Fundamentals of Political Science

1
Fundamentals of Political Science

• Dr. Sujian Guo
• Professor of Political Science
• San Francisco State Unversity
• Email sguo_at_sfsu.edu
• http//bss.sfsu.edu/sguo

2
What is the Basic Assumption in Political Science

• Przworski and Teune (1970)
• The basic assumption of comparative research is
  that social science research should and can lead
  to general statements about social phenomena.
• This assumption is shared by political scientists
  in their political studies.
• This assumption implies that human behavior can
  be explained in terms of general laws established
  by observation.

3
Two Competing Approaches
Normothetic vs. Idiographic The main
controversy between the two approaches has
focused on whether we can make general statements
about social phenomena under investigation.
4
Key differences

• Normothetic approaches
• - it seeks to establish law and assumes that
  generalization can be made and different systems
  can be compared
• Idiographic approaches
• - it seeks to understand the particular and
  assumes that no general statement can be made and
  different systems are unique and can not be
  compared.

5
Key Ideas and Arguments

• Normothetic approaches
• (1) the assumption that comparative social
  inquiry should and can lead to general statements
  about social events by discovering regularities
  or patterns in the social world
• (2) the view that the objective confirmation of
  scientific theory should conform to the canons of
  the logic
• (3) the idea that establishing a causal
  relationship is a matter of discovering the
  temporal relationship between observed events.
  This paradigm has influenced the development of
  behavioral revolution since 1950s.

6
Ideographic Approaches

• the general statements about social reality can
  be misleading, because there may be errors
  stemming from measurement of the observed
  variables
• there are always other unexplained variables that
  can influence any observed relationship
• research is jeopardized by the system
  inaccessibility, the data unreliability
• important qualified information may either be
  lost or distorted to fit into scientific molds
  
• politics and social life in general are too
  complex and too unpredictable to lend themselves
  to rigorous scientific analysis
• we cannot make the jump from specific evidence to
  generalizations without reference to preexisting
  theoretical perspectives, which are value-laden
  and culturally or politically biased, and without
  reference to the total environment and historical
  heritage, which are culturally and historically
  unique for every society. This paradigm has
  influenced the development of traditionalism.

7
Normothetic vs. Idiographic on the three
dimensional spectrum

• Explanatory
• Universalistic
  
• Objective Subjective
  
  
• Particularistic
  
• Descriptive

8
Debate who is right?

• Some scholars argue that normothetic and
  idiographic are distinct and conflicting
• Others argue that the two approaches are not only
  complementary but actually two sides of one coin.

9
What is the Logic of Political Studies?

• Carl Hempel (1966 and 1974)
• The deductive model from general to specific
• (1) a general law is postulated, (2) antecedent
  conditions are specified, and (3) the explanation
  of the observed event is deduced from (1) and
  (2).
• The inductive-statistical model from specific
  to general
• Statistical or probability laws are established
  inductively, and are used to show how a specific
  event is highly likely given the established law.

10
Is Political Science a science that can uncover
lawlike generalizations?

• Political science, like the natural sciences, has
  its laboratory the worlds political systems
  that allow political scientists to carry out
  scientific experiments involving those systems.
  As in the laboratory sciences, we use hypotheses,
  tests, and proofs in our systematic study of
  political issues and relevant policy issues.
• However, political science is not without its
  limitations it is not, in most respects, a
  hard science or veritable science.
• Therefore, be a conscious thinker, neither
  unconscious nor overconscious about the
  scientific nature of the political research.

11
Methods in Political Science

• Experimental Method
• Statistical Method
• Comparative Method
• Case Study Method

12
Similarities

• All these methods aim at scientific
• explanation, which consists of two basic
  elements
• the establishment of general empirical
  relationships among two or more variables, while
• all other variables are controlled or held
  constant.

13
Differences

• The experimental method uses two equivalent
  groups, one of which is exposed to a stimulus
  while the other (control group) is not. The two
  groups are then compared, and any difference can
  be attributed to the stimulus. For the
  experimental method to be performed effectively,
  three conditions must be satisfied random
  selection of sample, causal variables and lab
  setting are all controlled for. The experimental
  method is the most ideal method for scientific
  explanation, but can rarely be used in political
  science because of the inability to control
  variables and other practical and ethical
  problems.

