politics research papers

Research Topics & Ideas: Politics

100+ Politics-Related Research Ideas To Fast-Track Your Project

Finding and choosing a strong research topic is the critical first step when it comes to crafting a high-quality dissertation or thesis. If you’ve landed on this post, chances are you’re looking for a politics-related research topic , but aren’t sure where to start. Here, we’ll explore a variety of politically-related research ideas across a range of disciplines, including political theory and philosophy, comparative politics, international relations, public administration and policy.

NB – This is just the start…

The topic ideation and evaluation process has multiple steps . In this post, we’ll kickstart the process by sharing some research topic ideas. This is the starting point, but to develop a well-defined research topic, you’ll need to identify a clear and convincing research gap , along with a well-justified plan of action to fill that gap.

If you’re new to the oftentimes perplexing world of research, or if this is your first time undertaking a formal academic research project, be sure to check out our free dissertation mini-course. Also, be sure to sign up for our free webinar that explores how to find a high-quality research topic from scratch.

Overview: Politics-Related Topics

• Political theory and philosophy
• Comparative politics
• International relations
• Public administration
• Public policy
• Examples of politics-related dissertations

Topics & Ideas: Political Theory

• An analysis of the impact of feminism on political theory and the concept of citizenship in Saudi Arabia in the context of Vision 2030
• A comparative study of the political philosophies of Marxism and liberalism and their influence on modern politics
• An examination of how the Covid-19 pandemic affected the relationship between individual freedom and collective responsibility in political philosophy
• A study of the impact of race and ethnicity on French political philosophy and the concept of justice
• An exploration of the role of religion in political theory and its impact on secular democracy in the Middle East
• A Review of Social contract theory, comparative analysis of the political philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau
• A study of the concept of the common good in political philosophy and its relevance to the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe
• An examination of the relationship between political power and the rule of law in developing African countries
• A study of the impact of postmodernism on political theory and the concept of truth, a case study of the US
• An exploration of the role of virtue in political philosophy and its impact on the assessment of moral character in political leaders

Topics & Ideas: Comparative Politics

• A comparative study of different models of federalism and their impact on democratic governance: A case Study of South American federalist states
• The impact of ethnic and religious diversity on political stability and democracy in developing countries, a review of literature from Africa
• An analysis of the role of civil society in promoting democratic change in autocratic regimes: A case study in Sweden
• A comparative examination of the impact of globalization on political institutions and processes in South America and Africa.
• A study of the factors that contribute to successful democratization in authoritarian regimes, a review of the role of Elite-driven democratization
• A comparison of the political and economic systems of China and India and their impact on social development
• The impact of corruption on political institutions and democracy in South East Asia, a critical review
• A comparative examination of the impact of majoritarian representation (winner-take-all) vs proportional representation on political representation and governance
• An exploration of Multi-party systems in democratic countries and their impact on minority representation and policy-making.
• A study of the factors that contribute to successful decentralization and regional autonomy, a case study of Spain

Topics & Ideas: International Relations

• A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of diplomacy and military force in resolving international conflicts in Central Africa.
• The impact of globalization on the sovereignty of nation-states and the changing nature of international politics, a review of the role of Multinational Corporations
• An examination of the role of international aid organizations in promoting peace, security, and development in the Middle East.
• A study of the impact of economic interdependence on the likelihood of conflict in international relations: A critical review of weaponized interdependence
• A comparative analysis of the foreign policies of the EU and the US and their impact on international stability in Africa
• An exploration of the relationship between international human rights and national sovereignty during the Covid 19 pandemic
• A study of the role of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO)s in international politics and their impact on state behaviour
• A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of international regimes in addressing global challenges such as climate change, arms control, and terrorism in Brazil
• An examination of the impact of the rise of BRICS on the international system and global governance
• A study of the role of ideology in shaping the foreign policies of states and the dynamics of international relations in the US

Tops & Ideas: Public Administration

• An analysis of the impact of digital technology on public administration and the delivery of public services in Estonia
• A review of models of public-private partnerships and their impact on the delivery of public services in Ghana
• An examination of the role of civil society organizations in monitoring and accountability of public administration in Papua New Guinea
• A study of the impact of environmentalism as a political ideology on public administration and policy implementation in Germany
• An exploration of the relationship between public administration and citizen engagement in the policy-making process, an exploration of gender identity concerns in schools
• A comparative analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration, decentralisation and pay and employment reform in developing countries
• A study of the role of collaborative leadership in public administration and its impact on organizational performance
• A systematic review of the challenges and opportunities related to diversity and inclusion in police services
• A study of the impact of corrupt public administration on economic development and regional growth in Eastern Europe
• An exploration of the relationship between public administration and civil rights and liberties, including issues related to privacy and surveillance, a case study in South Korea

Topics & Ideas: Public Policy

• An analysis of the impacts of public policy on income inequality and poverty reduction in South Sudan
• A comparative study of the effectiveness of legal and regulatory, economic and financial, and social and cultural instruments for addressing climate change in South Korea
• An examination of the role of interest groups in shaping public policy and the policy-making process regarding land-use claims
• A study of the impact of globalization on the development of public policies and programs for mitigating climate change in Singapore
• An exploration of the relationship between public policy and social justice in tertiary education in the UAE
• A comparative analysis of the impact of health policies for the management of diabetes on access to healthcare and health outcomes in developing countries
• Exploring the role of evidence-based policymaking in the design and implementation of public policies for the management of invasive invertebrates in Australia
• An examination of the challenges and opportunities of implementing educational dietary public policies in developing multicultural countries
• A study of the impact of public policies on urbanization and urban development in rural Indonesia
• An exploration of the role of media and public opinion in shaping public policy and the policy-making process in the transport industry of Malaysia

Examples: Politics Dissertations & Theses

While the ideas we’ve presented above are a decent starting point for finding a politics-related research topic, they are fairly generic and non-specific. So, it helps to look at actual dissertations and theses to see how this all comes together.

