and historical phenomenons, which neither can be perceived as right or wrong. The postmodern science does not seek solutions that are to be viewed and reviewed off the context of their particular culture, tradition, language that makes it possible and ascribes a specific meaning. This is the contextuality of postmodern era that postmodern science is expected to reflect and refer to. Consequently, no objective criterion of validity, solution or method is plausible (Yeatman 29). The postmodern science affection against universality and resignation from preserving linear progress and explaining historical continuity is commonly refered to as the crisis of legitimity of metahistory, or so-called the end of metanarative stories (grand récits), metanarations, metadiscourse – the grand philosophical, ideological and historical structures and systems (Yeatman 106). The discredit of all dominant metanarative (scientificated) systems of modern knowledge – mainly ideology and history – and often the modern science itself. The extreme result of postmodern criticism of science is the deprecation of the existence of objective world around us, that can be recognized, defined and objectively scientifically explored, which is the basic premise that modern science operates within. The existence of objective reality is replaced with the existence of innumerable subjective worlds and dimensions, or local contexts and constructions, which cannot be reciprocaly merged or competing with each other. The postmodern attack on science reflects the effort to unmask and heal the falsification of false naturality and ontological validity of of societal and political stereotypes. In the first place, the criticism is aimed at so-called logocentrism of western culture (Natoli and Hutcheon 122), the specific way it deals with the definition of effects, the argumentation based on binary structuring of antagonistic views, and curtailing the scope of language. Logocentrism is identical to etnocentrims and as such is an inherent component of Western metaphysics. The postmodern science is built on the logic of polycentrism. The logic of polycentrism implies the paralel existence of few or many truths, realities, without the need to confront, oppose or negate each other. The postmodern science emphasizes the importance of the dissent and heterogenity instead of (modern) consensus and homogenity, to build its assumtions, hypotheses, and findings upon. Each area of research operates within its own language game (method or process) without using any scientific metalanguage that would serve as connection and integral tool for all types of sciences. The postmodern fragmentation of science also modifies the aspirations and purpose of science. The truth is no longer the scientific objective. In postmodern context, it has been replaced by the performance effectivity objective, or the optimalization of correlation settings between the systemic inputs and outputs. Furthermore, the discourse in postmodern science is becoming one of many reality explanations currently available. Lately, the science seems to oscilate between modern and postmodern paradigm and it seems that the trend would be characterized by receding from the postmodern positions and returning to, although modified by postmodern experience, modern paradigm. Postmodern algorithm implied into current science support the inventionism, and so it is expected that postmodern science would bring many innovations and discover new facts. Postmodern science is deeply aware of the fact that the object analysed (and observed) cannot be separated from the subject of research. The typical postmodern examples of this approach are quantum mechanics, psychiatry, systemic biology and ecology that signify the postmodern understanding of the world and processes that are shaping its day-to-day reality. The postmodern science attempts to clean science from rationalism, substantional, principial and holistic atributes (rejection of mathesis univerzalis). All knowledge is inevitably limited. Therefore, postmodern science does not completely abandon the “old” grand ideals of freedom, solidarity, truth, justice and so forth, but rather demands their renaissance through new methods and understanding in context of postmodern circumstances and implications. Postmodern science and postmodern knowledge is thus becoming more real in the sence of diversity and freer in the sense of the range of scientific approaches and tolerance and variety of methods that can be used. According to the above argumentation, the main points of postmodern criticism of science are: the rejection of unity, homogenity, universality and uniformity and their replacement with fragmentation, heterogenity and multispectrality rejection of objectivity and its replacement with subjectivity scientific cynism and relativism rejection of the linear character of progress, promotion of the trial-and-error (K. Popper, H. Albert) methods within postmodern cataloque of scientific methods reaction to positivist trend in science, recquiring the renaissance of the values in research 2. GENDER AND RACE BIAS IN PRESIDENTIAL VOTING 1992 Since the first voting behaviour considering the US presidential voting behaviour have been counducted in early 1940´s (Lazarsfeld, Gaudet, Berelson), the significant influence the race and sex has on the voting behaviour has been demonstrated. Although not as strong as then, these biases still play considerable role in determining the voter´s behavior. However, it must be added that the elections are just a snapshot and when combined with the fact that the society is changing rapidly, and the observations and conclusion that can be made about 1992 election could provide only marginal information. Still, as I would demonstrate, the race variable appear to be persistent to some degree. According to ANES and other statistical sources on national presidential elections of 1992.According to statistical sources, the nationwide participation in of the eligible voters in the election was 55.2 percent. The statistical evidence shows that gender variable played almost no role in terms of prefering any of the candidates. On the contrary, the gender voting seems rather to have been distributed