 Chart 1: Methodology of empirical political science |
| Type of science
|
Human and cultural sciences
(humanities), interpretivists |
Real social/political science,
phronetic perestroikans |
Social sciences,
scientistic
scientists |
Forms of knowledge
|
Empirical (empirical-descriptive)
knowledge.
|
Empirical knowledge |
Empirical (explanatory and predictive)
knowledge |
Tasks and objectives
|
World understanding, world
interpretation, world description |
World explanation |
Interpretation and
interaction:
describe or critique
lifeworlds and text analyses. |
Describe visible
phenomena
(phainómenon: visible
appearance). |
Discover
tension points |
Recognize invisible causalities between
events,
explain causal regularities and causal processes. |
| Knowledge objectives |
Descriptive, exploratory,
critical |
Explanatory, predictive |
| Tools in a large sense(Organon) |
Language as a
preferred means of world recognition, world
interpretation and world description of (visible) phenomena,
especially interpretative and qualitative-classificatory
tools (concepts, methods and methodical approaches),
e.g. qualitative content analysis, discourse analysis, hermeneutics.
|
Logic and
mathematics as preferred means of
world recognition and
world explanation of invisible causalities,
especially quantitative and qualitative mathematical tools, experiments
and simulations. |
Macro level
|
Language rules,
interpretation schemes,
forms of life,
framing,
structures and
patterns of interpretation. |
Description of phenomena at the macro level,
e.g.
demonstrations. |
Show power structures. |
Nomological explanations:
probabilistic laws
or regularities,
complex interrelationships,
causal or nomological
regularities, (explanation2,
Salmon 1989: 184). |
| Micro level |
Use of symbols
(texts, pictures, audio and
video), naming.
|
Description of phenomena at the micro level,
e.g.
demonstrator. |
Discover
tension points. |
Ontic explanations:
Explain cause and effect
mechanisms, causal
processes or potentialities
(explanation1, Salmon 1989: 184). |
|
Chart 2: Methodology of practical political science
|
| Type of science |
Social Science,
scientistic scientists.
|
Real Social Science,
phronetic perestroikans. |
Practical political science. |
| Forms of knowledge |
Applied knowledge
|
Problem-oriented knowledge
(problem-based, problem-driven). |
Practical (normative,
pragmatic and
technical) knowledge |
Tasks and objectives
|
World change,
applied science.
|
World change,
problem-oriented science
(problem-based, problem-driven). |
World change,
using genuinely practical
methodology. |
| Knowledge objectives |
Social-technological |
Participatory, critical,
deliberative |
Practical (normative,
pragmatic and technical) |
| Praxis |
Establish social technology by reversing
causalities. |
Change power relationships and tension
points. |
Legitimation of normative
standardization and regulations. |
Normative level,
value discourse |
Legitimisation of
values is not possible: utilitarianism, like ethics of responsibility, is
an ethics of the second order (Wieland 1999a).
|
No normative legitimation: „Our sociality
and history is the only foundation we have, the only solid ground under
our feet“ (Flyvbjerg/Landman/Schram 2012c: 293). |
Legitimation of maxims of action or political
standards
(Handlungsmaximen oder
politische Normen). |
Pragmatic level,
pragmatic discourse |
Selection and substantiation of objectives
using a rational choice approach is not possible: Arrowparadox.
|
No pragmatic legitimation:
„[W]here
‘better’ is defined by the values of phronetic researchers and their
reference groups“ (Flyvbjerg/Landman/Schram 2012c: 290). |
Legitimation of strategies for action,
individual-pragmatic rules and sociopragmatic regulations (Handlungsstrategien,
individualpragmatische Regeln sowie sozialpragmatische
Regulierungen). |
Technical level,
means discourse |
Substantiate social-
technological regulations with rational choice
approach. |
Applied phronesis
enables empowerment . |
Substantiate instruments for action or
practical instructions for action (Handlungsinstrumente oder
praktische Handlungsanweisungen). |
|
Chart 3: Practical methodology within political philosophy and political science |
Levels of
discourse
|
Ethics and
political philosophy |
Political Science: Policy
analysis and governance research |
Actor-centered
institutionalism and governance perspective |
Advocacy coalition
approach |
Institutional Analysis and Development
Framework |
Normative value discourses.
Normative
legitimations,
normative (ethical and moral)
evaluations, here maxims of action (Handlungsmaximen).
Why should something be done? |
Third evaluation stage:
ethical-moral
rationality,
categorical imperative.
3.1 Virtue ethic
(Tugendmoral), ethical and moral standards.
3.2 Legal morality (Rechtsmoral),
(political) justice,
legal norms
(Höffe 2009[2007]: 26). |
Design perspective
(Haus 2010: 109),
"third order governing",
"metagovernor",
"meta governing",
"who or what - ultimately - governs the governors" (Kooiman 2003: 170
ff.).
|
Highest and most comprehensive
level, the "deep core belief system" consisting of normative and
ontological axioms,
"basic ontological and normative beliefs, such as the relative valuation
of individual freedom versus social equality" (Sabatier/Jenkins-Smith 1999: 121, see 133). |
„Constitutional-choice rule affect
operational activities and their effects in determining who is eligible
and the rules to be used in crafting the set of collective-choice rules
that in turn affect the set of operational rules“ (Ostrom/Cox/Schlager
2014: 284). |
Pragmatic objective discourses.
Pragmatic legitimations, objectives and purposes,
here strategies for action (Handlungsstrategien).