14
Differences

• The statistical method as an alternative to the
  experimental method refers to the mathematical
  manipulation of empirically observed data, but
  cannot manipulate it situationally as in
  experimental design. It handles the problem of
  control by means of partial correlations, but it
  has less ability to control for all the known or
  unknown variables.

15
Differences

• The comparative method resembles the statistical
  method in all respects except one. The crucial
  difference is that the number of cases it deals
  with is too small to permit systematic control by
  means of partial correlations. There is no clear
  dividing line between the two the difference
  depends entirely on the number of cases -- the
  statistical method can be applied to many cases,
  and the comparative method to relatively few (but
  at least two) cases.

16
Differences

• The case study method is in general applied to
  one single case, though certain types of case
  study can and should be connected with the
  comparative or statistical method. Its advantage
  is that case can be examined intensively by
  focusing on a single case, whereas its
  disadvantage is that a single case can constitute
  neither the basis for a valid generalization nor
  the ground for disproving an established
  generalization.

17
Advantages and Disadvantages

• The experimental method has the great merit of
  providing a strong basis for testing hypotheses
  and strong criteria for eliminating rival
  explanations through experimental control, but it
  is impossible to generate appropriate
  experimental data for most topics relevant to
  international studies or comparative politics.

18
Advantages and Disadvantages

• The statistical method has the merit of assessing
  rival explanations through the weaker but still
  valuable procedure of statistical control, but it
  is often not feasible to collect a sufficient
  large set of reliable data to do international
  and comparative studies.

19
Advantages and Disadvantages

• The case study method has the merit of allowing
  the scholar with limited time and resources to
  assess one case in rich detail and with care, but
  the opportunities for systematically testing
  hypotheses are far more limited than with the
  other methods. Yet case studies do make a
  contribution, and Lijphart offers different ways
  case studies can be used in forming and testing
  theories.

20
Advantages and Disadvantages

• The comparative method has an intermediate status
  on both of his criteria. It provides a weaker
  basis than the experimental or statistical method
  for evaluating hypotheses, specifically because
  of the many variables, small-N problem. Yet it
  offers a stronger basis for evaluating hypotheses
  than do case studies.

21
Two basic research designs

• The most similar systems design is based upon a
  belief that systems constitute the most optimal
  samples for comparative analysis, a number of
  theoretically significant differences will be
  found among similar systems, and these
  differences can be used in the explanation. The
  commonalities among the similar systems are
  considered irrelevant variables that need to be
  eliminated from the explanation. The unit of
  analysis here is the system level.

22
Two basic research designs

• The most different systems design is based upon a
  belief that in spite of intersystemic
  differentiation, individuals constitute the most
  optimal samples for comparative analysis, and
  they differ with regard to only a limited number
  of variables, which can be used in the
  explanation. Intersystemic factors are considered
  irrelevant and need to be eliminated from the
  explanation, at least in the initial stage. The
  unit of analysis is the individual level.
• This design is considered preferable to the other
  design in comparative social inquiry, because in
  this design the sample size can be big, the
  problems of small-N and causal
  overdetermination can be reduced, statistical
  techniques such as regression analysis can be
  utilized.

23
Differences between the Two Designs
24
Similarities between the Two Designs

• 1. Both seek to identify causal variables
  related to the dependent variable through
  covariation between Xi and Y and eliminate
  those irrelevant variables through the lack of
  covariation.
• Examples
• Covariation
• (Xi) Civil Society? (Y) democratic transition?
• (Xi) education? (Y) income?
• (Xi) education? (Y) support to democracy?
• Students to give more examples
• Lack of covariation
• Higher degree of authoritarian culture ? ?
  Lower support to democracy ?
• Students to give more examples
• 2. Both try to maximize the number of irrelevant
  variables to be eliminated, which means that
  relevant variables can be established for the
  causal explanation or to determine which
  variables are causally related to the dependent
  variable!