Below, we’ve included a selection of research projects from various politics-related degree programs to help refine your thinking. These are actual dissertations and theses, written as part of Master’s and PhD-level programs, so they can provide some useful insight as to what a research topic looks like in practice.

• We, the Righteous Few: Immoral Actions of Fellow Partisans are Judged as Less Possible (Varnam, 2020)
• Civilizing the State: Civil Society and the Politics of Primary Public Health Care Provision in Urban Brazil (Gibson, 2012)
• Political regimes and minority language policies: evidence from Taiwan and southeast Asia (Wu, 2021)
• The Feminist Third Wave: Social Reproduction, Feminism as Class Struggle, and Contemporary Women’s Movements (Angulo, 2019)
• The Politics of Immigration under Authoritarianism (Joo, 2019)
• The politics of digital platforms: Sour Dictionary, activist subjectivities, and contemporary cultures of resistance (Okten, 2019)
• Vote choice and support for diverse candidates on the Boston City Council At-Large (Dolcimascolo, 2022)
• The city agenda: local governance and national influence in the policy agenda, 1900-2020 (Shannon, 2022)
• Turf wars: who supported measures to criminalize homelessness in Austin, Texas? (Bompiedi, 2021)
• Do BITs Cause Opposition Between Investor Rights and Environmental Protection? (Xiong, 2022)
• Revealed corruption and electoral accountability in Brazil: How politicians anticipate voting behavior (Diaz, 2021)
• Intersectional Solidarity: The Political Consequences of a Consciousness of Race, Gender and Sexuality (Crowder, 2020)
• The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Coalitional Representation of Latinxs in the U.S. House of Representatives (Munoz, 2019)

Looking at these titles, you can probably pick up that the research topics here are quite specific and narrowly-focused , compared to the generic ones presented earlier. In other words, to create a top-notch research topic, you must be precise and target a specific context with specific variables of interest . In other words, you need to identify a clear, well-justified research gap.

Get 1:1 Help

If you’re still feeling a bit unsure about how to find a research topic for your dissertation or research project, check out our Topic Kickstarter service below.

You Might Also Like:

Interesting thesis.

I really appreciate your work which will greatly help me rethink on my topic

Please how can I get the full thesis?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

American Politics Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

For over 40 years, American Politics Research has served as an integral forum for the dissemination of the latest theory, research and analyses in American political science.   Comprehensive...

American Politics Research presents original works by distinguished authors from a wide range of fields concerned with American politics. Articles examine and explore topics in every area of government, from local and state to regional and national. American Politics Research brings you the most recent scholarship on such subject areas as:

• Voting Behavior
• Political Parties
• Public Opinion
• Foreign Policy
• Legislative Behavior
• Courts and the Legal Process
• Executive Policies
• Domestic Issues
• Public Finance
• Women In Politics

In-Depth Coverage...

American Politics Research supplements its broad coverage with in-depth studies of topics of current interest. Special Issues and Symposia present thematic collections of articles that examine topics from several different angles. Research Agenda Papers synthesize past research on a particular subject and focus attention on future research directions. Recent topics include:

• Legislative Redistricting in the 1980s and 1990s
• The Politics of Abortion
• Tax Reform and American Politics
• Media, Campaigns and Elections
• American Foreign Policy
• State Public Policy

This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).   

The purpose of Amercian Politics Research is to promote and disseminate high-quality research in all areas of American politics, including local, state, and national. American Politics Research will publish significant studies concerning American political behavior, political parties, public opinion, legislative behavior, courts and the legal process, executive and administrative politics, public policy, and all other topics appropriate to our understanding of American government and politics. Manuscripts from all social science disciplines are welcomed.

• Academic Search - Premier
• Academic Search Elite
• America: History and Life
• Asia Pacific Database
• CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts
• Central Asia: Abstracts & Index
• Clarivate Analytics: Current Contents - Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
• Corporate ResourceNET - Ebsco
• Current Citations Express
• EBSCO: Business Source - Main Edition
• EBSCO: Communication Abstracts
• EBSCO: Health Source - Nursing/Academic Edition
• Gale: Diversity Studies Collection
• Health & Safety Sciences Abstracts
• Historical Abstracts
• ISI Basic Social Sciences Index
• International Political Science Abstracts
• MAS FullTEXT
• MasterFILE - Ebsco
• Middle East: Abstracts & Index
• Military Library FullTEXT
• North Africa: Abstracts & Index
• OmniFile: Full Text Mega Edition (H.W. Wilson)
• PAIS International
• Periodical Abstracts - ProQuest
• Political Science Abstracts
• ProQuest: CSA Sociological Abstracts
• ProQuest: International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)
• Public Administration Abstracts
• Social SciSearch
• Social Science Source
• Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
• Social Services Abstracts
• Southeast Asia: Abstracts & Index
• Standard Periodical Directory (SPD)
• TOPICsearch - Ebsco
• Vocational Search
• Wilson Social Sciences Index Retrospective

Manuscript submission guidelines can be accessed on Sage Journals .

