Advertisement

European Political Science

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 143–155 | Cite as

toward a science of politics?

  • Bernard Grofman
Symposium: Why Political Science is not Scientific Enough

Abstract

In the first half of the essay we summarise the main contributions in the essays in this issue by Coleman, Colomer, and Taagepera, and identify key commonalities in their suggestions for making political science more ‘scientific’. We argue that most of their concerns are well taken, but that the remedies they propose may not be applicable in all domains within political science. In particular, it is largely in the area of voting and elections, where clearly demarcated input and output variables can be identified, that their suggestions seem the most applicable. In the second half of the essay we trace the rise and fall, over the past 100 years, of movements in the US to make political science more scientific. We conclude by identifying similarities between these essays and the recent EITM movement in US political science.

Keywords

philosophy of social sciences methodology logic of inquiry scientific study of politics 

References

  1. Adams, J., Merrill, S. and Grofman, B. (2005) A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braumoeller, B.F. (2003) ‘Causal complexity and the study of politics’, Political Analysis 11: 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunell, T. and Grofman, B. (1998) ‘Explaining divided U.S. senate delegations, 1788–1994’, American Political Science Review 92 (2): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E. and Stokes, D.E. (1960) The American Voter, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  6. Easton, D. (1953) The Political System, New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  7. Easton, D. (1969) ‘The new revolution in political science’, American Political Science Review 63 (4): 1051–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Easton, D. (1997) ‘The Future of the Post-Behavioural Phase in Political Science’, in K. Monroe (ed.) Contemporary Empirical Political Theory, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 13–46.Google Scholar
  9. Gray, M.M. and Wuffle, A. (2005) ‘Vindicating Anthony downs’, PS: Political Science and Politics 38 (4): 737–740.Google Scholar
  10. Green, D.P. and Shapiro, I. (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grofman, B. (1974) ‘Helping behavior and group size, some exploratory stochastic models’, Behavioral Science 19: 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grofman, B. (1982) ‘A dynamic model of protocoalition formation in ideological n-space’, Behavioral Science 27: 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grofman, B. (1997) ‘Seven Durable Axes of Cleavage in Political Science’, in K. Monroe (ed.) Contemporary Empirical Political Theory, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
  14. Grofman, B., Brunell, T.L. and Koetzle, W. (1998) ‘Why is there sometimes midterm gain in the Senate but (almost) always midterm loss in the house?’ Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (1): 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grofman, B., Koetzle, W., McDonald, M. and Brunell, T. (2000) ‘A new look at split ticket voting for House and President: the comparative midpoints model’, Journal of Politics 62 (1): 34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holcombe, R. (2005) ‘Government growth in the 21st century’, Public Choice 124: 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Key, V.O. (1942) Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.Google Scholar
  18. Key, V.O. (1949) Southern Politics, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  19. King, G. (1997) A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. King, G., Keohane, R. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Masuoka, N., Grofman, B. and Feld, S.L. (2006) ‘The political science 400: a twenty-year update’, unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  22. Ostrom, E. (2006) ‘The 2005 James Madison award lecture – converting threats into opportunities’, PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (1): 3–12.Google Scholar
  23. Poirier, D. (1980) ‘Partial observability in bivariate probit models’, Journal of Econometrics 12: 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pool, J. and Grofman, B. (1975) ‘Computer programs as a means of efficiency and control in cross-cultural experimental games’, Experimental Study of Politics 4 (2): 27–57.Google Scholar
  25. Ragin, C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Regenwetter, M., Grofman, B., Marley, A.A.J. and Tsetlin, I. (2006) Behavioral Social Choice: Probabilistic Models, Statistical Inference, and Applications, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schneider, C. and Grofman, B. (2006) ‘It might look like a regression equation … but it's not! an intuitive approach to the presentation of QCA and FS/QCA results, Paper presented at the Conference on ‘Comparative Politics: Empirical Applications of Methodological Innovations,’ Sophia University, Tokyo, 15–17 July.Google Scholar
  28. Somit, A. and Tanenhaus, J. (1967) The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism, New York: Boston, Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  29. Winer, S., Tofias, M., Grofman, B. and Aldrich, J. (2006) ‘Supply versus demand and the rule of ideology in the growth of government: the United States, 1930–2002, Paper presented at the Public Choice Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 30 March–2 April.Google Scholar
  30. Wuffle, A (1999) ‘Credo of a ‘Reasonable Choice’ modeler’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 11 (2): 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zimmerman, F. (1995) ‘The history of melancholy’, Journal of the University of Michigan International Institute 2 (2):http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jii;cc=jii;q1=4750978.0002.2%2A;rgn=main;view=text;idno=4750978.0002.205.

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard Grofman
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social Sciences, University of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations