Revolution in methods and techniques of political enquiry

If causal theory, or theory based on the cause–effect relationship, and not value theory is the aim of the behavioural approach, its method and techniques must provide for the collection of data, and its verification and analysis, so that empirically verifiable propositions can be made.

Towards this end, scientific techniques and methods of data collection, verification and analysis have been the major focus of the behavioural approach. In the early twentieth century and before the Second World War, the focus was on quantitative data, content analysis, statistical tables, psychoanalysis, etc. This period witnessed the use of empirical and quantitative methods to shift away from description-based political studies. However, these methods were used to enable more precise description and analysis,⁴⁴ rather than achieve scientific theory-building. Lasswell’s use of content analysis and psychoanalytical theory was the main achievement in this period.

After the Second World War, a host of political scientists such as Almond (structural–functional), Dahl (power), Easton (systems), Lasswell (power, content analysis), Deutsch (communication) and others sought to develop research designs and theoretical models to build empirical theories. This focus on empirical theory-building led to the development of sophisticated tools and techniques of research.

The revolution in methods and techniques has been in terms of data-gathering and research; analysis; and propositions or empirical theory or conceptual frame of reference. While the first two deal with techniques and tools, the third relates to theory-building. Let us take the first two in this section. The following tools and techniques for data collection and analysis are important in behavioural approach:

• Content analysis: the method of content analysis implies making an analysis of the contents of documents, papers, etc. on a subject matter, to gather data, evidence, trends, patterns, etc. for making generalizations or statements. Harold Lasswell and others popularized the use of content analysis as a tool of data- and evidence-gathering. However, Lasswell’s study of propaganda in the First World War applying content analysis as a tool (Propaganda Technique in the Word War, 1938) was more qualitative than quantitative in nature. Content analysis subsequently became more sophisticated and shifted from qualitative to quantitative aspects in the works of Robert North (content analysis to detect trends in decision-makers’ perception of hostility and frustration) and Richart L. Merrit (content analysis of symbols of American community). There has also been content analysis of symbols of internationalism, democracy and other such ideas.⁴⁵
• Case analysis: This refers to in-depth study of a case in order to gather data and information in a holistic manner. It helps in point-by-point comparison between two cases. Systematic case analysis for data-gathering is an important tool used in the behavioural approach.
• Sample survey: One sampling is aimed at identifying a group of units/elements/population that are representative of their respective universe or the whole to which they belong. Based on probability, it is expected that representative units (the sample) will give the same result as would be the case if the entire universe or population were to be studied or surveyed. For example, a sample survey of voters in the form of an exit poll can be used to predict election results.
• Interview/panel technique: While interview as a technique of evidence and data collection is used in many disciplines and pre-dates the behavioural approach, it has come to acquire a new direction and sophistication in the behavioural approach. Interview can be open-ended or closed-ended. In an open-ended interview, one can supplement whatever options are given as answers. In a closed-ended interview, most of the answers are of the YES/NO type or have fixed options. A special interview technique called panel technique is used to detect change or persistence in behaviour, preferences, attitudes, etc. of a sample of politically relevant persons, groups or community (the panel) through interviews at intervals over a period of time. For example, to assess the acceptability of a rural development programme by its beneficiaries, one can interview a sample of the beneficiaries before the policy is implemented and then once or twice again after it has been in operation for, say, two and four years on the basis of the same set of questions. After analysing the attitudes, preferences and acceptability levels at said intervals, one can conclude the effectiveness of the policy and its acceptability or otherwise by the people. Psephologists also use this technique to determine the shift or persistence in party and voting preferences.
• Depth and focused interview: Depth and focused interview is used to explore the personal, subjective and motivational aspects of people. The idea is to explore not only what one observes from the external behaviour of a person or agent but to go deeper and find out the meaning of that behaviour as understood by the actor. This is what Max Weber called the verstehen method, or the ‘interpretative understanding of action’. For example, a couple sitting in seclusion near a lit candle can be thought to be worshiping, celebrating their wedding anniversary, mourning the death of their son/daughter, or simply having a romantic moment. Any one of these interpretations is possible. To know for sure, one needs to know what meaning the couple attaches to the lit candle. It is said that in understanding human behaviour one can fruitfully utilize the method of interpretative understanding/verstehen. While in the verstehen method one seeks to put oneself in an actor’s position subjectively, in in-depth interview the subjective meaning is taken from the actor himself/herself; the researcher’s value preferences are excluded.
• Questionnaire: A questionnaire serves as a means to elicit information on a predetermined set of questions/issues. While in a normal interview, face-to-face interaction is possible and supplementary questions arising out of the interaction can be asked, in a questionnaire responses can only be collected on the basis of structured questions. The advantage of a questionnaire is that it does not allow the researcher to prompt or influence the respondent’s answers.
• Participative observation: In anthropology and sociology, the method of participative observation is used, where the researcher without disclosing his/her identity becomes part of the community or group that is under observation. Participative observation has been used by anthropologists to understand the behaviour and meaning of actions, particularly in aboriginal communities.
• Multivariate analysis: The study of the relationship between multiple variables and their cause and effect helps to test the entire conceptual framework of reference or model at a time. Generally, a model or a conceptual framework of reference includes many concepts and variables. For example, in the systems model, demands and supports as inputs; decision-making as process of conversion, and policies and resource allocation as outputs are the different variables that require testing. This is possible only by multivariate analysis.
• Causal modelling and paired comparison: By means of causal modelling, the path of what causes what in the presence of multiple variables can be tested.⁴⁶ For example, to understand the relationship among legislative process, party system, electoral behaviour and other informal processes, one needs to know what effect each one has on the other. Paired comparison is a technique of analysis where pairs of variables are analysed to find out variations arising out of shift in variables.
• Simulation: This is a technique to create a situation/environment like the original one with all its features, elements and parameters so as to study it in a controlled manner. With the aid of computer-based technologies, researchers can reproduce features of an environment that they want to study and make predictions or generalizations. Psychologists use this technique to predict voting behaviour.

