Copyrighted material

Transcription

1 Contents Lists of Figures, Tables and Boxes Preface to the Fourth Edition Notes on Contributors xiii xv xvi 1 Introduction 1 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker What is politics? What is it that political scientists study? 7 What is a scientific approach to politics? 9 The discipline of political science: a celebration of diversity? 11 PART 1 THEORY AND APPROACHES Introduction to Part 1 17 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 2 Behavioural Analysis 20 David Sanders The rise of the behavioural movement and its core characteristics 21 Criticisms of the behavioural approach 25 Objections to the positivist claim that statements which are neither definitions (useful tautologies) nor empirical are meaningless 25 The tendency towards mindless empiricism 26 The assumed independence of theory and observation 28 The strengths of the behavioural approach: an example 30 Conclusion: the behavioural legacy in the twenty- first century 37 Further reading 38 3 Rational Choice 39 Andrew Hindmoor and Brad Taylor Introduction 39 The methods of economics (and rational choice) 40 The logic of collective action 43 Collective action and the environment 46 What s wrong with rational choice theory? 48 From imperialism to peaceful co-existence 52 Conclusion 52 Further reading 53 v

2 vi Contents 4 Institutionalism 54 Vivien Lowndes The traditional institutional approach 55 The emergence of the new institutionalism 57 The three new institutionalisms 58 Core features of new institutionalism 59 Institutions as rules not organisations 60 Institutions as informal as well as formal 61 Institutions as dynamic as well as stabilising 62 Institutions as embodying values and power 62 Institutions as contextually embedded 63 New institutionalist dilemmas 64 What is an institution anyway? 64 Where do institutions come from, and how do they change? 67 Are the normative and rational choice approaches compatible? 70 Conclusion 73 Further reading 74 5 Constructivism and Interpretive Theory 75 Craig Parsons Origins of constructivism 76 What is and isn t distinctive about constructivism? 78 Variations within constructivism 83 Epistemological variations 83 Different mechanisms and different social constructs 85 Different methods 87 Conclusion 90 Further reading 91 6 Feminist and Gendered Approaches 92 Meryl Kenny and Fiona Mackay What is feminism? 92 Political science: gendered foundations 93 Women in political science 96 Gender and political science 97 Political representation 102 Feminising political parties 103 Gendering the state and state feminism 104 Dilemmas and challenges 105 Conclusion 107 Further reading 107

3 Contents vii 7 Marxism: A Global Perspective 109 Ray Kiely Marxism and capitalism: structuralist economism or agency-led contingency? 110 Marxist economism and base and superstructure 110 Marx and capitalism 112 Marxism, capitalism and nationalism 114 Marxism and globalisation: economistic unilinearity or contingent uneven development? 115 Marxist economism and capitalist diffusion 115 Marx and the unequal international order 116 Marxism, imperialism and uneven development as dependency 118 Marxism and hegemony: the significance of Gramsci 119 Debating globalisation in the twenty-first century 120 Contemporary globalisation defined 120 The continued relevance of Marxist ideas I: globalisation as uneven and combined development 121 The continued relevance of Marxist ideas II: hegemony and the international order 122 Conclusion 123 Further reading Poststructuralism 125 Mark Wenman French structuralism 127 From structuralism to poststructuralism 129 Poststructuralism in politics and international relations 130 The ontological and epistemological assumptions of poststructuralism 133 Criticism and evaluation 137 Conclusion 140 Further reading Political Psychology 142 Frank Mols and Paul t Hart An interdisciplinary enterprise 142 Political conflict and contention 144 Political leadership and followership 146 Who leads matters 147 How groups create leaders, and leaders gain followers 147 Political beliefs and voter attitudes 151 Perceiving the political world 151

4 viii Contents Causes and consequences of political attitudes 152 Radicalisation and extremism: pathology or politics? 152 Understanding political decision-making 154 From homo economicus to homo psychologicus 154 Groups as asset or problem in policy decision-making? 155 Methods and prospects of the field 155 Further reading Normative Political Theory 158 Chris Armstrong Introduction 158 Methods in normative political theory 159 Rawls on reflective equilibrium 159 Cohen on facts and values 162 Normative theory and global justice 164 Political ideals and feasibility 166 Further reading 170 PART 2 METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN Introduction to Part Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 11 A Skin Not a Sweater : Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science 177 David Marsh, Selen A. Ercan and Paul Furlong Ontology and epistemology introduced 178 The meaning of ontology and epistemology (and methodology) 178 The relationship between ontology and epistemology 179 Distinguishing ontological and epistemological positions 181 Distinguishing broad ontological positions 182 Distinguishing broad epistemological positions 183 Interrogating different approaches to ontology and epistemology 185 Positivism 186 Interpretivism 189 Critical realism 193 Ontology and epistemology in empirical research 194 Empirical research on deliberative democracy positivism versus interpretivism 195 Conclusion 197 Further reading 198