What should be done?
State, market and civil society.
|
Second evaluation stage: Here
objectives and
purposes are
evaluated.
Pragmatic rationality, pragmatic imperative.
2.1 Individual pragmatic rules.
2.2 Social-pragmatic regulations
(Höffe 2009 [2007]:
24-25). |
Level of structuring the practices
of problem solving by institution building (Haus 2010: 109),
"second order governing", "institution building" (Kooiman 2003: 153 ff.).
"governance structure"
(Mayntz/Sharpf 1995: 16). |
Middle level of the "policy core
belief systems"
consisting of policy strategies with which central values are implemented,
"normative commitments and causal perceptions across an entire policy
domain or subsystem" (Sabatier/Jenkins-Smith
1999: 121, 133). |
„Collective Choice Rules-in-Use“ (Ostrom/Cox/Schlager 2014: 285).
„Collective-choice-rules affect operational activities and results through
their effects in determining who is eligible and the specific rules to be
used in changing operational rules“ (Ostrom/Cox/Schlager 2014: 284). |
Technical means discourses.
Technical
legitimations,
means, here tools of action (Handlungsinstrumente).
How should something be done?
Social/Political Technology |
At the first stage, means and ways
are tested for their suitability for
optional intentions or
objectives.
Technical rationality, technical imperatives.
1.1 Technical
individual rules.
1.2 Social-technological regulations (Höffe 2009 [2007]: 23). |
Level of an operative practice of
direct problem solving (Haus 2010: 109),
"first order governing", "opportunity creation” (Kooiman 2003: 135 f.),
"Service structure
(industry structure"
(Mayntz/Sharpf 1995). |
Lowermost level with
respect to “instrumental decisions” (Sabatier/Jenkins-Smith 1999: 133),
"secondary aspects of a coalition belief system", e.g. design of specific
institutions" (Sabatier/Jenkins-Smith 1999: 122). |
„Operational Rules-in-Use“ (Ostrom/Cox/
Schlager 2014: 285). „Operational rules directly affect day-to-day
decisions made by the participants in any setting“ (Ostrom/Cox/Schlager
2014: 284). |
| Sources:
Höffe 2009[2007],
Ostrom/Cox/Schlager 2014,
Mayntz/Sharpf 1995,
Kooiman 2003,
Sabatier/Jenkins-Smith
1999,
Jenkins-Smith/Nohrstedt/Weible/Sabatier
2014). Frank Fischer (2003: 193-198) identified four rather than three levels:
Technical-Analytical Discourse: Programme Verification, Contextual
Discourse: Situational Validation, Systemic Discourse: Societal
Vindication and Ideological Discourse: Social Choice. Comparison of actor-centered
institutionalism and governance perspective in
Haus (2010: 109). |
|
Chart 4: Scientific operations and scientific discourses with reference to political science
|
|
1. Analytical operations of political science
Analytical discourses
|
Analytical discourse: Analytical
discourse includes analytical operations and generates analytical
knowledge. This especially includes political concepts or
categories, but also models for analyzing political reality
and for legitimizing practic-political standardization and
regulations.
These are conceptual or logical truths in the form of non-empirical,
truth-apt statements. |
2. Empirical
operations of
political science
or operations concerning what is, or what constitutes political reality,
comprising of
sentences
(descriptions, explanations and predictions), and sentences
about valid standardization and regulation of a political system
Empirical discourses
|
2.1 Descriptive operation or
descriptions of political reality
|
Descriptive discourse: In this case, the aim is to
understand political reality. What exists becomes the
focus of attention – using descriptive-interpretative methodologies a
picture is created of what everyday politics is like in a political
system: Power structures, dependencies and political decision-making
processes are considered and examined in more detail. This also includes
truth-apt statements regarding maxims for action (guidelines, norms,
principles and values). These are identified and described, e.g. the
welfare state postulate, e.g. Article 20 of the German Constitution.
However, it also includes a detailed description of action strategies and
instruments such as social security systems. |
2.2 Explanatory operation or
explanations of
political reality |
Explanatory discourse: Political reality also requires causal
explanations. For example, there are explanations for demographic
developments, but also for why social policy has developed in one way and
not another.
|
2.3 Predictive operation
or predictions with respect to future political developments |
Predictive discourse: The need to predict future
developments with forecast is central: It makes sense to take a
look into the future in order to provide decision-makers in the present
with important key information. |
3. Practical operations of
political science
or operations concerning what ought to be,
containing discourses on standardizations or
regulations, e.g. maxims of action, strategies of action, instruments for
action, instructions for action and practical judgements
(Handlungsmaximen, Handlungsstrategien,
Handlungsinstrumente, Handlungsanweisungen und
praktische Urteile)
Practical discourses
|
3.1 Normative operation or normative
dimension of policy |
Normative discourse or
value discourse:
In this case, the political maxims of action (Handlungsmaximen)
which are decisive for the standardization or regulation of the political
system as a whole or of a policy area should be discussed. |
| 3.2 Pragmatic operation,
strategic level or dimension of policy |
Pragmatic discourse or objective
discourse: In this case, the political strategies of action (Handlungsstrategien)
that will be decisive for the regulation of a policy area should be
discussed. |
| 3.3 Technical operation, the
operational level or dimension of policy |
Technical discourse or
means discourse:
In this case, the political instruments for action and individual
instructions for action (Handlungsinstrumente) that are decisive
for the regulation of a policy area should be discussed. |
|
Copyright: