Political Research

An Introduction

Lisa Harrison, Nicholas Startin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415226561
• eBook ISBN: 9781134589227
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political History & Theory
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Political Research: An Introduction has been designed to provide an excellent starting point for those new to the area of Research Methods. It assumes no prior knowledge of the subject and sets out the key issues involved in doing research in Politics. It guides students through a complex and often daunting subject by exploring the many concepts associated with the field, as well as offering practical advice on research practices and information resources. Features and benefits of this textbook include: * boxed case studies in each chapter to illustrate and clarify key concepts, and highlight the practical use of different research methods * a useful glossary, giving easy access to definitions of key terms * a dedicated web-site containing sample material, extra case studies, important links, and essential resources for both teachers and students.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Political research methods: what does this mean?

The art of systematic analysis: the development of political science

The language of political research methods

The development of political research methodology: the relationship between political research and theory

Conclusion: the necessity of a scientific approach towards political research

Further reading

Political research methods: what does this mean?

In our day-to-day life of watching and reading about political events we are bombarded with a whole range of facts, figures and points of view, and it is usually the case that we will believe, or accept, some information whilst choosing to question other claims. The focus of this text is an analysis of this process of information retrieval and assessment in our role as political researchers – that is, empirical political research. We are not inactive recipients of political information: we make some sort of choice about what newspaper we read, whether to watch the news, which books we read and, indeed, which courses we might study as part of our degree. Obviously, we are not totally ‘free’ to make these decisions, and most decisions we make are usually subject to some constraints – for example, whether we can afford to buy a newspaper every day; also, during your degree some courses will be compulsory whilst some will be optional.

As members of a social and political system we rarely look at information without applying past experience and knowledge, hence we are always ‘judging’ what is presented to us. As students of politics you will (hopefully) spend a considerable amount of time reading books, journal articles and newspapers, and will make use of a variety of other source materials (such as surveys and reports) in order to prepare for essays and examinations. Your tutors would also hope that, as your studies progress, you become more aware of, and even critical of, particular debates and arguments. Our experiences in research face similar constraints: what materials are available in our library? is existing survey material easy to obtain? are we able to interview the relevant political actors? The aim of this text is to make ‘better’ political scientists of you by becoming aware of problems and hurdles which one faces when, first of all, you employ particular information to produce coursework, and second, when you go on to perform hands-on research, such as writing a dissertation.

What does the study of politics involve? Is it political ideas, institutions, attitudes and behaviour, policy making decisions and networks? It is, at different times, all these aspects, and those studying politics as an academic subject will undoubtedly become familiar with all of them at some time. What methods do we use? That will depend upon the subject matter. Indeed, political research is rarely ‘ideal’, particularly if it involves surveys and interviews, although this does not prevent political researchers from trying to obtain the highest quality of information possible (by adopting what we might call a ‘scientific’ approach). What this text will do is familiarise you with these different empirical methods (such as comparative analysis and case studies to name but some), suggest when it is appropriate to use particular methods and, most importantly, identify some of the advantages and disadvantages of using different methods. For as Halfpenny (1984, p. 2) suggests: ‘Imaginative research is research done with a critical awareness of what alternative ways there are of doing it, of what the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are, and of why you are doing it the way you are.’

The art of systematic analysis: the development of political science

We can identify within the study of politics a trend away from the term political studies in favour of the label political science. The first American university chair in political science was established in 1858 at Columbia (Dahl, 1961, p. 764), and since then we have seen a progression and growth of different approaches to political research. What does the term political science, as opposed to political studies, mean exactly? Marsh and Stoker (1995, p. 7) say that: ‘by science we mean the organised production of knowledge that demands of its practitioners certain intellectual disciplines, in particular, logical coherence and adequate evidence.’

While the real world of politics and politicians may seem chaotic, as political researchers we cannot afford to ignore the rules of science. This will be elaborated upon in more detail in the next chapter when we examine terminology such as reliability, validity and causality. If we adopt Marsh and Stoker’s approach we are claiming that the study of politics involves more than merely accounting for singular findings and events. Rather, we are employing a recognisable process of analysis which includes logic and maybe even prediction.

