IRS 203: The Scientific Empirical Behavioral Method in Political Science

Basic Features of the Scientific Empirical Behavioral Method

The scientific empirical behavioral method, represented as IRS 203, is characterized by several core tenets that distinguish it from traditional political inquiry. The first feature is Verification and Falsification. Under this principle, all generalizations formulated regarding the political process must be capable of being tested by referencing relevant behavior or the actual political context. This empirical verification serves as the critical criterion for assessing the validity and utility of such generalizations.

The second feature relates to Techniques. Behavioralists emphasize that the acquisition and interpretation of data must utilize rigorously examined, refined, and validated techniques. These include sample surveys, statistical measurements, and mathematical models. The goal is to develop systematic analysis and accuracy in the processes of observing, recording, and analyzing empirical political behavior.

Quantification is the third major feature. Behavioralists assert that precision and accuracy in findings require measurement and mathematization. However, this is not pursued for its own sake but only when it is relevant and meaningful to other objectives. This perspective is encapsulated in the position of David Truman ($1951$), who suggested that political scientists should prioritize quantitative research if possible, and only rely on qualitative terms if they must.

The fourth feature is the Value-Facts Dichotomy. This principle holds that ethical evaluations and empirical explanations are two distinct types of propositions. For the sake of analytical clarity, they should be kept separate. While a student of political behavior is not barred from asserting both types of propositions, they must be careful not to mistake one for the other. Consequently, empirical political research must be clearly distinguished from moral or ethical philosophy.

Systematization is the fifth feature, requiring research to be theory-oriented and theory-directed. Behavioralists believe that theory and research must develop together as an interconnected part of a body of knowledge. Easton ($1967$) notably posited that empirical research untutored by theory may be trivial, whereas theory unsupported by empirical data is futile. The objective is to develop a general paradigm of political behavior where disparate parts are integrated.

The sixth feature is Pure Science. Behavioralists argue that theoretical understanding logically precedes and provides the foundation for applied research aimed at solving practical societal problems. They attribute greater importance to scientific understanding than to policy formation, viewing the pursuit of knowledge as an end in itself. Even if findings lack immediate practical utility, the prospect of advancing science justifies the work.

The final feature is Integration. This approach seeks the unity of social science, hoping that the formal boundaries between political science and other social sciences will eventually dissolve. Since social sciences deal with the totality of the human situation, political science cannot ignore findings from other related disciplines without risking the validity and generality of its own results.

Criticisms of the Behavioural Approach

Critics have identified four primary types of objections to behavioralism: philosophical objections, methodological criticisms regarding assumptions and techniques (such as surveys and quantification), and sociological criticisms regarding allegedly conservative values.

A prominent critique is that political phenomena are not amenable to rigorous scientific inquiry due to an abundance of uncontrollable factors, historical contingencies, and changing variables. Unlike natural sciences where molecules are indifferent to the observer, human subjects in the social world find meaning in the research. The relationship between the theorist and the subject acts as both cause and effect, meaning generalizations can contribute to their own verification or falsification through human volition and ingenuity.

Another significant criticism is that the focus on quantitative techniques has fostered a "sterile methodism." Critics argue this has impeded political knowledge by causing researchers to ignore vital areas of politics that cannot be easily measured. Consequently, behavioralists often concentrate on trivial but verifiable topics. This "methodological imprisonment" results in research that is narrow, apolitical, and fails to address urgent issues like racism, imperialism, and injustice.

The value-fact dichotomy is also deemed untenable. Critics like Webb ($1995$) argue that the selection of research subjects is inherently shaped by personal or ideological biases. The behavioral researcher is guided by a framework of value judgments that determines research priorities but cannot be scientifically justified. Furthermore, the commitment to value neutrality has been criticized for creating a political science that is morally impotent and inherently conservative. Bay ($1965$) argues that politics is essentially normative and should focus on satisfying human needs and removing obstacles to human development.

Michael Parenti ($1983$, $2006$) offered a trenchant critique, asserting that behavioralists do not practice the value-free science they preach. He argued that their research often serves the interests of the military, government, and business based on an unexamined assumption that the existing politico-economic system is benign. Additionally, the approach is seen as inadequate for policymaking, which involves a moral phase that requires choosing between "good" and "bad"—a task the value-neutral behavioral approach cannot perform. Behavioralism can provide probabilistic predictions but cannot provide unconditional statements of future possibility.

Finally, the ability to generalize from individual behavior to group behavior is questioned. Traditionalists, such as Bull ($1966$), criticize behavioralists for being overconfident in their ability to convert problematic statements into causal propositions. They argue that abstract models often lack congruence with reality and that the "fetish of measurement" ignores critical qualitative differences.

