Contents€¦ · · 2017-11-09vi Contents 4 Institutionalism 54 Vivien Lowndes The ‘traditional’ institutional approach 55 The emergence of the ‘new institutionalism’ 57

v

Contents

Lists of Figures, Tables and Boxes xiii

Preface to the Fourth Edition xv

Notes on Contributors 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

Copyrighted material – 9781137603517


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



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 124

8 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 141

9 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



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 157

10 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 2 173 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



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 218

13 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 236

14 Qualitative Methods 237 Ariadne Vromen

Debates on qualitative methods: the rediscovery of qualitative analysis 237

What is distinctive about qualitative methods and analysis? 243



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 253

15 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 270

16 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 289

17 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



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 305

18 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 319

19 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



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



1

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 meth-ods, 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 pro-ceed 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.



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 Asso-ciation 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 exam-ples provided by authors offer up experiences from a range of coun-tries, 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 collec-tive 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 cohe-sive, 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. Migra-tion, 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 emerg-ing, 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 gov-ernance 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 inter-national 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 reduc-tion issues. At the same time, the nature of politics at the international



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 aca-demic 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 inevi-table 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 charac-terised 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 politi-cal science: behaviouralism, rational choice theory, institutionalism, constuctivism, feminism, Marxism, poststructuralism and political psy-chology (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 phenome-non come into view. Beyond the academy, political science not only influ-ences 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



4 IntRoDuCtIon

tab

le 1

.1

App

roac

hes

to p

olit

ical

sci

ence

Scop

e of

Pol

itic

al S

tudi

esU

nder

stan

ding

of

the

Scie

ntifi

c C

laim

Att

itud

e to

Nor

mat

ive

Pol

itic

al T

heor

yR

elat

ions

hip

to t

he

Pra

ctic

e of

Pol

itic

s

Beh

avio

ural

ism

Con

cent

rate

s on

pro

cess

es

of p

olit

ics

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

mai

nstr

eam

pol

itic

s an

d go

vern

men

t

The

gen

erat

ion

of g

ener

al

law

s an

d at

a m

inim

um t

he

deve

lopm

ent

of t

heor

etic

al

stat

emen

ts t

hat

can

be

fals

ified

. Kee

n to

sub

ject

cl

aim

s to

em

piri

cal t

est

thro

ugh

dire

ct o

bser

vati

on

In e

arly

pha

se k

een

to

emph

asis

e di

ffer

ence

bet

wee

n th

e ne

w s

cien

ce a

nd o

ld

arm

chai

r th

eori

sing

. Now

gi

ves

due

reco

gnit

ion

to t

he

valu

e of

pol

itic

al t

heor

y

Cla

ims

to b

e va

lue

free

, neu

tral

and

de

tach

ed

Rat

iona

l Cho

ice

The

ory

Con

cern

ed w

ith

cond

itio

ns

for

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

in m

ain-

stre

am p

olit

ical

wor

ld

The

gen

erat

ion

of g

ener

al

law

s an

d in

par

ticu

lar

law

s w

ith

pred

icti

ve p

ower

Giv

es r

ecog

niti

on t

o th

e va

lue

of p

olit

ical

the

ory

but

focu

s is

less

on

wha

t co

uld

be

and

mor

e on

wha

t is

fea

sibl

e

Cla

ims

to b

e ab

le

to o

ffer

val

ue-f

ree

expe

rt a

dvic

e ab

out

how

to

orga

nise

po

litic

s

Inst

itut

iona

lism

Focu

s is

on

the

rule

s, n

orm

s an

d va

lues

tha

t go

vern

pol

iti-

cal e

xcha

nges

, ten

ds t

o lo

ok

at in

stit

utio

nal a

rran

gem

ents

in

mai

nstr

eam

pol

itic

al w

orld

Scie

nce

is t

he p

rodu

ctio

n of

or

gani

sed

know

ledg

e. T

he

best

pol

itic

al s

cien

ce is

em

-pi

rica

lly g

roun

ded,

the

oret

i-ca

lly in

form

ed a

nd r

eflec

tive

Kee

n to

mak

e co

nnec

tion

s be

twee

n em

piri

cal a

naly

sis

and

norm

ativ

e th

eory

Kee

n to

mak

e co

n-ne

ctio

ns, s

ees

itse

lf

as w

orki

ng a

long

-si

de t

he p

ract

itio

n-er

s of

pol

itic

s

Con

stru

ctiv

ism

Polit

ics

is d

rive

n by

the

m

eani

ngs

that

act

ors

atta

ch

to t

heir

act

ions

and

the

ir

cont

ext.

Pol

itic

s ca

n be

bro

ad

in s

cope

, refl

ecti

ng p

eopl

e’s

dive

rse

wor

ld v

iew

s ab

out

wha

t it

invo

lves

Und

erst

andi

ng o

f hu

man

ac

tivi

ty is

inhe

rent

ly d

iffe

rent

to

tha

t of

the

phy

sica

l wor

ld

Ten

ds t

owar

ds t

he v

iew

tha

t th

ere

is f

usio

n be

twee

n al

l ty

pes

of t

heor

isin

g. P

olit

ical

an

alys

is is

ess

enti

ally

con

-te

sted

and

has

a n

eces

sari

ly

norm

ativ

e co

nten

t

A m

ixed

ran

ge

of r

espo

nses

but

te

nden

cy is

tow

ards

w

ry c

omm

enta

ry o

n th

e na

rrat

ive

bat-

tles

of

the

polit

ical

w

orld




Psyc

holo

gica

l ap-

proa

ches

V

iew

s po

litic

s th

roug

h th

e le

ns o

f th

e pe

rson

alit

y an

d co

gnit

ion

of t

he in

divi

dual

s w

ho e

ngag

e in

its

prac

tice

, pr

imar

ily w

ithi

n th

e m

ain-

stre

am p

olit

ical

wor

ld

How

indi

vidu

als

iden

tify

and

fr

ame

the

polit

ical

cha

lleng

es

they

fac

e ca

n be

stu

died

in

a w

ay t

hat

allo

ws

for

theo

reti

cal g

ener

alis

atio

ns

to b

e te

sted

by

empi

rica

l in

vest

igat

ion

Ten

ds t

o vi

ew a

ssum

ptio

ns

mad

e ab

out

hum

an n

atur

e in

muc

h po

litic

al t

heor

y as

in

adeq

uate

. Gen

eral

ly n

ot

orie

nted

tow

ards

nor

mat

ive

theo

ry

Oft

en s

eeks

to

offe

r in

sigh

ts in

to h

ow

polit

ics

wor

ks a

nd

how

it c

ould

be

mad

e to

wor

k be

tter

Fem

inis

m

and

gend

ered

ap

proa

ches

A b

road

pro

cess

defi

niti

on

that

rec

ogni

ses

that

the

per

-so

nal c

an b

e po

litic

al

A m

ixed

ran

ge o

f re

spon

ses

to t

his

issu

e bu

t w

ith

stro

ng

tend

enci

es t

owar

ds a

nti-

foun

dati

onal

and

cri

tica

l re

alis

t pe

rspe

ctiv

es

Nor

mat

ive

theo

ry, l

ike

all

aspe

cts

of p

olit

ical

stu

dies

, ne

eds

to t

ake

gend

er is

sues

se

riou

sly

Polit

ical

eng

age-

men

t is

str

ongl

y pa

rt o

f th

e fe

min

ist

impu

lse

Mar

xism

Polit

ics

is a

str

uggl

e be

twee

n so

cial

gro

ups,

in p

arti

cula

r so

cial

cla

sses

Cri

tica

l rea

list:

the

dis

cove

ry

of b

elow

-the

-sur

face

for

ces

that

gui

de b

ut d

o no

t de

ter-

min

e hi

stor

ical

eve

nts

Nor

mat

ive

theo

ry is

at

its

mos

t us

eful

whe

n it

pro

vide

s a

guid

e to

act

ion:

the

poi

nt is

to

cha

nge

the

wor

ld

Com

mit

ted

to e

n-ga

gem

ent

in s

trug

-gl

es o

f su

ppre

ssed

so

cial

gro

ups

or

clas

ses

Post

stru

ctur

alis

m

Polit

ics

take

s pl

ace

and

achi

eves

impa

ct a

cros

s a

rang

e of

soc

ial i

nsti

tuti

ons

and

envi

ronm

ents

and

in a

va

riet

y of

way

s

The

re c

an b

e no

sci

enti

fic

clai

m a

s ou

r ex

peri

ence

of

‘rea

lity’

is in

trin

sica

lly m

edi-

ated

by

lang

uage

or

disc

ours

e

Som

e cr

itic

ise

it f

or e

thic

al

rela

tivi

sm. B

ut t

he a

ppro

ach

does

sus

tain

a n

orm

ativ

e cr

i-ti

que

of p

ower

and

dom

ina-

tion

and

pro

mot

es a

goni

stic

th

eori

es o

f de

moc

racy

Arg

uabl

y a

maj

or

impa

ct t

hrou

gh

popu

lar

cult

ure

and

a st

rong

cap

acit

y to

de

velo

p a

crit

ique

of

othe

rs’ t

ruth

cla

ims



6 IntRoDuCtIon

many right-wing governments, or of institutional approaches like gov-ernance 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 onto-logical 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 poten-tial 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, exper-imental 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 politi-cal 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




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 understand-ing 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 disci-pline, 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 defin-ing the political, seeing politics in terms of an arena or a process (Left-wich, 1984; Hay, 2002). An arena definition regards politics as occurring within certain limited ‘arenas’, initially involving a focus upon Parlia-ment, the executive, the public service, political parties, interest groups and elections, although this was later expanded to include the judici-ary, 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 exam-ple, 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 asso-ciated 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 tradi-tionally been seen as ‘non-political’, because they occurred in the private



8 IntRoDuCtIon

rather than the public realm. Indeed, in the UK at least, the police, his-torically, 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. Poli-tics 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 sepa-ration 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 relation-ship between process and arena definitions may be best seen as a dual-ity, 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 defini-tion of politics.

Goodin and Klingemann (1996: 7) suggest that a broad consen-sus 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 indi-viduals 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




more collective and public elements of power struggles. But, it is impor-tant 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 mini-malist 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 Fur-long 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 foundation-alists) 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. Con-structivists, on the other hand, view the world as socially constructed and capable of being interpreted in different ways. Crucial for a con-structivist 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 research-ers, the aim becomes to explore their own interpretation of the interpre-tations made by actors about their behaviour.

If ontological realists are epistemological positivists rather than criti-cal realists (see Chapter 11), they are concerned to identify causal rela-tionships, developing explanatory, and, most often, predictive models (following natural scientists). Critical realists, in contrast, do not privi-lege direct observation; rather, they posit the existence of deep structures, which cannot be directly observed but shape the actions of agents. Con-structivists can draw upon a long tradition within social and political studies, but it is fair to say that this is an approach of growing impor-tance in the discipline which has seen a growth in research within the interpretivist school (see Chapter 5), alongside broader intellectual cur-rents 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.



10 IntRoDuCtIon

The behavioural and rational choice approaches are those that most obviously claim the positivist position. The former aims to identify gen-eral 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 behav-iour, they would recognise that a voter’s subjective perception of his/her class position is as important as his/her objective class position. Never-theless, 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 research-er’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 pre-tensions 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 mean-ings 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, allow-ing 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 cer-tain 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 com-fortable 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




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 interpreta-tions; 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 empha-sise the need to be sensitive to the importance of meaning in explain-ing 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 politi-cal 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 com-petence’, 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’. Conse-quently, 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



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: 227–228) 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 pub-licly 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, con-structivists have been encouraged to be more explicit about data collec-tion 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 fragmenta-tion 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) con-cerns held by stakeholders and actors within society.

Our third argument for a plurality of approaches concerns the rel-evance 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




understanding policy problems, it has often been more successful in gain-ing the ear of policymakers (Bowles, 2016). Yet that strength has also proved to be a significant weakness, as the limits to the role of incen-tives 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 (Wil-son, 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 ena-ble 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 plu-rality of approaches is the best way to face up to the challenging task of understanding a core human activity such as politics.



380

Index

Abdelal, R., 84action

explanation vs understanding arguments, 78

norms/beliefs and, 85Adam, B., 213Adler, E., 79Adorno, T.W., 145Affordable Care Act, 325agency

conceptualising, 202–3poststructuralist perspective, 137structure and

the concept, 200Giddens’ coin analogy, 205, 207habitus, 208–9morphogenetic approach, 205–6structuration theory, 205

voluntarism and, 137Algeria, 116Almond, G.A., 13, 94, 273Alsop, A., 328Altemeyer, R., 145Althusser, L., 129, 137altruistic behaviour, accounting for, 49Amazon Mechanical Turk, 293, 303American Journal of Political Science,

239American Political Science Association

approval of DA-RT, 267experimental research section,

292–93formation, 2‘Perestroika’ movement, 240, 327

American Political Science Review, 239

Antonsich, M., 248–49Apple Inc., 121Archer, M., 201–2, 205Arendt, H., 148Armstrong, C., 19Armstrong, F., 328austerity, 42, 71Australia, 239Australian Green Party, qualitative

study, 247

banality of evil, 148Bananas, Beaches and Bases (Enloe),

95Barry, B., 160Basic and Applied Social Psychology,

264Bates, D.W., 213–14Baubock, R., 6Bay of Pigs, 155Bayesian models, 269, 287Becker, Gary, 42Beckwith, K., 98behavioural economics, 154, 331Behavioural Insights Team, 154behaviouralism, 17, 20–21

characteristics and rise of the behavioural movement, 21–25

criticisms, 25–30legacy in the 21st-century, 37–38strengths, 30–37

Bell, S., 202Bennett, A., 240, 287Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in

the Social Sciences (BITSS), 242

Bevir, M., 79, 191–92, 225bias in research results, correcting for,

256biased sampling, method of agreement

and, 276big data

accelerating rate of information production, 306

accessing, 310, 312analysis, 315–17challenges for application of

statistical techniques, 269collection, 309data formats

application programming interfaces (APIs), 311–13

extensible markup language (XML), 310–11

web crawling, 313–14web scraping, 314–15



InDex 381

defining, 307–9ethical perspectives, 313–14, 319examples, 311, 313and the future of social science,

318–19heterogeneous kinds of data, 317limitations, 317–18

Billig, M., 145Bjarnegård, E., 100Blair, Tony, 216Bleiker, R., 252Blyth, M., 71Bond, R., 298, 303Bourdieu, P., 208–9bourgeoisie, 110, 113–16, 119–20Bourque, S., 94Bouwman, R., 292Brady, H., 286Bray, Z., 249Brazil, 69–70Brexit, 128, 199, 215–16, 223, 284,

286, 299, 321, 323, 329bricolage, 70, 86–87British Political Tradition (BPT),

215–16Buhaug, H., 30–31Bukharin, N., 118Burtless, G., 297Butler, J., 131, 138

Cambridge Handbook on Experimental Political Science (Druckman et al.), 293

capillary power, 203Capital Rules (Abdelal), 84capitalism

the capitalist state, 29Weber on, 76

case study selection strategiescomparative research, 233, 284–86experimental research, 230–31observational research, 232–33single-case studies and within-case

analysis, 234–35Caterino, B., 79, 241‘causes-of-effects’ approach, vs

‘effects-of-causes,’ 243–44Cederman, L.-E., 30–31change

circadian conception of time, 213

linear conception of time, 212

non-linear conception of time, 212–13

punctuated evolution model, 213–17stability and, 211

Chappell, L., 104Chesters, J., 203Childs, S., 103China, 110, 121–22choice architectures, smart, 154Chomsky, Noam, 139Chweiroth, J., 90citizen social science, 328citizenship education, impact of, 329The Civic Culture (Almond/Verba),

