APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

The term ‘approach’ is used to understand the focus of studying something (i.e.
what to enquire) as well as the method of studying it (i.e. how to enquire). An approach
consists of the criteria for selecting problems and relevant data. Methods are procedures for
getting and utilising data.

The study of political science has a very long tradition and there are numerous
approaches to the study of the discipline. Broadly speaking, the approaches which remained
largely in use until the end of the Second World War (1939-45) are described as traditional
approaches. Approaches which were developed after that are often known as contemporary
approaches.

TRADITIONAL APPROACH

The traditional study of political science was dominated by the study of

philosophy, history, law and institutions. According to the traditional view, political science
is a study of the state in its past, present and future aspects. In other words, in the scope of
this subject, we study the state as it has been, as it is and as it may be (or should be). In the
study of the state as it has been in the past, a political scientist looks like a historian
concerned with the origin and evolution of authority. In the study of the state in relation to
the present, the main concern is with political institutions as they exist. Hence, historical,
legal, institutional and philosophical approaches to the study of politics represent the main
traditional approaches.

Historical Approach

The term ‘historical approach’ to politics may be used in two senses. Firstly, it
may denote the process of arriving at the laws governing politics through an analysis of
historical events - that is events of the past. In the second place, historical approach stands for
an attempt to understand politics through a historical account of political thought of the past.
Each political theory is developed in response to some specific situation. It is necessary to
understand the circumstances under which a particular theory was produced, for
understanding its relevance to the present situation. Moreover, any political theory is not only
a product of history; it also served as an instrument of moulding history by its ideological
force. However all great political theories are valid for all times.

1
 Critics of the historical approach point out that it is not possible to understand
ideas of the past ages in terms of the contemporary ideas and concepts. Moreover, ideas of
the past are hardly any guide for resolving the crises of the present-day world which were
beyond comprehension of the past thinkers. However, the recent revival of interest in values
has again led to a renewed interest in the rich heritage of political thought for developing
guiding principles for our own age.

Legal Approach

The legal approach is an attempt to understand politics in terms of law. It focuses

its attention on the legal and constitutional framework in which different organs of
government have to function. It inquires into their respective legal position, their powers and
the procedure which makes their actions legally valid. For eg. the legal approach to Indian
politics will proceed to analyse legal implications of various provisions of the Indian
Constitution, duly documented by the decisions of the Supreme Court of India as well as by
the opinions of legal luminaries, procedure of formation and legal position of the two Houses
of the Indian Parliament and State legislatures, procedure of election or appointment, powers
and position of the President, Prime Minister, Governors, Chief Ministers, Central and state
cabinets,etc., role and powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts; position of
fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy, etc. Similarly, the legal approach
to international politics will largely tend to analyse it in terms of the requirements of
international law.

The legal approach may be inadequate to understand the complex political forces,
processes and behaviour which might operate outside the legal-formal framework. But it is
not entirely insignificant. In order to become effective and stable all political processes must
begin in legal provisions.

Institutional Approach

The institutional approach is closely related to the legal approach, yet it is

different. Traditionally politics has been defined as the study of the state and government.
Government itself is an institution, and various organs, such as Parliament (legislature),
Cabinet (executive) and Supreme Court (Judiciary), etc. may also be recognised as
institutions. Political parties, family, school, church or club are also institutions. A student of
politics will be interested only in those institutions which have a direct impact on politics.

2
 So what is an institution? In short, an institution is a set of offices and agencies
arranged in a hierarchy, where each office or agency has certain functions and powers. Each
office or agency is manned by persons with definite status and role; other persons also expect
them to perform this role. The activities of an institution are not restricted to its office-
bearers. Accordingly the upholders of the institutional approach proceed to study the
organisation and functioning of government, its various organs, political parties and other
institutions affecting politics. Classification of governments, starting from Aristotle,
identification of levels of government as well as branches of government, composition and
powers of each of these and their inter-relationships, etc. are the main concerns of this
approach.

