APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF

POLITICAL SCIENCE
PREPARED BY DR.AMRITA JAISWAL
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
B.N COLLEGE
PATNA UNIVERSITY
What is an approach?
 An approach may be defined as a way of looking at, and then
explaining a particular phenomenon.
 An approach provides framework for explanation and
prediction.
 Van Dyke observes, “approaches consist of criteria for
selecting problems and relevant data, whereas methods are
procedures for getting and utilizing data”.
 Allan Ball in his ‘Modern Politics and Government’ has
categorized the approaches into traditional and modern or
new approach.
Approaches to the study of politics
 Approaches to the study of politics may be divided into two
categories (a) The Traditional approach and (b) The Modern
approach which are further classified into subcategories.

TRADITIONAL
APPROACH

Philosophical Historical Institutional Legal

Approaches to the study of politics

MODERN APPROACH

Post-
Behavioral Marxist
Behavioural
Traditional Approach
The study of politics has a very long tradition. Several approaches
have been adopted for the study and analysis of politics. The
approaches which remained largely in vogue till the end of second
world war (1939-45) are described as traditional approaches.
Characteristics of Traditional Approach-
(i) It gives importance to values only.
(ii) More emphasis is put on the study of political structure.
(iii) It has academic values which provides the knowledge of past and
clarifies the political concepts-rights, liberty, equality.
(iv) It has philosophical orientation and largely normative.
(v) Traditional approach believe that studies in political science can
never be scientific.
Traditional Approach
 Traditional Approach is categories into four categories and the first one
is-

(a) Philosophical Approach- Philosophical approach is the oldest

approach and is also known as ethical approach. This approach attempts
to find the truth of political events or incidents. It aims at evolving
standards of right and wrong for the purpose of a critical evolution of
the existing institutions, laws and policies. It is also known as speculative
approach and is concerned with the establishment of an ideal society
with norms and values. Thus great works of Plato, Rousseau, Kant,
Hegal, Green etc; take the study of ‘Politics to a very high level of
abstraction and also try to mix up the system of values with certain high
norms of an ideal political system.
 Criticism
(i) The Philosophical approach is criticized for being speculative
and abstract.
(ii) It takes us far away from the world of reality.
(iii) It is accused of being hypothetical .

(b) Historical Approach- The historical approach uses the

knowledge of history and applies it to understand political life.
History signifies and manifests an ever-changing process,
affecting social life in its entirety. As exemplified by Sabine, it
stands for an attempt at understanding politics through a
historical account of political thought of the past.
 Criticism
Sidgwick, James Bryce, Ernest Barker and David Easton has pointed out
the inadequacies of the historical approach. Their objection amounts to
the fact that problems confronting one generation are different from the
problems of another generation and can hardly guide in resolving the
crises of a particular generation or in meeting future needs.

(c ) Legal Approach- The legal approach attempts to understand politics

in terms of law, focusing its attention on the legal and constitutional
framework in which different organs of government have to function.
Legal approach regards state as the creator and enforcer of law and deals
with legal institutions, and processes. In this connection, the works of
Cicero, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin,
Savigny, Sir Henry Maine and A.V Dicey are of great importance.
 Criticism
(i) This approach has a very narrow perspective.
(ii) Law can only embrace only one aspect of life and cannot cover
the entire behaviour of a political man.
(iii) The legal approach may prove inadequate in understanding the
complex political forces, process and behaviour which operate
outside legal formal framework, yet it is not entirely
insignificant.

(d) Institutional Approach- The institutional approach

emphasizes exclusively the formal aspects of government and
politics. The roots of this approach extend to the Aristotelian
period, when Aristotle described and classified the
constitution of Greek City states.
It gives importance to the study of formal as well as informal
structure of political institutions like legislature, executive,
judiciary, political parties, pressure and interest groups. Therefore
this approach is also known as ‘structural approach’. Walter
Bagehot, F.A Ogg, WB Munro, Herman Finer, H.J Laski, James
Bryce, Maurice Duverger and Giovanni Sartori are the advocator
of institutional or structural approach.
 Criticism
I. This approach has been criticized for being too narrow. It
ignores the role of individuals who constitute and operate the
formal, as well as informal structures and substructures of a
political system.
II. It does not assign importance to the study of international
politics.
III. It ignores the role of informal groups and processes in
shaping politics.
MODERN APPROACH
 The modern approach have their roots in the traditional
approaches. This approach came as a reaction against the
traditional approaches. Unlike the traditional approach which was
value-laden, the modern approach is fact based. It is mainly based
on the scientific study of politics.
Characteristics of Modern Approaches-
I. Modern approach is based on the scientific study of politics and
in this empiricism dominates.
II. Modern approaches to politics believes in interdisciplinary
study.
III. The modern approaches is fact based and lays emphasis on the
factual study of political phenomenon to arrive at scientific and
definite conclusions.
Sociological approach, economic approach, psychological
approach, quantitative approach, simulation approach, system
approach, behavioral approach, post-behavioral approach and
Marxist approach are the different approaches which can be
studied under the modern approaches to politics. But primarily
the main concern is given to behavioral and post-behavioral
approaches.