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 24, 2021, review article, open access, who enters politics and why.

• Saad Gulzar 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 24:253-275 (Volume publication date May 2021) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051418-051214
• First published as a Review in Advance on January 25, 2021
• Copyright © 2021 by Annual Reviews. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

Despite the importance of politicians, empirical work rarely examines who decides to enter politics and why. This survey presents conceptual issues in measuring political entry; reviews work on individual, organizational, and institutional determinants of political entry; and summarizes the main findings and puzzles related to the representation/competence trade-off in recent microcensus studies on who runs for office. Fruitful directions for future work are highlighted throughout the article.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Anzia SF , Berry CR. 2011 . The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson effect: Why do congresswomen outperform congressmen?. Am. J. Political Sci. 55 : 478– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Arora A. 2020 . Election by community consensus: effects on political selection and governance. Rev. Econ. Stat. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00970 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Ashworth S. 2012 . Electoral accountability: recent theoretical and empirical work. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 15 : 183– 201 [Google Scholar]
• Auerbach AM , Thachil T. 2019 . How patrons select brokers: efficacy and loyalty in urban Indian machines Work. Pap., Sch. Int. Serv., American Univ. Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
• Avis E , Ferraz C , Finan F , Varjão C 2017 . Money and politics: the effects of campaign spending limits on political competition and incumbency advantage NBER Work. Pap. 23508 [Google Scholar]
• Bandiera A. 2020 . The effect of rents on selection and behavior: evidence from illegal gold mining in Peru Work. Pap., Inst. Tecnol. Autón. México, Mexico City DF Mexico: [Google Scholar]
• Beath A , Christia F , Egorov G , Enikolopov R. 2016 . Electoral rules and political selection: theory and evidence from a field experiment in Afghanistan. Rev. Econ. Stud. 83 : 932– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Benabou R , Tirole J. 2003 . Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 70 : 489– 520 [Google Scholar]
• Bernhard R , Holman M , Shames S , Teele DL. 2019 . Beyond ambition. Politics Groups Identities 7 : 815– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Besley T. 2005 . Political selection. J. Econ. Perspect. 19 : 43– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Besley T , Coate S. 1997 . An economic model of representative democracy. Q. J. Econ. 112 : 85– 114 [Google Scholar]
• Besley T , Folke O , Persson T , Rickne J. 2017 . Gender quotas and the crisis of the mediocre man: theory and evidence from Sweden. Am. Econ. Rev. 107 : 2204– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Besley T , Reynal-Querol M. 2011 . Do democracies select more educated leaders?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105 : 552– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Bhavnani RR. 2009 . Do electoral quotas work after they are withdrawn? Evidence from a natural experiment in India. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 103 : 23– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Bhavnani RR. 2017 . Do the effects of temporary ethnic group quotas persist? Evidence from India. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 9 : 105– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Bhusal B , Callen M , Gulzar S , Pande R , Artiz Prillaman S , Singhania D 2019 . Does revolution work? Evidence on changes to political representation and to policy outcomes from Nepal's people's war Work. Pap., Cent. Eff. Glob. Action, Univ. Calif., Berkeley, CA [Google Scholar]
• Black GS. 1972 . A theory of political ambition: career choices and the role of structural incentives. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 66 : 144– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Bonica A. 2020 . Why are there so many lawyers in Congress?. Legis. Stud. Q. 45 : 253– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Broockman DE. 2013 . Black politicians are more intrinsically motivated to advance blacks’ interests: a field experiment manipulating political incentives. Am. J. Political Sci. 57 : 521– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Broockman DE. 2014 . Mobilizing candidates: political actors strategically shape the candidate pool with personal appeals. J. Exp. Political Sci. 1 : 104– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Bueno NS , Dunning T. 2017 . Race, resources, and representation: evidence from Brazilian politicians. World Politics 69 : 327– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Bussell J. 2019 . Clients and Constituents: Political Responsiveness in Patronage Democracies New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Butler DM , Preece JR. 2016 . Recruitment and perceptions of gender bias in party leader support. Political Res. Q. 69 : 842– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Carnes N. 2013 . White-Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Carnes N , Hansen ER. 2016 . Does paying politicians more promote economic diversity in legislatures?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 110 : 699– 716 [Google Scholar]
• Carnes N , Lupu N. 2015 . Rethinking the comparative perspective on class and representation: evidence from Latin America. Am. J. Political Sci. 59 : 1– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Carnes N , Lupu N. 2016a . Do voters dislike working-class candidates? Voter biases and the descriptive underrepresentation of the working class. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 110 : 832– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Carnes N , Lupu N. 2016b . What good is a college degree? Education and leader quality reconsidered. J. Politics 78 : 35– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Carreri M. 2021 . Can good politicians compensate for bad institutions? Evidence from an original survey of Italian mayors. J. Politics. In press [Google Scholar]