76, 94, 273civic culture, importance of political

science’s contribution, 328–29

civil war, effects of inequality on the occurrence of, 31–35, 37

climate change, 46–47, 62, 164–65Cohen

G. A., 159G.A., on facts and values , 162–64

collective actionand the environment, 46–48logic of, 43–46

Collier, D., 36, 286commons management, Ostrom’s

study, 47–48communication, importance of good

communication for political science, 323–24

The Comparative Method (Ragin), 280

comparative methodcase study selection strategies, 233,

284–86development of, 271–72as evolving and adaptable approach,

288–89vs experimental and statistical

methods, 273–74Mill’s methods and influence, 274

agreement method, 274–76concomitant variation method,

278difference method, 276–77joint method, 277–79most different and most similar

strategies, 279–80process-tracing, 286–87



382 InDex

comparative method (cont.)qualitative comparative analysis,

280–84small-N research strategies, 272–74within-case analysis, 286–87

Comparative Political Studies, 242comparative politics, work on gender

in, 106–7‘Comparative Politics and the

Comparative Method’ (Lijphart), 273

concepts, the meaning of, 227Connolly, W., 131constructivism, 75–76, 90–91

contingency’s role, 82–83epistemological variations, 83–84features of, 78–83mechanisms of social construction,

85bricolage, 86–87persuasion, 86socialisation, 85

meta-theoretical issues, 209–11methodological diversity, 87–90modern vs postmodern, 84origins, 76–77

constructivist institutionalism, 70, 209

content analysis, 238, 246, 250, 252, 256, 268

contingency, constructivist role, 82–83A Contribution to a Critique of

Political Economy (Marx), 113

control, importance for experimentation, 291

Crenshaw, K., 101Crichlow, S., 156Crick, B., 328–29critical realism, 193–94Crouch, C., 65, 68Crowdflower, 293crowdsourcing platforms, 303Cuban Missile Crisis, 155

Daniels, N., 162Data Access and Research Transparency

(DA-RT), 242–43, 267data collection/management, 255–57Dawes, R.M., 294De Goede, M., 84De Meur, G., 280

deception, as ethical issue in experimental design, 300–2

Deleuze, G., 125deliberative democracy, 177, 194–97

positivism vs interpretivism, 195–97democracy, defining, 97democratisation, research strategies,

276–77dependency, imperialism and uneven

development, 118–19descriptive measures, the power of,

257–58Designing Democracy in A Dangerous

World (Reynolds), 325Designing Social Inquiry (King et al.),

240, 254direct foreign investment, 120Discipline and Publish (Foucault),

131discourse analysis, 88, 240, 246,

251–53discursive formations, 201diversity, importance of in political

science, 331Dixon, D., 180doubly decisive test, 287Douglas, M., 68Dowding, K., 284Druckman, J.N., 293Dryzek, J., 243Duffield, M., 65Dunleavy, P., 68Durkheim, É., 76

Eastern Europe, effect of democratic transitions on institutions, 62–63

economic models, 41economics

distinction from politics, 49failure to predict financial crisis,

331influence on laboratory-based

experimentation, 294place of in the rational choice

approach, 39–43political scientists’ envy of the

discipline, 330–31role in the study of intergroup

conflict and atrocity, 145Edward, P., 122Eichmann, Adolf, 148, 152



InDex 383

The Elementary Structures of Kinship (Lévi-Strauss), 129

Emirbayer, M., 202Engels, F., 110, 113Enloe, C., 95–96the environment, collective action and,

46–48epistemic fallacy, Spencer on, 180epistemology, 177–78

constructivist variations, 83–84deliberative democracy, 195–97in empirical research, 194–95epistemological positions

anti-foundationalism, 182–83constructivism, 182–83critical realism, 193–94distinctions, 183, 185foundationalism, 182interpretivism, 189–93objectivism, 182positivism, 184, 186–89realism, 182relativism, 182–83scientific vs hermeneutic

approaches, 183–84the meaning of ontology and,

178–79relationship between ontology and,

179–81equality, Rawls on the salience of, 161Ercan, S.A., 9, 134Erikson, R., 299Escher, T., 291Essex School, 131–32Estlund, D., 168‘ethical relativism,’ 136, 139ethnography

association with hypothesis-generating case studies, 285

big data and, 307, 319ethnographic techniques, 191as primary research technique, 249

European Election Studies, 224European identity, focus group

orientated study, 248–49European Union (EU), 20, 57, 85–87,

249, 284, 322; see also Brexitevidence, testing the value of, 287Evidence in Governance and Politics