However, this approach is strongly criticised for its focus on institutions,

neglecting individuals and groups in society as well as the social processes that have an
impact on politics. It relies more on description than on explanation. But institutions form a
very important part of politics. Any discussion of politics without reference to the
corresponding institutions will lead us nowhere. Moreover, in the present-day turmoil,
particularly in the Third World, constitution-making and institution-building is the order of
the day. Institutional approach is not enough in itself. But any other approach will also be
incomplete without paying due attention to institutions.

Philosophical Approach

The philosophical approach is an effort to clarify thought about the nature of the
discipline and about the ends and means in studying it. It is concerned with the clarification
of concepts used in a particular discipline. It also aims at developing ‘standards of right and
wrong’ in order to critically evaluate existing institutions, laws and policies. It focuses on
what major political thinkers said or how they developed their views. Most of the political
thinkers based their philosophy on some idea of ‘human nature’. Political philosophy is the
product of our search for good life and good society. Values as well as facts are indispensable
part of political philosophy. This helps us to undertake a critical analysis of political
institutions and activities. Without such analysis, assumptions regarding political issues will
be only opinions. Political philosophy seeks to replace opinion by knowledge. The most
important contemporary champion of the philosophical approach to the study of politics –
Leo Strauss has severely criticised the contemporary behavioural approach which insists on
‘value-free analyses’ and thus destroys the essence of true knowledge of politics. However

3
the Philosophical approach is largely criticised for being speculative and normative or based
on values rather than empirical evidence.

BEHAVOURAL APPROACH

Behaviouralism stood for a shift of focus in the study of politics, from the
formalism and normative orientations of the legal and philosophical approaches to a focus on
political behaviour (i.e. the behaviour of actual actors in the political field, such as power-
holders, power-seekers, as well as voters). Behaviouralism came to be understood as
something wider than the study of political behaviour. Yet political behaviour was its main
focus. The understanding was that the institutions of the state and government are in fact
influenced by the behaviour of individuals and groups. Moreover, political behaviour needed
to be studied in a scientific manner to make Political Science and empirical discipline like
that of the natural or physical sciences.

Behaviouralism, or the behavioural approach to the analysis and explanation of

political phenomena, is particularly associated with the work of American political scientists
after the Second World War. They had come to be dissatisfied with the traditional approach
to the study of Political Science.

But its origins may be traced back to the formation of the American Political
Sciense Association in 1903 which began to focus more on the impact of non-governmental
organisations on government activities as well as on scientific methods of study. The works
of Graham Wallas (Human Nature in Politics) and Arthur Bentley (The Process of
government), both published as early as 1908 were again major contributions to the origins of
the Behavioural approach. Both of them sought to lay greater emphasis on individuals and
groups as well as their behaviour and the informal processes of politics and less on political
institutions alone. They felt that the political process could be understood only by analysing
as to how people actually behaved in a political situation, not merely by speculating on how
they should or would behave. Greatly inspired by Sociology, they proceeded to undertake a
study of the roles of pressure groups, political parties, elections and public opinion in the
political process. They also gave importance to the scientific study of Political Science.

Charles E. Merriam was another pioneer of the behavioural approach and is often
known as the intellectual Godfather of Behaviouralism. He is also famous as the founder of

4
the Chicago School which made a major contribution to the behavioural movement. In his
article, ‘The Present State of the Study of Politics’ published in American Political Science
Review (1921) and in his book New Aspects of Politics (1925) Merriam called upon political
scientists to look at political behaviour as one of the essential objects of study.

