Research Methods in Politics

DSE-11 | Unit 1: Introduction

Department of Political Science | Semester VI

These notes cover all four sub-topics of Unit 1 as per the DSE-11 syllabus. Key authors, arguments, and
exam-ready explanations are included throughout.

1. Human Enquiry and Social Science Research

What is Human Enquiry?

Human enquiry refers to the natural human desire to ask questions and seek explanations about the world
— 'Why did this happen?', 'What does this mean?' However, scientific enquiry is fundamentally different
from everyday curiosity. It is systematic, deliberate, and self-correcting.

Problems with Ordinary Human Enquiry (Babbie)

Earl Babbie identified four key problems that make everyday enquiry unreliable:

• Inaccurate Observation: We do not always perceive things accurately. We see what we expect to
see, filtered through our assumptions. Scientific research uses deliberate, careful observation to
counter this.
• Overgeneralization: Drawing broad conclusions from limited examples. E.g., observing two corrupt
politicians and concluding 'all politicians are corrupt.' Science demands representative samples.
• Selective Observation: We tend to notice information that confirms our existing beliefs
(confirmation bias) and ignore contradictory evidence. This produces deeply skewed understanding.
• Illogical Reasoning: Drawing false cause-effect relationships. E.g., 'Every time I carry an umbrella,
it does not rain — so umbrellas prevent rain.' Scientific reasoning demands logical rigour.

Social Science Research — What Makes It Different?

Social science research studies human behaviour, institutions, and political processes. Unlike natural
sciences, it faces unique challenges:

• The Reactivity Problem (Hawthorne Effect): When people know they are being observed, they
change their behaviour. You cannot study society the way you study chemicals.
• Values Cannot Be Eliminated: The researcher is part of the social world they are studying. Their
class, gender, nationality, and ideology all shape what they study and how.
• No Controlled Lab Experiments: Political events are complex and contextual. You cannot replay
the French Revolution under controlled conditions.
• History Does Not Repeat Exactly: Every political event is embedded in a unique historical and
cultural context.
These challenges mean that social science requires methodological pluralism — no single method is
sufficient for understanding political reality.

2. What is Political Inquiry? Why Do We Need It?

Defining Political Inquiry

Political inquiry means the systematic study of politics — how power is distributed, how governments
make decisions, how people vote, how states interact, and why political systems succeed or fail.

MacIntyre's Challenge
Alasdair MacIntyre raised a foundational question: 'Is the Science of Comparative Politics possible?' His
argument was that political phenomena are too complex and context-dependent to yield universal scientific
laws. Every country has a unique history, culture, and institutional structure — making universal laws
almost impossible to formulate.

However, this does not mean political inquiry is pointless. It means we must be humble about our
generalizations and always sensitive to context.

Why Is Political Inquiry Necessary?

• For Better Policy-Making: Understanding why policies fail or succeed allows governments to make
better decisions. Without systematic inquiry, policymakers repeat mistakes.
• For Democratic Citizenship: Informed citizens are essential for democracy. Studies of voter
behaviour, party systems, and electoral outcomes help citizens and institutions understand and
strengthen democratic processes.
• Identifying Patterns: When do coups occur? What conditions lead to democratic backsliding? Is
there a relationship between economic development and democracy? Political inquiry seeks answers
to these pattern-level questions.
• Normative Questions: Political science is not just about 'what is' but also 'what ought to be.'
Questions of justice, equality, rights, and legitimacy are central to political inquiry.

Rudolph and Rudolph — The Importance of Indigenous Frameworks

Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph argued that Western political theories cannot be directly transplanted onto
non-Western contexts. India's caste system, religious pluralism, and federal diversity are unique.
Therefore, indigenous analytical frameworks are essential for studying Indian politics meaningfully.
Political inquiry must be sensitive to local context, not just derivative of Western academia.

Sudipta Kaviraj — 'How Not to Study Method'

Kaviraj's essay warns against mechanical application of methods. Method is a tool, not a master. If the
method is predetermined, it shapes what questions can even be asked — this is intellectually dangerous.
Good research demands critical thinking above all.

3. Objectivity and Interpretation in Political Enquiry

Can Political Science Be Objective?
This is one of the most debated questions in the philosophy of social science. Two major positions exist:

The Positivist Position

Positivists believe that objective, value-free science is possible and desirable. The researcher should
'bracket' their values and focus solely on observable facts. This tradition — rooted in Auguste Comte —
holds that social science should mirror natural science in its methods and ambitions.

The Interpretive / Anti-Positivist Position

Interpretivists argue that complete objectivity is impossible. The researcher is always already
embedded in a social world — their class, gender, nationality, ideology, and personal history inevitably
shape their research. This influence operates at multiple levels:

• What you choose to study (the research question itself reflects values)
• How you study it (methodological choices are not neutral)
• How you interpret and present your findings

Sandra and Heath — Reflexivity as the Solution

Sandra Halpern and Oliver Heath argue that the answer is not to pretend objectivity exists, but to practise
reflexivity — the ongoing process of examining your own assumptions and acknowledging how they
shape your research. Researchers should make their values and standpoint transparent, not invisible.
This honest acknowledgment is more intellectually rigorous than false claims of neutrality.

The Problem of Interpretation

Political events rarely have a single 'correct' interpretation. Consider the Partition of 1947 — historians
variously attribute it to British failure, Congress's mistakes, Jinnah's ambitions, or the structural logic of
colonial communalism. No single interpretation is uncontested. This is the nature of political
meaning-making — it is always contested, always contextual.

This does not mean 'anything goes.' Some interpretations are better supported by evidence, more logically
consistent, and more sensitive to context than others. But the idea of a final, definitive political truth is
philosophically untenable.

4. The Epistemological Debate: Quantitative vs Qualitative

What is Epistemology?
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that asks: How do we know what we know? What counts as
valid knowledge? How can we prove something is true? In political science, epistemological debates
shape how research is designed and what counts as legitimate evidence.

Quantitative Research
What it is: Research that uses numbers, statistics, surveys, and large datasets to identify patterns and
test hypotheses.

Core Assumptions
• Social reality is measurable and can be quantified
• Objective laws govern human behaviour, waiting to be discovered
• Large, representative samples allow valid generalizations
• The researcher and the subject of study are separable

Examples in Political Science

• Pre-election surveys predicting vote share
• Regression analysis exploring links between GDP and democracy
• Cross-national datasets on governance, corruption, or conflict
• Lokniti/CSDS voter behaviour studies in India

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths Weaknesses

Findings can be generalized broadly Answers "what" and "how much" — not "why"

Research is replicable by others Reduces complex human experience to numbers

Identifies large-scale patterns Survey questions themselves can be biased

Reduces (in theory) researcher bias Context and nuance are often lost

Qualitative Research
What it is: Research that uses interviews, case studies, ethnography, discourse analysis, and archival
study to explore meaning, context, and depth.

Core Assumptions
• Social reality is constructed — people give meaning to their actions, and that meaning matters
• Context is crucial — the same action can mean entirely different things in different settings
• The researcher is part of the social world, not outside it
• Understanding (Verstehen) is more important than measurement

Examples in Political Science

• In-depth interviews with politicians, activists, or voters
• Case study of a single country's democratic transition
• Discourse analysis of political speeches or party manifestos
• Ethnographic fieldwork in villages during elections

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths Weaknesses

Rich, nuanced, in-depth understanding Findings are difficult to generalize

 Answers "why" and "how" questions Higher risk of researcher bias

Preserves context and complexity Time-consuming and resource-intensive

Generates new theories and concepts Hard to replicate precisely

Bryman's Central Argument

Alan Bryman argues that the quantitative vs qualitative divide is not merely a technical difference in
methods — it reflects a deeper epistemological divide:

• Quantitative → Positivism: The social world operates like the natural world; discover its laws
through measurement.
• Qualitative → Interpretivism: The social world is built on meaning; understand it through
interpretation.

Crucially, Bryman also argues this is a false binary. Mixed-methods research — using both approaches
together — is often more powerful. Quantitative data identifies a pattern; qualitative research explains why
that pattern exists.

D. Vaid — The Indian Context

Divya Vaid notes that quantitative methods have historically been underdeveloped in Indian political
science. The tradition has been more qualitative and normative. However, institutions like CSDS (Centre
for the Study of Developing Societies) and their National Election Studies have begun advancing
large-scale quantitative political research in India. Vaid argues for a balanced, pluralist approach that
draws on both traditions.

Quick Revision: Summary Table

Sub-Topic Core Argument Key Author(s)

Human Enquiry Ordinary enquiry suffers from bias, overgeneralization, and illogical
Babbiereasoning. Science corrects this throug

Political Inquiry Systematic study of politics is necessary for good policy, democracy,
MacIntyre,
andRudolph
understanding
& Rudolph,
patterns.
Kaviraj
Must be

Objectivity Complete objectivity is impossible. Reflexivity — transparent Sandra

acknowledgment
& Heath, Kaviraj
of one's values — is the ho

Quant vs Qual Not just a methods debate but an epistemological one. Both approaches
Bryman, Vaid
have strengths; mixed methods o

Likely Exam Questions and Model Answers

Q1: What are the limitations of ordinary human enquiry?

According to Babbie, ordinary human enquiry suffers from four main limitations: inaccurate observation
(we see what we expect), overgeneralization (broad conclusions from limited cases), selective
observation (confirmation bias), and illogical reasoning (false cause-effect links). Scientific research is
designed to systematically correct each of these.

Q2: Is political science objective? Discuss.

 Complete objectivity in political science is impossible because the researcher is always embedded in a
social world with values, biases, and a standpoint. The positivist tradition argues for value-free science,
but the interpretivist position — supported by Sandra and Heath — argues that researchers should
instead practise reflexivity: making their values and assumptions transparent rather than pretending to
neutrality. Kaviraj further warns against mechanical use of methods that predetermine conclusions.

Q3: Distinguish between quantitative and qualitative research.

Quantitative research uses numbers, statistics, and large datasets to identify patterns and test
hypotheses. It is rooted in positivism and prioritizes generalizability and replication. Qualitative research
uses interviews, ethnography, and discourse analysis to explore meaning and context. It is rooted in
interpretivism and prioritizes depth and nuance. Bryman argues this distinction reflects a deeper
epistemological divide, not merely a technical one. Mixed methods can combine the strengths of both.

Q4: Why is political inquiry necessary?

Political inquiry is necessary for several reasons: (1) it improves policy-making by helping us
understand why policies succeed or fail; (2) it strengthens democratic citizenship by informing voters
and institutions; (3) it helps identify patterns — e.g., when coups occur or what conditions sustain
democracy; (4) it addresses normative questions about justice, rights, and legitimate governance.
MacIntyre raised doubts about whether a science of comparative politics is possible, but this does not
negate the value of systematic inquiry — it simply calls for contextual sensitivity.

Q5: What did Rudolph and Rudolph argue about the study of Indian politics?
Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph argued that Western political theories cannot simply be transplanted onto
Indian contexts. India's caste system, religious pluralism, and unique institutional structures require
indigenous analytical frameworks. They advocated for an intellectual history of Indian political studies
that takes seriously its own terms and categories, rather than treating Indian politics as merely a
derivative case for validating Western theory.

All the best for your test!