introduction of a political science research paper

Request new password
Create a new account

Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to Inquiry, Structure, and Methods

Student resources, welcome to the companion website.

Want your students to write their first major political science research paper with confidence? With this book, they can. Author Lisa Baglione breaks down the research paper into its constituent parts and shows students precisely how to complete each component. The author provides encouragement at each stage and faces pitfalls head on, giving advice and examples so that students move through each task successfully. Students are shown how to craft the right research question, find good sources and properly summarize them, operationalize concepts, design good tests for their hypotheses, and present and analyze quantitative and qualitative data. Even writing an introduction, coming up with effective headings and titles, presenting a conclusion, and the important steps of editing and revising are covered with class-tested advice and know-how that’s received accolades from professors and students alike. Practical summaries, recipes for success, worksheets, exercises, and a series of handy checklists make this a must-have supplement for any writing-intensive political science course.

In this Third Edition of Writing a Research Paper in Political Science , updated sample research topics come from American government, gender studies, comparative politics, and international relations. Examples of actual student writing show readers how others "just like them" accomplished each stage of the process.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Lisa Baglione for writing an excellent text and developing the ancillaries on this site.

For instructors

Access resources that are only available to Faculty and Administrative Staff.

Want to explore the book further?

Order Review Copy

POLSC101: Introduction to Political Science

Research in political science.

This handout is designed to teach you how to conduct original political science research. While you won't be asked to write a research paper, this handout provides important information on the "scientific" approach used by political scientists. Pay particularly close attention to the section that answers the question "what is scientific about political science?"

If you were going to conduct research in biology or chemistry, what would you do? You would probably create a hypothesis, and then design an experiment to test your hypothesis. Based on the results of your experiment, you would draw conclusions. Political scientists follow similar procedures. Like a scientist who researches biology or chemistry, political scientists rely on objectivity, data, and procedure to draw conclusions. This article explains the process of operationalizing variables. Why is that an important step in social science research?

Defining politics and political science

Political scientist Harold Laswell said it best: at its most basic level, politics is the struggle of "who gets what, when, how". This struggle may be as modest as competing interest groups fighting over control of a small municipal budget or as overwhelming as a military stand-off between international superpowers. Political scientists study such struggles, both small and large, in an effort to develop general principles or theories about the way the world of politics works. Think about the title of your course or re-read the course description in your syllabus. You'll find that your course covers a particular sector of the large world of "politics" and brings with it a set of topics, issues, and approaches to information that may be helpful to consider as you begin a writing assignment. The diverse structure of political science reflects the diverse kinds of problems the discipline attempts to analyze and explain. In fact, political science includes at least eight major sub-fields:

American politics examines political behavior and institutions in the United States.
Comparative politics analyzes and compares political systems within and across different geographic regions.
International relations investigates relations among nation-states and the activities of international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and NATO, as well as international actors such as terrorists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multi-national corporations (MNCs).
Political theory analyzes fundamental political concepts such as power and democracy and foundational questions, like "How should the individual and the state relate?"
Political methodology deals with the ways that political scientists ask and investigate questions.
Public policy examines the process by which governments make public decisions.
Public administration studies the ways that government policies are implemented.
Public law focuses on the role of law and courts in the political process.

What is scientific about political science?

Investigating relationships

Although political scientists are prone to debate and disagreement, the majority view the discipline as a genuine science. As a result, political scientists generally strive to emulate the objectivity as well as the conceptual and methodological rigor typically associated with the so-called "hard" sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics). They see themselves as engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions. Based on these revelations, they attempt to state general principles about the way the world of politics works. Given these aims, it is important for political scientists' writing to be conceptually precise, free from bias, and well-substantiated by empirical evidence. Knowing that political scientists value objectivity may help you in making decisions about how to write your paper and what to put in it.

Political theory is an important exception to this empirical approach. You can learn more about writing for political theory classes in the section "Writing in Political Theory" below.

Building theories

Since theory-building serves as the cornerstone of the discipline, it may be useful to see how it works. You may be wrestling with theories or proposing your own as you write your paper. Consider how political scientists have arrived at the theories you are reading and discussing in your course. Most political scientists adhere to a simple model of scientific inquiry when building theories. The key to building precise and persuasive theories is to develop and test hypotheses. Hypotheses are statements that researchers construct for the purpose of testing whether or not a certain relationship exists between two phenomena. To see how political scientists use hypotheses, and to imagine how you might use a hypothesis to develop a thesis for your paper, consider the following example. Suppose that we want to know whether presidential elections are affected by economic conditions. We could formulate this question into the following hypothesis: "When the national unemployment rate is greater than 7 percent at the time of the election, presidential incumbents are not reelected".

Collecting data

In the research model designed to test this hypothesis, the dependent variable (the phenomenon that is affected by other variables) would be the reelection of incumbent presidents; the independent variable (the phenomenon that may have some effect on the dependent variable) would be the national unemployment rate. You could test the relationship between the independent and dependent variables by collecting data on unemployment rates and the reelection of incumbent presidents and comparing the two sets of information. If you found that in every instance that the national unemployment rate was greater than 7 percent at the time of a presidential election the incumbent lost, you would have significant support for our hypothesis.

However, research in political science seldom yields immediately conclusive results. In this case, for example, although in most recent presidential elections our hypothesis holds true, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected in 1936 despite the fact that the national unemployment rate was 17%. To explain this important exception and to make certain that other factors besides high unemployment rates were not primarily responsible for the defeat of incumbent presidents in other election years, you would need to do further research. So you can see how political scientists use the scientific method to build ever more precise and persuasive theories and how you might begin to think about the topics that interest you as you write your paper.

Clear, consistent, objective writing

Since political scientists construct and assess theories in accordance with the principles of the scientific method, writing in the field conveys the rigor, objectivity, and logical consistency that characterize this method. Thus political scientists avoid the use of impressionistic or metaphorical language, or language which appeals primarily to our senses, emotions, or moral beliefs. In other words, rather than persuade you with the elegance of their prose or the moral virtue of their beliefs, political scientists persuade through their command of the facts and their ability to relate those facts to theories that can withstand the test of empirical investigation. In writing of this sort, clarity and concision are at a premium. To achieve such clarity and concision, political scientists precisely define any terms or concepts that are important to the arguments that they make. This precision often requires that they "operationalize" key terms or concepts. "Operationalizing" simply means that important – but possibly vague or abstract – concepts like "justice" are defined in ways that allow them to be measured or tested through scientific investigation.

Fortunately, you will generally not be expected to devise or operationalize key concepts entirely on your own. In most cases, your professor or the authors of assigned readings will already have defined and/or operationalized concepts that are important to your research. And in the event that someone hasn't already come up with precisely the definition you need, other political scientists will in all likelihood have written enough on the topic that you're investigating to give you some clear guidance on how to proceed. For this reason, it is always a good idea to explore what research has already been done on your topic before you begin to construct your own argument. (See our handout on making an academic argument.)

Example of an operationalized term

To give you an example of the kind of "rigor" and "objectivity" political scientists aim for in their writing, let's examine how someone might operationalize a term. Reading through this example should clarify the level of analysis and precision that you will be expected to employ in your writing. Here's how you might define key concepts in a way that allows us to measure them.

We are all familiar with the term "democracy". If you were asked to define this term, you might make a statement like the following: "Democracy is government by the people". You would, of course, be correct – democracy is government by the people. But, in order to evaluate whether or not a particular government is fully democratic or is more or less democratic when compared with other governments, we would need to have more precise criteria with which to measure or assess democracy. Most political scientists agree that these criteria should include the following rights and freedoms for citizens:

Freedom to form and join organizations
Freedom of expression
Right to vote
Eligibility for public office
Right of political leaders to compete for support
Right of political leaders to compete for votes
Alternative sources of information
Free and fair elections
Institutions for making government policies depend on votes and other expressions of preference

By adopting these nine criteria, we now have a definition that will allow us to measure democracy. Thus, if you want to determine whether Brazil is more democratic than Sweden, you can evaluate each country in terms of the degree to which it fulfills the above criteria.

What counts as good writing in political science?

While rigor, clarity, and concision will be valued in any piece of writing in political science, knowing the kind of writing task you've been assigned will help you to write a good paper. Two of the most common kinds of writing assignments in political science are the research paper and the theory paper.

Writing political science research papers

Your instructors use research paper assignments as a means of assessing your ability to understand a complex problem in the field, to develop a perspective on this problem, and to make a persuasive argument in favor of your perspective. In order for you to successfully meet this challenge, your research paper should include the following components: (1) an introduction, (2) a problem statement, (3) a discussion of methodology, (4) a literature review, (5) a description and evaluation of your research findings, and (6) a summary of your findings. Here's a brief description of each component.

In the introduction of your research paper, you need to give the reader some basic background information on your topic that suggests why the question you are investigating is interesting and important. You will also need to provide the reader with a statement of the research problem you are attempting to address and a basic outline of your paper as a whole. The problem statement presents not only the general research problem you will address but also the hypotheses that you will consider. In the methodology section, you will explain to the reader the research methods you used to investigate your research topic and to test the hypotheses that you have formulated. For example, did you conduct interviews, use statistical analysis, rely upon previous research studies, or some combination of all of these methodological approaches?

Before you can develop each of the above components of your research paper, you will need to conduct a literature review. A literature review involves reading and analyzing what other researchers have written on your topic before going on to do research of your own. There are some very pragmatic reasons for doing this work. First, as insightful as your ideas may be, someone else may have had similar ideas and have already done research to test them. By reading what they have written on your topic, you can ensure that you don't repeat, but rather learn from, work that has already been done. Second, to demonstrate the soundness of your hypotheses and methodology, you will need to indicate how you have borrowed from and/or improved upon the ideas of others.

By referring to what other researchers have found on your topic, you will have established a frame of reference that enables the reader to understand the full significance of your research results. Thus, once you have conducted your literature review, you will be in a position to present your research findings. In presenting these findings, you will need to refer back to your original hypotheses and explain the manner and degree to which your results fit with what you anticipated you would find. If you see strong support for your argument or perhaps some unexpected results that your original hypotheses cannot account for, this section is the place to convey such important information to your reader. This is also the place to suggest further lines of research that will help refine, clarify inconsistencies with, or provide additional support for your hypotheses. Finally, in the summary section of your paper, reiterate the significance of your research and your research findings and speculate upon the path that future research efforts should take.

Writing in political theory

Political theory differs from other subfields in political science in that it deals primarily with historical and normative, rather than empirical, analysis. In other words, political theorists are less concerned with the scientific measurement of political phenomena than with understanding how important political ideas develop over time. And they are less concerned with evaluating how things are than in debating how they should be. A return to our democracy example will make these distinctions clearer and give you some clues about how to write well in political theory.

Earlier, we talked about how to define democracy empirically so that it can be measured and tested in accordance with scientific principles. Political theorists also define democracy, but they use a different standard of measurement. Their definitions of democracy reflect their interest in political ideals – for example, liberty, equality, and citizenship – rather than scientific measurement. So, when writing about democracy from the perspective of a political theorist, you may be asked to make an argument about the proper way to define citizenship in a democratic society. Should citizens of a democratic society be expected to engage in decision-making and administration of government, or should they be satisfied with casting votes every couple of years?

In order to substantiate your position on such questions, you will need to pay special attention to two interrelated components of your writing: (1) the logical consistency of your ideas and (2) the manner in which you use the arguments of other theorists to support your own. First, you need to make sure that your conclusion and all points leading up to it follow from your original premises or assumptions. If, for example, you argue that democracy is a system of government through which citizens develop their full capacities as human beings, then your notion of citizenship will somehow need to support this broad definition of democracy. A narrow view of citizenship based exclusively or primarily on voting probably will not do. Whatever you argue, however, you will need to be sure to demonstrate in your analysis that you have considered the arguments of other theorists who have written about these issues. In some cases, their arguments will provide support for your own; in others, they will raise criticisms and concerns that you will need to address if you are going to make a convincing case for your point of view.

Drafting your paper

If you have used material from outside sources in your paper, be sure to cite them appropriately in your paper. In political science, writers most often use the APA or Turabian (a version of the Chicago Manual of Style) style guides when formatting references. Check with your instructor if he or she has not specified a citation style in the assignment. For more information on constructing citations, see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial.

Although all assignments are different, the preceding outlines provide a clear and simple guide that should help you in writing papers in any sub-field of political science. If you find that you need more assistance than this short guide provides, refer to the list of additional resources below or make an appointment to see a tutor at the Writing Center.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing the original version of this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout's topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find the latest publications on this topic. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial.

Becker, Howard S. 1986. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Cuba, Lee. 2002. A Short Guide to Writing about Social Science , Fourth Edition. New York: Longman.

Lasswell, Harold Dwight. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How . New York, London: Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc.

Scott, Gregory M. and Stephen M. Garrison. 1998. The Political Science Student Writer's Manual , Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Turabian, Kate L. 1996. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers , Theses, and Dissertations, Sixth Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Political Science

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you to recognize and to follow writing standards in political science. The first step toward accomplishing this goal is to develop a basic understanding of political science and the kind of work political scientists do.

Defining politics and political science

Political scientist Harold Laswell said it best: at its most basic level, politics is the struggle of “who gets what, when, how.” This struggle may be as modest as competing interest groups fighting over control of a small municipal budget or as overwhelming as a military stand-off between international superpowers. Political scientists study such struggles, both small and large, in an effort to develop general principles or theories about the way the world of politics works. Think about the title of your course or re-read the course description in your syllabus. You’ll find that your course covers a particular sector of the large world of “politics” and brings with it a set of topics, issues, and approaches to information that may be helpful to consider as you begin a writing assignment. The diverse structure of political science reflects the diverse kinds of problems the discipline attempts to analyze and explain. In fact, political science includes at least eight major sub-fields:

American politics examines political behavior and institutions in the United States.
Comparative politics analyzes and compares political systems within and across different geographic regions.
International relations investigates relations among nation states and the activities of international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and NATO, as well as international actors such as terrorists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multi-national corporations (MNCs).
Political theory analyzes fundamental political concepts such as power and democracy and foundational questions, like “How should the individual and the state relate?”
Political methodology deals with the ways that political scientists ask and investigate questions.
Public policy examines the process by which governments make public decisions.
Public administration studies the ways that government policies are implemented.
Public law focuses on the role of law and courts in the political process.

What is scientific about political science?

Investigating relationships.

Although political scientists are prone to debate and disagreement, the majority view the discipline as a genuine science. As a result, political scientists generally strive to emulate the objectivity as well as the conceptual and methodological rigor typically associated with the so-called “hard” sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics). They see themselves as engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions. Based on these revelations, they attempt to state general principles about the way the world of politics works. Given these aims, it is important for political scientists’ writing to be conceptually precise, free from bias, and well-substantiated by empirical evidence. Knowing that political scientists value objectivity may help you in making decisions about how to write your paper and what to put in it.

Political theory is an important exception to this empirical approach. You can learn more about writing for political theory classes in the section “Writing in Political Theory” below.

Building theories

“When the national unemployment rate is greater than 7 percent at the time of the election, presidential incumbents are not reelected.”

Collecting data

Clear, consistent, objective writing

Since political scientists construct and assess theories in accordance with the principles of the scientific method, writing in the field conveys the rigor, objectivity, and logical consistency that characterize this method. Thus political scientists avoid the use of impressionistic or metaphorical language, or language which appeals primarily to our senses, emotions, or moral beliefs. In other words, rather than persuade you with the elegance of their prose or the moral virtue of their beliefs, political scientists persuade through their command of the facts and their ability to relate those facts to theories that can withstand the test of empirical investigation. In writing of this sort, clarity and concision are at a premium. To achieve such clarity and concision, political scientists precisely define any terms or concepts that are important to the arguments that they make. This precision often requires that they “operationalize” key terms or concepts. “Operationalizing” simply means that important—but possibly vague or abstract—concepts like “justice” are defined in ways that allow them to be measured or tested through scientific investigation.

Fortunately, you will generally not be expected to devise or operationalize key concepts entirely on your own. In most cases, your professor or the authors of assigned readings will already have defined and/or operationalized concepts that are important to your research. And in the event that someone hasn’t already come up with precisely the definition you need, other political scientists will in all likelihood have written enough on the topic that you’re investigating to give you some clear guidance on how to proceed. For this reason, it is always a good idea to explore what research has already been done on your topic before you begin to construct your own argument. See our handout on making an academic argument .

Example of an operationalized term

To give you an example of the kind of rigor and objectivity political scientists aim for in their writing, let’s examine how someone might operationalize a term. Reading through this example should clarify the level of analysis and precision that you will be expected to employ in your writing. Here’s how you might define key concepts in a way that allows us to measure them.

We are all familiar with the term “democracy.” If you were asked to define this term, you might make a statement like the following:

“Democracy is government by the people.”

You would, of course, be correct—democracy is government by the people. But, in order to evaluate whether or not a particular government is fully democratic or is more or less democratic when compared with other governments, we would need to have more precise criteria with which to measure or assess democracy. For example, here are some criteria that political scientists have suggested are indicators of democracy:

Freedom to form and join organizations
Freedom of expression
Right to vote
Eligibility for public office
Right of political leaders to compete for support
Right of political leaders to compete for votes
Alternative sources of information
Free and fair elections
Institutions for making government policies depend on votes and other expressions of preference

If we adopt these nine criteria, we now have a definition that will allow us to measure democracy empirically. Thus, if you want to determine whether Brazil is more democratic than Sweden, you can evaluate each country in terms of the degree to which it fulfills the above criteria.

What counts as good writing in political science?

While rigor, clarity, and concision will be valued in any piece of writing in political science, knowing the kind of writing task you’ve been assigned will help you to write a good paper. Two of the most common kinds of writing assignments in political science are the research paper and the theory paper.

