Lecture 5 Flashcards
Behaviouralists assume
We assume that people in roughly similar situations to act similarly
Note the question does not specify political behaviour
Behaviouralism is the analytical perspective of behavioural science, a general perspective used by many (sub)disciplines in the (social) sciences
Why do people behave the way they do?
Why = focus on explanation
People = focus on individuals or collectives
Behaviors = empirical, they are observable
Core characteristics behaviouralism
Foundationalist (objectivist) ontology (being)
Positivist (scientific) epistemology (knowledge)
Privileges quantitative methodology
NB: Positivism is also the epistemology of other
theoretical perspectives used in political science. e.g.
rational choice theory and certain strands of neoinstitutionalism
Positivism as epistemology
Positivism is also the epistemology of other theoretical perspectives used in political science (for this course specifically, rational choice and certain strands of neo-institutionalism)
Positivism and theory
Empirical theory aims to describe and explain the occurrence of X
Explanation is the causal account (why) of the occurrence of X
Theoretical account / hypothesis
Theorized sequence of cause-effect
Empirical theory (is) as opposed to normative theory (ought)
Explanatory theory (why) as opposed to descriptive theory (what)
Causality in social sciences
Varied and anarchic (compared to natural sciences) so we shouldn’t be reductive about behaviouralism, even though they are focused on generalizing behavior they do not believe that every individual will act the same
Explanations need an account of cause and effect
Behaviouralists cannot observe the causality of the things they want to deduce
We often see causality between two things that are in no way connected
Theory evaluation, what is a good scientific theory
Internally consistent (logical proof)
Is the theory coherent on its own
Externally consistent with other accepted theories (as far as possible)
Does this theory of causal mechanism run against or along other theories which are generally accepted in the field
Consistent with direct observation (factual proof)
Verification and falsification principle Popper & Lakatos
Because we cannot affirm general claims inductively, we
must seek to generate falsifiable hypotheses (Popper)
▪ What cannot be falsified is not scientific.
▪ Lakatos (1971) not all assumptions / propositions in a
theory need to be falsifiable – some core assumptions
can’t be!
Example: Rational choice models assume that people
maximize utility, but utility cannot be observed! All types
of behavior might be considered to maximize utility.
Verification principle - how would we know if the theory is correct?
Falsification principle - how would we know if the theory is incorrect?
All swans are white
How do we go about proving the statement that all swans are white
Even if we prove all living swans are white we’d be unable to tell the color of all dead or unborn swans
It would be better to try and find one other colored swan and the more we fail the more certain the claim becomes
If the colour white is part of the definition of the
swan (p.23-24)
– It is a ‘type 1’ statement. Tautological, definitional, not
falsifiable
– The ‘black swan’ is not a swan by definition
▪ If the colour white and swan are independent
– It is a ‘type 2’ statement. Empirical, verifiable, falsifiable
– Now white and swan are each defined/conceptualized
independently, and can be measured independently (i.e.,
they are variables!)
Logical positivism has three types of analytical statements
Tautologies - definitional / conceptual (not testable)
Empirical - testable against observation
Devoid of analytical meaning (including normative statements)
Normative statements are statements of opinion
If color white is part of the definition of the swan (p. 23-24) (definitional)
Tautological, verifiable, not falsifiable
The “black swan” is not actually a swan
If color white and swan are independent (empirical) (claim about the nature of swan, their color)
Empirical, verifiable, falsifiable
White and swan each define by their own tautological statements - they are each conceptualized independently, and can be measured independently (ie, they are variables)
Popper and Lakatos
Because we cannot affirm general claims inductively, we must seek to generate falsifiable hypotheses (Popper)
What cannot be falsified is not scientific
Lakatos (1971) not all assumptions / propositions in a theory need to be falsifiable - some core assumptions can’t be
eg. Rational choice models assume that people maximized utility, but utility cannot be observed! All types of behavior might be considered to maximize utility
Behaviouralists would have us distinguish between claims that cannot be falsified (religion) and claims that are truly “crazy” or falsified
Easton 1962
“Analytical, not substantive, general rather than particular, and explanatory rather than ethical” (Easton 1962)
Devoid of substance! So where do theories and hypotheses come from?
Behaviouralists are happy to accept theories from other theorists in order to test them
Basic features behaviouralism
▪ As far as possible, research in political science should
be done in the same way as research in the natural
sciences
▪ Movement away from normative theory and description
▪ Movement away from the (legalistic) study of formal
political institutions (‘old institutionalism’),
▪ Movement towards observing individuals/agents and
explaining their observable political behaviour.
▪ Claims to be an unbiased, objective, value-neutral
approach
Origins behaviouralism
Behaviouralism started after WWI and rose in
the 1930s in the United States, but took off in
universities in other countries after WWII, and
remained dominant throughout the 1970s.
▪ Associated with behavioral sciences movement
(a.k.a. the ‘behavioural revolution’’) in the social
sciences
▪ Associated with the rise of Comparative Politics
▪ Subfield: Political Behaviour