• Carreri M , Payson J. 2020 . The unequal effects of political selection: evidence from U.S. mayors and city managers SSRN Work. Pap. 3745662 [Google Scholar]
• Caselli F , Morelli M. 2004 . Bad politicians. J. Public Econ. 88 : 759– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Casey K , Kamara AB , Meriggi N. 2019 . An experiment in candidate selection NBER Work. Pap. 26160 [Google Scholar]
• Chandra K. 2016 . Democratic Dynasties: State, Party and Family in Contemporary Indian Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Cirone A , Cox GW , Fiva JH. 2020 . Seniority-based nominations and political careers. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 115 : 234 – 51 [Google Scholar]
• Cohen M , Karol D , Noel H , Zaller J. 2009 . The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Conroy M , Green J. 2020 . It takes a motive: communal and agentic articulated interest and candidate emergence. Political Res. Q. 73 : 1065912920933668 [Google Scholar]
• Coppock A. 2019 . Avoiding post-treatment bias in audit experiments. J. Exp. Political Sci. 6 : 1– 4 [Google Scholar]
• Crowder-Meyer M. 2018 . Baker, bus driver, babysitter, candidate? Revealing the gendered development of political ambition among ordinary Americans. Political Behav 42 : 359– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Cruz C , Labonne J , Querubin P. 2017 . Politician family networks and electoral outcomes: evidence from the Philippines. Am. Econ. Rev. 107 : 3006– 37 [Google Scholar]
• Dahlgaard JO , Tue Pedersen R 2019 . Must voters choose between political competence and descriptive representation? Work. Pap., Copenhagen Bus. Sch., Frederiksberg, Denmark [Google Scholar]
• Dal Bó E , Dal Bó P , Snyder J 2009 . Political dynasties. Rev. Econ. Stud. 76 : 115– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Dal Bó E , Finan F. 2018 . Progress and perspectives in the study of political selection. Annu. Rev. Econ. 10 : 541– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Dal Bó E , Finan F , Folke O , Persson T , Rickne J. 2017 . Who becomes a politician?. Q. J. Econ. 132 : 1877– 914 [Google Scholar]
• Dancygier RM , Lindgren KO , Oskarsson S , Vernby K et al. 2015 . Why are immigrants underrepresented in politics? Evidence from Sweden. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109 : 703– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Dar A. 2018 . Parachuters versus climbers: economic consequences of barriers to political entry in a democracy. Work. Pap., North East Univ. Dev. Consort., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
• Dynes A , Hassell H , Miles M , Preece J. 2019 . Personality and gendered selection processes in the political pipeline. Politics Gender https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X19000461 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Eggers AC , Hainmueller J. 2009 . MPs for sale? Returns to office in postwar British politics. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 103 : 513– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Fearon JD. 1999 . Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. Democr. Account. Represent. 55 : 61 [Google Scholar]
• Fisman R , Schulz F , Vig V. 2014 . The private returns to public office. J. Political Econ. 122 : 806– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Fiva JH , Halse AH , Smith DM. 2020 . Local representation and voter mobilization in closed-list proportional representation systems. Q. J. Political Sci. In press [Google Scholar]
• Fowler LL , McClure RD. 1990 . Political Ambition: Who Decides to Run for Congress New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Fox RL , Lawless JL. 2004 . Entering the arena? Gender and the decision to run for office. Am. J. Political Sci. 48 : 264– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Fox RL , Lawless JL. 2010 . If only they'd ask: gender, recruitment, and political ambition. J. Politics 72 : 310– 26 [Google Scholar]
• Franceschet S , Piscopo JM. 2008 . Gender quotas and women's substantive representation: lessons from Argentina. Politics Gender 4 : 393– 425 [Google Scholar]
• Galasso V , Nannicini T. 2011 . Competing on good politicians. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105 : 79– 99 [Google Scholar]
• George SE , Ponattu D. 2019 . Like father, like son? The effect of political dynasties on economic development . Work. Pap., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
• Goyal T. 2020 . Local female representation as a pathway to power: a natural experiment in India SSRN Work. Pap. 3590118 [Google Scholar]
• Grimmer J , Messing S , Westwood SJ. 2012 . How words and money cultivate a personal vote: the effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 106 : 703– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Grossman G. 2014 . Do selection rules affect leader responsiveness? Evidence from rural Uganda. Q. J. Political Sci. 9 : 1– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Grossman G , Hanlon WW. 2014 . Do better monitoring institutions increase leadership quality in community organizations? Evidence from Uganda. Am. J. Political Sci. 58 : 669– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Grossman G , Michelitch K , Prato C. 2020 . The effect of sustained transparency on electoral accountability. Work. Pap., Dep. Political Science, Univ. Pa., Philadelphia, PA [Google Scholar]
• Gulzar S , Haas N , Pasquale BJ. 2020 . Does political affirmative action work, and for whom? Theory and evidence on India's scheduled areas. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 114 : 1230– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Gulzar S , Hai Z , Paudel BK 2021a . Information, candidate selection, and the quality of representation: evidence from Nepal. J . Politics . In press [Google Scholar]
• Gulzar S , Khan MY. 2018 . Barriers to political entry: experimental evidence from local government elections in Pakistan Work. Pap., Dep. Political Sci., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA [Google Scholar]
• Gulzar S , Khan MY. 2020 . Social motivation, political candidacy, and performance? Experimental evidence from Pakistan Work. Pap., Dep. Political Sci., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA [Google Scholar]
