| Thinking Analytically |  |
|
| Designing Papers | ||
| Hypothesizing | ||
| Synthesizing Political Science | ||
| Drawing (Layering) Papers | ||
| Defining Politics |
| Thinking Analytically | |
|
| Designing Papers | ||
| Hypothesizing | ||
| Synthesizing Political Science | ||
| Drawing (Layering) Papers | ||
| Defining Politics |
Thinking Analytically about Politics, or Doing Political Science
Some definitions of politics are listed, but not until the end of this section. The thinking part is given first, then some advice is offered on doing political science well enough to write something--a paper, an exam. The following textbooks have been favorites of political science students. What makes these texts special is the clarity with which the authors analyze political things and make it possible for people to talk (and write) rationally about matters on which they might feel passionately.
James E. Combs and Dan Nimmo, A Primer of Politics (New
York: Macmillan, 1984).
Alfred de Grazia, Politics for Better or Worse (Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman, 1973).
Neal Riemer and Douglas W. Simon, The New World of Politics
(4th ed.; Alta Loma, CA: Collegiate Press, 1997).
The trick is to separate the is, the ought, and the can be. Here is a tabular synopsis of how they do it.
| what is | what ought to be | what can be |
| seen, observed, counted, witnessed phenomena | ideals, wished-for conditions, ethical statement | programs worked out through consultation and bargaining |
| facts, data | values, norms | chosen activities, application |
| proposition | principle | policy |
| induction--reasoning from information | deduction--reasoning from definitions | abduction--abstracting or eliciting many combinations |
Return to Top |
Thus, they arrive (in Riemer's words) at feasible programs of thought and action (what can be) worked out in the light of the facts (what is) to advance the central values (what ought to be) of individuals, movements, or societies. |
Here we have outstanding professors--as teachers and as authors--sharing their insights into doing political science papers. To find out more of what they have to say, these are the works on which this colloquy is based.
Gabriel A. Almond, "Political Theory and Political Science" in
Ithiel de Sola Pool (ed.), Contemporary Political Science: Toward Empirical
Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp. 13-14.
Charles M. Bonjean and Jan Hullum, "Reasons for Journal Rejection: An
Analysis of 600 Manuscripts," in PS, Fall 1978, pp. 480-483.
David Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: John
Wiley, 1965), pp 6-8.
Eugene J. Meehan, Explanation in Social Science: A System of Paradigm
(Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1968), pp. 24-25.
Neil J. Smelser, Theory of Collective Behavior (New York: Free Press
of Glencoe, 1963), pp. 385-387.
Almond: Select cases for study in order to test hypotheses* about the relations between variables--environmental influences on politics, political influences on the environment, interactions of political variables with each other.
Easton: A hypothesis* is a theory, awaiting confirmation through further testing, which states that two or more things, activities, or events covary under specified conditions. A theory that has been well-confirmed would be called a law. Some synonyms for "theory" would be "proposition" or "generalization."
Smelser: The comparative method--usually systematic comparative analysis--is used in a self-conscious search for control. This method takes two forms, positive and negative: (a) attempts to identify common characteristics of situations in which the variables behave in the way the hypothesis states they should, (b) examination of near-episodes or near-occurrences to discover which characteristics were missing or subcritical when the variables did not react as hypothesized.
Almond: These procedures require and develop differentiation and specification of variables and also assumptions of probability and reflexivity in their relations. To do this, such devices help as classification by type and explicitly separating structure from function, structure from culture, social systems from political systems, empirical properties from normative implications.
Easton: This can be done for cross-national comparisons, subnational comparisons, international-system comparisons, sampling the total universe of politics, contemporary and historical. The scope of a hypothesis* (or theory) refers to the range of subject-matter that it embraces, varying from very limited data to very inclusive. The coherence of a theory refers to the degree of consistency among the component propositions. Thus, theories would fall into three categories: singular generalizations; narrow-gauge and middle-range class types called partial theories; and general theories.
Bonjean and Hullum: Singular generalizations encompass only a very limited body of data and are distinctive because of their relative isolation in the whole web of political generalizations. The foremost reason that social-science manuscripts are rejected for publication is that they are unimportant or insignificant: (1) they add nothing new to knowledge or understanding of the subject; (2) their contribution is so slight that acceptance is not warranted in view of (a) more substantial contributions made elsewhere, and (b) heavy demands on space (time, attention); (3) little or no attempt is made to relate empirical research to a theoretical contribution, or to some social, political, or economic problem more general than the data themselves.
Easton: Narrow-gauge generalizations isolate some part or aspect of behavior in a
political system, less than the whole and yet greater than some isolated
fragment, which experience or intuition suggests is related significantly.
Such a theory seeks to explain why this part of the political system hangs
together in the way it does. Such theories have been developed about such
selected and presumably coherent areas of political life as parties,
organizations, interest groups, legislative behavior, decision-making,
coalitions...
The task of the theorist is to identify sharply the particular aspect or
segment of the political system on which he is focusing and to construct a
body of logically interrelated propositions adequate for explaining behavior
in this area.
Meehan: As a first approximation, an explanation is defined as a way of organizing human experience to show how or why events occur by linking those events to other events according to stipulated rules. The logical calculations possible within the structure provide the warrant for expecting the particular events to occur under specified conditions and at the same time provide the possibility of control in principle over the event through manipulation of the variables. The quality of an explanation can be evaluated in terms of the purposes for which it is used. A weak explanation provides minimal control over a limited part of the environment, control that may be in various degrees unreliable; a strong explanation provides accurate and reliable control over substantial parts of the environment. Usually, forecasts will suffice in cases where the aim as to adapt to the environment rather than to control it.
Bonjean and Hullum: The second reason in order of predominance for which social-science manuscripts are rejected is methodological shortcomings or flaws: (1) findings cannot be generalized because the sample is idiosyncratic or because necessary comparative data are not supplied; (2) the data are inappropriate, insufficient, obsolete, or not enough information is given to assay the data; (3) analysis does not control for relevant variables and--or--plausible alternative explanations are not given/considered; (4) inappropriate or less-appropriate statistical techniques are used.
Easton: A general theory is a type of causal theory which differs from singular generalizations and practical theories, in scope at least, by virtue of its presumed application to the whole of a field of inquiry. In politics, it seeks to illuminate the functioning of political systems in their entirety. The main objectives are variables requiring investigation in all political systems; to specify the relationships among these variables; and to achieve these goals through a set of generalizations that hang together with greater rather than lesser logical coherence and interdependence.
Bonjean and Hullum: Theoretical problems are the third most frequent reason social science manuscripts are rejected: (1) conceptualization lacks cogency; (2) review of the literature is incomplete or interpreted incorrectly; (3) approach is superficial; (4) logical development is marred by incorrect premises or faulty reasoning. ... Other reasons for rejection are (1) poor presentation: (a) technical errors [misspelling, poor grammar, jargon] distract the reader; (b) ideas are poorly organized, arguments lack focus; (c) style is verbose and--or--too much attention is devoted to minor details, so that they are too salient relative to the contribution; and (2) failure to meet editorial criteria: (a) inappropriate topic for the journal [course, discipline]; (b) manuscript is being concurrently reviewed by another journal [course]; (c) manuscript is unacceptable for other reasons--e.g., it has already been published elsewhere.
Return to Top
hypothesis (pl. hypotheses)
* an as-yet unproven assumption that is to be tested through evidence and
scientific methods of inductive or deductive reasoning; also a tentative
conclusion accepted for the moment (as in "a working hypothesis"),
from Edwin M. Coulter, Principles of Politics and Government (6th ed.;
Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark, 1997), p. 292
* an educated guess about relationships in the world, tested by making
systematic observations of the world, from Alan C. Isaak, An Introduction
to Politics (New York: Scott, Foreman, 1987), p. 17
* statement or generalization presented in tentative and conjectural terms,
from Robert J. Jackson and Doreen Jackson, A Comparative Introduction to
Political Science (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997), p. 24
* an initial theory a researcher starts with, to be proven by evidence, from
Michael G. Roskin, Robert L. Cord, James Medeiros, and Walter S. Jones, Political
Science: An Introduction (7th ed.; Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 2000), p. 12
* prediction of a relationship between two or more variables, meant to be
tested to see if true, from John C. Shea, American Government: The
Great Game of Politics (New York: St. Martin's, 1984), p. 475
Return to Top
If the advice above were to be synthesized and presented in a tabular synopsis, this is how it might appear:
|
Grand-Scale |
Middle-Range
|
Narrow-Gauge |
Wild Cards |
|
|
Assumptions |
Change |
Fortuna
|
Gregariousness |
An individual is the universe in miniature.