almost equally and proportionally, and only slight differences can be reported. Whether taken from the vertical or horizontal point of view, only slightly more women (45 percent) than men (41 percent) voted for Democratic candidate B. Clinton, while the Republican candidate G. Bush ended up with fifty-fifty gender ratio (38 percent of both men and women). Slightly more men (21 percent) than women (17 percent) voted for the independent candidate H. Perrot. Interestingly, according to Roper Center Public Opinion Archives (of University of Connecticut) more women participated in the election (53 percent to 47 percent of men participating). The situation changes when we procede to analysing the race variable. The difference in the voting stereotypes along race cleavage is evident also when it comes to participation in the elections. Of all voters participating, 87 percent where White, 8 percent were Black, 2 percent were Hispanic and 1 percent of the voters were Asian. The participation of Asian voters is the lowest, but this can be caused by multiple factors. The most relevant differences are revealed in comparing how the race vote was distributed among the three top presidential candidates. The statistic evidence demonstrates few serious indicators of ratial voting. While White voters distribute their voting preferences approximately equally among the two major rivals (Clinton 39%, and Bush 41%) leaving the third (Perot 21%) ony a steb behind, the Black votes and Hispanic votes tend to be much more concentrated in preference of one, in this case the Democratic, candidate. In terms of percentage, 83% of Black voters decided to support Clinton, while only 10% supported Bush, and 7% voted for Perot. Hispanic voters are the similar case of vote concentration, having 61% of them voting for Clinton, while only 25% for Bush, and 14% for Perot. Asian voters are somewhere in the midle of these to marginal stereotypes of presidental voting behaviour. Asian votes in 1992 (31% for Clinton, 55 percent for Bush, and 15% for Perot)were more concentrated than White votes, but less concentrated than the Black ones. Therefore, when analysing the strength of relationship between gender variable and voting behavior and race variable and voting behavior in national presidential elections, it can be concluded, that while the gender that was a strong determinant for a long time recedes to play a significant, if any, role in determining the voter behaviour. On the other side, the race variable and voter´s belonging to certain racial group remains one of the strongest determinants that form the final decision of individual voting preference. 3. SCIENTIFIC ASCERTAINMENT OF STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH THE EDUCATION RECEIVED If the leaders want to find out if the students are satisfied with the education they receive, and perhaps even to what degree, there are few relevant options how it can be done. The scientific methody vary inthey complexity, time-consumption and ability to explain correlation and causality that influences and formes researched issue. The most relevant group of ascertainment options belong to the group of empirical research design methods, or the correlation reserch design group. The first first option within this group of scientific algorithms would be the method of observation. The observation method encompasses at least two important alternatives. Observation as a scientific method is used bradly and frequently in natural and social sciences, including political science and sociology. This method allows for a broad description of the phoenomenon that is being examined and revealing its development based on the correlation of explicit and implicit conditions. If we want to preserve scientific character of the observation, we have to pay a great attention that is is going to be deliberately prepared, planned in details, controlled and systematic. The scientific observation is based on intentional perception, or rational recognition of social reality and its selected atributes. In examining and analysing human behavior and opinions, there are two types of perception, objective and subjective. In our case which deals with the satisfactory atribute of education as perceived by students, this suggests that propably both would play significant role on the research outcome, with subjectivity playing the primary role in evaluation of education and student statements on the matter. The best way to achieve our goal would to combine at least two (but preferably three and more) alternatives of observation that would differ in terms of who observes. The object observed would be the student, and independent variable would be the education they receive. Therefore I propose the first type of observation be done by the teachers themselves based on their own proximate experience with delivering the education to students. However, it can be argued that this alternative might produce serious thread to objectivity of our findings and tehrefor shoul ony be used for comparison with the findidngs, and maybe not so as relevant for constructing the conclusions. The second, and the most relevant, observation alternative I propose to achieve our goal is the observation done through independent “out-group” observers. Ideally, a group of students from another school would be asked to participate in research, or hired, trained, and would take assigned classes in assigned grades in order to obtain the most extent and complex references. It is also important to note, that observation conducted in this manner, and done properly long period time (lets say a month, or better one entire trimester or semester), can produce one of the most valuable and plausible answers to the research question. The second option of the comparable relevancy would be the alternative of elaborating an anonymous answer sheet. The logic of answer sheet is to collect empirical facts through correct formulation and arrangements of the questions and the assesment of the received answers through methodical patterns. The elaboration of answer sheet (formulation of questions, their arrangement and overall composition of the answer sheet, its correctness and scope) can really be a hard nut to crack and