5 Contents ix 12 Meta-Theoretical Issues 199 David Marsh Conceptualising structure, agency and the ideational realm 200 Structure 201 Agency 202 The ideational realm 204 Dialectical approaches to the relationships between structure and agency and the material and the ideational 204 Structure and agency: the dialectical approaches 204 Structuration theory 205 The Morphogenetic approach 205 The strategic-relational approach 206 Bourdieu and habitus 208 The material and the ideational: thin and thick constructivism 209 Stability and change 211 Hay: a linear conception of time 212 Tonkiss: a non-linear conception of time 212 A flexi-time model: a circadian conception of time 213 More on punctuated evolution 213 Conclusion 217 Further reading Research Design 219 Dimiter Toshkov What is research design? 219 The research process 220 The elements of research design 222 Research questions and research goals 222 Theory and empirical research 225 Conceptualisation and operationalisation 227 Types of research methodologies 228 Case and variable selection for different types of research 230 Experimental research 230 Large-N observational research 232 Comparative research 233 Single-case studies and within-case analysis 234 Conclusion: the power and promise of research design 235 Further reading Qualitative Methods 237 Ariadne Vromen Debates on qualitative methods: the rediscovery of qualitative analysis 237 What is distinctive about qualitative methods and analysis? 243

6 x Contents Qualitative research techniques 244 Primary research: interviews, group discussion and ethnography 246 Secondary research: using text/document-based techniques 249 Conclusion: the use and future use of qualitative methods in political science 252 Further reading Quantitative Methods 254 Peter John The collection and management of data 255 The power of description 257 Tables and inferential statistics 259 Multivariate analysis 261 Testing and reporting models 265 Recent developments 268 Conclusion 269 Further reading The Comparative Method 271 Matt Ryan Introduction 271 Comparative politics and comparative method politics beyond the armchair? 271 Comparative method and the scientific method why small-n research strategies? 272 Mill s methods of experimental inquiry and their influence on comparative political science 274 Method of agreement 274 Method of difference 276 Joint method 277 Most different and most similar strategies 279 The changing nature of comparative research strategies qualitative comparative analysis 280 Case studies, within-case comparison and process-tracing 284 Case selection 284 Within-case analysis 286 Conclusion: evolving comparison in response to challenges 288 Further reading The Experimental Method 290 Helen Margetts and Gerry Stoker What is the experimental method? 290 The rise of experimentation 292 Learning from laboratory experiments 293

7 Contents xi Learning from field experiments 296 Learning from internet-based experiments 297 Learning from natural experiments 299 Pitfalls in the experimental method 300 Ethical challenges 300 Practical problems 302 Conclusion 304 Further reading 305 Acknowledgements Big Data: Methods for Collection and Analysis 306 Michael J. Jensen Introduction 306 Defining big data 307 Big data and data collection 309 Data formats 310 Extensible markup language (XML) 310 Application programming interfaces (APIs) 311 Web crawling 313 Web scraping 314 Big data and data analysis 315 Combining heterogeneous kinds of data 317 Limitations to big data 317 Conclusion: big data and the future of social science 318 Further reading The Relevance of Political Science 321 Gerry Stoker, B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre Position 1: political science should do good science and if the science is good it will be relevant 322 Position 2: political science should be better at communicating its results; if it were it would be more relevant 323 Position 3: political science should be prepared to have its agenda set by problem-solving or puzzle-solving concerns that matter to policymakers and citizens; if it did it would be more relevant 324 Position 4: political science should be prepared to develop a capacity not just for analysing problems but also for developing solutions; that move would enhance its capacity for relevance 325 Position 5: political science needs to develop a more engaged co-production approach to research, working alongside actors outside academia to address their concerns and so advance the relevance of research 327

8 xii Contents Position 6: political science needs to embrace a wider role in creating a civic culture essential to democracy; if it does that it will be relevant 328 Where next for relevance? 330 Bibliography 332 Index 380