The term political science is often (although not exclusively) associated with the growth of the behavioural approach. The behavioural approach became a prominent focus of political research in the early part of the twentieth century, and its establishment is associated with the University of Chicago in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s (although the ‘Chicago School’, as it is commonly known, was heavily influenced by European political scientists). However, the development of the behavioural approach was not just driven by ideas, but also by methodological tools – particularly the availability of surveys for studying political choices and attitudes (Dahl, 1961, p. 765). The label political science is important from a funding level. For example, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is one of the largest independent funding agencies involved in funding and promoting ‘social science research’. Created in 1965, the ESRC has a current annual budget of over £60 million. Without such funding (from the ESRC and many other organisations) we would certainly be severely restricted in the breadth and depth of our political knowledge.

Much of the research we can carry out only begins to have any value when we can use it to support a particular theory. Research data are merely a device we employ to illustrate and reinforce theoretical foundations. Do not be misled into believing that lots of data can be a sufficient substitute for appropriate explanation. Research data should be illustrative, not and end in themselves. We are scientists in as much as we are trying to ‘make sense’ of a political world which is defined by human thoughts and actions.

In some ways politics is very different to other social science subjects, and in others there is a great deal of similarity. The obvious difference is that we are concerned with political behaviour and institutions, rather than purely historical, sociological or psychological concepts. Yet despite this, these subjects often share the same basic research principles. This is partly because the distinction between the subjects is not always clear cut (one only has to look at a range of book titles – Dowse and Hughes’s Political Sociology, Childs’s Britain since 1945: A Political History, Samuels’s The Political Psyche – to see that this is the case). Many existing text books focus upon general social science research methods. Indeed, the principles relevant to carrying out an appropriate survey or interview will be broadly similar for any social science. There are some important differences between the subjects though. ‘Observation’ is a technique common to sociology and anthropology, but it is employed relatively rarely in political research. This is not to say that it cannot be used – it is just not feasible in many cases. For example, we may find it useful to ‘observe’ Cabinet meetings, but are unlikely to find access easy!

Within political science, we rarely take the psychological approach, which employs experiments to test hypotheses. Any student of psychology will invariably be introduced to the principles of behavioural conditioning in which animals have been trained to respond to particular stimuli (as exemplified by Skinner’s rats and Pavlov’s dogs). However: ‘Social scientists cannot create laboratory conditions and then intervene in the experimental process to see what changes on existing relationships are induced as a result’ (Broughton, 1995, p. 26). In the human world, people receive their political cues from a whole range of sources (such as the family, the workplace as well as the media) and it would be unethical for us to control these environments to any great extent. Hence, the main reason for avoiding experimental techniques in political research are similar to the justifications we put forward in relation to observation: it is very difficult to create a totally experimental environment in politics (although not altogether impossible). When might the experimental approach prove to be useful?

In order to assess whether the media can influence voting choices, an experimental study of television news was carried out during the 1997 general election campaign (a more substantial account of this study is provided in Chapter 6). The study tested four hypotheses which were based upon existing theories of media-agenda setting (Norris et al., 1999). Respondents were asked to complete two questionnaires, in between which they were shown a thirty-minute selection of video news, in order to assess whether the news exposure influenced responses. Yet the authors behind this study recognise that while ‘experiments provide a more satisfactory way to examine the short-term impact of media messages . . . In contrast, many different factors other than the news media could influence public concerns’ (ibid. p. 129). It is simply not possible to create a totally experimental situation in politics, living in the safe hope that, were our scenario to occur in the real political world, our political actors would behave in exactly the same way.

Whilst this text will focus upon the main methods used in empirical political research, examples of less conventional methodologies will also be identified and examined. We have stated that a scientific approach to the study of politics is an attempt to produce a ‘logically coherent’ and empirically supported knowledge, yet in the drive to develop explanations and theories we have to recognise that much of what we research rotates around attitudes, beliefs and interpretations. We can state the turnout in an election with a high degree of certainty, but we are unlikely to be as confident about the precise reasons why some people did not vote. In this sense, the political research method(s) we adopt is often central to our overall findings. It is easy enough to read a book or article and say, ‘but the question you really should have asked is . . . ’, or ‘why did you look at institution x and not institution y . . . ’, or ‘it’s all right asking people who did vote what they think about New Labour, but what about those who didn’t vote . . . ’. Any published research worth its salt should have a clear explanation of methods, and I suggest you read this section of any research carefully, and use it as a reference point when reading the rest of the work.