Writing political science research papers

An introduction
A problem statement
A discussion of methodology
A literature review
A description and evaluation of your research findings
A summary of your findings

Here’s a brief description of each component.

Before you can develop each of the above components of your research paper, you will need to conduct a literature review. A literature review involves reading and analyzing what other researchers have written on your topic before going on to do research of your own. There are some very pragmatic reasons for doing this work. First, as insightful as your ideas may be, someone else may have had similar ideas and have already done research to test them. By reading what they have written on your topic, you can ensure that you don’t repeat, but rather learn from, work that has already been done. Second, to demonstrate the soundness of your hypotheses and methodology, you will need to indicate how you have borrowed from and/or improved upon the ideas of others.

Writing in political theory

Earlier, we talked about how to define democracy empirically so that it can be measured and tested in accordance with scientific principles. Political theorists also define democracy, but they use a different standard of measurement. Their definitions of democracy reflect their interest in political ideals—for example, liberty, equality, and citizenship—rather than scientific measurement. So, when writing about democracy from the perspective of a political theorist, you may be asked to make an argument about the proper way to define citizenship in a democratic society. Should citizens of a democratic society be expected to engage in decision-making and administration of government, or should they be satisfied with casting votes every couple of years?

Drafting your paper

If you have used material from outside sources in your paper, be sure to cite them appropriately in your paper. In political science, writers most often use the APA or Turabian (a version of the Chicago Manual of Style) style guides when formatting references. Check with your instructor if they have not specified a citation style in the assignment. For more information on constructing citations, see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Becker, Howard S. 2007. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article , 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cuba, Lee. 2002. A Short Guide to Writing About Social Science , 4th ed. New York: Longman.

Lasswell, Harold Dwight. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Scott, Gregory M., and Stephen M. Garrison. 1998. The Political Science Student Writer’s Manual , 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Turabian, Kate. 2018. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, Dissertations , 9th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Skip to Content
Skip to Main Navigation
Skip to Catalog Search

Indiana University Bloomington Indiana University Bloomington Bloomington

Online Only

Search Results

Export to Refworks
Export to EndNote
Librarian View

Writing a research paper in political science : a practical guide to inquiry, structure, and methods

So you have to write a research paper
Getting started : finding a research question
Learning proper citation forms, finding the scholarly debate, and summarizing and classifying arguments : the annotated bibliography
Making sense of the scholarly answers to your research question : writing the literature review
Effectively distilling your argument : the thesis, model, and hypothesis
Revising and editing your work : the writing-thinking spiral
Making your plan and protecting yourself from criticism : the research design
Evaluating the argument : the analysis and assessment section
Bringing your paper together in three essential ways : the conclusion, introduction, and title.

Select Campus

Access to this resource may be restricted to users from specific IU campuses.

Please choose your campus in order to proceed:

Browse by call number

al-Baḥth al-imbirīqī fī al-dirāsāt al-siyāsīyah ["JA86 .B24 1991"]
Writing a research paper in political science : a practical guide to inquiry, structure, and methods Baglione, Lisa A., 1962- ["JA86 .B24 2012"]
Writing a research paper in political science : a practical guide to inquiry, structure, and methods Baglione, Lisa A., 1962- ["JA86 .B24 2016"]
Writing a research paper in political science : a practical guide to inquiry, structure, and methods Baglione, Lisa A., 1962- ["JA86 .B24 2020"]
Writing a research paper in political science : a practical guide to inquiry, structure, and methods Baglione, Lisa A., 1962- ["JA86 .B34 2007"]

Introduction to Political Science

(4 reviews)

Mark Carl Rom, Georgetown University

Masaki Hidaka, American University

Rachel Bzostek Walker, Collin College

Publisher: OpenStax

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by S. Jason Giannaros, Assistant Professor, The University of the District of Columbia on 4/22/24

This book does a good job covering all the important sub-fields and foundational issues relating to an Intro to Political Science course, both domestically and internationally. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This book does a good job covering all the important sub-fields and foundational issues relating to an Intro to Political Science course, both domestically and internationally.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I found that this book was highly accurate in the information it presented. The authors provide plenty of background and contextual information as well, which is helpful (as are the video links).

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Overall it is highly relevant to almost every audience, and does a good job of bringing current/recent events into the discussion.

Clarity rating: 5

The book does a good job of balancing the need to use some political science jargon with not overwhelming the reader with confusing terms. It is very readable prose. Though a couple students commented on the length of the chapters, I found them to be approrpriate.

Consistency rating: 5

I found that the terminology and framework of the book as a whole was very conducive both to learning and teaching the material.

Modularity rating: 5

For the more complicated chapters, I just made one weekly module for each of them. For some of the less-intensive chapters (particularly earlier on), you can double up on chapters (one per meeting instead of one per week). Thus, it is very easy to split this text up into modules as appropriate for the course itself.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The book is very logically organized - the one exception would be splitting up the chapters on civil liberties and civil rights. Some students found it difficult to parse these two terms, so in the future I will teach them as one unit.

Interface rating: 5

The text has no interface issue that I saw, and it is easy to connect to the video supplements as well.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I found no grammatical errors in the text at all.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

It is not culturally insensitive at all. The one thing I would have liked to see a little more of is discussion of indigenous political issues, both domestically and globally.

Overall this is a very well-written book with little that needs changing. I might consider re-organizing the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties sections, but other than that it is well-organized and flows well, in a way that is not difficult for students to absorb. It also strikes a good balance of covering American political issues that will be highly relevant to students, but not making it an "American Politics" textbook.

Reviewed by Michelle Payne, Associate Professor, Political Science, Texas Wesleyan University on 2/29/24

Selected key terms are both relevant and clearly defined read more

Selected key terms are both relevant and clearly defined

The book is packed with both cumulative, foundational knowledge and associated current event references, and as far as I have read, both reflect superior accuracy

The book is packed with both cumulative, foundational knowledge and associated current event references, which tie together theory, concept, and relevancy is an easy to understand format.

Form an Instructor viewpoint, very clearly written- particularly the review questions. The text to video connections are also concisely and clearly stated.

This is one of the reasons I would like to use the text- the terminology, structure and general outlay of the material are logically connected and lend to a smooth integration and adaptation.

I set out a tentative outline for moving context around, and had no transitional issues- I also tentatively integrated my material into the mix and it reads well, with no loss of integrity to the material.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Very straightforward- easy to adapt if need to.

Didn't see any issues- I will say that the links to government websites were placed discreetly yet noticeably in the text and I see that ease of accessibility as an added bonus for students

I haven't found any

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The diverse pictures, stories, illustrations and video links cover this aspect well.

I am excited to find a text that is so packed with info, yet approachable for students, even in a dual enrollment course.

Reviewed by Larry Carter, Distinguished Senior Lecturere, University of Texas at Arlington on 4/4/23

Covers all areas needed for American intro course. read more

Covers all areas needed for American intro course.

Content is accurate and unbiased.

Should hold up well.

Good clarity.

Layout and content consistent

Easily and readily divisible.

Good flow. Layout good.

Free of interface questions.

No grammatical errors

Not culturally insensitive

Good layout and content.

Reviewed by Katrina Heimark, Lecturer, Century College on 3/7/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Introduction to Political Science covers all the major topics and has a global focus, using examples from around the world. My only observation on content that was not covered in-depth was regarding regime change and the factors that cause democracies to fail or authoritarian regimes to rise. This is an important part of the comparative political science literature that could have been focused on in more detail.

I have found the content to be accurate, unbiased, and with citation of sources.

Students are so impressed with the real-world examples of this text book, and the fact that it was published in 2022 makes it a great resources for them. The content is relevant today, but should also be relevant for the next 5-10 years. Updates/more relevant examples should be easy to find once this text is a bit older.

This is a great intro text for any student who has no experience or exposure to political science. It is straightforward and complex terms are explained in such a way that it is easy for all audiences to understand.

I have found this text to be consistent in terms of its organization, terminology, and framework.

The online version of this text is fantastic in terms of the layout and accessibility of the different content modules. The modules are broken up in a way that makes sense, is logical, and also can stand alone.

The book has a great mix of video, text, and images and is clearly organized both within chapters, sub-chapters, and as a textbook as a whole.

The interface is easy to use, particularly the online textbook. Allows for highlighting in different colors and also creation of notes.

No grammatical errors.

This book has excellent examples from across different country and cultural contexts. While designed for a US audience, the textbook does a fantastic job of using examples from different regions, cultures, and countries to illustrate the different political examples. One region is not overly represented, nor is one region used exclusively for negative examples. I found this book to be incredibly fair, accurate, and presenting an amazing culturally diverse content across subject areas.

This book has been great for an introductory political science course that I have taught to first year college students. I find it to be at the perfect level for these students--clear, relevant, and also challenges them to see the world through multiple perspectives.