Network (EGAP), 242, 267expansionary fiscal contraction theory,

42

experimental methodcase study selection strategies,

230–31ethical challenges, 300–2field experiments, 296–97ingredients and characteristics, 291internet-based experiments, 297–99laboratory experiments, 293–96Lijphart’s assertion, 290natural experiments, 299–300nature of, 290–92practical problems, 302–4rise of experimentation, 292–93

explanation, Hume’s definition, 79–80exploitation, capitalist, 110, 113–15,

132, 137extremism, radicalisation and, 152–53Ezzy, D., 251

Facebook, 293, 298, 302–3, 305, 311, 317

Fairclough, N., 251Falleti, T., 69Farage, Nigel, 199Fascism Scale, 145Fearon, J., 36feminism, 18, 92

defining, 92–93dilemmas and challenges, 105–7feminist institutionalism, 60, 63, 106gendering the state, 104–5importance of qualitative approaches

for, 239–40origins, 92political parties, 103–4political representation, 102–3political science

gender and, 97–102gendered foundations, 93–96women in, 96–97

qualitative methods and, 239–40Feyerabend, P., 136field experiments, 68, 255, 269,

293–98, 303, 305file drawer problem, 264, 266financial crisis of 2007/08, 42, 51, 123,

204, 331Finer, H., 56Finnemore, M., 89Flinders, M., 324Flyvbjerg, B., 79, 241, 279focus groups, 174, 247–48



384 InDex

Ford, Henry, 119Fox, C., 60Frankfurt School, 144Freakonomics (Levitt/Dubner), 42free riders, 43free trade, Marx on, 115–16freedom, Rawls on the salience of, 161Freidenvall, L., 68Freud, S., 144Frey, B.S., 296Furlong, P., 9, 134Fuzzy-Set Social Science (Ragin), 281

game theory, 44–45, 47, 238Geertz, C., 191–92, 225gender, defining, 99Gender and Party Politics (Lovenduski/

Norris), 103Gender Trouble (Butler), 131The General Theory of Employment,

Interest and Money (Keynes), 42

genocide, 146, 148Gerber, A., 266, 292, 297Germany, 144Giddens, A., 205, 207Gladwell, M., 154Gleditsch, K.S., 30–31global financial crisis of 2007/08, 42,

51, 123, 204, 331global justice, normative theory and,

164–65globalisation

as central feature of the modern era, 2defined, 120–21ideational approach, 211literature on, 210as uneven and combined development,

121Goertz, G., 12, 243Goodin, R., 2, 8–9, 11, 59, 69, 73Google Consumer Surveys, 293governance, determinants of

outcomes, 2Gramsci, A., 77, 112, 133, 194Great Depression, 42, 71, 144Green, D. P., 292, 297Greenberg, D., 302Grimmelikhuijsen, S., 292Grossholtz, J., 94group conflict, research into the

origins of, 146

groupthink theory, 155–56Guba, E., 182Guinjoan, M., 95Guth, W., 301

Habermas, J., 138–39habitus, 208–9Haiti, slave rebellion, 112Hall, P.A., 58–59, 65–66, 214Hamilton, V.L., 148–49Hardin, G., 46, 71Hart, H. L. A., 160‘t Hart, P., 19, 142–43, 145, 147–49,

151, 153, 155, 157, 160Hawkesworth, M., 101Hay, C., 7, 70–71, 179, 201, 204, 206–7health care reform, in Brazil, 69–70health insurance, US experiment, 297hegemony

consent and, 194Gramsci’s understanding, 111,

119–20, 133and the international order, 121–23

Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (Laclau/Mouffe), 131

Held, D., 120Hendriks, C.M., 197Hermann, M.G., 143heuristics, 154, 197Hilferding, R., 118Hindmoor, A., 17, 202historical institutionalism, 58–59, 193,

209, 252historiography, 246, 250–52History of the Peloponnesian War

(Thucydides), 39Hitler, Adolf, 144Hoeffler, A., 36Hollis, M., 184Holocaust, 145–46hoop tests, 287Horiuchi, Y., 298Hovland, C. J., 145Howarth, D., 126, 131Huntington, S.P., 62, 96–98hypothesis, the meaning of, 226

ideational realm, conceptualising, 204

Immergut, E., 65imperialism, Marxist perspective,

118–19



InDex 385

incentivisation, as logistical challenge for experimentation, 303

India, 116, 121, 316inequality

constraints on as an ideal, 160–61effect on the occurrence of civil war,

31–35, 37horizontal vs vertical, 31at the intersection of race and gender,

101voter responses, 152

informal institutions, impact on equal opportunities, 61, 63

information-oriented sampling, 279, 288

Instagram, 303institutionalism, 17–18, 54–55

feminist institutionalism, 60, 63, 106historical institutionalism, 58–59,

193, 209, 252new institutionalism, 54–55

cleavages, 58–59core features, 59–64

contextual embeddedness, 63–64dynamism, 62embodiment of values and

power, 62–63informal focus, 61institutions as rules, 60–61

dilemmas, 64–73compatibility of normative and

rational choice approaches, 70–73

defining an institution, 64–67genesis and transformation of

institutions, 67–70emergence, 57–58methods, 68strands of, 60

traditional approach, 55–56intergroup hostility, competition over

scarce resources and, 145international order, hegemony and the,

121–23international relations, narrowing of

the gap between domestic politics and, 2

interpretive filters, 18, 75interpretivism, 84, 179, 181, 188–93,

195–96, 246, 251intersectional identities, 18, 102intersectionality, 96, 101–2, 106

Iraq, 65, 155–56Isaac, J., 242Italy, 144

Janis, I.L., 155–56Jasmine Revolution, 234Jenkins, L., 258Jennings, W., 329Jensen, M., 175Jessop, B., 205Johal, S., 201, 203Johnson, Boris, 199Johnson, M., 182Johnson, N., 56Jones, J. P., III, 180Journal of Experimental Political