• Gulzar S , Pasquale BJ. 2017 . Politicians, bureaucrats, and development: evidence from India. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111 : 162– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Gulzar S , Rueda MR , Ruiz NA. 2021b . Do campaign contribution limits curb the influence of money in politics?. Am. J. Political Sci. In press [Google Scholar]
• Hall AB. 2018 . Who Wants to Run? How the Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Hassell HJ. 2017 . The Party's Primary: Control of Congressional Nominations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Iyer L. 2019 . Getting more women into politics: evidence from elections in India. VOX CEPR Policy Portal . https://voxeu.org/article/getting-more-women-politics-evidence-india [Google Scholar]
• Kanthak K , Woon J. 2015 . Women don't run? Election aversion and candidate entry. Am. J. Political Sci. 59 : 595– 612 [Google Scholar]
• Karpowitz CF , Monson JQ , Preece JR. 2017 . How to elect more women: gender and candidate success in a field experiment. Am. J. Political Sci. 61 : 927– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Kjekshus H. 1975 . The Elected Elite: A Socio-Economic Profile of Candidates in Tanzania's Parliamentary Election, 1970 Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainst [Google Scholar]
• Lasswell HD. 1986 . Psychopathology and Politics Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Lawless JL. 2012 . Becoming a Candidate: Political Ambition and the Decision to Run for Office New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Lawless JL. 2015 . Female candidates and legislators. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 18 : 349– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Lawless JL , Fox RL. 2005 . It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Lawless JL , Fox RL. 2010 . It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Lundin M , Nordstrom-Skans O , Zetterberg P 2016 . Leadership experiences within civil organizations and candidacy in public elections: causal evidence from a quasi-experimental approach. Political Behav 38 : 433– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Mattozzi A , Merlo A. 2008 . Political careers or career politicians?. J. Public Econ. 92 : 597– 608 [Google Scholar]
• McClean CT. 2019 . Does it matter that politicians are older than their constituents? Yes Work. Pap., Prog. U.S.-Japan Relat., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
• Norris P. 1997 . Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• O'Brien DZ , Rickne J 2016 . Gender quotas and women's political leadership. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 110 : 112– 26 [Google Scholar]
• Osborne MJ , Slivinski A. 1996 . A model of political competition with citizen-candidates. Q. J. Econ. 111 : 65– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Parthasarathy R , Rao V , Palaniswamy N. 2019 . Deliberative democracy in an unequal world: a text-as-data study of South India's village assemblies. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 113 : 623– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Pitkin HF. 1967 . The Concept of Representation Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
• Preece JR , Stoddard OB. 2015 . Does the message matter? A field experiment on political party recruitment. J. Exp. Political Sci. 2 : 26– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Preece JR , Stoddard OB , Fisher R. 2016 . Run, Jane, run! Gendered responses to political party recruitment. Political Behav 38 : 561– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Querubin P. 2016 . Family and politics: dynastic incumbency advantage in the Philippines. Q. J. Political Sci. 11 : 151– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Rahat G , Hazan RY. 2001 . Candidate selection methods: an analytical framework. Party Politics 7 : 297– 322 [Google Scholar]
• Ravanilla N. 2020 . Mitigating adverse political selection: experimental evidence from a leadership training for aspiring politicians in the Philippines Work. Pap., Univ. Calif. San Diego Sch. Glob. Policy Strategy, San Diego, CA [Google Scholar]
• Rule W. 1987 . Electoral systems, contextual factors and women's opportunity for election to parliament in twenty-three democracies. West. Political Q. 40 : 477– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Schlesinger JA. 1966 . Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States Chicago: Rand NcNally [Google Scholar]
• Shames SL , Bernhard RI , Holman MR , Teele DL. 2020 . Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Shaukat M. 2019 . Too close to call: electoral competition and politician behavior in India Work. Pap., Dep. Econ., Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
• Smith DM. 2018 . Dynasties and Democracy: The Inherited Incumbency Advantage in Japan Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Smith DM , Tsutsumi H. 2016 . Candidate selection methods and policy cohesion in parties: the impact of open recruitment in Japan. Party Politics 22 : 339– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Szakonyi D. 2021 . Private sector policymaking: business background and politicians’ behavior in office. J. Politics. In press [Google Scholar]
• Thompson DM , Feigenbaum JJ , Hall AB , Yoder J. 2019 . Who becomes a member of Congress? Evidence from de-anonymized census data NBER Work. Pap. 26156 [Google Scholar]
• Thomsen DM. 2017 . Opting Out of Congress: Partisan Polarization and the Decline of Moderate Candidates Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Truex R. 2014 . The returns to office in a “rubber stamp” parliament. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 108 : 235– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Volden C , Wiseman AE. 2014 . Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress: The Lawmakers New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, framing theory, discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse, historical institutionalism in comparative politics, the origins and consequences of affective polarization in the united states, political trust and trustworthiness, public attitudes toward immigration, what have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research, what do we know about democratization after twenty years, economic determinants of electoral outcomes, public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature.