9 Chapter 1 Introduction VIVIEN LOWNDES, DAVID MARSH AND GERRY STOKER This book introduces the theories and methods that political scientists use, which we think tells us a great deal about the nature of political science. To us, political science is best defined in terms of what political scientists do. Of course, there are thousands of political scientists around the world and we have tried to capture and clarify the variety of ways they seek to understand, explore and analyse the complex processes of politics in the modern era. We are interested in how they differ in their approach, but also in what they share. Our book identifies nine approaches used by political scientists and then explores some of the specific research methods, which are used in different combinations by scholars from these different approaches. All disciplines tend to be chaotic, to some extent, in their development (Abbott, 2001) and political science is certainly no exception. However, we would argue that the variety of approaches and debates explored in this book are a reflection of its richness and growing maturity. When trying to understand something as complex, contingent and chaotic as politics, it is not surprising that academics have developed a great variety of approaches. For those studying the discipline for the first time, it may be disconcerting that there is no agreed approach or method of study. Indeed, as we shall see, there is not even agreement about the nature of politics itself. But, we argue that political scientists should celebrate diversity, rather than see it as a problem. The Nobel Prize winner Herbert Simon makes a powerful case for a plurality of approaches, which he sees as underpinning the scientist s commitment to constant questioning and searching for understanding: I am a great believer in pluralism in science. Any direction you proceed in has a very high a priori probability of being wrong; so it is good if other people are exploring in other directions perhaps one of them will be on the right track. (Simon, 1992: 21) Studying politics involves making an active selection among a variety of approaches and methods; this book provides students and researchers with the capacity to make informed choices. However, whatever your choice, we hope to encourage you to keep an open mind and consider whether some other route might yet yield better results. 1

10 2 Introduction The study of politics can trace its origins at least as far back as Plato (Almond, 1996); as such, it has a rich heritage and a substantial base on which to grow and develop. More specifically, it has been an academic discipline for just over a century; the American Political Science Association was formed in 1903 and other national associations followed. As Goodin and Klingemann (1996) argue, in the last few decades the discipline has become a genuinely international enterprise. Excellent and challenging political science is produced in many countries and this book reflects the internationalisation of the discipline in two senses. First, we have authors who are based in the UK, elsewhere in Europe, the USA and Australia. Second, many of the illustrations and examples provided by authors offer up experiences from a range of countries, or provide a global perspective. Our authors draw on experiences from around the world and relate domestic political science concerns to those of international relations. This makes sense in an ever more globalised world. The increasing influence of global forces in our everyday lives makes globalisation a central feature of the modern era. Debates about collective decisions which we observe at the international, national and local levels take place through a dynamic of governance (Chhotray and Stoker, 2009). In the world of governance, outcomes are not determined by cohesive, unified nation states or formal institutional arrangements. Rather, they involve individual and collective actors both inside and beyond the state, who operate via complex and varied networks. In addition, the gap between domestic politics and international relations has narrowed, with domestic politics increasingly influenced by transnational forces. Migration, human rights, issues of global warming, pandemics of ill-health and the challenges of energy provision cannot, for example, be contained or addressed within national boundaries alone. A new world politics (different from international relations ) is emerging, in which non-state actors play a vital role, alongside nation states (Cerny, 2010). The study of world politics is not a separate enterprise, focused on the study of the diplomatic, military and strategic activities of nation states. Non-state and international institutions, at the very least, provide a check to the battle between nation states. At the same time, the role of cities and sub-national regions has expanded, as they make links across national borders in pursuit of economic investment in a global marketplace, while seeking also to collaborate in tackling complex governance challenges (such as migration and global warming), which do not themselves respect national boundaries. Indeed, some analysts go as far as to suggest that cities may become the new sovereign in international orders in which both nation states and multilateral bodies are challenged (Barber, 2013; Katz and Bradley, 2013). Moreover, the breadth of the issues to be addressed at the international level has extended into a range of previously domestic concerns, with a focus on financial, employment, health, human rights and poverty reduction issues. At the same time, the nature of politics at the international

11 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 3 level has become more politically driven, through bargaining, hegemonic influence and soft power rather than driven solely by military prowess and economic strength, although the latter remain important. However, the questions to be asked about politics at local, national and global levels are fundamentally the same. How is power exercised to determine outcomes? What are the roles of competing interests and identities? How is coordination and cooperation achieved to achieve shared purposes? How are issues of justice and fairness of outcome to be identified and understood? Consequently, the examples and illustrations of the academic study of politics in this book reflect the growing interlinkage of domestic politics and international relations. This book focuses upon the ways of thinking or theorising offered by political scientists and the methods they are using to discover more about the subject at the beginning of the twenty-first century. It is inevitable that the book will neither be fully comprehensive in its coverage of political science, nor able to provide sufficient depth in approaching all of the issues that are considered. Rather, our intention is to provide an introduction to the main approaches to political science and a balanced assessment of some of the debates and disagreements that have characterised a discipline with several thousand years of history behind it, and many thousands of practitioners in the modern world. The book is divided into two broad parts. The chapters in the first part map the broad ways of approaching political science that have had, and are likely to have, a major effect on the development of political science: behaviouralism, rational choice theory, institutionalism, constuctivism, feminism, Marxism, poststructuralism and political psychology (see Table 1.1). Each of the approaches focuses upon a set of issues, understandings and practices that define a particular way of doing political science. We asked each of our authors not simply to advocate their approach, but also to explore criticisms of that approach. In this respect, we hope that each author offers a robust, but self-aware and critical, understanding of his or her way of doing political science. We have also asked authors to provide worked examples of their approach in action within political science. As such, our understanding of theory is neither abstract, nor abstruse. In our experience, students often regard theory as a burden, something that gets in the way of studying real-life politics. We want to show how theory facilitates, rather than obstructs. The approaches discussed in this book show how theory frames new questions and provides important leverage for understanding political puzzles. Theory allows us to see things we wouldn t otherwise see. Each of our approaches could be seen as a different pair of spectacles; when we put them on our focus changes, and different aspects of a phenomenon come into view. Beyond the academy, political science not only influences the world of politics and governance by providing evidence from research, but also has the potential to shape the way in which political actors themselves regard their opportunities and develop their strategies (as reflected, for example, in the influence of rational choice theory on