Science, 293justice, Rawls’s theory of, 160–62

Kedar, A., 79Kelman, H., 148–49Keohane, R. O., 188–89Keynes, J.M., 42Kiely, R., 18Kinder, D.R., 292King, D., 266King, E., 240King, G., 188–89, 191, 254, 263–64,

297King, L., 300King, Martin Luther, 149Kiser, L., 63Klingemann, H-D., 2, 8–9, 11, 54, 73Kristeva, J., 125Krook, M., 68

Lacan, J., 77, 130Laclau, E., 131–33, 137Laitin, D., 36Lakoff, G., 182Lane, R., 94Lanzara, G., 70Lasswell, H.D., 144, 326Lenin, V., 118Lévi-Strauss, C., 127Levitt, S., 42Lewis, C., 203Lewis, D., 85Lijphart, A., 273, 302Lincoln, Y., 182Lindblom, C., 201Lipset, S.M., 272–73



386 InDex

List, F., 116Locke, J., 115Lodge, M., 329The Logic of Collective Action

(Olson), 43Lupton, D., 324Lynch, C., 79

Madness and Civilisation (Foucault), 131

Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research and Method (Schram/Caterino), 241

Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again (Flyvbjerg), 241

Malhotra, N., 266March, J.G., 55, 57, 62, 69, 74Margetts, H., 175, 299, 303marginal seats, study into resource

allocation, 265marriage, the lived experience, 188Marx, K., 112–13, 116Marxism, 18–19, 109

capitalismMarx and , 112–14and nationalism, 114

continued relevance of Marxist ideas, 121–23

globalisationdefined, 120–21as uneven and combined

development, 121hegemony

Gramsci’s concept, 119–20and the international order, 121–23

imperialism and uneven development as dependency, 118–19

and inequality in the international order, 116–18

Marxist economismand base and superstructure,

110–12and capitalist diffusion, 115–16

preferred definition of politics, 8and realism, 193and realism in IR, 82

masculinity, in politics, 100May, Theresa, 216

‘May 68’ movement, 125McAnulla, S., 201McGrew, A., 120Meier, S., 296meta-theoretical issues

agency, 202–3constructivism, 209–11the ideational realm, 204stability and change, 211

circadian conception of time, 213linear conception of time, 212non-linear conception of time,

212–13punctuated evolution model,

213–17structure, 201–2structure/agency debate, 204

habitus, 208–9morphogenetic approach, 205–6strategic-relational approach, 206–8structuration theory, 205

Mexico, 116, 297, 300Milgram, S., 148–49, 301militarism, masculinity and, 99Mill, J. S., 115, 274Miller, D., 168Miller, G., 60, 165, 168, 270, 293Miller, H., 60Miller, W. L., 293Mintz, A., 302Mische, A., 202Mitchell, T., 79Mols, F., 19Montreal Protocol, 47Moran, M., 202morphogenetic approach, 205–6Morton, R., 291, 293Mouffe, C., 131Mudde, C., 216Mueller, D., 40multiculturalism, 152multinational corporations, 20, 121multivariate analysis, 261–65Murray, R., 99Mussolini, Benito, 144Mutz, D.C., 195–96

nationalism, 96, 114, 169natural experiments, 269natural language processing, 315new social movements, 125, 133, 153Nietzsche, F., 131, 135



InDex 387

non-academic research, importance of inclusion for political science: 327, 327–28

normative theorycompatibility with rational choice

approaches, 70–73facts and values , 162–64and global justice, 164–65institutionalism and, 58, 62, 69normative wing of the new

institutionalism, 61political ideals and feasibility, 166–70poststructuralist approach, 131reflective equilibrium, 159–62

Norris, P., 103nudge approach, 154

obedience to authority, Milgram’s experiments, 148–49, 301

observational research, 37–38, 219, 228, 231–32, 265, 268, 291

case study selection strategies, 232–33Of Grammatology (Derrida), 129Offe, C., 62Olsen, J.P., 55, 57, 62, 69, 74Olson, M., 43, 45–46ontology, 177

deliberative democracy , 195–97in empirical research , 194–95epistemological positionsthe meaning of epistemology and,

178–79ontological positions

anti-foundationalism, 182–83constructivism, 182–83critical realism, 193–94distinctions, 183, 185foundationalism, 182interpretivism, 189–93objectivism, 182positivism, 184, 186–89realism, 182relativism, 182–83scientific vs hermeneutic

approaches, 183–84relationship between epistemology

and, 179–81ordinary least squares model (OLS),

261–63, 267outsourcing, 120ozone depletion, collective action and,

47

Pachirat, T., 79Palfrey, T., 292, 294panel data analysis, 268–69paradox of thrift, Keynes’ concept, 42Parsons, T., 76path dependency, 63, 67, 209, 318patriarchy, 130, 132, 184Paxton, P., 96Payne, A., 202Peltzman, Sam, 41‘Perestroika’ movement, 240–42, 318, 327Perspectives on Politics, 241–42persuasion, constructivist argument, 86Peters, B.G., 55, 62, 66–67, 176Pierre, J., 63, 176Pierson, P., 65, 243Plato, 2Podemos, 19, 124, 132Poletta, F., 197policymaking, politics of, 327political analysis, principal approach

in the early 20th century, 272Political Life (Lane), 94Political Man (Lipset), 272–73Political Psychology (Journal), 142politics

as academic discipline, 1approaches to political science, 3diversity of political science, 11–13internationalisation of political

science, 2, 120the nature of, 7–9origins, 2scientific approach, 9–11world politics, 2