MIT Political Science Department Research Paper Series

The MIT Political Science Department is dedicated to conducting research on and teaching about the world's great challenges, be they globalization and economic uncertainty, immigration and inclusion, security threats, energy dependence and environmental degradation, poverty, or the polarization of electorates. At MIT Political Science , we see in these challenges the opportunity to conduct innovative, high-impact research. We believe that the strongest theoretical models emerge through observations in the field. From voting booths in the U.S. to the villages of Afghanistan to the factory floors of China, our goal is to advance the dialogue of political science by comparing empirical phenomena with scholarly insights into how societies work. In the process, we are developing alternative uses for existing methodologies and inventing new ones. This working paper series highlights the research currently underway within the department.

Global Reach of MIT Political Science Department Research Paper Series

Paper Downloads by Country

Papers from MIT Political Science Department Research Paper Series

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NEWS FEATURE
• 26 June 2024

The science of protests: how to shape public opinion and swing votes

• Helen Pearson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Farmers in India staged some of the largest protests in history following the passage of new laws in 2020. Credit: Biplov Bhuyan/Hindustan Times via Getty

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Protests are erupting around the globe. Thousands have broken out since October over the Israel–Hamas conflict . Farmers massed this year in Germany, Belgium, India and many other countries in clashes over new rules. And demonstrators last month set fire to the trademark Olympic rings in Paris to protest against the games being held there this summer, as part of a bid for higher wages.

Researchers say that these events are part of a broader trend. The number of protests each year more than tripled between 2006 and 2020 according to one global study, thanks to demonstrations about political regimes, injustice, inequality, climate change and more 1 (see ‘Protests on the rise’). “That increase in activism has eclipsed even the turbulent 1960s,” says Lisa Mueller, who studies social movements at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. “We really are in an empirically exceptional time of global protests.”

Source: Fig. 2 of Ref. 1

But are protests effective at driving change? Politicians rarely admit it, but “the honest answer is ‘sometimes’,” says Mueller, who is one of several social and political scientists studying the question. Research shows that protests can influence media coverage, public opinion, policy and politics — at least in the short term. For instance, studies suggest that civil-rights protests in the 1960s and the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in 2020 changed voting behaviour and even flipped elections, although not always in the way that protesters intended. Protests can also help to spur longer-term changes in public opinion — yet such influences are harder to trace.

Researchers are gaining insights into which factors boost the impact of demonstrations and other campaigns 2 . Large protests seem more effective than small ones; non-violent protests appear to be more potent than violent ones; unified goals might achieve more than diffuse demands do. Repression — by police, for instance — can win more support for protesters. Some researchers are trying to use the findings to help activists and social movements. “It’s a vibrant time to be studying protests,” Mueller says.

“Social protest and larger-scale social action is a way to generate social change — but that doesn’t mean it always will,” says Eric Shuman, a social psychologist at New York University who works in this field. “And we’re still trying to figure out when it will and when it won’t.”

Turbulent times

In 2013, four researchers spent a summer scouring news reports of protests from about 100 countries to build a global database ( https://worldprotests.org ). They found that the number reported in major national and international media rose between 2006 and 2020 in all world regions, and that some of the largest protests in history took place during this time 1 .

The biggest was a 2020 strike in India against agricultural reforms, involving an estimated 250 million people. Others included the Arab Spring and Occupy movements in the early 2010s and global Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. “Protests are increasingly seen as the way to register disagreement or a lack of faith in institutions,” says Sara Burke, a co-author of the global study 1 and a policy analyst in New York City at global think tank Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. The number of protests globally seems to have dipped slightly since 2021, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) project.

Some research examines protests as part of revolutions. In one well-known study, US political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan collected data on more than 300 revolutionary campaigns, such as those aiming to oust a national leader, between 1900 and 2006 3 . They included non-violent campaigns that used protests, strikes, boycotts and other tactics, as well as armed movements.

A Black Lives Matter rally in 2020 in Vancouver, Washington. Credit: Nathan Howard/Getty

The non-violent campaigns — such as the Philippines’ People Power Revolution that ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 — were about twice as likely to succeed at achieving regime change as were their armed counterparts, says Chenoweth, who studies civil resistance at Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

This work fits with other evidence suggesting that non-violent protests are more effective at achieving goals than are violent ones. But Chenoweth later found that the effectiveness of non-violent revolutionary campaigns is waning over time 4 — in part, they say, because governments are learning how to suppress uprisings.

Protests over Israel–Hamas war have torn US universities apart: what’s next?

Chenoweth also showed that every movement that mobilized at least 3.5% of a population was successful. This led to what’s known as the 3.5% rule — that protests require this level of participation to ensure change. But the figure can be misleading, Chenoweth cautions. A much larger number of people are probably supporting a successful revolution even if they aren’t visibly protesting.

A key reason for the success of movements is that they have large numbers of supporters — and that’s “because numbers can translate into political leverage”, Chenoweth says. Once movements win enough proponents, they “change the way the elites think about the issue and make it politically impossible for them to proceed in the manner in which they otherwise would.” This is likely to be true for protests “across the board”, Chenoweth adds, not just for revolutionary campaigns.

The rain effect

For scientists in this field, the big challenge lies in showing that protests, rather than a confounding factor, cause any downstream event. “It’s very hard to prove causality,” says Omar Wasow, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Chenoweth tackled this by looking at a clear outcome — an unexpected change in government within a year of peak mobilization by protesters.

Another way in which scientists show causality is to use the randomness of rainfall to create a natural experiment. Researchers are unable to randomly assign towns to receive protests or not and then compare the outcome. But studies show that rain reduces the number of people participating in such events — so researchers can assess the effect of a wave of demonstrations by comparing areas where it rained suddenly (and so had fewer protests) with similar areas where it didn’t rain (and had more protests).

Wasow used this approach in a well-known study of 1960s civil-rights protests 5 . He assessed rainfall in US counties in April 1968, when Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated, and analysed its relationship to voting behaviour in the November presidential election.