12 4 Introduction Table 1.1 Approaches to political science Scope of Political Studies Understanding of the Scientific Claim Attitude to Normative Political Theory Behaviouralism Concentrates on processes of politics associated with mainstream politics and government Rational Choice Theory Concerned with conditions for collective action in mainstream political world The generation of general laws and at a minimum the development of theoretical statements that can be falsified. Keen to subject claims to empirical test through direct observation The generation of general laws and in particular laws with predictive power In early phase keen to emphasise difference between the new science and old armchair theorising. Now gives due recognition to the value of political theory Gives recognition to the value of political theory but focus is less on what could be and more on what is feasible Institutionalism Focus is on the rules, norms and values that govern political exchanges, tends to look at institutional arrangements in mainstream political world Constructivism Politics is driven by the meanings that actors attach to their actions and their context. Politics can be broad in scope, reflecting people s diverse world views about what it involves Science is the production of organised knowledge. The best political science is empirically grounded, theoretically informed and reflective Understanding of human activity is inherently different to that of the physical world Keen to make connections between empirical analysis and normative theory Tends towards the view that there is fusion between all types of theorising. Political analysis is essentially contested and has a necessarily normative content Relationship to the Practice of Politics Claims to be value free, neutral and detached Claims to be able to offer value-free expert advice about how to organise politics Keen to make connections, sees itself as working alongside the practitioners of politics A mixed range of responses but tendency is towards wry commentary on the narrative battles of the political world

13 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 5 Psychological approaches Views politics through the lens of the personality and cognition of the individuals who engage in its practice, primarily within the mainstream political world Feminism and gendered approaches A broad process definition that recognises that the personal can be political Marxism Politics is a struggle between social groups, in particular social classes Poststructuralism Politics takes place and achieves impact across a range of social institutions and environments and in a variety of ways How individuals identify and frame the political challenges they face can be studied in a way that allows for theoretical generalisations to be tested by empirical investigation A mixed range of responses to this issue but with strong tendencies towards antifoundational and critical realist perspectives Critical realist: the discovery of below-the-surface forces that guide but do not determine historical events There can be no scientific claim as our experience of reality is intrinsically mediated by language or discourse Tends to view assumptions made about human nature in much political theory as inadequate. Generally not oriented towards normative theory Normative theory, like all aspects of political studies, needs to take gender issues seriously Normative theory is at its most useful when it provides a guide to action: the point is to change the world Some criticise it for ethical relativism. But the approach does sustain a normative critique of power and domination and promotes agonistic theories of democracy Often seeks to offer insights into how politics works and how it could be made to work better Political engagement is strongly part of the feminist impulse Committed to engagement in struggles of suppressed social groups or classes Arguably a major impact through popular culture and a strong capacity to develop a critique of others truth claims

