3.1 Methodology and research method
Comparative politics like any other scientific discipline has its own research methods and methodology, language and conceptual apparatus. In the postwar period was active development of methodological principles of political studies. In the 1950s, there is a whole range of new methodological and conceptual approaches, methods and research techniques. Among them may be mentioned primarily behaviorism, system analysis, political and cultural approach, interdisciplinary analysis and others and related theories and concepts, and techniques, methods, concepts and categories. In the same period, was finally formed Comparative politics as an independent branch of political science.
The methodology is a certain way of seeing and organizing research, system analysis methods and techniques, testing and evaluation, conceptual and ideological arsenal, together make up the overall approach to the facing of the problems of science. It includes rules and criteria for the interpretation of the facts, research plans, data collection methods, etc.
The methodology is closely related to all- worldview system, which in turn is part of a socio-political paradigm. It is often associated with specific trends of political and philosophical, ideological and political thought, assuming that each of them has a special methodology. For example, we distinguish Marxist, positivist, neo-positivist, structural-functional and other methodologies. Nevertheless, each scientific discipline, including political science, has its own methodology and analysis tools, without which one cannot speak of a really objective study of the subject matter of the discipline.
Social and political realities are made up of people and actions are characterized by dynamism and constant variability. The essential characteristic of the policy – not quietness, but a movement: the focus of political science is a political process.
Politics deals with the understanding and interpretation of human purposes, and where it comes to, certainly present value. It is impossible to reason of an adequate study of the world without political intrusion into the sphere of the goals and ideals. Social and political reality cannot be expressed in quantitative terms, and to squeeze into the formulas and definitions. The social and political fact cannot be separated from values, value considerations must be correlated with knowledge of the facts.
The laws of social and political development, which are less stable than the natural laws manifested in different institutional, value-regulatory, intellectual conditions under different scenario of social and political forces, as well as the different circumstances in a special way. Each specific socio-historical reality has its own social and political reality and its own system of priorities, preferences and values. Being variable values or entities, they are in a constant state of change and renewal. From this we can conclude that the study of the political world involves not only the establishment of objective causality, but also recognition of the legitimacy of judgments of probabilistic nature of socio-political processes.
Moreover, in modern conditions as a result of scientific and technical progress the dividing line between the real, probable and possible. The role of probability, event began dynamism and volatility, irreversibility and indeterminacy. In addition to the policy are fundamental human choices, needs, interests and goals of people. All this leaves room for different ways and directions of its development and, accordingly, for a variety of interpretations of the political world and its development trends.
Of course, we can express in terms of the quantitative results of the elections to determine their value in dollars and rubles, follow the dynamics of the number of supporters of certain parties, etc. But such important categories as “welfare”, “freedom”, “equality”, “justice”, it is impossible to identify any public whatsoever quantitative terms. It requires a political analysis of the imagination, the ability to “thought experiment” in principle “what it would be if something happened or if something would have been undertaken”.
It is obvious that the political analysis cannot be based on facts alone, as the particular facts acquire importance only to the extent that they can relate to the whole, providing theoretically grounded context for the interpretation of the facts. In a sense, it is impossible to consider the political institutions in isolation from the political thought, because thought and action permeate each other. Task of political scientist is to achieve the closest possible interaction between theory and empirical beginning, reflection and action, interpretation and practical involvement.
In the social and political spheres it is not just about explaining things, but also the adequacy of their understanding in the sense of comprehension. To explain the social phenomenon means first of all to describe it, to decompose into its component elements, count them, to measure, to place in a causal sequence, to identify the main vectors of development, etc. Understanding also involves identifying the underlying motive of social and political phenomena.
It can be said that political analysis is not only scientific research, but also a kind of art, involves the reconstruction not only of rational, quantifiable motives, interests of people, but their irrational, subconscious, unconscious motives that require imagination, intuition, psychological penetration, etc.
With the methodology are closely related methods that include procedures and processes, techniques and research tools, analysis, verification and evaluation of data. The famous German philosopher Karl Jaspers not for nothing insisted that all true science is knowledge, including knowledge about the methods and limits of this science.
The method of investigation (from the Greek methodos - teaching theory, the way of research or knowledge) is a set of tools and techniques used by the researcher in solving problems of interest to him from the job to interpret the results. The method of investigation of each scientific discipline is closely related to its methodology that dictates the specific techniques, tools, research tools.
Initially, political science dispensed fairly limited research tool designed to analyze primarily institutional, regulatory, public-power aspects of the world political. As just noted, the set of techniques and policy research methods significantly enriched in the 1950s. Among the new methodological approaches may be mentioned especially the behaviorist, or behavioral, systemic, political, cultural, comparative, interdisciplinary, and other types of analysis.
3.2 System analysis
Set of research methods, means and tools of political science should include system analysis, developed by representatives of the natural sciences in 1930 and became the property of the social and human sciences recently. Although political scientists is not directly addressed to the works of system studiers, at least they could not help feeling the impact through well-known work of T. Parsons, J. Homans, R. Merton and other scholars who in 1940–1950 widely used achievements of system studiers in sociology and economics. It is thanks to these achievements they have managed to develop a theory of structural-functional analysis, which has become one of the most important methodological approaches in the study of society after the Second World War.
From the perspective of system analysis of different kinds of human communities was seen as an open system, consisting of a specific set of interdependent elements that you can isolate and analyze. Systems have more or less clearly defined borders. A particularly important role in the introduction of the system approach in political science played D. Easton, K. Deutsch, G. Almond and other US researchers. Its essence lies in the fact that the political world is studied as a set of elements that form an integrated system in its connection with the sphere – civil society and the economic system.
Justifying the need to implement a systematic approach to political science, D. Easton wrote: “Most recently, the concept of the system has been attracting attention, becoming the basis of determining the point of view of things, from the smallest consideration of human cells in the body as a system to more intensive systems of the major human It is as an organism, the human person, small groups and large institutions, associations and societies together, such as the international system”. One of the reasons that favored the introduction of a systematic approach, has become a kind of “theoretical hunger”, was felt by a number of representatives of political science. It served as the impetus for the development of a general theory of politics.
The adherents of this approach have seen their task in the construction of the so-called middle range theory or comparative political theory, to ensure the transition from empirical data to theoretical generalizations. As wrote one of the pioneers of this approach in political science M. Kaplan, the “middle level theories and comparative theories have a sufficient degree of generalization to be of scientific interest. After all, we reason about classes of phenomena, and not just on the individual and special cases. On the other hand they are sufficiently accurate to determine the differences between the individual systems”.
For any system, including the political, characterized by three fundamental dimensions: actual existing structure; its activities and functioning; dynamics or evolution. Ideally, the system analysis should cover all three dimensions together. However, in real practice, the research focus of system studiers concentrated on the first two aspects, pushing into the background the third plan. This is understandable, in view of that the system analysis is most effective where there is a balance, the facts were determined, become more or less completed the outline, they van be organize, reduced to quantitative parameters, easily measurable by statistical and mathematical methods.
It is important to note that a systematic approach adherents may choose different angles and, accordingly, will be different and the results of the survey. So, if one of the founders of the structural-functional approach T. Parsons focused on the relationship between the structure and functions of the constituent elements of social systems, the D. Easton set a goal to analyze the feedback mechanisms between policy results, support a majority of the population of the political system and the requirements for it.
Concepts of “input” and “output” are highlighted in the system analysis. On the “input” of the political system become crucial components such as political socialization, isolation and formulation of interests, their representation in politics and political communication. On the “exit” we have the definition of rules or laws, programs, political courses, their implementation and monitoring of them.
It is obvious that a systematic approach allows us to analyze political phenomena in all their complexity and intertwining, take into account their social base of politics and reverse impact of the latter on the social reality. We are talking about the system analysis, system approach to relationships and interactions of roles interacting complexes in the world political.
3.3 Multidisciplinary analysis
It is symptomatic that the concept of “political system” became possible with the introduction of political science of the system approach. The necessity of its use in political science is determined primarily by the diversity and multi-syllable of the political world. This makes the fact that political science is by its very nature an interdisciplinary science. It is as if at the crossroads of many of the social sciences and humanities. The most significant the interdisciplinary nature of political studies manifested in systems analysis, suggests that a comprehensive study of political phenomena using the methods, tools, systems, argumentation, etc. other social, humanitarian and part of the natural sciences.
Individual elements of an interdisciplinary approach in political science began to be used in the XIX century in the development of new methodologies and techniques formally legal, legal, historical and comparative analysis. Heritage of social and human sciences, including political science, became a number of research methods, techniques and concepts developed in the natural sciences. It is significant that certain aspects of the social and political reality began to be described and analyzed with the help of such concepts borrowed from the natural sciences as “progress”, “evolution”, “order”, and others.
Particularly widespread use of methods and techniques of other disciplines in political science received in the twentieth century. In the first decades of the twentieth century well- known political scientists J. Wallace, Mr. Laski, G. Lasswell etc. raised the question about the importance of the study of socio-cultural, religious, psychological factors, unconscious and subconscious motives of the political behavior of people. To this purpose were made attempts to apply in the political science research methods borrowed from experimental psychology and psychoanalysis, as well as empirical sociology.