As such, there may be some disagreement as to whether an ‘ideal’ research method exists. Rather, there are methods which are more appropriate in different circumstances, enabling us to provide more accurate explanations and theories, and this text will predominantly focus upon these. There are several questions we can ask about all political research:

Briefing box 1.1 Questions commonly asked of political research

• Who produced the research? Was it an academic, a journalist, a politician, a think tank?

• Why was it produced? Is it a one-off study or part of an ongoing project?

• How was it carried out? What method or methods have been employed? Was the research funded – if so, by whom? What sort of access did the writer gain to the subject studied? How long did it take? How long ago was the research carried out?

• What is actually being presented? Are all questions answered? Could other issues have been investigated?

• What does it mean? Has it led to policy change? Has it affected political behaviour?

Ultimately, the books or journal articles we read, the news bulletins we watch or listen to, and the official documents and archives we search through have been produced for a reason. In some cases there may be a legal requirement or a sense of ‘public duty’ (see our examination of official data in Chapter 4) whilst other cases may be satisfying a more general ‘need to know’. Therefore, it is very important that we give some consideration to who the producers or sponsors are, and for what purpose or circulation it was intended, as their values may (albeit unintentionally) ultimately influence the research process. Hence, the production of research in political science does not take place in a moral vacuum. Research can be as much a result of agenda-setting as it can be deemed to be in the interests of the development of wider public knowledge.

The language of political research methods

As with any field of knowledge, political researchers are prone to use technical language to explain their research findings. This is clearly justifiable, as long as those working in the field have a common understanding and interpretation of such terms. However, on the negative side it means that we may be creating exclusive information which is only comprehensible to a small audience.

Problems with terminology are not merely confined to research language. As politics is largely a subjective science, we may also disagree over the meaning of some, very common, political terms. Using clear language in political research is extremely important, as terms such as ‘liberal’, ‘power’ and ‘development’ are notoriously vague and open to multiple interpretations. For example, the term ‘government’ is a multidimensional concept with at least four interpretations (Finer, 1987, pp. 3–4):

1 the activity or process of exercising control over others;

2 the state of affairs of exercising control, that is, a condition of ordered rule;

3 those in charge in a political system;

4 the style or manner of exercising control, for example, liberal democracy, totalitarianism, military regime.

Therefore, just as we must be clear about the methods we use to research politics, it is vital that we clearly define potentially disputable terms. Throughout this text many technical terms will be identified and explained. Some terms we shall analyse in relation to purely quantitative research (beginning in Chapter 2) and some in relation to qualitative research, whilst some terms are shared between the two. You can also refer to the Glossary for brief explanations of commonly used terms, although by reading the text more fully you will encounter examples of ‘real research’ which will help you to comprehend the language of political research.

The development of political research methodology: the relationship between political research and theory

How can we be sure that voting behaviour may be linked to economic prosperity or that political interest is related to educational attainment? The political research we carry out helps us to formulate, and if appropriate, revise political theories. Mannheim and Rich (1995, p. 21) claim that: ‘theories make facts useful by providing us with a framework for interpreting them and seeing their relationships to one another . . . [they are] sets of logically related symbols that represent what we think happens in the world.’

To reiterate a point made earlier, research data are means to an end. They are of little use if we are unable to relate them to structured, logical explanations. Therefore, theories help us to relate distinct pieces of research to each other. Our research may not always be intrinsically comparative (see below), but we do make use of theoretical foundations in order to assess whether our research findings are unique or whether they fit into a more regular pattern of findings. There are two basic means by which we emphasise the relationship between research and theory. If we take the deductive approach we develop our claims, or hypotheses, from existing theory, or to put it in simpler terms, ‘we might consider a general picture of social life and then research a particular as...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Political Research
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dediation
• Contents
• LIST OF BRIEFING BOXES
• PREFACE
• 1 Introduction
• PART I QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
• Part II Qualitative Research
• Part III Doing Your Own Research
• GLOSSARY
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
• INDEX