Despite these early attempts, behaviouralism in political science was

systematically developed only after the Second World War. Other factors that contributed to
the development of behaviouralism was the growing dissatisfaction among political scientists
with the methods of enquiry of the Traditional approach; the increasing involvement of
Political Scientists in government funded scientific research projects in the United States on
containing Communism; the financial assistance for such research provided by major non-
governmental research organisations; the emergence of political sociologists and scholars like
Harold Laswell, Arthur Bentley, Robert Dahl, etc. who focused on sociological studies in
political science; the development of scientific research methods such as survey, interview,
case study, questionnaire, etc. in political science.

Political scientists who undertook the study of political behaviour sought to

explain the psychological and social influences on the behaviour of the individual in a
political situation. This involved the study of such processes and factors as political
socialisation, political ideologies, political culture, political participation, political
communication, leadership, decision-making and even political violence. An understanding
of most of these processes involved interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research. In any
case, behaviouralism as a movement in political science did not remain confined to the study
of individual-based political behaviour, but developed into a set of orientations, procedures
and methods of analysis. In practice, it gave a scientific character to modern political science.

Basic characteristics of Behaviouralism:

The following are some of the basic characteristics of Behaviouralism:

a. Movement of protest: Behaviouralism was a movement of protest against the traditional

approach which lacked scientific rigour and was based on speculation.
b. Focus on behaviour: Behaviouralism focused on the behaviour of actual actors in the
political field including those who hold or seek power as well as the voters.
c. Scientific outlook: Behaviouralism sought to explain the empirical aspects of political life
through the use of theories and scientific methods.

5
d. Methodological revolution: Behaviouralists stressed the use of research techniques such
as observation, interview, survey, case study, etc.
e. Interdisciplinary approach: Behaviouralists stressed the importance of adopting an
interdisciplinary approach to the study of political science.

The Intellectual Foundations of Behaviouralism

According to David Easton, the intellectual foundations of behaviouralism consist of eight

major tenets:

1. Regularities: It implies that there are discoverable uniformities in political behaviour.

These can be expressed in theory-like statements or generalisations as they can explain and
predict political phenomena.
2. Verification: All knowledge must be based on observation and verification. That is, in
order to be valid, knowledge should consist of propositions that may be subjected to
empirical investigations.
3. Techniques: Correct techniques should be adopted for acquiring and interpreting data,
use of research tools or methods which generate valid, reliable and comparative data.
4. Quantification: Data should not only be collected, it should also be measured and
quantified so that the conclusions of a researcher may be verified on the basis of quantified
evidence.
5. Values: The research should be value-free so that the researcher may not be in a position
to examine a political issue from his own subjective standpoint of valuational judgement.
Moral and ethical questions should be avoided in order to give a scientific explanation.
6. Systematisation: It stands for establishing close inter-relationship between theory and
research, because research without theory may prove trivial while theory unsupportable by
data may turn out to be useless.
7. Pure Science: Research should be of a pure type or perfectly verifiable by evidence. The
ultimate aim should be to make social sciences like natural sciences. It holds that the
understanding and explanation of political behaviour is essential to utilise political
knowledge in the solution of urgent practical problems of society.
8. Integration: Since the behaviouralists subscribe to the interdisciplinary approach, they do
not treat political science as a separate or distinct discipline. To them political science is one
of the social sciences and, for this reason, it should be integrated with other social sciences

6
like Sociology, psychology and economics and even with natural sciences like biology and
anthropology. Knowledge should be unified, because it is indivisible.

In essence, behavioural political science (a) rejects the importance given to values
and goals. It focuses on the study of ‘facts’ in the study of this discipline. (b) The area of
politics has widened to include non-political phenomena. (c) It ignores the old descriptive and
prescriptve method. Instead it likes to follow the new techniques of mathematics, statistics,
engineering (like sample survey, multi-variate analysis, game theory, content analysis, etc.)
for presenting conclusions in a ‘scientific’ way.

Any political inquiry conducted according to these guidelines would be

conducive to generate reliable theory and scientific explanations. The behavioural movement
had such a profound effect on political science that these tests became the rule of political
inquiry.