In May 1960, Black students at the University of Kansas protested for the right to stage non-violent sit-ins during civil-rights demonstrations. Credit: Bettmann Archive/Getty

Before the assassination, there was no link between rainfall and voting — this was a control. But in the week after the assassination, places with less rainfall experienced more violent protests. Wasow linked this to a 1.5–7.9% shift in white votes towards the Republican party (seen as being tough on crime). According to Wasow, violent protests “likely tipped the election” to the Republican nominee, Richard Nixon, over the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey.

The Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 might have pushed US voters the opposite way. A 2021 study compared US counties that experienced unusually high rainfall — and so fewer protests — in the two weeks after George Floyd was murdered by police in Minneapolis in May 2020 6 . The results showed that such protests, which were mostly peaceful, were linked to a 1.2–1.8% increase in Democrats’ share of the votes in the November 2020 presidential election.

Scientists acknowledge that studies are probably biased towards large and effective protests. Small demonstrations that don’t make headlines are unlikely to be counted or studied. And in some political regimes, protests are either forbidden or quickly repressed and thus not reported. Chenoweth says that’s changing, however, because most protests are reported on social media and so can be captured in data sets.

Activists are more likely to achieve concessions if they have cohesive demands, Mueller’s work suggests 7 . She points, for instance, to two protests of similar size held in London. The first was the Take Back Parliament campaign in 2010 that pushed for electoral reform with coordinated slogans and demands. This level of organization, Mueller argues, helped to stimulate a UK referendum on the issue in 2011. (Voters rejected the proposed reforms.)

That contrasts with Occupy London in 2011, which was part of the global Occupy movement. These protests included wide-ranging calls to tackle inequality, financial regulation, climate change and oppression, and were criticized for lacking cohesion 7 . “When power holders are hearing a hodgepodge of demands, they struggle to interpret what the group wants,” Mueller says.

How effective are climate protests at swaying policy — and what could make a difference?

Chenoweth argues that the Occupy movement still had wide effects, because it put economic inequality on government agendas and helped a new generation of activists to meet and organize. “It can be easy to minimize the impacts that movements have if you only look at whether they achieved the thing they said they wanted,” Chenoweth says. A movement might change society slowly, and in other ways — although the influence of a particular protest then becomes harder to measure.

An important but overlooked factor in protest success is external context, says James Özden, founder of Social Change Lab, a non-profit organization in London that studies social movements. Demands for change are probably more effective if they happen at opportune moments — such as when those in power are supportive and “society is ready to hear that message”, says Özden, who now works at the grant-making foundation Mobius in London.

Less is known about the relative impacts of non-violent but disruptive tactics. “Is it better to throw soup on a painting, or block traffic, or glue yourself to something?” says Dana Fisher, a sociologist at American University in Washington DC. “We don’t know which is the most effective.”

But there is evidence that these types of protest can have an impact. Social Change Lab gathered opinions in three surveys — each asking around 2,000 people — before, during and after disruptive protests in the United Kingdom by Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion in April 2022 8 . The protesters blockaded oil depots and glued themselves to government buildings and oil-company offices. Most people who were surveyed opposed the actions, but continued to support climate policies and Just Stop Oil’s goals to stop new fossil-fuel projects. This counters the view that disruptive action can sour public opinion on an issue.

Thousands of scientists worldwide to go on strike for Black lives

Another factor that can make protests more effective is repression by authorities, according to researchers. Wasow’s studies, for instance, showed that violent repression of civil-rights protests prompted media coverage that was sympathetic to the protesters’ cause, whereas violence by protesters led to news reports that focused on riots and disorder 5 . “Non-violence is effective. But what’s especially effective is non-violence met by repression,” Wasow says. Knowing this, 1960s civil-rights activists “did things like pick cities to protest where they knew the police would be maximally repressive”, he says.

Another example of repression played out this April, when the president of Columbia University in New York City called on police to arrest campus protesters, many of whom were engaging in non-violent demonstrations against Israeli military action in Gaza. That sparked an escalation of media coverage and a wave of student protests elsewhere in the United States and abroad. “It crystallized national attention and gave them a common tactic,” Wasow says.

The campus protests this year “have got a lot of attention and mobilized people on campuses around the world”, says Fisher.

Some researchers are working to communicate the science of protests by writing books and working with activists. But, they say, it’s important not to preach academic findings — and to recognize that protesters are often expressing anger, grief and frustration as well as trying to drive change. “Sometimes, people have deep feelings that need a platform and a means of expression,” Wasow says. “The pragmatic concerns about ‘will this be effective or not’ are sort of second order.”

Nature 630 , 804-806 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02082-5

Ortiz, I., Burke, S., Berrada, M. & Saenz Cortés, H. World Protests: A Study of Key Protest Issues in the 21st Century (Palgrave Macmillan, 2022).

Google Scholar  

Özden, J. & Glover, S. Protest Movements: How Effective Are They? (Social Change Lab, 2022).

Chenoweth, E. & Stephan, M. J. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (Columbia Univ. Press, 2011).

Chenoweth, E. J. Democracy 31 , 69–84 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Wasow, O. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 114 , 638–659 (2020).

Klein Teeselink, B. & Melios, G. Preprint at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3809877 (2021).

Mueller, L. Am . J. Polit. Sci. 68 , 42–57 (2024).

