Chapter 2. History of Political Science and
Problems that Political Science
Focuses Upon

The first step in the research process is choosing a problem to research. As noted in the outline of the steps of the scientific method, this step inherently involves values: deciding what is important enough to spend your time on. One way to think about this is to see what political scientists of the past chose for research problems. So let us begin with a history of political science with particular focus on research subjects.

The beginnings

We can trace the systemic study of politics back to Aristotle, who compared constitutions of the Greek city-states. He and other classical philosophers (Socrates, Plato) had their major focus on trying to use logical argument based on empirical observation of fact in the world around them to arrive at some notion of "the good." The focus was mostly on looking for some ideal, what we call normative theory, or "should" type questions.

During the Middle Ages the empirical study of politics was secondary to theological concerns--how are we to get along in a world filled with pain and suffering and political chaos. Writers like. St. Augustine told us that chaos and all the discomforts were God's prescription for our sinfulness. Politics became little more than figuring out what God (speaking through the church, of course) wanted us to do.

Then along came such revisionists as Machiavelli to lead us into the Reniassance. Machiavelli did not care much about questions of good or bad. Rather he was concerned about what worked, what led to political success. Clearly he was the first almost purely empirical political scientist, even though nobody used that term. Contract theorists (e.g. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) argued that government was not necessarily the creation of man, that it was created by and for human beings. They spent most of their effort making that argument as government became more and more separated from the religious institutions of the world. It was no easy fight, if you know anything about western history. One basic reason to make this separation was that religiously based governments seemed to be spending most of their energies and resources in killing those who were not of their religious belief. Hmm, sounds a bit like what is happening today, doesn't it? In fact, a book that just came out in 2007 argues that we are back in the 1600s in that religious wars are dominating world politics.

Even in the U.S. we have a hard time in deciding how much role religious beliefs should play in government and law. We argue about the religious beliefs and preferences of the Founding Fathers. We examine presidential candidates in terms of their faith and religious background, even though our Constitution specifically prohibits any religious test for office. So the Islamist nations are not the only ones who are still fighting the battles that many thought had been resolved by the Renaissance.

The first mention of the term "political science" goes back to the 1500s, when a French writer, Jean Bodin spoke of "le science politique." However, the formal discipline did not really begin until several hundred years later. The earliest study in America came in other fields, such as history, law, and ethics. This first chair in the discipline was at Harvard, which in 1789 created a chair in "natural religion, moral philosophy, and civil polity." This was the first formal use of the name. Thirty-five years later courses in political economy and law began to be taught. With help from the Morrill Land Grant Act, which greatly expanded colleges and universities across the nation, new curricula expanded. In the 1880s Columbia University of New York established a School of Political Science. Other schools, like Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Johns Hopkins soon followed.

If one looks at early issues of the American Political Science Review, one can get a good idea of what early political scientists thought worthy of their time. For example, the first issue of the APSR focused on the following problems:

• Federalism and the changing nature of relationships between states and the national government
• Collecting taxes
• Labor statistics
• Legislative inquests
• International conferences
• The use of influence by Andrew Jackson
• The Constitution and the Civil War
• Christian Socialists, a work in political theory
• The problem of printing money, or legal tender, an economic policy question
• Description of a crisis in Norway
• An Egyptian conflict that pitted eastern nations versus western nations
• Problems in financing wars
• Monetary policy problem of mixing metals in coins
• Taxes on labor
• Banking policy
• Scientific socialism
• Public law in the U.S.
• Theories of property

Most of these works were descriptive in nature, but the general problems should still be familiar to us today: economics, international crises, public policy controversies, the actions of important political figures, and the operation of political institutions.

Formal organization and internal disputes

A formal association was established in 1903 that had national membership, though they numbered only about 200 at the beginning. Today the number is closer to 20,000. By 1920 about 50 schools had political science departments. The big debate with the discipline was between the traditional scholars who took a more descriptive, legal, and historical approach to the discipline and those who wanted a more scientific approach. The center for those who wanted a more empirical scientific approach was at the University of Chicago, led by Charles Merriam. The traditionalists were led by Thomas Reed at Harvard University. Later, during the 1950s, those wanting a scientific approach adopted a new name, behavioralism, which referred to applying the scientific method to the study of political behavior. (Again, for more detail on this debate, see Module I on the APLS 110 Readings.)

