Is post-behaviouralism a distinct approach to the study of politics?
Is post-behaviouralism a distinct approach to the study of politics?
Limitations inherent in traditional orientations of analyzing phenomena are reasons behind the search for new paradigms aimed at increasing epistemic knowledge when analyzing political issues in the 21st Century. Against the existing institutionalists, pluralists and elitists approach, contemporary thinkers have adopted the behaviouralists approach which has capacity to increase the empirical status of knowledge in contemporary political analysis. Behaviouralism as an approach to the study of political sciences has brought to light some of its limitations and weaknesses after twenty years of popularity. Originally emerged in the 1930s in the United States, behaviouralism emphasises on an objective and quantified approach to the explanation and prediction of political behaviour. It is associated with the rise of behavioural sciences, which is modeled after the natural sciences. Thus, behaviouralism was seen as an innovative approach as it has changed the original attitude of the purpose of inquiry. Back in the past before the rising popularity of behaviouralism, many criticised political science as a ‘science’, as the study of politics is too normative and qualitative with no scientific method as a back-up. Behaviouralism also claims that it can explain political behaviour form an unbiased, value-free point of view. As later described by post-behaviouralists, behaviouralism can be seen as a “mad craze for scienticism”. To analyse the distinctiveness of post-behaviouralism as an approach to the study of politics, it is important to first look at the rise of the behavioural movement and the development of post-behaviouralism.
David Easton, a former supporter of behaviouralism, pointed out in his published work the characteristics of behaviouralism which are regarded as its intellectual foundations. The features include regularities, which are certain “uniformities in political behaviour” that
Limitations inherent in traditional orientations of analyzing phenomena are reasons behind the search for new paradigms aimed at increasing epistemic knowledge when analyzing political issues in the 21st Century. Against the existing institutionalists, pluralists and elitists approach, contemporary thinkers have adopted the behaviouralists approach which has capacity to increase the empirical status of knowledge in contemporary political analysis. Behaviouralism as an approach to the study of political sciences has brought to light some of its limitations and weaknesses after twenty years of popularity. Originally emerged in the 1930s in the United States, behaviouralism emphasises on an objective and quantified approach to the explanation and prediction of political behaviour. It is associated with the rise of behavioural sciences, which is modeled after the natural sciences. Thus, behaviouralism was seen as an innovative approach as it has changed the original attitude of the purpose of inquiry. Back in the past before the rising popularity of behaviouralism, many criticised political science as a ‘science’, as the study of politics is too normative and qualitative with no scientific method as a back-up. Behaviouralism also claims that it can explain political behaviour form an unbiased, value-free point of view. As later described by post-behaviouralists, behaviouralism can be seen as a “mad craze for scienticism”. To analyse the distinctiveness of post-behaviouralism as an approach to the study of politics, it is important to first look at the rise of the behavioural movement and the development of post-behaviouralism.
David Easton, a former supporter of behaviouralism, pointed out in his published work the characteristics of behaviouralism which are regarded as its intellectual foundations. The features include regularities, which are certain “uniformities in political behaviour” that
Bibliography: Easton, David. "Theory and Behavioral Research." A Framework for Political Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979. 1-22. Print. Kirn, Michael E. "Behavioralism, Post-Beliavioralism, and the Philosophy of Science: Two Houses. One Plague." The Review of Politics 39.01 (1977): 82-102. Print. David, Sanders. "Behaviouralism." Theory and Methods in Political Science. By David Marsh and Gerry Stoker. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. N. pag. Print. Beardsley, Philip L. "A Critique of Post-Behavioralism." Political Theory 5.1 (1977): 97-111. Print. Miller, Eugene F. David Easton 's Political Theory. Rep. Political Science Reviewer, 1971. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. . Easton, David. "The New Revolution in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 63 (1969): 1051-061. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. .