|
|
Concepts |
Is/Ought/Can Be |
Civil>Military |
Definitions |
Sovereignty |
|
Methods Systematic Comparative Analysis |
Empirical |
Purpose |
Dichotomy X2, X3 |
Don’t alienate the succession. The game goes on. |
|
Skills |
Analysis |
Stochastics |
Discursiveness |
Living within the truth Participant-observer |
|
Contents |
Proposition |
Sources |
Case studies |
Self-fulfilling/self-denying prophecies |
|
Errors [Avoid these] |
Null hypothesis |
Propaganda |
Imposition |
Living within the lie |
Return to Top
Reasoning from the familiar toward the unfamiliar is more acceptable to more people than the reverse process. Accordingly, correspondences, analogies, and metaphors can help someone "get it"--whatever "it" might be. Writing a political science paper could be such an "it." Consider this simile for doing so.
 |
|
||||||||
Return to Top
POLITICS--SOME DEFINITIONS BY POLITICAL SCIENTISTS
Ameringer,
Oscar, in Walter John Raymond, ed., Dictionary
of Politics (Lawrenceville, VA: Brunswick, 1978).
the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign money from the
rich, by promising to protect each from the other.
Brewster, R. Wallace, Government
in Modern Society (2nd ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, l963), p.
18. the process of determining and
applying public policy. It involves
the establishment of constitutional foundations for the government, the forming
of governmental authority, the selection of officials, the determination of what
laws and regulations are to be enacted, and the use of discretion in applying
the law.
Calvert, Peter, Politics,
Power and Revolution (New York: St. Martin’s, 1983).
the art of getting others to do the things you want them to do…what
governments do to rule people, and what people do to try to influence their
government.
Coulter, Edwin M., Principles of Politics and Government (6th ed.;
Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark, 1997), p. 295. ... the peaceful
resolution of public conflicts through compromise; a process involving
governmental attention to relevant opinions and their conciliation through
temporary law
Crick, Bernard, In
Defence of Politics (Baltimore: Pelican, 1964), p. 21.
the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are
conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to
the welfare and the survival of the whole community.
Dahl, Robert A., Modern
Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 6.
any persistent pattern of human relationships that involves, to a
significant extent, power, rule, or authority.
Danziger, James N., Understanding the Political World: A
Comparative Introduction to Political Science (New York: Addison Wesley
Longman, 2001), p. 461. ...the process through which power and influence are
used in the promotion of certain values and interests, the determination of who
gets what, when, and how in a given society
de Grazia, Alfred, Eight
Bads—Eight Goods: The American
Contradictions (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1975), p. xii.
…the bizarre and frightening world…where leaders don’t lead,
officials do not execute, constitutions do not specify, governments do not
govern, and the public cannot find itself.
Dunner,
Joseph, ed., Dictionary of Political
Science (New York: Philosophical Library, 1964),
an activity which expresses the wills and interests of individuals in the
ordering of their public affairs. The
term is derived from the Greek word polis
(or city-state). The objective of
politics (or man’s political activities) is policy, i.e., a certain conduct of
public affairs.
Easton, David, The
Political System (New York: Knopf, 1953), pp. 129, 146.
the authoritative allocation of values for a society as it is influenced
by the distribution and use of power.
Gerth, H. H., and C. Wright Mills, eds., Max Weber
(London: Routledge, 1948), p. 78. striving
to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among
states or among groups within a state.
Hillman, Sidney, quoted in Herbert M.
Baus and William B. Ross, Politics Battle
Plan (New York: Macmillan, 1968), p. 1.
the science of how who gets what, when and why.
(Isa 4) the process in any society which decides who receives the benefits and
who pays the costs of society)
Iyer, Raghavan, Politics
and Parapolitics (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979), p. 23.
the self-conscious articulation and continuous pursuit by human beings of
shared or common (yet controvertible) ends in a civil society by a variety of
means, ranging from coercive sanctions to rational persuasion and voluntary
co-operation. A civil society is a historical and geographical collection
of individuals organized in accordance with a set of laws and rules, at least
some of which are equally binding upon all.