14 6 Introduction many right-wing governments, or of institutional approaches like governance on transnational bodies and development agencies). The final chapter in this first part of the book explores the issue of normative theory, although it is important to recognise that there are normative elements in all approaches. This is one of the most traditional approaches to political science, but it remains relevant today. Political science should be (and is) interested in understanding both what is, usually seen as the empirical dimension, and also what should be, the normative dimension. Further, we agree with Baubock (2008: 40) that empirical research can be guided by normative theory; and normative theory can be improved by empirical research. The distinctiveness of normative theory is clear, but the dialogue between normative theory and the other approaches is crucial. Empirical theorists can benefit from the specification and clarification of arguments provided by normative theory and, in our view, normative theorists need to look to empirical research, as well as hypothetical arguments, to help support their case. Moreover, the emergence of new empirically driven theoretical insights, for example those associated with the governance school (Chhotray and Stoker, 2009), may open up new issues and challenges for normative theory. The second half of the book moves to issues of methodology and research design. We begin, in Chapter 11, by introducing debates about the ontological and epistemological positions which shape our answers to the crucial questions of what we study, how we study it and, most significantly, what we can claim on the basis of our research. These ontological and epistemological positions also underpin what in Chapter 12 we term meta-theoretical issues, specifically, the relationships between structure and agency, the material and the ideational and continuity and change, which cut across all the different approaches. Subsequently, in Chapter 13, we turn to the important question of how we design our research project or programme. Finally, in the last five substantive chapters we examine different research methods. We examine the range of both qualitative and quantitative techniques that are available and how these techniques can be combined in meeting the challenge of research design, before moving on to consider the potential and limitations of the comparative (often cross-national) method for understanding political phenomena. We then turn to two methods which have come to prominence in political science more recently, experimental methods and big data. In an increasingly digital age enormous volumes of data are generated outside the academy and can be used to reveal patterns of human behaviour and interaction that have political significance. The final chapter in the book assesses the utility of political science not in terms of its methods, but by examining whether it has anything relevant to say to policymakers, public servants and, most importantly, citizens. In the remainder of this introductory chapter we aim to provide an analysis of the term political and some reflections on justifications of

15 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 7 the term scientific to describe its academic study. We close by returning to the issue of variety within political science by arguing that diversity should be a cause of celebration rather than concern. What is politics? What is it that political scientists study? When people say they study politics they are making an ontological statement because, within that statement, there is an implicit understanding of what the polity is made up of, and its general nature. They are also making a statement that requires some clarification. In any introduction to a subject it is important to address the focus of its analytical attention. So, simply put, we should be able to answer the question: what is the nature of the political that political scientists claim to study? A discipline, you might think, would have a clear sense of its terrain of enquiry. Interestingly, that is not the case in respect of political science. Just as there are differences of approach to the subject, so there are differences about the terrain of study. As Hay (2002: chapter 2) argues, ontological questions are about what is and what exists. Ontology asks: what s there to know about? Although a great variety of ontological questions can be posed (discussed in Chapters 11 and 12), a key concern for political scientists relates to the nature of the political. There are two broad approaches to defining the political, seeing politics in terms of an arena or a process (Leftwich, 1984; Hay, 2002). An arena definition regards politics as occurring within certain limited arenas, initially involving a focus upon Parliament, the executive, the public service, political parties, interest groups and elections, although this was later expanded to include the judiciary, army and police. Here, political scientists, especially behaviouralists but also rational choice theorists and some institutionalists, focus upon the formal operation of politics in the world of government and those who seek to influence it. This approach to the political makes a lot of sense and obviously relates to some everyday understandings. For example, when people say they are fed up or bored with politics, they usually mean that they have been turned off by the behaviour or performance of those politicians most directly involved in the traditional political arena. The other definition of politics, a process definition, is much looser than the arena one (Leftwich, 2004: 3) and reflects the idea that power is inscribed in all social processes (for example, in the family and the schoolroom). This broader definition of the political is particularly associated with feminism, constructivism, poststructuralism and Marxism. For feminists in particular there has been much emphasis on the idea that the personal is political (Hanisch, 1969). This mantra partly originated in debates about violence against women in the home, which had traditionally been seen as non-political, because they occurred in the private

16 8 Introduction rather than the public realm. Indeed, in the UK at least, the police, historically, referred to such violence as a domestic, and therefore not their concern. The feminist argument, in contrast, was that such violence reflected a power relationship and was inherently political. Marxists have also generally preferred a definition of politics that sees it as a reflection of a wider struggle between social classes in society. Politics in capitalist systems involves a struggle to assert the interest of the proletariat (the disadvantaged) in a system in which the state forwards the interests of the ruling class. Constructivists tend to see politics as a process conducted in a range of arenas, with the main struggles around political identity (hence the focus on identity politics). Poststructuralists take this position further, arguing that politics is not contained within a single structure of domination; rather, power is diffused throughout social institutions and processes, and even inscribed in people s bodies. Process definitions are usually criticised by those who adopt arena definitions, because of what is termed conceptual stretching or the boundary problem (see Ekman and Amnå, 2012; Hooghe, 2014). If politics occurs in all social interactions between individuals, then we are in danger of seeing everything as political, so that there is no separation between the political and the social. The alarm bells might be ringing here since it appears that political scientists cannot even agree about the subject matter of their discipline. Yet our view is that both arena and process definitions have their value; indeed, the relationship between process and arena definitions may be best seen as a duality, that is interactive and iterative, rather than a dualism, or an either/ or (Rowe et al., 2017). Moreover, all of the different approaches to political science we identify would at least recognise that politics is about power and that we need to widen significantly an arena definition of politics. Goodin and Klingemann (1996: 7) suggest that a broad consensus could be built around a definition of politics along the lines: the constrained use of social power. The political process is about collective choice, without simple resort to force or violence, although it does not exclude at least the threat of those options. It is about what shapes and constrains those choices and the use of power and its consequences. It would cover unintended as well as intended acts, and passive as well as active practices. Politics enables individuals or groups to do some things that they would not otherwise be able to do, while it also constrains individuals or groups from doing what they might otherwise do. Although the different approaches to political science may have their own take on a definition of politics, contesting how exactly power is exercised or practised, they might accept Goodin and Klingemann s broad definition. It is clear that politics is much broader than what governments do, but there is still something especially significant about political processes that are, or could be, considered to be part of the public domain. In a pragmatic sense, it is probably true to say that most political scientists tend to concentrate their efforts in terms of analysis and research on the