Other techniques such as frequency distribution (distribution of periodic occurrence of a phenomenon in time or space) and scalogram analysis (test of attitudes or opinions in which the questions are ranked so that the answer to one implies the same answer to all questions lower on the scale)⁴⁷ are also used.

The conclusion seems to be, according to Easton that, ‘the behavioural approach testifies to the coming of age of theory in social sciences as a whole, wedded, however, to a commitment to the assumptions and methods of empirical sciences’.

But do these refined and sophisticated techniques help in theory-building? And is it true that ‘the emergence of a behavioural approach goes beyond a methodological or mere technical orientation?’ What are the achievements of the behavioural approach in the field of theory-building?⁴⁸

According to Easton, the ultimate objective of behavioural political science is to create a systematic theory, or causal theory, which helps to organize data into a patterned whole based on the functional relationship between facts and variables. As mentioned earlier, though behaviouralists generally aim to discover general laws of political behaviour and formulate overarching theories as their final goal, they start with low-level or middle-range theories. They claim that through systematization as one of the foundation stones of the behavioural approach, research and theory are integrally related: ‘Research untutored by theory, may prove to be trivial and theory unsupported by data, futile.’ With this perspective, theory-building, conceptual frames of reference and models are attempted by behaviouralists to impart meaning to findings. This is also reflected in the search for stable units of analysis to understand behaviour across disciplines in the social sciences.

Although these attempts can be treated as achievements of the behavioural approach in theory-building, it is generally accepted that the behavioural approach has shown its strength in research in individual, face-to-face or small group relationships. For example, it has been useful in explaining voting behaviour. But it fails to adequately explain relationships between institutions, such as between party system and legislature. Behavioural attempt at theory-building is more analytical than substantive, more general than particular, and more explanatory than descriptive and ethical. Despite its attempts, behavioural approach has not been able to formulate theory that can portray validated causal relationships or go beyond low-level conceptual frames and models.

In the aftermath of the debate between traditionalists and behaviouralists that occurred in the 1950s, a split among the behaviouralists themselves developed in the 1960s—between theoretical behaviouralists who insisted on theory-building irrespective of findings and research, and positive behaviouralists who insisted on research more than theory-building and even seemed to neglect political science. This debate set the stage for post-behaviouralism.