Politics and Markets (Lindblom), 201Polsby, N., 56populism, 19, 216, 234, 322, 329positivism, 94post-behaviouralism, 37–38poststructuralism, 19, 125–26

criticism and evaluation, 137–40defining, 125–26emergence, 127, 129the Essex School, 132French structuralism, 127–28‘normative deficit,’ 139ontological and epistemological

assumptions, 133–36in politics and international

relations, 130–33from structuralism to, 129–30



388 InDex

post-truth politics, 329post-war period, dominance of

positivist epistemology, 185Pouliot, V., 79poverty reduction, 121power

capillary power, 203constraints on the use of, 8Foucault on, 138

pre-registration, 242–43Preston, T., 147prisoner’s dilemma game, 44–47, 51privatisation, 57process-tracing, 88–89, 235, 252,

286–87productive forces, 113–15, 117proletariat, 8, 110–11, 113–15, 120The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism (Weber), 76psychology, 19

attitudescauses and consequences of

political attitudes, 152political beliefs and voter

attitudes, 151–53case for importing into political

science, 142the field of political psychology,

142–44homo economicus to homo

psychologicus, 154methods and prospects of the field,

155–57political conflict and contention,

144, 146political decision-making

and ‘groupthink,’ 155–56understanding, 154–55

political leadership/followership, 146–50

charismatic leadership, 150nature of the psychological

contract, 147–50personality traits of leaders, 147

potential of identity-based issue framing, 151–52

radicalisation and extremism, 152–53Psychopathology and Politics

(Lasswell), 144punctuated equilibrium, 67, 212purposive sampling, 247, 279, 280p-values, 264

qualitative methodscore attributes, 245debates about quantitative methods

and, 237–43distinctiveness, 243–44ethnography, 246–49feminist approaches and, 239–40group discussion, 246–49interviews, 246–49the label of qualitative methodology,

229more detailed recording of research

design, 255primary research , 246–49rediscovery, 237–43research techniques, 244–46secondary research, 249–52use and future use, 252

quantitative methodsdata collection/management,

255–57debates about qualitative methods

and , 237–43descriptive measures, 257–58divide between qualitative methods

and, 254multivariate analysis, 261–65non-parametric models, 263recent developments, 268–69tables and inferential statistics,

259–61testing and reporting models,

265–68quasi-experiments, 269Quattrone, G.A., 296Quine, W., 187

race-gendering, mechanisms, 101racism, institutional, 63Ragin, C.C., 280–82Randall, V., 93randomised controlled trials/

experiments, 154, 228, 268, 273–74, 299

rational choice theory, 17, 39–40collective action

and the environment, 46–48logic of, 43–46

compatibility with normative approaches, 70–73

constructivism and, 80criticisms, 48–51



InDex 389

institutionalism and, 50, 58, 62methods, 40–43organising perspective, 52prisoner’s dilemma, 44–45, 51and the puzzle of the Trump victory,

325and theoretical ‘border crossing,’ 40

Rawls, J., 159on reflective equilibrium, 159–62

Realistic Conflict Theory, 145–46Reed, M., 192reflective equilibrium, 159, 162reflexivity, 190–91, 245, 251–52relevance of political science

better communication position, 323–24

civic culture contribution position, 329

good science position, 322–23importance of diversity and cross

boundary engagement, 331non-academic research

co-production position, 327–28

problem-oriented focus position, 324–25

recommendations for the future of the discipline, 330

solution-seeking position, 325, 327replication, 30, 242, 255, 264, 266–67research

case-oriented vs variable-oriented, 280–81

non-academic, 328qualitative methods

primary research , 246–49secondary research, 249–52

research techniques , 244–46testing the value of evidence, 287text/document-based techniques,

249–52research design, 219

case/variable selection strategiescomparative research, 233experimental research, 230–31observational research, 232–33single-case studies and within-case

analysis, 234–35conceptualisation and

operationalisation, 227–28detailed recording of in qualitative

research, 255

levels of generality, 219–20methodological choices, 228–30overview of the process, 220–22the power and promise, 235–36questions and goals, 222

description, 223–24explanation, 224–25interpretation, 225

theory and empirical research, 225–27

Research Network on Gender, Politics and the State (RNGS), 104

resources, conflict over and intergroup hostility, 145

Reynolds, A., 325–26Richardson, L., 328Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale,

145Rittberger, V., 65Robbers Cave experiment, 145Roberts, M.E., 71Robinson, B., 120Robson, J., 56Rodon, T., 95Rogowski, R., 322Rorty, R., 135Rothstein, B., 62, 65Rubinstein, A., 41rules-in-form, 66rules-in-use, 66–67Russia, 79, 110, 119Ryan, M., 175Rydgren, J., 145