The Debate on the Scientific Status of Politics

The debate centers on whether politics can truly be a science. Some argue it is a science because it employs scientific tools, accumulates verifiable facts, links them in causal sequences, and formulates theories. However, others contend it cannot be an exact science because its subject matter—man in society—is unpredictable and cumbersome to observe. Unlike matter in physics or chemistry, humans are ever-changing and their environment is difficult to control.

Why Political Science Is Not Regarded as an Exact Science

There are several major reasons why politics is not considered an exact science. First is the complexity of political phenomena. Politics involves too many variables to find a simple order. Hans Morgenthau ($1946$) noted that social sciences can at best present hypothetical possibilities, but which one will actually occur is "anybody's guess."

Second is human indeterminism. Russell Kirk ($1963$) argued that humans are the least law-obeying and predictable subjects. Since humans are free to choose their actions, their behavior cannot be easily classified. For example, before the $1979$ election in Nigeria, political scientists predicted victories for the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) or the Nigerian People's Party (NPP), but the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) ultimately won.

Third is the reaction problem. Research in political science often relies on the reactions of those being studied, such as in survey research. If subjects are aware they are being studied, their responses may not be valid. Even participant observation is viewed as suggestive rather than conclusive.

Fourth is the influence of values. Unlike natural scientists dealing with molecules, social scientists deal with moral beings. Political science is fundamentally a policy science concerned with morals and the common good.

Fifth is the problem of change. Human behavior and environments are in constant flux. Dye and Zeigler ($1970$) argue that technological and social changes render previously held beliefs obsolete. Examples include the transition of the League of Nations to the United Nations, or the Organization of African Unity to the African Union, as well as Nigeria's shifts between parliamentary, military, and presidential rule.

Sixth is the lack of agreement on basic concepts. Baba ($2004$) and Paki and Inokoba ($2006$) point out that terms like "democracy" and "federalism" have varied meanings for different scientists. This lack of conceptual precision makes quantification and scientific analysis difficult to attain.

Justifications for the Scientific Status of Political Science

Proponents of the scientific status of politics argue that conceptual ambiguity is common in any newly emerging field. Because political science is younger than many natural sciences, these definitional issues (Paki and Inokoba, $2006$) are expected to decrease over time.

Furthermore, critics' demands for universal validity and complete accuracy are seen as overstated. Eminue ($2001$) argues that less developed natural sciences, like meteorology or the science of tides, often fail to make perfect predictions but are still considered sciences. Behavioralists also argue that criticisms of the scientific nature of politics often stem from a misconception of what science actually entails.

The Scientific Procedure and Methodology of Political Inquiry

Political science adopts several scientific procedures from the natural sciences. The first is Observation, which involves recognizing a societal problem and systematically investigating it to identify uniform occurrences. An example is investigating the rising causes of ethnic and religious conflicts in Nigeria (Anikpo, $1986$).

The second step is Hypothesis Formulation. Hypotheses are tentative explanations or assertions constructed to test relationships between two phenomena. For example, a political scientist might test the hypothesis: "When the national unemployment rate is greater than $7\%$ at the time of the election, presidential incumbents are not re-elected."

The third step is Experimentation, the core of the scientific method according to Ibaba ($2004$). This involves collecting data to establish cause-and-effect relationships. For political scientists, the "laboratory" includes the organs of government, the United Nations, political parties, and the electorate. The goal is to ensure objectivity, which Anikpo ($1986$) defines as the testability or repeatability of the research.

Following experimentation is Hypothesis Verification. In this stage, researchers determine if the experiment's results agree with the initial hypothesis. It provides legitimacy to the results by ensuring that the introduced stimulus had the anticipated effect. The final stage is Theory Formulation, which occurs once hypotheses are extensively tested and confirmed.

The scientific empirical behavioral method, known as IRS 203, has several key features that set it apart from traditional political inquiry:

1. Verification and Falsification: This means that any generalizations made about politics must be testable against real political behavior or context. This empirical approach is essential for assessing the validity of those generalizations.

2. Techniques: Behavioralists stress the importance of using well-researched and validated methods to collect and interpret data. These methods include sample surveys and statistical analyses, aimed at achieving systematic and accurate observation of political behavior.

3. Quantification: Behavioralists argue that to ensure accuracy in findings, measurement and quantification are crucial. However, this quantification should only be pursued when it adds meaningful insights. Political scientist David Truman (1951) suggested prioritizing quantitative research but indicated qualitative terms can be used when necessary.

4. Value-Facts Dichotomy: This principle states that ethical judgments and empirical explanations are different kinds of statements and should not be mixed. While researchers can express both, they must avoid conflating them to maintain clarity—empirical research should remain distinct from moral or ethical discussions.