Modern approach can be categories into-

(a) Behavioral Approach

(b) Post-Behavioral approach

(a) Behavioral Approach- The behavioral approach
originated due to dissatisfaction with the traditional
approaches. The behavioural approach focuses on political
behaviour. It calls for the study of acts, attitudes,
preferences and expectations of man in the political
context. David Easton has given the eight points as
intellectual foundations stones of behaviorism, which can
be summed up as following-
I. Regularities- stands for discernible uniformities in
political behaviour which can be expressed in theory-like
statements facilitating explanation and prediction of
political phenomenon.
II. Verification- implies acceptance of only that kind of knowledge
which can be empirically tested and verified.
III. Techniques- symbolizes the behaviouralists’ emphasis on the
adoption of appropriate tools of data collection and analysis.
IV. Quantification- stands for the advocacy of rigorous
measurement and data manipulation in political analysis.
V. Values- according to the behaviouralists, need to be separated
from ‘facts’. Ethical evaluation is one thing, empirical
explanation another. Objective scientific inquiry has to be
value-free and value-neutral.
VI. Systematization- implies the behaviouralist’s conscious effort
to build causal theories on the basis of logically interrelated
structure of concepts and propositions.
VII. Pure Science- The behaviouralists contend that both theory and its
application are parts of scientific method and must be closely linked.
VIII. Integration- The study of political science should be integrated with
other social sciences and inter-disciplinary approach should be
adopted. It will facilitate cross fertilization of ideas and results in
more generality and validity of political studies.
Thus behaviouralism shifts its focus from study of politics, from
formalism and normative orientations of the legalistic and philosophical
schools to political behaviour, i.e., the behaviour of actual actors in the
political field like power-holders and power-seekers as well voters.

 Criticisms
I. It is based on a false conception of the scientific methods.
II. It is based upon a false theory of knowledge as it takes facts alone as
real.
III. With a craze for ‘mad scientism’ it sacrifices the significance of speculative
and value oriented political theory.
IV. It makes political science as handmaid of sociology.

b) Post-Behavioralism-Behavioral approach totally relied on ‘pure science’

and therefore it has been criticized as it failed to attend to the social and
political issues of the time. In the late 1960s, David Easton announced ‘a
post-behavioural revolution’ which relied on ‘relevance and action’. It laid
new emphasis on ‘values’, on issues of justice, freedom and equality. The
post-behavioralism may be regarded as the reform movement within
behaviouralism. David Easton gave seven major traits of Post-Bahavioralism
called ‘Credo of Relevance’. They are:
I. Substance must come before techniques in political science research.
II. Contemporary political science should place its main emphasis on social
change, not social preservation
III. (iii) Political scientist should reach out to the real needs of
societies.
IV. (iv) Values need to be restored to a central position as they play
an important role in politics and research.
V. (v) The responsibility of the political scientist is to do their best
to protect the human values of civilization; thus they have major
tasks to perform in the society.
VI. (vi) There is need of action sciences in place of contemplative
science.
VII. (vii) It is to be recognized that the intellectuals have a positive
role to play in society and that this role is to try to determine
proper goals for society and make society move in the direction
of these goals.
Distinctions between Behavioral Approach
and Post- Behavioral Approaches
The Issue Behavioural Approach Post-Behavioural
Approach

Nature of inquiry Search for pure knowledge Search for Applied

and theory knowledge and practice
Purpose of inquiry ‘knowledge for knowledge Relevance of knowledge to
sake’; Not interested in satisfy social needs and
action study action for problem-solving
Focus of study Micro-level analysis; focus Macro-level analysis; focus
on small units and process of on the role of big units and
decision-making content of the decision
Attitude toward Value Value-Neutral Interested in the choice of
values
Attitude towards Social Interested in status quo; not Interested in Social change
Change interested in Social change for solving social problems.
Conclusion
The name and identity of each approach conveys a specific
thrust. Both traditional and modern approaches to the study
of politics are important in their respective sense. There has
been a new wave of methodological innovations from
traditional perspective to modern perspectives, particularly
reaching towards post-behaviouralism. However there has
been continuity along with change.