17 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 9 more collective and public elements of power struggles. But, it is important that we develop a sense of the collective or public arena that takes us beyond the narrow machinations of the political elite. What is a scientific approach to politics? As Goodin and Klingemann (1996: 9) comment, much ink has been spilt over the question of whether, or in what sense, the study of politics is or is not truly a science. The answer largely depends upon how much one tries to load into the term science. If you adopt what they call a minimalist approach the question can be answered fairly straightforwardly, namely that political science is science in the sense that it offers ordered knowledge based on systematic enquiry. There is no reason to doubt that political science in all its forms has achieved, or could achieve, that level of knowledge. But, beyond such a basic agreement, the approaches that we consider in this book take diverse views on the issue of science. What is at stake here is the various ontological and epistemological positions taken by the different approaches. As Marsh, Ercan and Furlong argue in Chapter 11, ontology is concerned with what we can know about the world, and epistemology with how we can know it. There is a fundamental ontological difference between realists (or foundationalists) and constructivists (or anti-foundationalists). The former argue that a real world exists independently of our knowledge of it and can be discovered as such if we use the right methods in the right way. Constructivists, on the other hand, view the world as socially constructed and capable of being interpreted in different ways. Crucial for a constructivist is the idea that there is a double hermeneutic (Giddens, 1987), that is, two levels of understanding. From this perspective, the world is interpreted by the actors (one hermeneutic level), and their interpretation is interpreted by the observer (a second hermeneutic level). For researchers, the aim becomes to explore their own interpretation of the interpretations made by actors about their behaviour. If ontological realists are epistemological positivists rather than critical realists (see Chapter 11), they are concerned to identify causal relationships, developing explanatory, and, most often, predictive models (following natural scientists). Critical realists, in contrast, do not privilege direct observation; rather, they posit the existence of deep structures, which cannot be directly observed but shape the actions of agents. Constructivists can draw upon a long tradition within social and political studies, but it is fair to say that this is an approach of growing importance in the discipline which has seen a growth in research within the interpretivist school (see Chapter 5), alongside broader intellectual currents associated with poststructuralism (see Chapter 8). It is by no means straightforward to divide the various approaches considered in this volume on the basis of their epistemological position.

18 10 Introduction The behavioural and rational choice approaches are those that most obviously claim the positivist position. The former aims to identify general laws about political action/life, while the latter places more of an emphasis on the predictive capabilities of its models. At the same time, the epistemological positions underpinning the different approaches reviewed in this book have been subject to change and development. As Sanders points out in Chapter 2, behaviouralists have increasingly acknowledged the first level of the hermeneutic, acknowledging that an individual s action may reflect the way in which s/he thinks about the world, as much as any external reality. So, in explaining voting behaviour, they would recognise that a voter s subjective perception of his/her class position is as important as his/her objective class position. Nevertheless, a positivist, whether a behaviouralist or a rational choice theorist, does seek to establish causal relationships between political phenomena, which are reproducible and generalisable a position which would be questioned by any constructivist. At the same time, as Marsh, Ercan and Furlong argue in Chapter 11, a positivist has great difficulty in accepting the second level of the hermeneutic, which emphasises that the researcher s interpretation of what s/he discovers is partial, in both senses of the word. Most positivists would defend the idea that a researcher can be objective, with their conclusions unaffected by those partialities. A similarly nuanced stance on epistemological positions is taken by Parsons in relation to constructivist approaches. There are, as Parsons points out in Chapter 5, several different positions within the broad school of constructivism. One view argues that our concern should be with understanding, not explanation, thus challenging the scientific pretensions of positivists. In this view, there is no real world, independent of the social construction of it, for political scientists to study. As such, social science involves an interpretive search to understand the meanings attached to actions, rather than a scientific search for explanation, establishing causal relations between social phenomena. However, other constructivists do not break so sharply with science and causality, allowing for greater dialogue and exchange. Such constructivists would argue that, although action depends on meaning, this does not necessarily imply that there can be no explanation of why certain people do certain things. If we can show that people s action is shaped by meaningful social constructs, then a careful observer can show this to be the case, thus offering an explanation of that action (while being circumspect about the possibility of generalising from the case). Of the other approaches that we cover in the first part of the book it is clear that institutional, psychological and feminist approaches all include scholars who take different ontological and epistemological positions. The psychologists lean towards positivism, but many would be comfortable with the modern behaviouralist position outlined by Sanders (Chapter 2). In contrast, institutionalism and feminism are marked by ontological and epistemological debates, as Lowndes shows in relation to institutionalism in Chapter 4. As for feminism, many contemporary

