Political Science and David Wearing
10/20/13
How scientific is political science? | David Wearing | Comment is free | theguardian.com
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here
How scientific is political science?
The study of politics claims to be objective, but can it – and should it – shake off our own moral and political priorities?
David Wearing theguardian.com , Monday 8 March 2 01 0 1 1 .3 0 GMT
In the early stages of my PhD research, I've had to tackle some fundamental questions about the nature of my field – political science – and the way in which the study of politics ought to be conducted. There are internal debates within political science that are themselves political, and which have a wider bearing on how ideas are produced and promoted beyond academia. These debates are not "academic" in the narrow sense.
They affect political discourse more generally, and so concern us all.
The prevailing view within the discipline is that scholars should set aside moral values and political concerns in favour of detached enquiry into the mechanics of how the political world functions. This often involves borrowing the trappings of the natural sciences in attempts to establish generalisable theories of causation through the testing of hypotheses. To the extent that this activity has a purpose beyond the establishment of knowledge for its own sake, it is to place that knowledge at the hands of policymakers who, in the light of the political scientist's advice, may then make political and moral judgements as they see fit.
Learning from the disciplines of "hard science", where appropriate, can certainly yield benefits. But I have yet to be convinced by the idea that the study of politics can be apolitical and value-neutral. Our choice of research topics will inevitably reflect our own political and moral priorities, and the way in which that research is framed and conducted is bound to reflect
How scientific is political science? | David Wearing | Comment is free | theguardian.com
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here
How scientific is political science?
The study of politics claims to be objective, but can it – and should it – shake off our own moral and political priorities?
David Wearing theguardian.com , Monday 8 March 2 01 0 1 1 .3 0 GMT
In the early stages of my PhD research, I've had to tackle some fundamental questions about the nature of my field – political science – and the way in which the study of politics ought to be conducted. There are internal debates within political science that are themselves political, and which have a wider bearing on how ideas are produced and promoted beyond academia. These debates are not "academic" in the narrow sense.
They affect political discourse more generally, and so concern us all.
The prevailing view within the discipline is that scholars should set aside moral values and political concerns in favour of detached enquiry into the mechanics of how the political world functions. This often involves borrowing the trappings of the natural sciences in attempts to establish generalisable theories of causation through the testing of hypotheses. To the extent that this activity has a purpose beyond the establishment of knowledge for its own sake, it is to place that knowledge at the hands of policymakers who, in the light of the political scientist's advice, may then make political and moral judgements as they see fit.
Learning from the disciplines of "hard science", where appropriate, can certainly yield benefits. But I have yet to be convinced by the idea that the study of politics can be apolitical and value-neutral. Our choice of research topics will inevitably reflect our own political and moral priorities, and the way in which that research is framed and conducted is bound to reflect