Salganik, M., 294Sanders, D., 10, 17, 189Sapiro, V., 105Saussure, F. de, 132Savigny, H., 239Sayer, A., 202Scarbrough, E., 264Schafer, M., 156Schmidt, Eric, 306Schneider, C.Q., 282Schram, S., 79, 241Schwartz-Shea, P., 79, 239, 242Schwindt-Bayer, L., 106Scotland, DevolutionMax, 217Scott, J., 98Sears, R.R., 145Seawright, J., 286Second World War, 118–19, 145–46



390 InDex

secularism, 57Segerberg, A., 314selection bias, 232, 250Shapiro, I., 324Sherif, M., 145Skocpol, T., 278slavery, and its abolition, 112Smirnov, O., 294Smith, N., 214Smith, S., 184, 193smoking gun tests, 287Snapchat, 304social capital, volunteering as a

measure of, 259social class, Bourdieu’s conception, 209social construction mechanisms, 85–87

bricolage, 86–87persuasion, 86socialisation, 85

social mediaacademics’ use of, 324and collection of data, 317and discourse analysis of visual

images, 252ethical challenges of using in

experimentation, 302social revolution, Skocpol’s study,

278–79social science experiments, public

image, 301socialisation, constructivist

perspective, 85socialism, 111, 113–14sociological institutionalism, 60, 77,

88solutions, importance of political

science’s capacity for development of, 325, 327

South China Sea, 122sovereignty, 81, 132Spain, 316spatial models, 269Spencer, N., 180–81stability and change, 211

circadian conception of time, 213linear conception of time, 212non-linear conception of time, 212–13punctuated evolution model, 213–17

standard operating procedures (SOPs), 66

States and Social Revolutions (Skocpol), 278

Steinmo, S., 65, 68Stewart, M., 31Stoker, G., 175–76, 299, 325strategic-relational approach, 206–8Strauss, Anselm, 247straw-in-the-wind tests, 287structuration theory, 205structure and agency

the concept, 200–202Giddens’ coin analogy, 205, 207habitus, 208–9morphogenetic approach, 205–6structuration theory, 205

Sumner, A., 122Superfreakonomics (Levitt/Dubner),

42superstructure, 81–82, 110, 120

elements, 111survey experiments, 269Switzerland, 97Syriza, 19, 124, 132

Taiwan, 122Tajfel, H., 145Tanenbaum, E., 264Taylor, B., 17Taylor, R., 58–59terrorism, research strategies, 275–76,

279Thailand, 100Thatcherism, 132A Theory of Justice (Rawls), 159–60‘thick’ description, 191, 225, 237, 242,

245, 249Thiem, A., 281Thies, C., 250Think Like a Freak (Levitt/Dubner),

42thrift, Keynes’ paradox, 42Thucydides, 39Tilly, C., 250time

circadian conception of, 213linear conception of, 212non-linear conception of, 212–13

Time-Sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences, 298

Tonkiss, F., 212–13Toshkov, D., 174‘The Tragedy of the Commons’

(Hardin), 46transformational leadership, 149–50



InDex 391

transparency, 236, 242, 255, 267, 298Trotsky, L., 112, 118–19Trump, Donald J., 199, 234, 321, 325truth, poststructuralist reflections on

the status of, 135Tunisia, 234Tversky, A., 296Twitter, 300, 303, 305, 310–12, 316,

318, 324

ultimatum game, 49–50United Kingdom (UK)

airport expansion, 132British Political Tradition (BPT),

215–16compulsory methods courses

introduced, 239devolution, 216–17feminist activism, 93New Labour, 216and the punctuated evolution model,

212, 215–16referendum on leaving the EU (see

also Brexit), 223, 284, 286, 299treatment of violence against women

in the home, 7–8UKIP, 216‘Winter of Discontent,’ 214

United Nations, 79United States of America (USA)

annexation of part of Mexico, 116and climate change, 47election of Donald Trump, 199, 234,

321, 325exercise of hegemony, 123experimental tradition, 297, 302feminist activism, 93Health Insurance Experiment, 297liberalism in, 71lynchings, 145presence of qualitative methods in

political science, 240relationship with China, 122social movements, 197

Van Evera, S., 287Verba, S., 94, 189, 254, 273Verge, T., 95Vietnam War, 299voluntarism, and agency, 137volunteering

quantitative study, 259, 261relationship between wealth and,

261voter attitudes, elections and, 153voter turnout, research strategies,

277–78, 282, 297voting behaviour

internet-based experimentation, 298

researching, 20, 200Vromen, A., 174

Wade, R., 331Wagemann, C., 282Weaver, R., 298Weber, M., 76, 78–79Wedeen, L., 79welfare state, capitalist perspective,

111Wenman, M., 19Westminster model, 56, 63WhatsApp, 303Wildavsky, A., 322Williams, E., 112Williams, K., 112, 201, 203, 228,

291–93, 296–97, 305Wilson, Woodrow, 56Winch, P., 79Wincott, D., 70‘Winter of Discontent,’ 214women, exclusion from the state, 104women’s suffrage, role in democratic

transition, 97–98working class, 110–11, 113–15, 119World Bank, 120Writing and Difference (Derrida), 129

Yanow, D., 79, 239, 242



Documents

Contents€¦ · · 2017-11-09vi Contents 4 Institutionalism 54 Vivien Lowndes The ‘traditional’ institutional approach 55 The emergence of the ‘new institutionalism’ 57