19 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 11 scholars adopt a constructivist position, while other feminist researchers consider how gender explains political action in a way that would fit with a positivist perspective (see Chapter 6). Poststructuralists, however, see epistemology as prior to ontology, and argue that our experience of reality is intrinsically mediated by language and discourse; as such, we can never get beyond appearances to underlying essences (Chapter 8). We certainly cannot assume that (political) reality takes the form of law-like relationships, nor are there any criteria (following Parsons) to establish the veracity of certain modes of interpretation or interpretations; hence, this is a radical form of constructivism. The critical realist position dominates the Marxist camp (Chapter 7), although it is also evident among historical institutionalists; indeed, both approaches have given some ground to constructivist arguments. We finish this section by emphasising again that the different approaches reviewed in this book have been, and are, subject to change and development. Different parts of the discipline have listened to, and learnt from, each other. We strongly support the idea of further dialogue. The contributions in this book suggest that there may be more common ground than we usually acknowledge. In particular, we would emphasise the need to be sensitive to the importance of meaning in explaining human action, and a willingness to explore arguments in a rigorous empirical manner, where appropriate. The discipline of political science: a celebration of diversity? Read many of the reviews of political science and they agree that political science has become more diverse and more cosmopolitan in character (see, for example, Almond, 1990; Goodin and Klingemann, 1996; and on the social sciences in general, see Della Porta and Keating, 2008). Some of those who pioneered what they called the scientific treatment of the subject expected that the scientific revolution would lead to a unity in the understanding of political science (Weisberg, 1986: 4). There can be little doubt that those ambitions have not been realised; indeed, constructivists would say they can t be realised. There is a basis for some common agreement about what constitutes minimal professional competence, but as Goodin and Klingemann (1996: 6) note, when it comes to judging the value of work beyond some agreed baseline of coherence and craftsmanship the higher aspirations are many and varied. Consequently, there is a de facto plurality of views about the nature of political science endeavour. So, has peace broken out in the political sciences? There is a grudging public acceptance of plurality, but in private there is a quiet war going on. Some positivists are very dismissive of the storytelling approaches of others. Some constructivists imply that philosophical ignorance and

20 12 Introduction naivety about human behaviour are associated with the ambitions of positivist, big data-driven and experimental political science. As James Mahoney and Gary Goertz (2006: ) suggest, when it comes to the cultures of quantitative and qualitative methods each is sometimes privately suspicious or skeptical of the other though usually more publicly polite. Communication across traditions tends to be difficult and marked by misunderstanding. When members of one tradition offer their insights to members of the other community, the advice is likely to be viewed (rightly or wrongly) as unhelpful and even belittling. Our hope is that political science can move from at best grudging acceptance to something closer to a celebration of diversity. We started the chapter with Herbert Simon s argument that, if you are not sure of what the answer is, then there is inherent value in having the option of several paths being travelled at the same time. Beyond this, we can think of three factors to support the case for a plurality of approaches. First, there is evidence of epistemological gain through the richness of approaches. Broadly, as Sanders shows in Chapter 2, behaviouralists have had to rethink and improve their approach under challenge from constructivist perspectives. Equally, as Parsons notes in Chapter 5, constructivists have been encouraged to be more explicit about data collection and methods of analysis under pressure from those coming from a more positivist tradition. Second, although there is a danger of too much plurality in the sense that there could be so many varieties of political science that fragmentation makes effective dialogue impossible such a point has not yet been reached. There is the opportunity to learn from different approaches at present, although this is certainly challenging, given the enormous range and variety of journals, research outputs and books. Of course, part of the aim behind this book is to enable political scientists with different approaches to understand one another better. Perhaps we need more effective rules of engagement. There are implicit shared standards in most work whatever tradition within which we are working but we need to make these more explicit. Good work, whatever its approach, should be clear about its conceptual framing and also transparent, and reflective, about its methods of data collection and analysis. It should frame its arguments in the context of work that has gone before and, where relevant, it should aim to address (or at least engage with) concerns held by stakeholders and actors within society. Our third argument for a plurality of approaches concerns the relevance of political science to the wider world, which is the focus of the final chapter of the book. There are, as noted in Chapter 19, several ways for political scientists to address relevance; but what cannot be avoided is a commitment to addressing it. Political science exists in a society where politics plays a vital role and as such its findings should be made accessible (and of value) to our fellow citizens. At times, it has been argued that political scientists suffer from economist-envy. Because that discipline has a promoted a strong one-size-fits-all approach to

21 Vivien Lowndes, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker 13 understanding policy problems, it has often been more successful in gaining the ear of policymakers (Bowles, 2016). Yet that strength has also proved to be a significant weakness, as the limits to the role of incentives and self-interested behaviour in steering good public policy have been increasingly exposed (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008; Bowles, 2016). Economists perceived capacity to make effective predictions has been challenged, notably in relation to the global financial crisis of 2008 (Wilson, 2015). As political science steps up its commitment to relevance, having a plurality of approaches could be an advantage. Reaching out to a pluralistic world, where there is no one prince, principal or governor as economists tend to imagine seems likely to require a diversity of approaches. We believe that, at this stage in its development, it is important for political science not to depict itself as a small club of like-minded people. Rather, it is a broad church with different starting points and concerns, which also shares a commitment to developing a better understanding of politics. The key challenge is not to launch a campaign for unity, but to argue in favour of diversity, combined with dialogue. Almond (1990, 1996) warns that the discipline should avoid constructing itself into an uneasy collection of separate sects. There is a plurality of methods and approaches out there that should not be denied but, at the same time, there should be interaction between the approaches rather than isolation within an approach. Political science should be eclectic and synergistic; this is why we think it is important to celebrate diversity. We argue that political science is enriched by the variety of approaches that are adopted within the discipline. Each has something of considerable value to offer, but each can benefit from its interaction with other approaches. In giving space to a variety of ways of doing political science, our book aims to provide the essential ingredients for an ongoing exchange that can enable different approaches to gain a baseline understanding of one another. In this introduction we have briefly addressed two questions. What is the scope of political studies? And can it claim the label of science? We conclude that, while political scientists are divided on these issues, there is scope for identifying some common ground. We argue that diversity within the field should be embraced at the present time. Utilising a plurality of approaches is the best way to face up to the challenging task of understanding a core human activity such as politics.

22 Index Abdelal, R., 84 action explanation vs understanding arguments, 78 norms/beliefs and, 85 Adam, B., 213 Adler, E., 79 Adorno, T.W., 145 Affordable Care Act, 325 agency conceptualising, poststructuralist perspective, 137 structure and the concept, 200 Giddens coin analogy, 205, 207 habitus, morphogenetic approach, structuration theory, 205 voluntarism and, 137 Algeria, 116 Almond, G.A., 13, 94, 273 Alsop, A., 328 Altemeyer, R., 145 Althusser, L., 129, 137 altruistic behaviour, accounting for, 49 Amazon Mechanical Turk, 293, 303 American Journal of Political Science, 239 American Political Science Association approval of DA-RT, 267 experimental research section, formation, 2 Perestroika movement, 240, 327 American Political Science Review, 239 Antonsich, M., Apple Inc., 121 Archer, M., 201 2, 205 Arendt, H., 148 Armstrong, C., 19 Armstrong, F., 328 austerity, 42, 71 Australia, 239 Australian Green Party, qualitative study, 247 banality of evil, 148 Bananas, Beaches and Bases (Enloe), 95 Barry, B., 160 Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 264 Bates, D.W., Baubock, R., 6 Bay of Pigs, 155 Bayesian models, 269, 287 Becker, Gary, 42 Beckwith, K., 98 behavioural economics, 154, 331 Behavioural Insights Team, 154 behaviouralism, 17, characteristics and rise of the behavioural movement, criticisms, legacy in the 21st-century, strengths, Bell, S., 202 Bennett, A., 240, 287 Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences (BITSS), 242 Bevir, M., 79, , 225 bias in research results, correcting for, 256 biased sampling, method of agreement and, 276 big data accelerating rate of information production, 306 accessing, 310, 312 analysis, challenges for application of statistical techniques, 269 collection, 309 data formats application programming interfaces (APIs), extensible markup language (XML), web crawling, web scraping,