Behavioralism's Critics

As much as the Behavioralist approach has shaped political science (and all social sciences for that matter), it is not without its critics. Many have questioned the ability to actually describe the world using numerical analysis. It is important to understand these critiques because the fact of the matter is that quantitative approaches are as prevalent as ever in political research. In order to separate responsible studies from others, and to understand the weaknesses of numerical analysis, it is first necessary to examine the shortcomings of the approach.

Behavioralism almost inherently makes the attempt to separate the researcher from the subject; but, by the nature of the social world, this may not be possible. In order to carry out scientific research, it is necessary to control for researcher's biases and opinions; however, everything about the research process is bias. This is a rather philosophical debate, but consider what was chosen to be studied. If a researcher decides to look at the way casinos have benefited American Indian tribes, does this not carry a bias of subject? Even more abstractly philosophical is the question of the approach itself. Does the scientific method actually result in truth?

On a more approachable level, Behavioralism is perhaps most weakened by the quantitative fallacy. By the nature of the approach, Behavioralism must quantify, or make numeric, anything researchers would like to examine. Still, not everything is quantifiable. How should we turn charisma into a variable? How can we measure honor? These are important considerations in the political world; they may have a tremendous outcome in elections or actions of an elite, but is there any way we can responsibly research these concepts? Certainly some have tried.

Furthermore, Behavioralism tends to ignore those things that are difficult to quantify. Were scientists to take a strict Behavioralist approach, some topics, such as charisma and honor, may take a back burner to those that are more easily understood numerically, like GDP per capita and income. Does national pride matter any less that GDP? Look at all the axis powers in World War II and then consider the importance of that question.

Another weakness of the Behavioral approach that relates very closely to the quantitative fallacy is false quantification. When a researcher does go to study national pride, they might measure it wrong. What if their variable actually measures opinion of the leader rather than the nation; perhaps the death of that leader could still tear the nation apart, while the research shows that solidarity will prevail.

Finally, according to Strauss and others, Behavioralism neglects the normative. At the end of the day, what really matters in political science? Is it the strength of the relationship between middle income families and opinions on the colors red, white and blue? Or is it how mankind can truly achieve peace? Normative approaches that stress how humans ought to be are neglected by Behavioralists. Instead, Behavioralism focuses on how we are; how we behave and act in our observable lives.
-Mike Ryckman