Introduction
1.1 Defining Politics: Who Gets What, When, Where, How, and Why?
1.2 Public Policy, Public Interest, and Power
1.3 Political Science: The Systematic Study of Politics
1.4 Normative Political Science
1.5 Empirical Political Science
1.6 Individuals, Groups, Institutions, and International Relations
Review Questions
Suggested Readings
2.1 What Goals Should We Seek in Politics?
2.2 Why Do Humans Make the Political Choices That They Do?
2.3 Human Behavior Is Partially Predictable
2.4 The Importance of Context for Political Decisions
3.1 The Classical Origins of Western Political Ideologies
3.2 The Laws of Nature and the Social Contract
3.3 The Development of Varieties of Liberalism
3.4 Nationalism, Communism, Fascism, and Authoritarianism
3.5 Contemporary Democratic Liberalism
3.6 Contemporary Ideologies Further to the Political Left
3.7 Contemporary Ideologies Further to the Political Right
3.8 Political Ideologies That Reject Political Ideology: Scientific Socialism, Burkeanism, and Religious Extremism
4.1 The Freedom of the Individual
4.2 Constitutions and Individual Liberties
4.3 The Right to Privacy, Self-Determination, and the Freedom of Ideas
4.4 Freedom of Movement
4.5 The Rights of the Accused
4.6 The Right to a Healthy Environment
5.1 What Is Political Participation?
5.2 What Limits Voter Participation in the United States?
5.3 How Do Individuals Participate Other Than Voting?
5.4 What Is Public Opinion and Where Does It Come From?
5.5 How Do We Measure Public Opinion?
5.6 Why Is Public Opinion Important?
6.1 Political Socialization: The Ways People Become Political
6.2 Political Culture: How People Express Their Political Identity
6.3 Collective Dilemmas: Making Group Decisions
6.4 Collective Action Problems: The Problem of Incentives
6.5 Resolving Collective Action Problems
7.1 Civil Rights and Constitutionalism
7.2 Political Culture and Majority-Minority Relations
7.3 Civil Rights Abuses
7.4 Civil Rights Movements
7.5 How Do Governments Bring About Civil Rights Change?
8.1 What Is an Interest Group?
8.2 What Are the Pros and Cons of Interest Groups?
8.3 Political Parties
8.4 What Are the Limits of Parties?
8.5 What Are Elections and Who Participates?
8.6 How Do People Participate in Elections?
9.1 What Do Legislatures Do?
9.2 What Is the Difference between Parliamentary and Presidential Systems?
9.3 What Is the Difference between Unicameral and Bicameral Systems?
9.4 The Decline of Legislative Influence
10.1 Democracies: Parliamentary, Presidential, and Semi-Presidential Regimes
10.2 The Executive in Presidential Regimes
10.3 The Executive in Parliamentary Regimes
10.4 Advantages, Disadvantages, and Challenges of Presidential and Parliamentary Regimes
10.5 Semi-Presidential Regimes
10.6 How Do Cabinets Function in Presidential and Parliamentary Regimes?
10.7 What Are the Purpose and Function of Bureaucracies?
11.1 What Is the Judiciary?
11.2 How Does the Judiciary Take Action?
11.3 Types of Legal Systems around the World
11.4 Criminal versus Civil Laws
11.5 Due Process and Judicial Fairness
11.6 Judicial Review versus Executive Sovereignty
12.1 The Media as a Political Institution: Why Does It Matter?
12.2 Types of Media and the Changing Media Landscape
12.3 How Do Media and Elections Interact?
12.4 The Internet and Social Media
12.5 Declining Global Trust in the Media
13.1 Contemporary Government Regimes: Power, Legitimacy, and Authority
13.2 Categorizing Contemporary Regimes
13.3 Recent Trends: Illiberal Representative Regimes
14.1 What Is Power, and How Do We Measure It?
14.2 Understanding the Different Types of Actors in the International System
14.3 Sovereignty and Anarchy
14.4 Using Levels of Analysis to Understand Conflict
14.5 The Realist Worldview
14.6 The Liberal and Social Worldview
14.7 Critical Worldviews
15.1 The Problem of Global Governance
15.2 International Law
15.3 The United Nations and Global Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)
15.4 How Do Regional IGOs Contribute to Global Governance?
15.5 Non-state Actors: Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)
15.6 Non-state Actors beyond NGOs
16.1 The Origins of International Political Economy
16.2 The Advent of the Liberal Economy
16.3 The Bretton Woods Institutions
16.4 The Post–Cold War Period and Modernization Theory
16.5 From the 1990s to the 2020s: Current Issues in IPE
16.6 Considering Poverty, Inequality, and the Environmental Crisis

Ancillary Material

About the book.

Designed to meet the scope and sequence of your course, OpenStax Introduction to Political Science provides a strong foundation in global political systems, exploring how and why political realities unfold. Rich with examples of individual and national social action, this text emphasizes students’ role in the political sphere and equips them to be active and informed participants in civil society. Learn more about what this free, openly-licensed textbook has to offer you and your students.

About the Contributors

Dr. Mark Carl Rom is an associate professor of government and public policy at the McCourt School of Public Policy and the Department of Government. His recent research has focused on assessing student participation, improving grading accuracy, reducing grading bias, and improving data visualizations. Previously, Rom has explored critiques and conversations within the realm of political science through symposia on academic conferences, ideology in the classroom, and ideology within the discipline. He continues to fuel his commitment to educational equity by serving on the AP Higher Education Advisory Committee, the executive board of the Political Science Education section (ASPA), and the editorial board of the Journal of Political Science Education. Prior to joining McCourt, Rom served as a legislative assistant to the Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt of the US House of Representatives, a research fellow at the Brookings Institution, a senior evaluator at the US General Accounting Office, and a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of California, Berkeley. His dissertation, “The Thrift Tragedy: Are Politicians and Bureaucrats to Blame?,” was the cowinner of the 1993 Harold Lasswell Award from the American Political Science Association for best dissertation in the public policy field. Rom received his BA from the University of Arkansas and his MA and PhD in political science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1992.

Masaki Hidaka has a master of public policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where she wrote her thesis on media coverage of gaming ventures on Native American tribal lands. She completed her PhD at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, where her dissertation examined the relationship between issue publics and the Internet. She is currently a professorial lecturer at the School of Public Affairs at the American University in Washington, DC, but has taught in numerous institutions, including the National University of Singapore, University College London, and Syracuse University in London. She also worked as a press aide for former San Francisco mayor Willie L. Brown Jr. (and she definitely left her heart in San Francisco).

A native of Fort Worth, Rachel Bzostek Walker is the associate dean of academic affairs at Collin College Technical Campus in Allen, Texas. She earned her PhD in political science from Louisiana State University and has a master’s in Israeli politics from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her dissertation focused on the preemptive or preventive use of force, and she continues to research in this area as well as exploring the use of active learning in the classroom. She taught full-time for over 15 years at colleges and universities in Missouri, California, and Texas, teaching a wide variety of classes on subjects including international relations, American foreign policy, and Middle Eastern politics, as well as introductory classes in American and Texas government.

Contribute to this Page

Political Science Research Paper

This sample political science research paper features: 6600 words (approx. 22 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 30 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Introduction

Definition and overview.

Case Studies of Traditionalism
A Case Study of Behavioralism
A Case Study of Postbehavioralism
Bibliography

More Political Science Research Papers:

American Government Research Paper
Civil War Research Paper
Communism Research Paper
Content Analysis Research Paper
Democracy Research Paper
Federalism Research Paper
Foreign Policy Research Paper
Game Theory Research Paper
Human Rights Research Paper
Human Rights Violations Research Paper
Marxism Research Paper
Nationalism Research Paper
Postmodernism Research Paper
Public Policy Research Paper
Social Movement Studies Research Paper
Socialism Research Paper

Within the discipline of political science in the United States, traditionalism, behavioralism, and postbehavioralism are three distinct political science research approaches. That is, each offers a perspective on how best to carry out investigation, analysis, and explanation relating to politics and political life (Dryzek & Leonard, 1988). These three approaches represent different points of emphasis regarding the ways in which research about politics should proceed. For example, it will be seen that traditionalism—in comparison with behavioralism—tends to emphasize the usefulness of analyzing governmental institutions when studying political phenomena, whereas behavioralism tends to assert the importance of research into the intricacies of the behavior of individual political actors (e.g., citizens, lobbyists, candidates, elected officials). However, all three research perspectives share the belief that political science research should produce explanations that improve and deepen our understanding of complex political processes.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

As one begins to analyze the meaning and complexity of traditionalism, behavioralism, and postbehavioralism, it is important to keep in mind three points. First, traditionalism, behavioralism, and postbehavioralism are broad categories, and within each category one finds a variety of political scientists who are not necessarily in agreement on all matters relating to the study of politics. For example, during the years in which traditionalism was the prevailing research approach within political science, Woodrow Wilson (1911) delivered an address to the American Political Science Association (APSA) that called into dispute various claims made by previous APSA president James Bryce. In 1908, Bryce had stated that political science, that is, a scientific understanding of politics, was possible insofar as human actions tended to be similar, or repeatable, over time; thus, Bryce (1909) reasoned, one could generalize about patterns of human activity and draw conclusions about political life. Wilson (1911), however, while not altogether denying the existence of some degree of patterned activity over time, stressed the uniqueness characterizing human beings and human actions. Despite these differences, both Bryce and Wilson were representative of traditionalist political science.

Second, traditionalism, behavioralism, and postbehavioralism are often linked with certain decades in the development of political science in the United States. Traditionalism is usually associated with the political science practiced during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Behavioralism is generally associated with the post-World War II period, although its origins are sometimes traced back to the 1920s. Postbehavioralism’s appearance in the discipline had been noted and commented on by the end of the 1960s (Dahl, 1992; Dryzek, 2006; Ricci, 1984).

It is important to realize, however, that these historical markers are best used as general designations, because the development of these three research approaches was too multifaceted and complex to fit neatly into rigid time categories. The emergence of a new approach did not necessarily completely or entirely displace an older one; for example, while traditionalism was challenged by behavioralism in the 1950s and 1960s, a number of political scientists continued to hold to traditionalism. Indeed, many contemporary introductory textbooks in U.S. politics continue to reflect the perspective of traditionalist political science. Moreover, not all subfields of political science were affected equally or simultaneously by the emergence of a new approach. For instance, the subfield of U.S. politics incorporated the behavioralist approach earlier than did the subfields of international relations and comparative politics (Sigelman, 2006).

Third, two of the three research approaches have tended to define themselves in opposition to their predecessors and, in so doing, have helped shape the manner in which those prior approaches have been remembered. Specifically, behavioralism defined itself in opposition to what it understood as constituting traditionalism, and post-behavioralism carved out its own identity, in part, as a critique of what it saw as the defining elements of behavioralism. As a result, one sees that the emergence of the newer approaches was coupled with a rejection of perceived deficiencies in the earlier approaches. In identifying what they saw as inadequacies in the older approaches, the newer approaches tended to highlight differences between the new and the old and, in some cases, tended to understate any similarities. For example, behavioralism emphasized its adherence to scientific method and, in so doing, sometimes gave the impression that that which it was attempting to replace—traditionalism—had not regarded itself as scientific. As becomes clear when one analyzes the actual writings of traditionalists, however, traditionalists generally saw themselves as political scientists and often made much of the fact that, as political scientists, they were not to be confused with historians (Farr, 1990; Gunnell, 2006). As early as 1910, an APSA president was calling on the discipline to employ statistical analyses to identify political patterns and test conclusions relating thereto (Lowell, 1910). Similarly, postbehavioralists, it will be seen in the discussion below, emphasized the importance of producing research that was relevant in addressing contemporary questions, but, in stressing their own newness relative to behavioralists, postbehavioralists often tended to understate the extent to which early-20th-century political scientists had also sought to use political science research to address urgent, relevant problems in U.S. life (Gunnell, 2006).

Traditionalism

Traditionalism is an approach defined by its focus on the study of political institutions, law, or a combination of these. In addition, traditionalism locates its scientific reliability in its grounding in careful historical or legal investigations that are designed to produce thorough descriptions of the subject in question (Easton, 1971; Fried, 2006; Isaak, 1985; Macridis, 1992). That is, traditionalism is an approach in political science that seeks to study political phenomena by investigating law, history, and/or institutions such as the government as a whole or narrower institutions such as legislative, executive, or judicial bodies. A traditionalist seeking to understand how the U.S. Congress works would, thus, investigate such questions as what the law (e.g., the U.S. Constitution) provides for in terms of congressional powers and limits, how Congress as an institution has evolved historically, and how Congress as an institution fits into the larger institutional network of the U.S. government in its entirety. A traditionalist seeking to understand courts could follow a similar strategy of pursuing historical questions (e.g., how courts have evolved), legal questions (e.g., what laws govern courts and how courts have participated historically in shaping laws), or institutional questions (e.g., how courts are organized and administered as institutions). A traditionalist in the field of international relations might study international law or national laws and treaties relating to interstate interactions (i.e., foreign policy).

Traditionalist political science has not been an approach that has demanded narrow or exclusive disciplinary specialization. On the contrary, early traditionalist political scientists needed to be comfortable with such fields as history or law in order to pursue their work. Francis Lieber, who, in 1857, became the first person to hold an official political science professorship in the United States, was, in actuality, a professor of both history and political science at New York’s Columbia College (Farr, 1990). Traditionalism’s breadth is also revealed in APSA president Albert Shaw’s (1907) comments that it was possible to find numerous political scientists participating in the American Historical Association as well as in “Economic and Sociological groups” (p. 178).

Traditionalist political scientists tended to be explicit in drawing connections between political science research and service to the public interest, in whatever manner the latter might be defined by the political scientist in question. Shaw’s 1907 APSA presidential address is an illustration of traditionalism’s linkage of empirical-scientific and normative-ethical objectives. “I believe that there will be a very general agreement,” Shaw asserted, “that this Association can render an extremely useful service to the country, without departing in the smallest degree from its scientific methods” (p. 181). Shaw went on to suggest that APSA might undertake investigative projects on problems or concerns relative to “the public benefit” (p. 181). In fact, a perusal of the early records published in Proceedings of the American Political Science Association and in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science reveals traditionalists’ interests in addressing child labor, political party reform, and other public welfare questions (Addams, 1906; Richberg, 1913).

Case Studies of Traditionalism: Frank Goodnow and Woodrow Wilson

For a fuller, more detailed understanding of traditionalism, one can look in greater depth at two examples of traditionalist political science. The first is Frank Goodnow’s 1904 address to the first meeting of APSA. Goodnow’s address included (a) a definition of what he called political science’s “scope” but not a technical definition of political science itself, (b) an examination of what political science was to have as its research focus, and (c) a closing statement about political science’s relevance. An examination of these three components of his address illustrates traditionalism’s salient elements of institutionalism (in the emphasis on studying the institution of the state), legalism (in the emphasis on studying law and jurisprudence), a historical perspective, and attention to the public benefits of scientific inquiry.

First, in his address, Goodnow (1904) announced that he preferred to define political science’s scope (i.e., that which political science was to study) rather than attempt a definition of political science itself. Setting out to construct a technically detailed definition of the discipline per se, Goodnow contended, was not as productive an enterprise as determining what the discipline should have as its focus of research. He pointed to what he termed the “dangerous” possibility of defining the discipline in too limited or too expansive a manner (p. 35). He proceeded to characterize political science’s scope as the investigation of states. Political scientists were neither the first nor the exclusive researchers of states, Goodnow explained, but were, rather, unique in targeting the state as a primary subject for analysis. For example, historians might study historical states and might indirectly study contemporary states, Goodnow reasoned, and economists might investigate monetary matters relating to states. However, only political scientists would have as their “main interests” the direct, detailed, “scientific” analysis of states in all their complexity. Goodnow’s comments suggest that the previously noted absence of disciplinary narrowness or specialization in traditionalist political science did not have to translate into the absence of disciplinary identity. Goodnow was, in this address, identifying himself as a political scientist as opposed to a historian, even while his approach to political science would employ historical perspectives. Moreover, in identifying the institution of the state (as opposed to the behavior of individuals, for example) as the central and defining subject matter of political science, Goodnow was conveying what is generally termed the traditionalist orientation toward institutionalism.

Second, Goodnow (1904) framed the study of states— and thus political science as a discipline—broadly. Political science’s range of investigation was to include, he argued, the study of how the “State’s will” was communicated, what comprised the “State’s will,” and how the “State’s will” was carried out. In explaining what he meant by the communication of the “State’s will,” Goodnow made reference to such matters as the values conveyed through a country’s political ideas or political theory, constitution, and political party platforms. Political values influenced state policies or will. The second element—the “content of the State will”—Goodnow identified as law (p. 40). Law revealed a state’s meaning. Indeed, one sees how closely Goodnow’s traditionalist political science was attached to the study of law when one encounters his remark that “it is very doubtful” that anyone could become a political scientist—that is, that anyone could understand states “as an object of scientific study”—without a thorough understanding of law (pp. 42-43). To understand how states carried out their “wills,” Goodnow continued, one needed to study administrative law, a subject that, in the absence of political science, had been frightfully neglected, he believed. He pointed to the benefits of studying the history of English poor laws as a guide for improving public administration generally.

Finally, Goodnow (1904) closed his address by expressing hope that political science could contribute to the public good. He identified teachers and political practitioners as two groups that could benefit directly from the knowledge produced by the disciple. Moreover, in disseminating a more descriptively accurate and comprehensive understanding of states, teachers and practitioners, in their respective professional roles, could contribute to an enhanced public well-being.

An examination of Woodrow Wilson’s (1911) address to the seventh annual APSA meeting offers a second opportunity for scrutinizing more carefully traditionalism’s breadth, a breadth critiqued as “unscientific” by later advocates of behavioralism. Although better known as the 28th president of the United States, Wilson also served as president of APSA and, in this latter capacity, argued against a narrow, specialized conception of political science. In fact, at one point in his address, he went so far as to assert that he disliked the name political science, which, he claimed, implied that human interactions should be studied objectively and narrowly. He argued for the designation politics rather than political science as a more suitable name for the study of the state and “statesmanship” (pp. 10-11). Although Wilson supported a scientific approach, if by science one meant accuracy and thoroughness in one’s study of political life, he argued that such study should include an examination of literature, art, and poetry and should seek to inspire “vision” and “sympathy” (pp. 2, 10, 11). His understanding of political science, one finds, could hardly be broader, in that he concluded that “nothing” that has an impact on “human life” should be termed “foreign” to the discipline (p. 2). Wilson argued that the astute student of politics should demonstrate “a Shakespearian range” (p. 10). Although Wilson’s immediate influence on U.S. political science was limited (Ubertaccio & Cook, 2006), his explicit embrace of an expansive politics is illustrative of traditionalism’s lack of disciplinary specialization. In addition, a comparison of his approach with that of Goodnow is helpful in reminding students of traditionalism of the approach’s internal diversity.

Behavioralism

Behavioralism emerged as a criticism of traditionalism’s failure, in the view of behavioralists, to offer an approach to the scientific investigation of political questions that was sufficiently rigorous to produce predictive results based on quantitatively tested data. Specifically, behavioralism’s defining elements include a focus on political actors and their behavior (or attitudes and opinions), value-free science, and the study of operationalizable questions through hypothesis formulation and empirical, quantitative research (Ricci, 1984). The focus on studying political actors represented a shift away from traditionalism’s concentration on the historical and legalistic study of institutions.

In turning attention to the study of political actors, many behavioralists employed survey research to compare the attitudes of voters versus nonvoters, elites versus non-elites, partisan identifiers versus independents, or other subunits of populations. Students of congressional politics could enlist behavioral approaches to shift research away from the analysis of the institutional history of legislatures to an empirical investigation of the actual behaviors of congressional officeholders, staff, or congressional committee members. Behavioralists were interested, for example, in whether members of Congress spent greater time and devoted greater resources to the actual drafting of legislation or to responding to constituency demands, campaigning for the next election, or interacting with lobbyists. Empirical observation of such behaviors devoid of normative judgments (about how voters, nonvoters, elites, masses, partisans, independents, or congressional members “should” be behaving) would, in the words of David Easton (1971), correct the traditionalist “neglect of the most obvious element, the human being” (p. 203) in the conduct of research. Moreover, not only would a “value-free” science guard against the corruption of biases associated with normative preferences, but strict adherence to the study of questions translatable into operational variables and testable hypotheses would provide a more reliable knowledge than that producible by means of traditionalism.

In a 1967 essay titled “The Current Meaning of Behavioralism,” Easton (1992) summed up behavioralism as having eight interrelated “intellectual foundation stones” (p. 47):

“regularities”: A rigorous study of political behavior would allow political scientists to make predictions, just as natural scientists could make predictive statements.
“verification”: Predictions were to be testable in order to be falsified or verified.
“techniques”: Political science should become increasingly sophisticated in its use of scientific data collection and testing methods.
“quantification”: Political science should use precise, quantifiable measurements; questions for research had to be definable in testable, operationally narrow and precise terms.
“values”: Empirical, scientific study operates by a process different from the pursuit of normative objectives.
“systematization”: Political science research should produce a body of systematic information; theories and generalizations could be based on sound inferences from testable data.
“pure science”: Political science research should operate in a value free manner, that is, independently of any possible subsequent use of scientific knowledge to address perceived social problems.

Robert Dahl (1992) traced the origins of this approach to the 1920s and to the work of Charles Merriman and the so-called Chicago School of Harold Lasswell, Gabriel Almond, V. O. Key, and David Truman. By the mid-1960s, one member of this school—Almond (1966)—was proclaiming “a new paradigm” in political science (p. 875). Almond described this paradigm as having three components: (1) a “statistical approach” geared toward “test[ing] hypotheses” that would generate (2) “probability” statements and (3) a study of the interaction of actors and units within larger political “systems” (p. 876). As is clear in Almond’s language, this new behavioral approach was using highly specialized tools and methods drawn from such fields as math, statistics, economics, and psychology. Indeed, Almond pointed out that graduate study in political science was becoming increasingly focused on training students in the tools of “the scientific revolution”—tools that were turning political science in the direction of survey research, statistical sampling, and team-based and grant-funded quantitative research. During the post-World War II behavioralist period, publications in the American Political Science Review (APSR) became increasingly oriented toward statistical analyses of public opinion and behavior, especially in the subfields of U.S. politics and comparative politics (Sigelman, 2006). The new focus on studying that which could be precisely and narrowly operationalized seemed worlds removed from the one in which an APSA president could proclaim, as Woodrow Wilson had, his distaste for the term political science and his hope for a field of politics characterized by a “Shakespearean range.”

A Case Study of Behavioralism: Herbert McClosky’s “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics”

Herbert McClosky’s “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics,” published in the APSR in 1964, can serve as a case study for examining more closely the salient features of the behavioralist approach. As the title of his article suggested, McClosky was interested in the extent to which consensus, or broad agreement, on political values existed in the United States. Although he opened his article with a brief overview of Tocquevillean comments on democratic culture and customs, McClosky framed his analysis around the investigation of specific hypotheses relating to the attitudes of political actors, in this case, actors grouped into two subunits of the U.S. population. McClosky hypothesized that the U.S. public was not uniform in its political views, that it was more supportive of democracy in the abstract than in particular cases, and that political elites (those whom he called influentials) were more supportive of democracy than non-elites were.

McClosky (1964) divided the U.S. population into two groups: the influentials and the general electorate. The influentials were individuals who had been delegates or alternates at the major party conventions in 1956, and the general electorate was simply the population at large. McClosky used survey research to measure the attitudes of both groups. With respect to the influentials, a sample of more than 3,000 members of the delegates and alternates at the Democratic and Republican conventions was surveyed. With respect to the general population, McClosky used a national sample of 1,500 adults. Both groups were surveyed on a variety of questions or items, and responses to the items served as “indicators” of “opinions or attitudes” about democratic values (p. 364). If a subunit manifested 75% or higher levels of agreement on an item, consensus was said to be demonstrated.

McClosky (1964) found greater degrees of consensus for democratic procedures among influentials than among the public at large. For example, his surveys contained 12 items to measure support for the “rules of the game” (procedural democracy). These items included statements that respondents were asked to register agreement or disagreement with and consisted of statements about whether a citizen could be justified in acting outside the law, whether majorities had an obligation to respect minorities, whether the means were as important as the ends in the pursuit of political outcomes, whether the use of force was ever justified as a political strategy, and whether voting rights should be expansive or curtailed. Survey results demonstrated, McClosky reported, that influentials expressed consensus on most of the 12 items, whereas the general electorate expressed consensus on none of the 12 items.

McClosky (1964) proceeded to report that, while both influentials and the general population exhibited broader support for freedom of speech when asked about this freedom in the abstract than when asked about freedom of speech for specific unpopular groups, influentials were more supportive than the general population of free speech for unpopular groups. McClosky concluded that one might be led to believe that citizens of the United States had reached consensus on the importance of freedom of speech until one looked at the noninfluentials’ responses to items involving the application of the principle to particular cases, incidents, and people. For example, support for the rights of Communists, of persons accused of treason, and of convicted criminals was higher among the influentials than among the general population.

Furthermore, McClosky (1964) reported greater consensus among influentials on the importance of the democratic value of freedom than on the democratic value of equality. In fact, McClosky reported the absence of consensus among both influentials and the general electorate on the matter of whether all people were equal, as well as on questions relating to whether all people should be accorded equality. McClosky’s surveys included indicators to measure support for political, social, and economic equality, and his results suggested an absence of consensus among both influentials and the general electorate relating to all three types of equality. In other words, on statements relating to whether most people can make responsible decisions in governing themselves (political equality), whether different ethnic groups are equal (social equality), or whether all people have an equal claim to have a good job and a decent home (economic equality), consensus was absent.

McClosky (1964) also sought to measure what he understood as ideological clarity and the ability to identify oneself accurately along ideological lines. In evaluating survey participants in terms of their responses to particular statements relating to liberal versus conservative issues and their adoption of ideological markers (liberal vs. conservative), he found that influentials were more accurate than the general population in naming themselves as liberals or conservatives and in identifying a position as liberal or conservative.

McClosky (1964) closed his article with six summarizing generalizations. First, elites (influentials) were different from non-elites in terms of a greater elite support for democratic processes and a more complete understanding of political ideology. Second, a comparison of the education and economic circumstances of the two groups suggested possible (and testable) reasons for the differences in attitudes demarcating the two groups. Third, the level of support for democracy among U.S. elites was problematic on some issues (e.g., equality). Fourth, in spite of problematic levels of attitudinal support for democratic values, the U.S. system of Republican-Democratic politics appeared stable, a result, in part, of the nonparticipation of non-democracy-supporting non-elites. In short, democracy, McClosky stated, is sometimes “saved” by the nonparticipation of uninformed segments of the demos (p. 376). Fifth, classic accounts of democracy are inaccurate when claiming that the acceptance of democratic ideas is essential for the survival of democracy. Sixth, although McClosky advised political scientists against becoming sanguine about the lack of support for democratic processes among the population at large, he shared his hope for a wider disbursement of democratic values among segments of the U.S. population as the country continued to promote educational and scientific advancements.