Jackson, Robert J. and Doreen Jackson, A Comparative
Introduction to Political Science (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1997), p. 7. ... all activity which impinges upon the making of
binding decisions about who gets what, when, and how; an activity through which
contending interests are conciliated and differences are expressed and
considered
Lasswell, Harold D., Politics:
Who Gets What, When, How (New York: Meridian, 1958), cover, title
page. who gets what, when how…
Lawson, Kay, The Human Polity (5th ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1999), p. G-9. ... process that determines who will occupy roles of
leadership in government and how the power of government will be exercised, the
authoritative allocation of scarce resources throughout a polity.
Merkle, Peter H., Political
Continuity and Change (New York: Harper, 1967). …a noble quest for good order and justice; at its worst, a
selfish grab for power, glory and riches.
Milbrath, Lester W., Political
Participation (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), pp. 1, 2.
the adjustment efforts of humans attempting to coexist in an
interdependent relationship…the process by which decisions about governmental
outcomes are made.
Miller, David, ed., The
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press,
1987). a process whereby a group of
people, whose opinions or interests are initially divergent, reach collective
decisions which are generally regarded as binding on the group, and enforced as
common policy. Politics implies
something about the way in which collective decisions are reached.
Persuasion and bargaining are frequently unedifying activities, typically
involving deception of opponents and sacrifice of principle for political
advantage. Politics implies,
though, that the decision reached, in however underhand a way, is regarded as
authoritative by the group in question. Although
politics is unthinkable without authority, it is in practice inseparable from
power, the imposition of decisions on recalcitrant members.
Oakshott, Michael, Political
Education (Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes, 1951), p. 8.
the activity of attending to the general arrangements of a set of people.
Oakshott, Michael, Rationalism
in Politics (New York: Basic Books, 1962), p. 123.
the activity of attending to the general arrangements of a collection of
people who, in respect of their common recognition of a manner of attending to
its arrangements, compose a single community.
To suppose a collection of people without recognized traditions of
behaviour, or one which enjoyed arrangements which intimated no direction for
change, and needed no attention, is to suppose a people incapable of politics.
Raphael, R. R., Problems
of Political Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1970), p. 28. the expression
of demands and wants and the process through which resources are allocated among
various groups on whose behalf these demands are made.
Raymond, Walter John, ed., Dictionary of Politics (Lawrenceville, VA: Brunswick, 1978).
those interactions among individuals and institutions which are employed
to design and to implement ways and means of governing an organized society.
Roberts, Geoffrey K., A Dictionary of Political Analysis (New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1971), p. 169. ...the process in a social
system--not necessarily confined to the level of the national state--by which
the goals of that system are selected, ordered in terms of priority both
temporally and concerning resource allocation, and implemented. It thus
involved both organization and the resolution of conflict, by means of the
exercise of political authority and, if necessary, coercion.
Rustow, W. W., Politics
and the Stages of Growth (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971), p. 17.
a limited arena of endless confrontation, where conflicting and
ever-changing interests and impulses, derived from the national society and the
world society, press in for reconciliation and decision through changing rules
and routes.
Spiro, Herbert J., Politics
as the Master Science: From Plato
to Mao (New York: Harper, 1970), p. 49.
the process by which a human community, as small as two persons or as
large as the community of mankind, deals with its problems.
Van Dyke, Vernon, Political
Science: A Philosophical Analysis
(Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1960), p. 134. 1) activity occurring within and among groups 2) which
operate on the basis of desires that are to some extent shared, 3) as essential
feature of the activity being a struggle of actors 4) to achieve their desires
5) on questions of group policy, group organization, group leadership, or the
regulation of intergroup relationships 6) against the opposition of others with
conflicting desires on public issues.
Wright, Quincy, in Vernon Van Dyke, Political Science: A
Philosophical Analysis (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1960).
the art of influencing, manipulating, or controlling major groups in the
world so as to advance the purpose of some against the opposition of others with
conflicting interests.
Zadrozny, John T., Dictionary
of Political Science (Wash., D.C.: Public Affairs, Press, 1959).
1) the exercise of power over others; 2) the methods which are intended
to influence the decisions and actions of others.
Return to Top
