I. INTRODUCTION

DISTINCTION BETWEEN METHOD AND APPROACH

• Method refers to a particular way of doing something and is a more general term in social sciences.
• In systematic study, method is defined as the procedure of inquiry used to obtain reliable knowledge and draw reliable conclusions.
• Examples of methods include scientific method, inductive method, deductive method, and comparative method.
• Approach is a wider term, encompassing not only the method (how to inquire) but also the focus of study (what to inquire).
• Vernon Van Dyke defines an approach as consisting of criteria of selection, which are used to select problems, questions, and data.
• An approach includes standards for inclusion and exclusion of questions and data.
• According to Dyke, approaches consist of criteria for selecting problems and data, whereas methods are procedures for obtaining and utilizing data.
• Approaches are often linked to specific methods, but a method is not always tied to a particular approach.
• The behavioural approach is typically linked to the scientific method, as it studies human behaviour in political situations scientifically.
• The normative approach is connected to the philosophical method, as it involves determining norms and values through philosophical reasoning, not scientific inquiry.
• Philosophical approach and historical approach suggest the use of philosophical method and historical method respectively, while also pointing to their respective areas of focus.
• The empirical approach in political studies often leads to political analysis and various models like systems analysis, structural-functional analysis, and decision-making analysis.
• These models under the empirical approach often suggest different methods but are commonly referred to as political system approach, structural-functional approach, and decision-making approach.

TRADITIONAL VERSUS CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES

• The study of politics has a long tradition, with several approaches developed over time.
• Approaches before the end of Second World War (1939-45) are known as traditional approaches, while those developed after are termed contemporary approaches.
• As Alan Ball (Modern Politics and Government; 1988) suggests, the label ‘traditional’ is not a criticism, and these approaches still play an important role in modern political studies.
• Traditional approaches have not become outdated, but they are less favored by proponents of contemporary approaches.
• A comprehensive list of traditional or contemporary approaches is difficult to provide, as they do not represent watertight compartments, though some distinctive features can be identified.
• A few decades ago, it was argued that contemporary approaches focus on facts and traditional approaches on values, but this distinction is no longer upheld.
• The distinction between empirical and normative approaches is not the same as the distinction between traditional and contemporary approaches.
• The traditional study of politics was largely dominated by the study of philosophy, history, law, and institutions.
• Philosophical, historical, legal, and institutional approaches are typically identified as traditional approaches.
• Contemporary approaches face the challenge of defining the identity of the discipline.
• They focus on politics as a process, specifically analyzing the behavior of different actors in political situations using the scientific method.
• The behavioural approach is a key contemporary approach that uses the scientific method to study political behavior.
• Contemporary approaches also use different models of political analysis to study politics as a process.
• Interdisciplinary approach is another important contemporary approach, as contemporary political science seeks to enrich itself by incorporating findings from other social sciences.

EMPIRICAL AND NORMATIVE APPROACHES

• Contemporary political science emphasizes the empirical approach, while traditional politics was dominated by the normative approach.
• However, the distinction between empirical and normative approaches does not fully coincide with the traditional and contemporary divisions.
• Empirical and normative features can be found in both traditional and contemporary political theories.
• Traditional political theory includes empirical content, such as Aristotle’s analysis of revolution, Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers, and Marx’s analysis of class exploitation.
• Contemporary political theory includes normative content, such as Karl Popper’s advocacy of incremental change, F.A. Hayek’s defense of libertarianism, C.B. Macpherson’s concept of creative freedom, and Rawls’s theory of justice.
• The empirical approach seeks to discover and describe facts, while the normative approach seeks to determine and prescribe values.
• Empirical approach relies on sense experience (sight, sound, smell, taste, touch) to make statements about what is, while the normative approach concerns what ought to be or what should be.
• Empirical statements are based on observable facts, verified by repeated observation, and tested for accuracy.
• Normative statements express preferences for a particular order or ideal, based on duty, moral principles, or universal needs, but are not verifiable by sense experience.
• For example, statements about justice reflect different value preferences and are normative, not empirical, as they cannot be observed or verified.
• A statement like “everybody ought to vote in an election” can be verified and is empirical, though it uses the “ought to” form.
• Normative statements express preferences for intrinsic values (e.g., truth, good, beauty), while empirical statements may serve instrumental values, such as actions to improve health or reduce pollution.
• The distinction between intrinsic values (end-in-itself) and instrumental values (means to another end) is important in understanding normative and empirical approaches.
• Critics of the normative approach claim that the empirical approach is objective and the normative approach is subjective.
• T.D. Weldon argued that political philosophy is subjective, like a matter of taste, but this view is biased—dialogue and reasoning can evolve common principles.
• The terminology of true or false, right or wrong may have different meanings in empirical and normative contexts, creating confusion.
• Empirical approach is often assumed to deal with absolute truths, while the normative approach deals with conditional truths, but this view is evolving.
• Scientific principles are often tentative and can be falsified, and politics must not wait for absolute certainty to act.
• Robert Dahl emphasized that refusing to decide in politics is simply letting others decide for you.
• Empirical approach is largely descriptive, aiming to discover laws and facts, such as laws of nature that are unalterable.
• Normative approach is prescriptive, concerned with laws and conditions created by human society, which can be changed or reformed.
• In normative approaches, prescription may follow description, such as in Plato and Aristotle’s solutions after describing problems.
• In empirical approaches, description may precede prescription, offering recommendations for specific goals like economy, efficiency, or health.
• The empirical approach helps test the grounds of a normative argument, such as rejecting Aristotle’s prescription of harsher punishment for slaves based on empirical findings.
• Supporters of empirical approach criticize the normative approach for lacking scientifically valid methods to determine what is morally right or wrong.
• Normative approach advocates criticize the empirical approach for its indifference toward values and the lack of distinction between higher and lower values.
• Leo Strauss criticized the empirical approach for teaching the equality of values, which could contribute to the “victory of the gutter.”
• The estrangement between empirical and normative approaches could prove disastrous, highlighting the need for building a bridge between the two for the benefit of both fields and human civilization.