the process would most propably need the involvement of a group of qualified researchers, but despite this challenge, it is worth the effort. This makes it possible to obtain a considerable portion of highly valuable information in a quite short time horizon. In most cases, the answer sheet is filled by the respondent himself or herself. It is an extensive research method for recognizing the social facts, reactions and opinions of social actors, primarily those that are the products of subjective feelings and assumptions of individual, and therefore is a perfect and suitable method if we are trying to find out particularly about if students find the education they receive satisfactory in any respect. The third option of how to achieve our goal and give sufficient answer to the question, the students could also be asked to write an essay on their satisfaction with the education they receive. The essay should be anonymous, and the student should only include the grade and maybe also the (principal) subjects studied. Moving from empirical or correlational proposals to scientific ones, there is no other space left now but to speak of conducting a experimental research itself. Although the experiment does not necessarily be done in the laboratory, especially in social sciences and for the purpose of our research, it is still the less likely alternative or option of how to find out whether students are satisfied with the education received. The reasons for this are many. The pragmatic complexity and qualification demands, money expenses and so forth cuts the experiment out of reasonable options. The next and final part of this essay shows the basic difference between correlational research and experimental research through comparison of the key comparable aspects and comparison of the strengths and weaknesses. 4. COMPARISON OF THE CORRELATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH DESIGNS Throughout most part of my essay I have been dealing with the methods of political science. This part provides a perfect opportunity to close up my work and to outline the basic weaknesses and strenghts of the two grand designs in current political science research, the correlational and experimental designs. Drawing from the key principle of comparative politics of never comparing the uncomparable, it is important to define the most relevant aspects of the comparative analysis of these two research designs: 1. Complexity and elaborateness of the conduct 2. Degree to which researcher manipulates exposure to the independent variable 3. Explanation ability 4. Assignments of participants of the conditions or levels of the independent variable 5. Demonstration of causality and effects of interaction In general, correlational reserch design such as the observation or interview sheet I have discussed in the previous part, is much more popular due to the fact that it is less complicated and difficult to conduct than experimental research design, being its major advantage together with the natural character of the environment where it is done. On the other hand, good experimental research design recquires years to be plausible, valid and its findings respected. However, a set of correlational research designs can be in some cases a part of complex experimental research design. Serious risks of experiment are the manipulation of exposure to the independent variable, and the high risk of producing artificial assumptions and conclusions. The strength of experiment rests on its ability to explain and demonstrate the found causal relations, and effects of interaction, which is the weakest point of correlational designs. There is even a thread of subjectivity that can possibly endanger the results of both designs and deform their scientific character, but can be prevented be the professional and competent research team and its hard, detail-focused, and systematic research work. The comparison is outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Comparison of the correlational and experimental research design and evaluation of strenght and weaknesses +/- CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH DESIGN +/- EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH DESIGN 1. + Simple and easy to conduct - Complex and difficult to conduct, recquires a lot of energy, time and financial resources 2. + Low or none possibility (or risk) of manipulation - High possibility (or risk) of manipulation 3. - Quite unclear explanation of the correlations and associations found + If properly conducted can clearly and sufficiently demonstrate the correlations and associations found 4. + Natural environment - Random, that can result in considerable artificiality 5. - The discovery of association suggests the possibility of cause, but the fact that thwo things are correlated does not allow us to directly infer causation + Strong in demonstrating the causal relationships and ties, but the confouding variables may appear hard to eliminate Source: Author, Price (2000) Resources Easton, David. Gunnel, John. Graziano, Luigi. The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Survey. New York: Routledge, 1991. p. 155 Merriam, Charles Edward. New Aspects of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3rd edition, 1970. Natoli, Joseph. Hutcheon Linda. A Postmodern Reader. Albany: SUNY Press, 1993. p. 122, 208 Yeatman, Anna. Postmodern Revisioning of the Political. New York: Routledge, 1994. p. 24-29, 106 ANES Data Centre. “1992 National Election Study”. http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/1992prepost/1992prepost.htm. National Science Foundation, Stansford University and University of Michigan. May 3, 1999. Web. May 1, 2009. Roper Centre. Public Opinion Archives. “US 1992 Elections. How Groups voted in 1992.” Survey by Voter Research & Surveys, a consortium of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, and NBC News. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_92.html University of Connecticut. November 1992. Web. April 30, 2009 Price, I. “Non-experimental and Experimental Research Designs”. http://www.une.edu.au/WebStat/unit_materials/c2_research_design/design_nonexperimental.htm. University of New England. 2000. Web. May 1, 2009. Read More