Questions: Introduction to Political Science

Question 1

A political scientist publishes research showing that certain voter ID laws reduce turnout among minority voters by a statistically significant margin. This work is best described as:

• A. Political advocacy, because the findings favor one political side
• B. Outside political science's scope, since it involves law rather than governance
• C. Empirical political science — systematic, evidence-based analysis of how a policy affects political behavior
• D. Normative inquiry, because it implies the laws are unjust

Answer: (C)

Systematic, evidence-based investigation of how institutions and policies affect political outcomes is the core of empirical political science. The fact that findings have political implications does not make the research partisan — a study measuring rainfall patterns doesn't become advocacy just because the results matter to farmers. Political scientists analyze voter suppression, authoritarianism, and inequality with the same analytical distance a biologist maintains when studying disease. The misconception conflates findings that are politically relevant with findings that are politically motivated.

Question 2

Which of the following does NOT involve political activity in the sense political scientists use the term?

• A. A city council voting to raise property taxes
• B. A corporate board deciding to lay off employees
• C. A neighborhood association setting rules about noise and property appearance
• D. All of the above involve political activity in the political science sense

Answer: (D)

In political science, 'politics' refers to the exercise of collective power and collective decision-making — not just elections and government. Harold Lasswell's formulation ('who gets what, when, and how') applies to any setting where power is organized and exercised collectively. A corporate board, a neighborhood association, and a city council all make binding collective decisions, distribute resources, and exercise authority. Limiting 'politics' to elections and state institutions is the common misconception the field explicitly corrects.

Question 3

Political science is fundamentally a normative discipline — its primary purpose is determining what governments ought to do and advocating for those positions.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

Political science combines empirical methods (surveys, statistical analysis, case studies, experiments) and normative inquiry (philosophical analysis of what governments ought to do), but the discipline's mode is systematic inquiry, not advocacy. A political theorist may analyze what justice requires, but does so through philosophical argument, not political lobbying. Political scientists study authoritarianism, revolution, and welfare policy to understand how they work — the goal is knowledge, not a particular political outcome. The distinction between empirical findings and political advocacy is foundational to the discipline's identity.

Question 4

Political science uses both empirical methods and normative inquiry because politics involves both facts about how power operates and values about how it should operate.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

This dual character distinguishes political science from purely empirical social sciences. Comparative politics and international relations rely heavily on empirical methods — quantitative analysis, field experiments, historical case studies. Political theory addresses normative questions — legitimacy, justice, obligation — through philosophical argument. Neither dimension can be ignored without distorting the analysis: purely empirical work without normative grounding can't say what matters, while purely normative work without empirical grounding can't say what's possible. The breadth of methods reflects the complexity of the subject, not methodological confusion.

Question 5

Why is the distinction between empirical political science and political advocacy important, and how can a political scientist's findings be politically significant without being partisan?

Model answer: Political science aims at systematic, evidence-based understanding of how power operates — not at promoting particular political outcomes. The distinction matters because it defines the standards of inquiry: empirical research is evaluated by whether it follows sound methodology and accurately describes reality, not by whether its conclusions are politically convenient. A finding can be politically significant — knowledge about how voter suppression works, or why democracies collapse, has obvious policy implications — without the researcher advocating for a specific position. The researcher's job is to produce accurate knowledge; how society acts on that knowledge is a separate question.

The analogy to other sciences is helpful: a virologist studying a pathogen isn't advocating for or against the disease. Similarly, a political scientist studying voter suppression or authoritarian consolidation is analyzing mechanisms, not taking a political side. The findings may matter enormously to policy — and political scientists often testify before legislatures or advise governments — but this use of research doesn't collapse the distinction between systematic inquiry and advocacy.