SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN POLITICAL SCIENCE: EMPIRICISM VS. NORMATIVISM (Pols 210)

Introduction

A central debate in political science concerns whether the discipline qualifies as a science. This debate has produced two major schools of thought — the empiricist and the normative — each offering contrasting views on the scientific status of political inquiry.

SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

Broadly, there are two schools of thought focusing on the scientificity or otherwise of political science:

1. The empiricist or empirical perspective.

2. The normative perspective or school of thought.

Empiricism inscribed 

They hold opposing views. The empiricist believes that political science is a science, while the normative believes that political science is not a science. Both argue along different lines.

WHAT IS SCIENCE ALL ABOUT?

Science is concerned with how things operate in the real world. It is also a body of knowledge built on general laws that are operational and verifiable. Science is therefore a body of organised knowledge and a process of acquiring knowledge or conducting investigation based on fact.

Science is also about rationality — specifically, how to collect data or facts which can be arranged logically and sequentially.

THE NORMATIVE (TRADITIONAL) PERSPECTIVE

ethics moral philosophy word cloud concept on white

The normative school is otherwise called the traditional approach. Normativists argue that political science cannot be a science because it is not possible to subject political phenomena to controlled conditions, as is the case in the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry.

They further argue that, unlike the natural sciences, political science lacks the capacity to perfectly predict the outcomes of any investigation. It is not always easy to predict human behaviour with absolute certainty. The normativists therefore believe that the study of political phenomena should not be exclusively conducted on empirical or strictly scientific grounds.

Instead, they suggest that values are very important in political analysis, and because values are not directly observable or testable, they cannot be subjected to scientific principles. Due to the difficulty of subjecting values to rigorous empirical analysis, normativists hold that political phenomena require interpretive, rather than purely scientific, treatment.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EMPIRICAL AND NORMATIVE SCHOOLS

Despite their differences, both schools share several points of agreement:

1. They agree that values are identified by a researcher or group of researchers to guide what is to be studied or analysed. However, both schools hold that these values, sentiments, and biases should be removed or minimised in any serious academic analysis.

2. They also agree that some assumptions about political phenomena — those not guided by scientific proof — should be clearly acknowledged in any study within political science.

3. They agree that value attachment is a factor in research, and that it is not easy to detach bias or sentiment entirely in social science research.

THREE ELEMENTS USED IN POLITICAL ANALYSIS

1. Theory — A logical statement or framework, often incorporating variables, used to explain political phenomena such as international trade, diplomacy, war, justice, peace, poverty, development, and the nation-state.

2. Approach — A methodological orientation or perspective used to analyse political phenomena.

3. Model — A method of describing and representing the relationship between variables in a specific political situation or context.

Conclusion

The debate between empiricists and normativists reflects the broader challenge of applying scientific methods to the study of human and political behaviour. While the empiricist school aligns political science with the natural sciences, the normative school emphasises the role of values and interpretation. Their shared acknowledgment of the influence of values in research, however, points to a common concern with rigour and intellectual honesty. The three analytical tools — theory, approach, and model — provide a practical framework for conducting political analysis regardless of one's school of thought.