Despite its achievements, the Behavioural approach has been faced with several
criticisms. It has constrained the scope of political analysis, preventing it from going beyond
what was directly observable; Behaviouralists ignored normative values as they were not
empirically verifiable; they gave too much importance to techniques rather than results.
Despite these criticisms, the Behavioural approach was able to give momentum to research in
Political Science in new directions.

7
 POST-BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH

By the mid-1960s behaviouralism gained a dominant position in the methodology

of political science. However, by the end of the 1960s even the exponents of behaviouralism
realised that its strict adherence to ‘pure science’ was responsible for its failure to address the
important social and political issues of the period. In 1969, David Easton himself in his
presidential address to the American Political Science Association, announced a new
revolution in political science – ‘a post-behavioural revolution’ – that represented a shift of
focus from strict methodological issues to a greater concern with public responsibilities of the
discipline and with political problems. It focused on issues of ‘relevance’ and ‘action’; and
reintroduced the importance of values in the study of Political Science.

Relevance and action were the twin slogans of post-behaviouralism. It

represented no complete departure from behaviouralism. Rather it stood for consolidating its
gains and applying them for problem-solving and crisis-management. Easton emphatically
drew the attention of contemporary political scientists to the impending threat of the nuclear
bomb, inner conflicts within the US which might lead to civil war or dictatorship, and
undeclared war in Vietnam which was disturbing moral consciousness all over the world. He
criticised that behavioural political scientists were taking refuge in in their ‘ivory tower’,
seeking to perfect their methodology, as if they were not at all concerned with the outside
world. Emphasising the intellectuals’ historical role in protecting the humane values of
civilisation, Easton warned that if they failed to play this role, they would be reduced to mere
technicians or mechanics for tinkering with society. Reminding them of their responsibility to
reshape society, Easton concluded that scientists could adopt a rational interest in value
construction and application without denying the validity of their science. Accordingly, post-
behaviouralism seeks to reintroduce a concern for values in the behavioural approach itself.
Easton presented the following points which he referred to as the ‘credo of relevance’ to
revise the political science approach of the behavioural approach:

1. Substance over technique: In Political Science research, substance must be given more
importance than techniques: It is more important to be relevant and meaningful for
contemporary urgent problems than to be sophisticated in the tools of investigation.
2. Orientation towards social change: Postbehaviouralists were of the view that political
science research should place its main emphasis on social change rather than social
preservation.

8
3. Relevant research: Research in social sciences must not lose touch with reality. Studies
should not be made abstract or hypothetical. Political science should be able to reach out to
the real needs of mankind.
4. Value oriented research: Studies should not be based only on facts. It should also give
importance to values as far as possible and as necessary. Value judgements need not be
avoided.
5. Political scientists as critical intellectuals: The primary obligation of an intellectual is to
build up an academic discipline and while doing so, protect the human values of civilisation.
6. Action oriented research: It is the duty of intellectuals to know and study the problems,
find solutions to them and be involved in taking action to change society. “To know is to bear
the responsibility for acting and to act is to engage in reshaping society.”
7. Politicisation of the profession: It is the duty of intellectuals to implement the knowledge
that they have gathered. Political scientists should present the knowledge of their discipline in
such a way that it is useful to the administrators of the country. Therefore politicisation of the
profession is inevitable.

Distinction between Behavioural and Post-behavioural approaches:

THE ISSUE BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH POST-BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH

Search for pure knowledge and
Nature of inquiry
theory
‘Knowledge for knowledge sake’;
Purpose of inquiry
not interested in action
Micro-level analysis – focus on
Focus of study small units
Process of decision-making
Attitude towards
Value neutral
values
Attitude towards Interested in status-quo
social change Not interested in social change
Search for applied knowledge and practice
Relevance of knowledge to satisfy social
needs and action for problem-solving
Macro level analysis – focus on the role of
big units
Content of the decision
Value oriented
Interested in social change for solving
social problems