5. Systematization: Research should be directed by theory, with theory and research developing together. Easton (1967) argued that research without theory could be trivial, while theory lacking empirical data is futile. The aim is to create a cohesive understanding of political behavior by integrating diverse elements.

6. Pure Science: Behavioralists believe theoretical understanding should come before applied research aimed at solving real-world problems. They prioritize scientific knowledge as an end goal, even if findings are not immediately useful, seeing knowledge advancement as inherently valuable.

7. Integration: This approach advocates for the unity of social sciences, suggesting that political science should draw insights from other related disciplines to enhance its own validity and applicability.

Criticisms of the Behavioral Approach

Critics of behavioralism have pointed out several concerns:

• Philosophical Objections: Some argue that political phenomena cannot be rigorously studied due to uncontrollable factors and the unpredictable nature of human behavior.

• Methodological Criticisms: The reliance on quantitative methods may lead to 'sterile methodism,' causing researchers to overlook essential political issues that are difficult to measure.

• Value-Fact Dichotomy Challenges: Critics argue that researchers' subject choices are influenced by personal biases, challenging the idea of value neutrality in behavioral research.

Prominent voices like Michael Parenti (1983, 2006) assert that behavioralists often do not practice what they preach regarding value-free research, as their findings may align with the interests of powerful entities.

The Debate on the Scientific Status of Politics

The debate revolves around whether politics can be a true science. Some argue it is because it uses scientific methods and gathers verifiable data. Others contend it can't be precise due to its inherently unpredictable subject matter—human beings in society.

Reasons Politics Is Not Considered an Exact Science

Several factors contribute to this perception:

1. Complexity of Political Phenomena: The multitude of variables involved makes it hard to identify simple patterns.

2. Human Indeterminism: Humans are unpredictable and their behavior varies significantly.

3. Reaction Problem: Research often relies on subjects' responses, which can be biased if they're aware of being studied.

4. Influence of Values: Political science involves moral questions, differentiating it from the natural sciences.

5. Problem of Change: Social and political contexts are constantly evolving, making previous theories outdated.

6. Lack of Agreement on Fundamental Concepts: Discrepancies in defining core terms hinder clear analysis and understanding.

Justifications for Viewing Political Science as a Science

Supporters argue that ambiguity in definitions is normal for emerging fields and will likely resolve over time. They also believe that the demands for precise accuracy are exaggerated and that political science, like other nascent disciplines, can develop into a recognized science while facing similar challenges as natural sciences.

The scientific empirical behavioral method, known as IRS 203, has several key features that set it apart from traditional political inquiry:

1. Verification and Falsification:

   • Any generalizations made about politics must be testable against actual political behavior or contexts. This empirical approach is crucial for checking the validity of these generalizations.

2. Techniques:

   • Behavioralists emphasize the importance of well-researched and validated methods for collecting and interpreting data. Common methods include surveys and statistical analyses aimed at achieving systematic and accurate observations of political behavior.

3. Quantification:

   • Behavioralists argue that to ensure accuracy in findings, measurement and quantification are essential. However, quantification should only be pursued if it provides meaningful insights. Political scientist David Truman (1951) suggested that quantitative research should be prioritized, although qualitative research may be used when necessary.

4. Value-Facts Dichotomy:

   • This principle states that ethical judgments and empirical explanations are different types of statements and should not be mixed. Researchers can express both types of propositions, but they should keep them separate to maintain clarity—empirical research should be distinct from moral discussions.

5. Systematization:

   • Research should be guided by theory, with theory and research developing together. Easton (1967) indicated that research without a theoretical foundation could be trivial, while theory lacking empirical support is ineffective. The goal is to create a cohesive understanding of political behavior by incorporating various elements.

6. Pure Science:

   • Behavioralists believe that theoretical understanding should come before applied research aimed at solving real-world problems. They see the pursuit of knowledge as a valuable end goal, even if the findings are not immediately useful.

7. Integration:

   • This approach promotes the unification of social sciences, suggesting that political science should draw insights from related disciplines to enhance its validity and applicability.

Criticisms of the Behavioral Approach

Critics of behavioralism have expressed several concerns:

• Philosophical Objections: Some argue that political phenomena cannot be rigorously studied due to uncontrollable factors and the unpredictable nature of human behavior.
• Methodological Criticisms: The reliance on quantitative methods may lead to 'sterile methodism', preventing researchers from addressing crucial political issues that are hard to measure.
• Value-Fact Dichotomy Challenges: Critics insist that researchers' subject choices are influenced by personal biases, questioning the idea of value neutrality in behavioral research. Notable critiques, such as those by Michael Parenti (1983, 2006), demonstrate that behavioralists often do not adhere to the value-free research principle they advocate for.