Özden, J. & Glover, S. Public Opinion Polling: Just Stop Oil (Social Change Lab, 2022).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

UK general election: five reasons it matters for science

News 26 JUN 24

‘Vindicated’: Embattled misinformation researchers celebrate key US Supreme Court decision

‘It can feel like there’s no way out’ — political scientists face pushback on their work

News Feature 19 JUN 24

Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation

Perspective 05 JUN 24

How a tree-hugging protest transformed Indian environmentalism

Comment 26 MAR 24

How societies respond to environmental stressors needs detailed studies

Correspondence 25 JUN 24

Establish a global day to tackle postpartum haemorrhage

Osaka University Immunology Frontier Research Center Postdoctoral Researcher

IFReC, Osaka University in Japan offers Advanced Postdoc Positions for Immunology, Cell Biology, Bioinformatics and Bioimaging.

Suita Campus, Osaka University in Osaka, Japan

Immunology Frontier Research Center, Osaka University

PostDoc Researcher, Magnetic Recording Materials Group, National Institute for Materials Science

Starting date would be after January 2025, but it is negotiable.

Tsukuba, Japan (JP)

National Institute for Materials Science

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions in the fields of energy and resources.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

School of Sustainable Energy and Resources at Nanjing University

Postdoctoral Associate- Statistical Genetics

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Senior Research Associate (Single Cell/Transcriptomics Senior Bioinformatician)

Metabolic Research Laboratories at the Clinical School, University of Cambridge are recruiting 3 senior bioinformatician specialists to create a dynam

Cambridge, Cambridgeshire (GB)

University of Cambridge

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• < Back to search results
• Political Science Research and Methods

Political Science Research and Methods

• Submit your article
• Announcements

This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/psrm . Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.

• Information
• Journal home
• Journal information
• Latest issue
• FirstView articles
• Open access articles

We are delighted to announce that all articles accepted for publication in Political Science Research and Methods from the 1st of August 2024 will be ‘open access’; published with a Creative Commons licence and freely available to read online (see the journal’s Open Access Options page for available licence options).

We have an OA option for every author: the costs of open access publication will be covered through agreements between the publisher and the author’s institution , payment of APCs from grant or other funds, or else waived entirely, ensuring every author can publish and enjoy the benefits of OA.  

See this FAQ for more information. 

• Get access Subscribe Check if you have access via personal or institutional login Log in Register
• Contains open access

• ISSN: 2049-8470 (Print) , 2049-8489 (Online)
• Editor: John D. Griffin Georgetown University, USA
• Editorial board

Latest articles

Introducing icbe: an event extraction dataset from narratives about international crises.

• Rex W. Douglass , Thomas Leo Scherer , J. Andrés Gannon , Erik Gartzke , Jon Lindsay , Shannon Carcelli , Jonathan Wilkenfeld , David M. Quinn , Catherine Aiken , Jose Miguel Cabezas Navarro , Neil Lund , Egle Murauskaite , Diana Partridge
• Political Science Research and Methods , First View

The effects of party labels on vote choice with realistic candidate differentiation

• Noam Titelman , Benjamin E. Lauderdale

Civic associations, populism, and (un-)civic behavior: evidence from Germany

• Bogdan G. Popescu , Marlene Jugl

Why do majoritarian systems benefit the right? Income groups and vote choice across different electoral systems

• Robert Liñeira , Pedro Riera

Do presidents favor co-partisan mayors in the allocation of federal grants? – ADDENDUM

• Heonuk Ha , Jeffery A. Jenkins

Presidential policymaking, 1877–2020

• Aaron R. Kaufman , Jon C. Rogowski

Revisiting the evidence on thermostatic response to democratic change: degrees of democratic support or researcher degrees of freedom?

• Yue Hu , Yuehong Cassandra Tai , Frederick Solt

The best at the top? Candidate ranking strategies under closed list proportional representation

• Benoît S. Y. Crutzen , Hideo Konishi , Nicolas Sahuguet

Cambridge University Press Politics

2022 Journal Citation Reports © Clarivate Analytics

2020 Journal Citation Reports © Clarivate Analytics

2018 Journal Citation Reports © Clarivate Analytics

Explaining Fixed Effects: Random Effects Modeling of Time-Series Cross-Sectional and Panel Data *

• Andrew Bell , Kelvyn Jones
• Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 3 , Issue 1

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Policy
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit?
• About Political Science Quarterly
• About the Academy of Political Science
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

The New Politics (and Political Science) of Workers’ Rights?: A Review Article

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Trevor E Brown, The New Politics (and Political Science) of Workers’ Rights?: A Review Article, Political Science Quarterly , 2024;, qqae055, https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqae055

• Permissions Icon Permissions

In this article, I review Daniel J. Galvin's Alt-Labor and the New Politics of Workers' Rights and situate it within a renewed scholarly interest in the politics of work and labor in the American politics subfield. I argue the book highlights several strengths and weaknesses of the literature, including the book’s attention to how America's highly polarized and fragmented governing system structures the politics of workers’ rights. Galvin’s book, I argue, also helps push the literature forward by encouraging scholars to think more deeply about the shifting institutional location of worker power, new and varying forms of worker organizations, and a set of co-constitutive problems faced by marginalized workers on and off the job. I conclude by suggesting the new wave of labor literature in the American politics subfield has underexplored implications for the growing research on democratic backsliding in the United States.

The Academy of Political Science members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1538-165X
• Print ISSN 0032-3195
• Copyright © 2024 The Academy of Political Science
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Political Science

Partner: • University Press Alert

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

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Political Typology Quiz

Where do you fit in the political typology, are you a faith and flag conservative progressive left or somewhere in between.

Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if it isn’t exactly right.

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center