Hey Everyone,

After studying Politics for a year now, as part of my degree, I have enjoyed analysing why we studying it and why it is so important to understand. Alongside its intersection with many other subjects such as Economics and Philosophy, it is often described as a science, however I do not think this is an accurate description. Please see below for my essay and hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did writing it !

Political Science can be defined in multiple different ways but can largely be regarded as separate to a science such as Physics. Laswell ( 1936), defines political science as ‘who gets what, when, how ‘which frames it as the study of how recourses are distributed and contested through human actions that are based on multiple subjective factors such as socioeconomic situations within a political community. This is in contrast to the more objective definition of science by Karl Popper: science is when a theory can be predicted, tested and proved wrong or right. Therefore, science is something that is precise and always produces the same outcomes, yet political science has a different subject matter of humans and touches on choices that are subjective rather than objective, making it difficult to define political science as a science. This essay will begin by elaborating on how prediction fails, and subjectiveness is of the essence when it comes to studying political science, before acknowledging that scientific methods can be used to study politics, but the outcomes are not strictly right or wrong and always the same. Finally, I will touch on the counter point that even though political science cannot be a ‘true’ science evidence and method should still be used to ensure we distinguish between opinion and carefully researched findings, to ensure a level of value neutrality so politics can be studied to a high standard and become as well regarded as the study of a science.

Constructivists argue that the political world is socially constructed, where identities and beliefs shape reality. As such this results in a lack of an ‘objective ‘political world to examine and discover like the law of physics. Therefore, it is difficult to universally create one prediction and create value neutrality when studying political science as there are beliefs, cultural norms and identities which shape the interpretation of events and possible outcomes. A states behaviour cannot be explained through studies of similar states as all have unique aspects to them even if they regard themselves as a textbook definition of democracy. These unique aspects are determined by individual political actors who have their own identity and create subjective decisions meaning complete accurate predictability is near impossible. This ties in heavily with Wendt who argues that ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ which emphasises that the study of political science relies heavily on interpretation based on one’s personal beliefs and identities, as Constructivists believe, therefore a universal definition of a term within politics is difficult to come by without value neutrality. The Arab Spring is a clear example of this issue. Almost no political scientist predicted the revolts, despite large amounts of data on unemployment, corruption and authoritarianism being widely available. If Political science could function as a predictable science such as Physics, then these warning signs should have been obvious to political scientists. Yet the combination of events, preconditions and triggers of the revolts were all factors based on the identities and beliefs of individuals that could not be predicted even when looking at the social context of the people. For example, the viral spread of protest through social media and individual desperation could not be given a precise timing of when it could occur. This is because these are all subjective occurrences which different political scientist can interpret in different ways. Thus one collective prediction is limited due to cultural norms, biases and beliefs that political scientists may hold and the pure subjectiveness of the study of human action, which linking to Laswell definition of humans distributing resources via power, demonstrates how political science lacks universal predictability and value neutrality.

Whilst acknowledging that predictability and a lack of value neutrality is difficult when studying political science, certain scientific methods can still be used to study political science which may lead one to regard political science as a science. Behaviouralists such as David Easton, attempted to highlight that predictability in political life can be identified through looking at aspects such as how many people participated in an election or a protest and demographics participating. These should be focused on in the study of political science. This is in place of abstract institutions or ideals; therefore, surveys and quantitative methods can be used much like in scientific research. Predictability can be created, and normative outcomes can be identified by looking at patterns which closes the gap between the study of political science and science. Furthermore, another proponent of political science being a science are rational choice theorists. They attempt to explain why people behave in certain observable ways by assuming they want to maximise their utility in a rational way. Therefore, considering the incentives that influence a voter or the cost benefits of their decision help a political scientist to study human action in a non-subjective way and create predictions. As such, politics can be predictable and studied through quantitative means. Yet these predictions only cover a small basis of what there is to observe and study within political science as predicting the collapse of democratic or revolutions do not follow these patterns, as identified in the Arab Spring example. Therefore, scientific method can work in political science when the subject matter is can be seen to behave in a controlled manner, yet when the subject becomes contested and has multiple different aspects to it with no set method of a specific outcome occurring, predictability diminishes and other factors such as identities beliefs which shape human outcomes come into play. As such political science is not seen as a science in the Popperian sense.

However, one may argue that without set standards of evaluating and analysing political outcomes, the line between opinion and fact blurs. King, Keohane, and Verba (1994) argued, without a shared commitment to standards of studying political science, it loses the ability to distinguish careful research from mere opinion. With a lack of  It is universal explanations within political science the study may risk falling into relativism where each interpretation of a subject is treated as equally valid. Thus, retaining a level of scientific standards such as having evidence, verification and testing of political theories must occur to ensure a shared ground where scholars can critique and improve one’s work. This argument holds great force, and this essay does not dispute the need for rigour when studying political science. Yet ensuring this rigour is not the same as being a natural science because evidence can be used by a political scientist to support a theory without claiming to be a physicist. The question is not that political science should be disciplined like natural science but whether the discipline of using scientific standards makes it a science, which it does not. This is due to certain subjects being difficult to create a universal definition for or create a predicted outcome for due to the social constructs that exist within society. Aristotle aligns with this view as he argued in ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ that every field should have the ‘degree of precision its subject matter allows’ therefore political science should not be regarded as a science like Chemistry but rather a type of science that is based on judgement and deliberation which uses similar rigour within analysis. It is not a science that will behave with regularity like a chemical reaction but can still be studied with the same rigour as this type of science to maintain credibility and the ease of studying it.

Overall political science is not regarded as a natural science that can always be predicted and tested for a right or wrong answer due to social constructs meaning value neutrality is difficult to occur. Whilst scientific methods can be used to analyse certain aspects of political science, there are larger phenomena such as revolutions that all have subjective causes which are linked to human choice and action that is unpredictable in comparison to a reaction between atoms. Abandoning scientific methods to study political science does have risks of diminishing the ability to study political science as it may lead to relativism, yet it can still have a level of standard through rigorous but interpretative discipline.