Why Political Science Is an Ethical Issue
| Published date | 01 May 2018 |
| Date | 01 May 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321717723503 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717723503
Political Studies
2018, Vol. 66(2) 425 –441
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032321717723503
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Why Political Science Is an
Ethical Issue
Mark Bevir1 and Jason Blakely2
Abstract
Many advocates of interpretive approaches to the study of politics emphasize that what is at
stake is a conflict between “quantitative” versus “qualitative” methods. By contrast, we begin by
suggesting that political scientists are free to use whichever method they find most useful for their
research purposes. Instead of methodological reasons for making the interpretive turn, political
scientists have ethical reasons for adopting this paradigm. In particular, interpretive approaches
give political scientists a better account of the nature and role of values in human life, a sense for
how the historical past is ethically relevant, the ability to advance politically engaged sociologies,
and a deliberative critique of technocracy. Political scientists should be free to critically engage,
scrutinize, and even normatively evaluate human ethical positions.
Keywords
interpretive political science, ethics, value neutrality, methodology, qualitative versus quantitative
Accepted: 28 April 2017
Our goal is to clarify in what ways political scientists today are free to engage in the criti-
cal and evaluative study of ethics. This does not mean that we believe political science is
the same things as ethics or ethical critique. Political science, generally speaking, is con-
cerned with the study and explanation of human behavior. This need not have overt ethi-
cal concerns. It is perfectly valid, for instance, for political scientists to simply set out to
describe incumbency patterns in Congress or to poll contemporary religious attitudes.
That is, political scientists can spend time refining factual claims and explanations.
Nonetheless, we believe one of political science’s valid methodological concerns might
be ethical critique. That is, political scientists should be free to critically engage and
normatively evaluate human ethical positions. How is this possible? This article shows
how an ethically engaged research agenda is generated by adopting an interpretive lens.
1Department of Political Science, University of California–Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
2Department of Political Science, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA
Corresponding author:
Jason Blakely, Department of Political Science, Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu,
CA 90263, USA.
Email: jason.blakely@pepperdine.edu
723503PSX0010.1177/0032321717723503Political StudiesBevir and Blakely
research-article2017
Article
426 Political Studies 66(2)
Approaching political science from an interpretive perspective helps open a new field of
inquiry.
Unfortunately, many advocates of interpretive approaches today believe that the main
conflict in political science is methodological. On one side are “quants,” with their enthu-
siasm for mass surveys, statistical regressions, and decision theory models. On the other
side are “qualies,” with their passion for ethnographies, in-depth interviews, and textual
research. Quants view themselves as hardnosed statistical analysts, developing scientific
theories of society implemented by policy experts (Mebane and Sekhon, 2004). Qualies
present themselves as humanists and cultural experts, studying politics in a more egalitar-
ian, deliberative way (Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003: xiii). Each side views the other with
skepticism. Each believes the other is responsible for the confusion clouding modern
social science. All this hostility, we are told, is the result of something as seemingly dry
and innocuous as methods.
Although this narrative is not without truth, we also think it is misleading. Yet, it
remains a widespread description of contemporary political science. In what follows, we
want to approach political science from a different perspective. Instead of a methodologi-
cal debate between quants and qualies, we want to consider the philosophical differences
between naturalists and anti-naturalists. This is certainly not the only way to view politi-
cal science today but we believe that it is useful for shedding light on why political scien-
tists should be free to adopt ethical concerns.
We argue our case in four parts. First, we explain naturalism versus anti-naturalism as
a philosophical and not methodological distinction. Recognizing this has an emancipa-
tory effect on political science as the quant-qualie debate can give way to method plural-
ism. Political scientists are free to use what are sometimes dubbed “positivist” methods,
as well as qualitative approaches. Second, we argue that anti-naturalism gives political
scientists a better account of the role of values in human life. Third, we explain how anti-
naturalism reveals the ethical significance of history. Fourth, we link anti-naturalist politi-
cal science to deliberative forms of democratic theory. Political scientists across the
methodological spectrum have reasons to favor deliberative democracy (not just qualies).
In this way, our argument casts doubt on a common doctrine used to limit what political
scientists study—namely, the dichotomy between facts and values.
Naturalism versus Anti-naturalism
The naturalist versus anti-naturalist debate is only one way of thinking about political
science today—but we believe that it helps illuminate how political scientists are free
to engage in ethical concerns. The first thing to understand is that interpretive political
science is not foremost about employing qualitative methods. To the contrary, qualita-
tive and quantitative methods are both tools for generating information about political
reality and can be employed by researchers of all stripes (Bevir and Blakely, 2016).
This means that political scientists are justified in transcending the qualitative–quanti-
tative debate, using whichever methods most suit their research aims. The shift toward
multi-methods voiced by many leading methodologists should therefore be embraced
(Box-Steffensmeier et al., 2008; Chih Lin, 1998; Gerring, 2011; Goertz and Mahoney,
2012; Goodin, 2009).
By contrast, what is at stake in the naturalist versus anti-naturalist debate is philo-
sophical. Naturalism is the view that social science explanation can be modeled on the
natural sciences; while anti-naturalism is the view that it cannot. Anti-naturalists hold this
To continue reading
Request your trial