In the same period, many political scientists had realized the need to use in their research methods of economics, history, anthropology, and psychology. Political analysts have been widely used as mathematical, statistical and quantitative research methods. In the 1950s, about the same time the global political science has been enriched by a complex of new methodological and conceptual approaches, methods and research techniques, as mentioned above.
And they are all so connected and intertwined that is almost impossible to imagine them without each other. To see this, it suffices to note that comparative studies are not possible without the use of the behavioral and systemic analysis. With regard to the political and cultural approach, it designed and developed further, not least in the framework of the Comparative politics. Have been developed and have been widely used concept of political system, political roles and functions of the political structure, political socialization, etc.
Accordingly, in an increasingly growing degree in political science have gained popularity the anthropological, socio-psychological, cultural concepts; theories and methods of historical science, etc. As a result, political science was at the crossroads of interdisciplinary movement that covered almost all the social sciences.
3.4 Behavioral analysis
In 50–60s years of the twentieth century in the social sciences developed the so-called behavioral revolution. It was formed within the method, which is called behavioral analysis. It is based on the positivist approach, which is based on the assumption of uniformity, repeatability and computability elements which together constitute the political phenomena. This type of analysis in the social sciences and humanities has established itself first in the US, and then in other Western countries.
Behavioral analysis focuses primarily on the behavior of an individual, group, and various kinds of social, cultural, professional and other communities. In political science, it is designed to determine the actual parameters and the causes of political behavior at the grassroots level and thus the political processes and the functioning of political systems. If the traditional political science focuses on the formal-legal analysis of state-legal and political institutions, the formal structure of the political organization of society, the object of Behavioral analysis is various aspects of human behavior as participants in the political process.
Behavioral analysis is characterized by widespread use of interdisciplinary methods, in particular mathematical and statistical techniques, and the associated quantification, as well as techniques borrowed from cultural anthropology, social psychology, sociology, etc. It gave the opportunity for a more comprehensive study of mass movements and social processes that traditional political science or moved aside to the background, or even ignored.
An important feature of behaviorism as one of the options is the postulate of the inadmissibility of political science in the study of the value approach. Its adherents believe the only true only those facts that are either confirmed experimentally, or obtained by means of formal logic or mathematically formalized methods of the natural sciences. In their opinion, politicians have to factor out the ethical and value questions and engage mainly description and analysis of the behavior of participants in the political process; political science should be separated from the philosophy and theory, thus give pride of place to a factual research.
However, despite the elaboration of the research unit behaviorism it was not able to cover and uncover the political phenomena and processes in their entirety and diversity. It was found that staying motivated purely empirical facts, abstracting from the values, norms, and the ideal theoretical principles, it is impossible to reveal the real content of the political phenomena. As pointed out at a later stage, supporters of behaviorism themselves, it has generated a considerable number of pseudoscientific experiments that produce a form, not the essence of the problem under investigation.
It is not surprising that in the 1970s, many Western politicians have started talking about the death of positivism and behaviorism, that they have become relics of the past. The result of such mentalities is the emergence in the social sciences and humanities of the West and the newest trends post- behaviorism and postpositivism, renewed interest in political theory and philosophy, valuable and ideal origins in the politics.
3.5 Political and cultural approach
An important tool in the hands of the political scientist is a political and cultural approach designed to embrace the socio-cultural and politico-cultural policy dimension. It overcomes the legalistic understanding of politics, the traditional approach to politics in terms of the political system, state and legal institutions, etc.
Justifying the need for non-formal-legal approach to politics, one of the pioneers of the concept of political culture G. Almond offered to distinguish between two levels of the study of the political system: the institutional and orientation. If the first level focuses on the institutional structure of the political system of the study, the second on to study the people on this system and institutions. Complex of orientation data including cognitive (cognitive), affective (emotional) and value, and was named the political culture. Thus, the subjective aspect of the political significance was raised to the level of the institutional structure.
Political and cultural approach makes it possible to determine why the social and political institutions of the same shape are different in different countries or for the what reasons certain institutions are operational in some countries and totally unacceptable in the other. It allows penetrating deeper, i.e. abstract away from the superficial and one-dimensional vision of the political system and its institutions, their activities, and discovering the origins of national myths, traditions and ideas that exist in the minds of all members of society from the head of state to the marginal.
The advantage of the political and cultural approach is that it integrates sociology socio-culturology, national psychology and the latest research methods of social and political systems into a single multi-disciplinary approach. This makes it possible to better understand the actual mechanisms and patterns of implementation of the political process. These points are particularly important to stress in view of the fact that one of the major problems, which is engaged in political science, is the political culture that includes all sorts of orientations, attitudes, national myths, stereotypes, etc.
Control questions
Questions for self-testing