The latest battles between those who take a more descriptive traditional approach and those who want to take a scientifically rigorous approach is over a theory and method, or to use the fancier word, paradigm, called "rational choice." This battle has profound effects on how political scientists are trained and how classes are taught. A recent article written in The New Republic by Jonathan Cohn describes the backgound to this battle and how it could affect how even this course is taught in decades to come.

Sub-disciplines or areas of study

The discipline has evolved into several sub-disciplines or subject areas. One way to think about the scope of the problems political science studies is to look at each of these areas of the discipline.

1. Theory/political philosophy. Many in political science still study classical theory, and the questions are still much the same as they were when Plato was writing. What is just? How do we create conditions that allow for justice? What should the relationship be between religion and politics and government? What do citizens owe their government? What justifies wars or rebellions or lying or acts of civil disobedience? Related to theory is the study of ideology, that is, theories that are prescriptive, telling people how to act and behave. So those who focus on theory will also study socialism, Marxism, utilitarianism, existentialism, capitalism, fascism, pluralism, international white nationalism, and all the other 'ism's.

2. Mass behavior. Here political scientists look at how average people act in relation to the political system. They study public opinion, how it is formed, how it is measured, and how it affects the elections and the creation of public policy. They study political parties, often using the tools of public opinion research, seeing which groups are in each party and why. They look at the formation of third parties. They study political socialization--how people acquire political values and knowledge and how those attitudes change over generations and as people age. Of course, these subjects can also be studied comparatively, from one nation and one culture to another. Here in the U.S. we can look at regional comparisons, comparing the South, say, with other regions. One of my students did research on how urban Southerners differed with urban Northerners in politeness and helpfulness and then discussed the implications for political communications in the two regions. Another looked at how content of newspaper advertisements for candidates differed in the South and in northern newspapers. The idea was to see if ads reflected regional cultural differences. If they did, then the literature on the existence of regional cultural differences would have one more piece of evidence in its support.

3. Elite behavior and institutions. Here, instead of looking at average citizens, or even non-citizens, we look at those who have power and the institutions in which they use that power. So we study members of Congress, of legislatures, city and county councils, judges and courts, executives, ranging from presidents to governors to mayors, lobbyists, interest groups, members of the news media (the third estate, as it is often called), and those who run party organizations as well as professionals who run campaigns. The list of questions here is very very long. How do these people get and hold and utilize power? How do they interact with each other? Is it some grand conspiracy, or a not so grand conspiracy, or just barely organized chaos, or maybe pure chaos? How do they manage to keep us average folks from revolting, especially when we often think they are so revolting?  To put it simply, elite behavior is the study of power and the powerful.

4. Comparative Politics. In this area we compare nations or groups of nations. From these comparisons we try and learn the conditions that lead to peace and prosperity. What, for example, difference does educational level make for indicators of quality of life? How can we measure quality of life? How is gender role defined in different political cultures? How do different laws affect crime, suicides, death rates, health care and health care outcomes? Do different political structures, like a free press, have a relationship to economic well-being? How does political structure affect political stability (political violence and governmental turnovers). Does level of participation affect the well-being of a nation? As you can see, the list of questions on which we can compare nations are nearly endless.

5. International Politics/Institutions. "IR" covers a wide range of problems, ranging from arms races to treaty negotiation to economic relationships and all the institutions through which international actors work. Included would be the United Nations, the World Court, the various multi-lateral groups of nations, like the European Union or NATO. Should the US act as world cop? When and where should we send troops? How should they be trained? How should they interact with troops of other nations? Under what conditions should they be withdrawn? Does foreign aid help us or any nation realize foreign policy goals? What kind of aid is most effective? What about trade barriers? Who do they help and who do they hurt? How much of a problem is arms proliferation and what can be done about it? What are the most effective ways to combat international terrorism? Or the illegal drug trade?

6. Public Policy. This area looks at how public policy is made, carried out, and evaluated. It often focuses on the substance of policy in various areas, like health policy, workplace safety, environmental policy, gun control policy, economic policy, educational policy, agricultural policy, welfare policy, and so on. If you look at a text in this area, it will have a few chapters on the process, which often reviews the over all process, looking at who exerts influence at various levels of policy-making (local, state, national), and often sounding like a text on Congress or state and local politics. But then it will usually have a number of chapters that describe policy in a variety of subject areas: education, health, welfare, firearms, transportation, urban, growth, environment, taxation, and so on. the possibilities are almost endless. What is included often reflects the values and interests of the author--that should be no surprise.

7. Public Administration. Public Administration has in fact grown into a rather separate field from political science. It is often joined at the undergraduate level, but at the graduate level it may be housed in a different department with a different faculty. It has its own national association (The American Society for Public Administration--ASPA) and its own separate professional journal. It focuses on questions of how to manage public agencies, how to deal with the changing legal environment, budgeting systems, personnel policies, how to provide employee benefits to public employees that encourage good people to enter public service and stay there and be highly motivated, and questions surrounding public employee unions. One way to look at this area is to think that the other areas focus on how policy is made while PA focuses on how policy is carried out.

8. Area Studies. This subfield focuses on one particular nation of area of the world for an in-depth look at it political institutions and culture. What we call American politics here is really just a study of one nation under area studies. Were this a political science program in Great Britain, we would have a course called British politics, in France, French Politics, and so on. What we call state and local politics here is really an area study of local governmental institutions in the American nation. One could just as easily have courses on South American Politics, which is clearly an area. Many large schools, especially those with PhD programs have courses focusing on many separate areas of the world. Even courses on the politics in a region within one nation would fit here, for example, Southern Politics would focus on the politics in the American South, a course hope to develop in the years to come. You may not that in the field of history, much of the coursework and fields if professional historians is organized this way. Of course, when you start comparing areas, you are moving to the subfield of Comparative Politics.

9. Methodology. Those who study the methods by which they and other political scientists study the topics we have just listed are said to study "methodology." Of course, this means all political scientists study methodology--they must in order to do their research. A course in research methods is a standard course in graduate school. It is also a standard course in most undergraduate programs--like this one! Usually, however, this has a little more narrow meaning. It usually refers to empirical research methods with a heavy dose of statistics in it. So if one sees a job opening in "methodology" the school running the ad is looking for someone who is strong in statistics. You will get a little does of that in this course as well--but just a small dose.

Put all this together and what do you have? You have a field whose scope covers a whole lot of territory. It covers any topic or question that has anything to do with power, influence, quality of life or even quality of death, wars, pestilence, divorce and marriage, sexual practices (in so far as they are a part of public policy--e.g. teaching of sexuality in schools, or laws regarding homosexuality, what kinds of energy we use in cars and our homes, or AIDS, or how they affect political fortunes of elites, like President Bush Clinton and President G.W. Bush, Jr.), and even things that don't happen (like why workers in textile mills did not protest unhealthy working conditions, or citizens who do not get involved in the civic life of their community, or students who just go on paying higher and higher tuition without protest to the state legislature). One of the things I personally like about political science is that it allows me to research almost anything that I find interesting. My own current research ranges from interest group power in South Carolina politics to African-American political figures to the education lottery to how much college students know about American government.

Your research

What does all this mean for you? It means that if you have any problem that involves power either to alter the behavior of someone or some institution, you have a research topic for political science. If it seems to you that something should have happened, but did not, like teachers in South Carolina demanding better pay, you have a topic for research. If you have a problem that involves any law or policy or regulation, it is a legitimate problem for research. In short, it means that there is no shortage of research topics in political science. In fact, it is hard to find a human problem that is NOT a legitimate research problem in the field of political science. We may not be able to study cures for cancer, but we can study why one approach gets funded and another does not. We may not be able to study the physics of space stations, but we can study the bills that allow NASA to build one design and not another. We may not study coaching philosophy for football coaches, but we can study regulations and laws that allow or stop teams from moving and how all these fancy stadiums get built. And even if you don't have a problem you want to study, you can use the skills you learn to evaluate all the studies others have done.

Assignments for next class:

1. Go again to some scholarly journals, but this time use only political science journals. Find TWO articles and write a few sentence description of each article. Classify the article in terms of which of the areas into which it falls (mass behavior, elite behavior, methodology, public policy, and so on). A couple of sentences to describe each will suffice. Again, you will be expected to present your articles to the rest of the class. Be able to say what it was about and why you see it as on a particular category. 

2. Read the article on Rational Choice that was mentioned in this lecture and answer the following questions:

• How is James Wilson different than Kenneth Shepsle?
• What is rational choice?
• What obligations do political scientists have to the larger society? (There are two alternatives here.)
• What is Kenneth Arrow's Possibility Theorem?
• Who was William Riker?
• How did Green and Shapiro attack rational choice?
• How would rational choice change the study of politics?
• What do you think the conclusion of the paper is?

last updated on 8/19/2009

Copyright 2009 Robert Botsch