Students of political science can observe key elements of behavioralism in McClosky’s work. First, behavior was understood by behavioralists like McClosky broadly enough to encompass opinions and attitudes. Second, it is evident that the turning of the discipline toward the study of the behavior of actors is regarded by behavioralists to be deeply revealing of that which was hidden as long as political science held to traditionalism’s tenacious insistence on studying institutions. Behavioralism in the hands of political scientists such as McClosky had accomplished something no less remarkable than to reveal—and prove empirically—the flaws in classic, long-standing accounts of why and how democracies work. Third, behavioralists such as McClosky believed that they had succeeded in demonstrating that big questions such as the ones Wilson wanted political science to address were most reliably answered when turned into narrow, specialized, operationalizable questions and variables. After all, what could be a bigger, more Shakespearean question than the one McClosky had addressed? Yet, only by defining consensus in a narrow, testable way, for example, could McClosky study the question of democratic consensus in such a precise and careful manner. Fourth, behavioralists such as McClosky were not opposed to theoretical generalizations, but they believed that such generalizations were most appropriately developed out of concrete, empirical results; moreover, such generalizations could be used to generate new empirically testable questions. In the process of empirically measuring and testing, however, one was not to allow biases or normative presumptions (e.g., about the goodness of citizens of the United States or of U.S. democracy) to distort one’s observations. Finally, the value-free political science of behavioralists such as McClosky tended to produce conclusions that left unchallenged the fundamental structures of the U.S. status quo. As Ricci (1984), Dryzek (2006), and Susser (1992) have noted, behavioralists saw their science as value free but, perhaps ironically, often tended to produce results that fit comfortably with normative assumptions regarding the fundamental soundness of the U.S. political system’s ability to address progressively any problems that political science might bring into the open. Indeed, it might even turn out to be the case that what looked like a defect (the apathy of the uninformed) was discovered by means of behavioralism to be an asset.

Postbehavioralism

Postbehavioralism is an approach that emphasizes (a) that political science research should be meaningful, that is, that it should address urgent political problems; (b) that science and values are inextricably connected; and (c) that political science should not seek to model itself on the strict application of scientific methods used in the natural sciences whereby research is driven exclusively by that which can be reduced to narrowly defined questions testable by the most rigorous, most specialized scientific procedures presently available. Postbehavioralists reacted against what they interpreted as behavioralism’s excessive reliance on the purity of scientific precision at the expense of “relevance.” While many postbehavioralists upheld the value of empirical and statistically oriented research, they tended to argue that behavioralism had overreached in emphasizing a strict adherence to narrow scientific procedures and that behavioralism’s proclaimed value-free approach in actuality veiled a normative endorsement of the status quo and was thus both normative and conservative.

A number of postbehavioralist critics of behavioralism, including Peter Bacharach, Christian Bay, Hans Morganthau, and Theodore Lowi, would join the Caucus for a New Political Science, organized in 1967 (Dryzek, 2006). The caucus continues to conceptualize political science as best carried out when political scientists integrate their identities as community members with their identities as scholars and thus craft research agendas in response to political needs. Political science should be steeped in everyday life and its concerns, not isolated from it as an esoteric, specialized, value-free science, according to Caucus statements (New Political Science: The Journal, n.d.).

In 1969, David Easton stated that postbehavioralism was proving to be a transformative force in the discipline. Easton discerned postbehavioralism’s presence on two levels: first, postbehavioralism was identifiable as a collection of individual political scientists who shared a growing dissatisfaction with behavioralism’s implications, and, second, postbehavioralism was manifested as a new intellectual outlook or approach that could guide research. In his presidential address to APSA, Easton delineated what he called a “distillation” of postbehavioralism’s defining elements (p. 1052). Easton described postbehavioralism as a demand for relevance, as forward-looking, as application oriented, and as premised on the belief that it was nothing short of unethical for political scientists to remove themselves from the arena of deliberation and action when confronted with and surrounded by political problems. Easton made multiple references to the Vietnam War, to the threat of nuclear escalation, and to the struggles of the civil rights movement, and he noted that postbehavioralism was an indictment of behavioralism’s irrelevance in finding solutions to such problems. Indeed, Easton pointed out that, from a postbehavioralist perspective, behavioralism could be charged with failing even to see such problems, a charge that must have sounded particularly strange to students of McClosky, schooled as they were in regarding influentials or elites as more adept at identifying and understanding political issues than were members of the general electorate. Easton used the metaphor of blinders to describe what had overtaken a discipline that could not see the obvious, pressing issues of society even while it could describe in copious detail the merits of operationalization, hypothesis formulation, statistical analysis, verification, and falsification. Why, Easton asked, in an era of behavioralism (i.e., 1958-1968), had the APSR had only four articles on racial disturbances, only two articles on the practice of civil disobedience, only one article on problems of poverty, and only three articles on urban disorder?

Easton (1969) went on to explain that postbehavioralism’s critique of behavioralism was deeply grounded in an understanding of science at odds with that embraced by behavioralism. For postbehavioralists, science was unavoidably based on normative assumptions; thus, according to postbehavioralists, a “value-free” political science (the kind of political science advanced by behavioralists) was not possible. Indeed, postbehavioralists asserted that to proclaim value neutrality was itself a normative stance (i.e., an assertion that a so-called value-free stance was better than its opposite). Postbehavioralism faulted behavioralism for not having acknowledged—and thus not having scrutinized—its own normative foundations and the ways in which those foundations shaped the direction of its research agenda. However, insofar as postbehavioralism was not a rejection of an empirically based science per se, Easton hoped that postbehavioralism could elucidate behavioralism’s logic and correct its lack of self-awareness regarding its own assumptions rather than become a repudiation of the gains made in political science’s shift away from the early and less scientifically oriented methods of traditionalism. In later years, some scholars would come to regard postbehavioralism’s legacy as opening up possibilities of a more “eclectic” application of research methods to the study of political phenomena (Lane, 1990, p. 927).

A Case Study of Postbehavioralism: The Perestroika Protest in Political Science

In December 2000, PS: Political Science and Politics published “Voices: An Open Letter to the APSA Leadership and Members.” The letter, signed by more than 200 political scientists, had been circulated by someone referring to himself or herself as “Mr. Perestroika.” Echoing postbehavioralist concerns from decades earlier, the Perestroika protest letter charged APSA and APSR with having a disciplinary obsession with quantitative methodology at the expense of meaningful subject matter. Its narrow methodological focus, the letter argued, had rendered APSA and its premier journal remote from the actual world of scholarly work undertaken by most political scientists. The letter called for increased openness in APSA (e.g., in elections to APSA governing bodies and to the APSA editorial board), the inclusion of a broader range of articles in APSR, public disclosure of survey results that could demonstrate widespread dissatisfaction with the discipline’s direction, and greater openness to critical voices in the discipline. Noting that they had not organized themselves into an actual caucus or subunit within APSA, the Perestroika letter signees, nonetheless, claimed to speak for a broad segment of political scientists (“Voices,” 2000).

Perestroika supporter Gregory Kasza expanded on the concerns expressed in the initial letter in “Perestroika: For an Ecumenical Science of Politics” (2001). One can see in Kasza’s elaboration of the Perestroika protest six major points illustrative of postbehavioralism. First, it was claimed that U.S. political science had been distorted by the dominance within the discipline of highly specialized quantitative research approaches; because of this dominance, Kasza asserted, political scientists seeking to produce scholarly works using qualitative approaches were being marginalized. Second, Kasza argued that the marginalization of nonquantitative approaches constituted a breach of academic freedom. Political scientists, he contended, were being pressured to mold their substantive interests to fit the contours of rigid methodologies and frameworks; he mentioned an anonymous graduate student who had been warned that she would fail as a political scientist if she did not make her dissertation conform to rational choice strictures. Third, in allowing a narrow understanding of science to become dominant within the discipline, political science was undercutting its ability to produce sound scholarship. Indeed, Kasza went so far as to assert that a Perestroika movement could save the discipline from producing subpar scholarship. Fourth, Kasza made the quintessentially postbehavioral call for a political science that was more “relevant” in addressing substantive political concerns. Fifth, Kasza suggested that, in seeking to become as sophisticated a science as possible, political science had actually become something of an adventure in fiction. Kasza charged that scientifically oriented political scientists were, in all too many cases, operationalzing human motives, desires, and choices in such narrow terms (in order to be rigorous) as to render their subjects caricatures.

Finally, Kasza (2001) offered an alternative, “ecumenical” approach. Ecumenism, he explained, would be defined by three elements. First, an ecumenical political science would select problems for analysis and then make decisions about which research approaches would best address the problem, rather than adopting a research approach and defining problems to fit the requirements of the research approach. Second, an ecumenical political science would be explicit in its acceptance of a plurality of methods or approaches. Specialized quantitative methodologies would coexist with qualitative methodologies in an open and expansive political science; for example, graduate programs would reintegrate political philosophy and policy studies into their core areas in a Perestroika-driven discipline. Third, an ecumenical political science would value interdisciplinary study. Kasza urged political scientists to rethink graduate training and, specifically, to institute dual-degree graduate programs. Political science graduate students should be encouraged to earn master’s degrees in alternative and diverse fields, fields encompassing the humanities as well as hard sciences.

In calling for interdisciplinary collaboration, Kasza (2001) was aware that he and other Perestroika supporters were challenging political science to regain something from its earlier orientation. Indeed, in the postbehavioral Perestroika protest, one can recognize remnants of traditionalism. One is reminded of the cross-disciplinary approach of Goodnow when reading recent demands for interdisciplinary breadth in graduate training. At the same time, one can observe in postbehavioralism a parallelism linking the demand to study real people (rather than excessively narrowly operationalized “actors” described by behavioralists) with behavioralism’s impatience with traditionalism’s earlier preference for studying institutions rather than people. Neither the Perestroika protesters nor other advocates of postbehavioralism purged political science of behavioralism. In fact, at present, one can find all three approaches in political science. One might conclude from a study of the history of traditionalism, behavioralism, and postbehavioralism that political science, as a discipline, has been characterized not as much by complete breaks with preexisting research approaches as by periodic shifts and rearrangements of research emphases (Dryzek, 2006).

Bibliography:

Addams, J. (1906). The operation of the Illinois Child Labor Law. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 27, 69-72.
Almond, G. A. (1966). Political theory and political science. American Political Science Review, 60, 869-879.
Bay, C. (1992). Politics and pseudopolitics: A critical evaluation of some behavioral literature. In B. Susser (Ed.), Approaches to the study of politics (pp. 51-75). New York: Macmillan.
Bryce, J. (1909). The relations of political science to history and to practice: Presidential address, fifth annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. American Political Science Review, 3, 1-19.
Dahl, R. A. (1992). The behavioral approach in political science: Epitaph for a monument to a successful protest. In B. Susser (Ed.), Approaches to the study of politics (pp. 27-46). New York: Macmillan.
Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Revolutions without enemies: Key transformations in political science. American Political Science Review, 100, 487-492.
Dryzek, J. S., & Leonard, S. T. (1988). History and discipline in political science. American Political Science Review, 82, 1245-1260.
Easton, D. (1969). The new revolution in political science. American Political Science Review, 63, 1051-1061.
Easton, D. (1971). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science (2nded.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Easton, D. (1992). The current meaning of behavioralism. In B. Susser (Ed.), Approaches to the study of politics (pp. 47-48). New York: Macmillan.
Farr, J. (1990). Francis Lieber and the interpretation of American political science. Journal of Politics, 52, 1027-1049.
Fried, A. (2006). The forgotten Lindsey Rogers and the development of American political science. American Political Science Review, 100, 555-561.
Goodnow, F. (1904). The work of the American Political Science Association. Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1, 35 -46.
Gunnell, J. G. (2006). The founding of the American Political Science Association: Discipline, profession, political theory, and politics. American Political Science Review, 100, 479-486.
Isaak, A. C. (1985). Scope and methods of political science: An introduction to the methodology of political inquiry. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kasza, G. (2001). Forum: Perestroika: For an ecumenical science of politics. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34, 597-600.
Lane, R. (1990). Concrete theory: An emerging political method. American Political Science Review, 84, 927-940.
Lowell, A. L. (1910). The physiology of politics: Presidential address, sixth annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. American Political Science Association, 4, 1-15.
Macridis, R. C. (1992). Major characteristics of the traditional approach. In B. Susser (Ed.), Approaches to the study of politics (pp. 16-26). New York: Macmillan.
McClosky, H. (1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics. American Political Science Review, 58, 361-382.
Melanson, P. H. (1974). Review: The presentation of professional self: Post behavioral currents. Polity, 7, 221-233. New Political Science: The Journal. (n.d.).
Ricci, D. M. (1984). The tragedy of political science: Politics, scholarship, and democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Richberg, D. R. (1913). Legislative reference bureaus for political parties. Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 10, 222-233.
Ross, D. (1991). The origins of American social science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shaw, A. (1907). Presidential address: Third annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. American Political Science Review, 1, 177-186.
Sigelman, L. (2006). The coevolution of American political science and the American Political Science Review. American Political Science Review, 100, 463-478.
Susser, B. (1992). The behavioral ideology: A review and a retrospect. In B. Susser (Ed.), Approaches to the study of politics (pp. 76-100). New York: Macmillan.
Ubertaccio, P. N., & Cook, B. J. (2006). Wilson’s failure: Roots of contention about the meaning of a science of politics. American Political Science Review, 100, 573-578.
Voices: An open letter to the APSA leadership and members. (2000). PS: Political Science and Politics, 33, 735-741.
Wilson, W. (1911). The law and the facts: Presidential address, seventh annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. American Political Science Review, 5, 1-11.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

introduction of a political science research paper

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Introduction to Political Science

Introduction to political science for undergraduate students

Related Papers

Dr. Mukesh Kumar Mishra

Based on the UGC Model Curriculum In Accordance with +3 Syllabus for Honors/General INTRODUCTION ON POLITICAL SCIENCE

Serdar Kaya

This course is a comprehensive introduction to the study of politics and government. It is designed the familiarize students of all social sciences with the major concepts and themes in the discipline of political science. To accomplish that objective, the course explores the discipline's major subfields (political theory, public policy, political behaviour, international politics), and delves into critical political phenomena such as political culture, political participation, political parties, and public opinion.

thomas mcclure

This paper is on Political Science Courses.

Stefan Dolgert

This course, "Great Works in Politics," serves as an introduction to the discipline for MA students. We examine debates in the philosophy of science, including feminist, postcolonial, poststructural, and STS critiques, then look at methods in Political Science deriving from Economics, Biology, Anthropology, and Philosophy. We close by reading classic works from Elinor Ostrom, James Scott, and Iris Marion Young.

Charles M Kasongo

The goal of a science of politics is to identify general patterns among abstract concepts. That is, political scientists think about politics and invent abstract concepts that help us describe the political world. But a science of politics requires more than inventive description. It involves the specification of expected causal relationships among the concepts and, ultimately, the determination of whether those expected relationships comport with evidence.

Tom Bickley

Here is a guide to CSU East Bay and other resources to help you research in the field of Political Science.

Robert W. Glover

Md.Shahadat H O S S A I N Sarker Nayan

2nd Year 1st semester course topic follow the syllabus of Jagannath University, Dhaka.

Jean Garcia

The concepts of politics and political science are often confused and interchanged. Indeed, they deal with very similar topics, but they are deeply different in meaning. The term " politics " refers to the state of affairs of a country, including the structure of its government and the decisions taken by the ruling party. Conversely, the term " political science " refers to the theoretical analysis of all political systems, including their origins, their underlying values and their goals. While the idea of politics refers to the concrete implementation of social and economic policies, political science provides a more comprehensive understanding of governance and gives us the tools to interpret the government's actions.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Ransom Udoh

Freddy Fernandes

Nova Law School, UNL, Lisboa

Armando Marques-Guedes

MPS and SPO Outlines

Thomas Otieno Juma

Cleve V . Arguelles

Siddhant Issar

stephan aluyi

Ridwan Adi Nugroho

Charles Stewart

Chris Armstrong

Jose Javier Olivas Osuna

Samia Javaid

ALFREDO MANZANO AMEZQUITA

Subhash Shukla

Sikandar Tangi

Taher Elazhari

John Ishiyama

Krystel Wanneau

Nicole Sunday Grove

Journal of Political Science Education

Michelle Deardorff

Handbook on Teaching and Learning in Political Science and International Relations

Fletcher McClellan

Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Political Sciences and European Studies

Ciprian Iftimoaei

introduction of a political science research paper

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to Inquiry, Structure, and Methods

Acknowledgements

For instructors

POLSC101: Introduction to Political Science

Political Science

Defining politics and political science

What is scientific about political science?

Building theories

Collecting data

Clear, consistent, objective writing

Example of an operationalized term

What counts as good writing in political science?

Writing political science research papers

Writing in political theory

Drafting your paper

Works consulted

Search Results

Writing a research paper in political science : a practical guide to inquiry, structure, and methods

Select Campus

Browse by call number

Introduction to Political Science

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

Political Science Research Paper

Introduction

More Political Science Research Papers:

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Traditionalism

Case Studies of Traditionalism: Frank Goodnow and Woodrow Wilson

Behavioralism

A Case Study of Behavioralism: Herbert McClosky’s “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics”

Postbehavioralism

A Case Study of Postbehavioralism: The Perestroika Protest in Political Science

Bibliography:

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS