Empirical Political Theory: A Template for a Research Design and a Qualified Defense

Abstract

Developments in contemporary analytic political theory have called for political theory to situate itself near political science, to pay attention to political institutions, to follow the research output of the social sciences, and to present sensitivity to method. This empirical and methodological turn has brought about a debate regarding the form and desirability of such empirically grounded political theory. We aim, first, to clarify what the empirical turn in political theory implies for research in political theory. We shall situate such empirically grounded political theory in contemporary analytic political theory, in contemporary analytic political theory’s descriptive and prescriptive steps, and also examine how this turn complements contemporary analytic political theory’s evaluative step. Second, to suggest a defense of this empirical development, as if properly understood, it would assist empirically grounded contemporary analytic political theory to achieve its own stated goals. Third, to provide a template for a research design in empirical contemporary analytic political theory.

Keywords

methodology research methods research design empirics template

Recent developments in contemporary analytic political theory have called for political theory to situate itself very near political science. According to such calls, political theorists are to pay close attention to the research output of the social sciences and to present greater sensitivity to methodological issues.¹

This empirical and methodological turn has brought about a lively debate regarding the form of such empirically grounded political theory. This article has three goals in the context of this debate. First, to clarify what the empirical turn in political theory actually implies for research in political theory. We shall situate such empirically grounded political theory in contemporary analytic political theory (CAPT), mainly in CAPT’s descriptive and prescriptive steps. Notably, the evaluative or normative aspect of CAPT would not be superseded, rather, the empirical and the evaluative/normative parts can complement each other. Second, to suggest a defense of this empirical development, as if properly understood it would assist empirically grounded CAPT to adequately ground CAPT’s normative, evaluative core function. The third goal is to provide a preliminary template² for a research design in empirical CAPT, as while there is, as a recent article indicates, a “methodological moment” in political theory (Floyd, 2022), there is very little actual translation of this turn into an actual research design.³

This article will be structured in the following way: the section “The Empirical Turn of Analytical Political Theory” explores and describes the recent calls for an empirical turn in CAPT. The section “Dividing and Categorizing Empirical CAPT” attempts to clarify what such an empirical turn would mean; it is suggested to divide the structure of empirical CAPT into three parts: (1) description and patterning, (2) evaluation, and (3) prescription. In the second part of the section “Dividing and Categorizing Empirical CAPT,” we explore the question whether empirical political theory is biased toward the status quo, and answer in the negative. The section “Evaluation in Empirical CAPT” explores the importance of the empirical turn of CAPT to the second step of CAPT—evaluation. The final and fourth section “The Methodology of Empirical CAPT: The Monistic Concern” explores the worry posed against the so-called monism of the empirical approach.

Two preliminary comments are required here. First, this article focuses on scholarship in CAPT that is empirically grounded. It does not aim to discuss all of political theory methodology. Second, a main goal of this article is to suggest a template for a research design⁴ in empirical CAPT. It does not aim to replace a full-fledged methodological text-book; the aim here is clarity, not exhaustiveness.

The Empirical Turn of Analytical Political Theory

This section begins by exploring the attributes of contemporary analytic political theory (the section “Contemporary Analytic Political Theory (CAPT)”), and moves to describe the recent change toward greater usage of political and social science research and data in CAPT (the section “The Empirical Turn in CAPT”). Each of these topics is complex and contested, and what shall be suggested here is necessarily brief.

Contemporary Analytic Political Theory (CAPT)

CAPT is identified with scholars such as Dworkin, Nozick, Rawls, and Kamm among others. While the lineage of this tradition goes back in time, our interest is limited to post-Second World War political theory. Any definition suggested for this school of thought would be contested, regardless, some clarification is required, to reach an adequate understanding of our subject matter. The goal of this brief discussion is not to endorse any particular definition, rather it is to understand the subject matter of our discussion. J.Wolff (2013: 816) wrote about analytical political theory, that it demonstrates the following attributes (among others): “self-conscious search for clarity and precision of thesis and argument, intolerance of the claimed obscurity of others, and the ambition of presenting simple theories or principles of great power and application.” J.Floyd (2016) connects analytical political theory to the following two main ideas: precise conceptual analysis and argumentation and employing a scientific method. Klosko (2013: 461) wrote, “adherents of this style of argument pursue rigor and clarity.”⁵

As the goal of this article is to suggest a research design for analytical political theory that uses empirical evidence and data, we shall simply point to a common denominator, that is, CAPT’s emphasis on clarity and precision as major attributes. Such attributes are natural companions to the empirical turn in political theory, as once CAPT scholarship’s most cherished prizes are precision and clarity, it is a small step for CAPT scholarship to insist that CAPT would apply precision and clarity also to the empirical parts used in CAPT scholarship.

Moving forward, it is important to note that clarity is not simply a catch phrase, it is a necessity for understanding what exactly a political problem consists of.⁶ As many topics and problems discussed in CAPT involve complex policy challenges (immigration, sustainability, international trade, just war), it is obvious that clarity in understanding the relevant policies (or behavior, rules, institutions, etc.) is part and parcel of CAPT. Seen this way, CAPT and precise empirical evidence, or precision in understanding causal mechanisms, or proper understanding of the motivation of individuals, complement each other. As, for example, noted by J. N. Keynes (1890: 23): “we cannot determine how nearly the results of free competition approximate to our economic ideal until we know what those results are.”

Not all of CAPT has empirical parts, as CAPT studies include other types of scholarship, such as clarification of concepts and hypothetical examples and devices; these types will not be discussed here (Blau, 2017; Dowding, 2022).

The Empirical Turn in CAPT

What are the main attributes of the empirical turn in political theory? While the different scholars and approaches to be presented here differ in research style and in normative perspectives, they share a shift toward interest in political institutions and behavior as they exist in reality, as opposed to abstractions, hypothetical examples, or ideal theories. The techniques used to achieve such information or “data” by the scholars, or those the scholars report on if utilizing other scholars’ output, will be many and diverse, and may include interviews, ethnographic work, intensive studies of single cases, comparison of cases in small N studies, usage of path dependency and process tracing, text analysis, analysis of large data sets, randomized natural experiments, and many other sources of data. This methodological precision will be mandatory for empirical CAPT, as unless it is properly exercised, the relevant scholar will have insufficient understanding of the political institution/behavior s/he attempts to understand and evaluate. Such calls have been voiced, mutatis mutandis, by many scholars, including Carens (2004), Waldron (2016), Blau (2015), Herzog and Zacka (2019), Floyd (2017), Dowding (2020), Perez (2020, 2023), Baderin (2014), and de shalit (2020).

Interestingly, while the “labels” for this empirical turn used by the different theorists diverge, and the methods of investigation used are different, all the noted scholars adopt the following two features: moving away from idealized scenarios, hypothetical examples and thought experiments, while being interested in a variety of actual political phenomena, that includes a plurality of political behaviors, institutions and rules.

Floyd (2016: 157) writes, “normative behaviourism works by contemplating patterns in the way that we behave,” Floyd suggested using this method as a way to justify political principles. And here is Carens (2013: 304), discussing his “real world presupposition”:

This approach situates our inquiry in a context where we must take into account many of the factors that we excluded with the just world presupposition: particular histories, established institutions, the distribution of power, conventional moral norms, the unwillingness of agents to act justly, and so on. All of these factors affect the feasibility of alternative courses of action.

Herzog and Zacka add as follows regarding their preferred source of empirics—ethnographic research: “To adopt an ethnographic sensibility is to embrace the idea that we can enrich our theorizing by observing how ordinary people discuss such matters, make moral choices, evaluate each other’s conduct, and deal with institutional constraints” (Herzog and Zacka, 2019: 766; see also Longo and Zacka, 2019; Zacka, 2017: X). Anderson (2010: 3), in the beginning of her book on racial integration writes:

I do not advance principles and ideals for a perfectly just society, but ones that we need to cope with the injustices in our current world, and to move us to something better. Since this book is a response to current problems, it integrates research in the social sciences in ways not ordinarily found in works of political philosophy.

This overall empirical push in CAPT is reminiscent of some earlier efforts in this direction in political theory, but the current movement seems to be much more widespread. J.Mansbridge (1980: XIII) wrote in 1980: “Political theorists have not ordinarily paid much attention to the way ordinary people think about normative issues. My experience writing this book has convinced me that this is a mistake.” Mansbridge’s study preceded even Walzer’s Spheres of Justice (1983; see also Miller, 2017), who was also an early advocate of bringing political theory closer to actual political and social research. Worth mentioning here is also the literature regarding deliberative democracy that has demonstrated fascinating “back and forth” between normative theories and empirical studies. At least two aspects of this rich literature are important, first, the so-called “yard stick” problem, that is, pointing to the difficult and challenging task of verifying that a given observation indeed measures something similar enough to an argument made by a normative political theorist. Second, the empirical investigation of deliberative systems reveals tensions among deliberative goals and standards. This means that empirical investigations can contribute to theory building by normative political theorists. These two points are important and generalizable to the empirical turn in CAPT (Dryzek et al., 2019; Thompson, 2008).

While noting these important insights, the current methodological turn is much more widespread than earlier efforts (Floyd, 2022), and indeed deserves clarification and concretization, as is attempted in this article.

Bringing political theory closer to political and social science, includes both qualitative and quantitative research, and will assist political theorists in avoiding mistakes that would undermine their assessment of political institutions and rules. As argued by Perez (2023: 13):

empirically grounded political theorists can begin to take advantage of the resources found within general political science methodological literature. The resources found in this literature will assist empirically grounded political theorists in advancing their research, specifically by preventing methodological mistakes that would undermine their projects.⁷

While empirically grounded research in CAPT can utilize data in different ways (as categorized by Perez, 2020), such manners share the following attribute: the data are constitutive to the argument, approach, or model a given scholar is attempting to justify, advance, or prove in a given research. “Constitutive,” in our context, would mean that absent the data, the scholar would have been making a different argument, approach, or model; we can call this criterion the “alteration criterion” signifying the importance of data to empirical political theory (a notable example would be Anderson’s (2010) usage of data to argue for racial integration in the United States). That is, scholarship that uses (even) real-life examples merely in order to demonstrate an argument will not be counted as empirically grounded for the needs of the current article.⁸

Moving forward, the noted empirical knowledge, if precise and reliable, and hence, used for proper description, patterning, evaluation, and prescription in political theory, must be accompanied with adequate sensitivity to methodology. It is important to emphasize that this methodology can be qualitative or quantitative—or growingly, a hybrid of both, and the empirical approach in CAPT, as understood here, does not include any preference for any particular type of research. The type of empirical research depends on the type of the political phenomenon that is the focus of the study a given scholar undertakes. Motivations of individuals are better studied through interviews or ethnographic research, causal explanations require statistical analysis or process tracing; detailed investigations of unusual or novel events require intensive studies of single cases; and on and on. Empirical political theory is pluralistic in its methodology including both qualitative and quantitative types of research.⁹

Summarizing our discussion regarding the empirical turn in CAPT, five points seem central. First, research in CAPT that attempts to be close to research in political science must use recent research in political and social science (or other fields of research) or conduct such research, in order to provide proper description and overall understanding of the empirics of its subject matter.¹⁰ Second, the requirement that research output regarding political institutions and behavior used in CAPT will be accurate and would be grounded in proper research and method, is shared by all the scholarly approaches noted earlier: contextual, political, normative behaviorism, empirical political theory, ethnographic research and so on. The notion of empirical CAPT is hence already present in a nascent form in recent developments in CAPT. Third, if empirical methods and research are to become a central aspect of CAPT research, this would affect non-empirical parts of CAPT research (and see the section “Evaluation in Empirical CAPT” below).¹¹ Fourth, the empirical turn in CAPT does not mean transforming political theory as a whole into a descriptive or causal discipline. Rather, the usage of empirics aims to assist political theory to reliably and precisely evaluate the functionality of political institutions and political behavior. It does not replace the evaluative, normative, or critical aspect of political theory (see the section “Dividing and Categorizing Empirical CAPT” below).

Fifth and finally, the suggested view of empirical CAPT is far from historical views of scientific positivism. Such views were simplistic with regard to the capacities of the social sciences to understand each and every aspect of political life (see Durkheim, 1982: 104, quoted by Lassman, 2011: 449). Differently from the noted classic positivist approach, the framework of empirical CAPT presented supplements normative evaluation with adequate understanding of political institutions and behavior.

Dividing and Categorizing Empirical CAPT

This section is divided into two. In the first sub-section (“The Structure of Empirical CAPT”), we attempt to clarify and provide concretization, as to what a research design of a study in empirical CAPT would actually look like.¹² In the second sub-section (“Is Empirical Political Theory Biased Towards the Status Quo?”), we argue that empirical CAPT is not typified by a status quo bias.

The Structure of Empirical CAPT

In this section, we suggest a template for a research design in empirical CAPT. That is, of a research design of a CAPT study that uses social and political science research methods and output in a constitutive aspect of its argumentation. Research design in political theory, however, includes many techniques, such as analysis of contested concepts, thought experiments, and many others that cannot be explored in this article.¹³ We also exclude some studies in CAPT that focus on empirical tests of observational statements derived from normative theories; these, while fascinating, do not contain an explicit evaluative part, and will not be discussed here.¹⁴

Our interest here is specific: the research design of empirical CAPT; that is, research in CAPT that demonstrates both significant empirical aspects and normative, evaluative aspects, such as suggested by Carens (2013) and Anderson (2010).¹⁵ Notably, the suggested framework here excludes studies in political philosophy that have no empirical grounding whatsoever, these present different challenges, and require a separate exploration.¹⁶ It is suggested to divide the structure of empirical CAPT into three parts: (1) description and patterning, (2) evaluation, and (3) prescription.¹⁷

Arguably, the noted division suggested here is a common sense categorization, aiming to assist empirical CAPT to achieve its evaluative goal; as mixing these different steps can cause unnecessary confusion in research design. We shall succinctly describe each step.

Description and patterning. In this step, the scholar provides a detailed account of the characteristics of the political institution or behavior studied.¹⁸ Here, examining the relevant literature reveals that scholars are not only interested in a set of descriptive statements regarding the attributes of a given institution, rather they are also (and perhaps primarily) interested in understanding the patterns or regularities connected to this institution. Roughly in the following way: if a political system adopts institution/rule/behavior X, we can expect result Y. The first part of this sentence is descriptive and regards the attributes of institution X, the second part regards patterns or regularities, and regards the output of political and social science research regarding the same type of institution, and necessitates the understanding of the category to which the studied phenomenon belongs. For example, when Leif Wenar (2015) describes the norm of ownership over national resources, he describes the norm, which is roughly, whoever controls the territory controls the resources, and indicates the patterned outcomes of this rule, and that is that tyrants use such resources as their private property, and use the revenues to oppress the population. This dual step, indicating both description and patterns is crucial for any attempt to evaluate the desirability of a given political institution (Rodrik, 2010).

This descriptive-patterned step relies on research and data sourced in political or social science, or at times is produced by the political theorist herself/himself. For some further examples of research in CAPT that is similar in structure, we can point to Anderson’s (2010) research on racial integration in the United States and Brennan’s (2017) analysis of voter ignorance. A mis-description of the evaluated political institution, behavior or rule can lead to a flawed evaluative conclusion (Perez, 2023).

Evaluation. This step means that the desirability of a given institution is determined by measuring the functionality of this institution as compared to some normative standard. This step connects the empirical parts of CAPT, to the norms at the core of the normative framework adopted by a given theorist. This normative framework can be Rawls’ two principles of justice, Nozick’s principles of the libertarian state, Sen’s capability approach, and so on (Carens, 2013, the Appendix, is a clear example of this step). For our methodological purposes, the identity of the normative framework which is the basis of the evaluation is immaterial; however, as long as a given theorist aims to compare the functionality of some political institution, rule or behavior to a normative framework in order to assess their desirability, the analysis to be performed would have to rely on data and research output that meets the standards of modern social science, if it would have any kind of reliability.¹⁹

Interestingly, the process of evaluation is not unique to political theorists, and can be found in other disciplines; the law and economics movement evaluates legal decisions and legislation according to their capacity to maximize wealth (Posner, 1985), environmental scholars evaluate policies following their environmental impacts (Callies and Moellendorf (2021), and so on. In all of these cases, a certain political institution or rule is evaluated according to some standard, and is determined to be desirable (in whole or in part), lacking in some fashion, or one that should be completely abandoned.

Prescription. This step means the laying down of guidelines for an institution or a rule to substitute an existing-defective one, or (less widespread), to defend an existing one, depending on the results of the evaluative step. This step requires familiarity with at least three kinds of data and research, the first being the functionality of the existing evaluated institution, the second, knowledge regarding the alternative, suggested institution, the third, the implications and costs of the change from institution A to institution B. Steps 1 and 2 are a familiar attribute of CAPT, and can be found in the works of well-known scholars such as Elizabeth Anderson (2010), Joseph Carens (2013), and others, however, step 3 (the costs of institutional change) are not often explicitly discussed by political theorists.

The results of prescription X become, if used in some policy context, the focus of a new descriptive-patterned step, followed by evaluation and prescription, although not necessarily by the same scholar. The suggested structure is hence not static but the source of repeated feedback and re-evaluation.²⁰

Putting these three steps together, they provide what is hopefully a clear example of the importance of well-executed empirical grounding of research in CAPT.

Is Empirical Political Theory Biased Toward the Status Quo?

Some scholars worry that political theory that substantially utilizes political science research would suffer from a status quo bias (Floyd, 2016; Lægaard, 2019). In order to examine this concern, we need a clear understanding of “status quo bias.” It is not enough that a given prescribed institution would be similar to an existing institution in order that status quo bias will be detected. Two further conditions must also appear: that the existing institution would precede the prescribed one, and that no alternatives will be considered by the theorist. The reason for the first, “chronological” condition is that the reverse order, would preclude a status quo bias, as if a given government would adopt a suggestion of a given political theorist, the scenario would be the opposite of a status quo bias; the reason for the second point, is that even if the prescribed institution precedes the theory/prescription suggested by a given theorist, it might be the case that this theorist reached the conclusion that this institution is desirable following reasons that have nothing to do with status quo bias. There is a need for some further detection mechanism. If the given theorist does not consider alternative options/arguments for other institutions, this might be taken to be a hint that status quo bias can be detected.

In Perez (2022), it is argued that there is no evidence for the claim that data based/empirical political theory are typified by status quo bias. Data-based research tends to prescribe institutions that are very different from existing institutions/rules. The main reason seems to be as follows: sensitivity to data, as in the first step of empirical political theory (EPT) suggested (description and patterning), is a source of normative thinking, that points to the flaws of existing institutions. This conclusion is in agreement with Shklar (1990: 55), as she expressed this point: “our sense of injustice is our best protection against oppression”; and with Levy (2016: 327): “people have formulated ideals of freedom in response to the social fact of slavery”; political theorists observe war and think about peaceful co-existence, observe racism or antisemitism and think about civic equality, not the other way around.

Furthermore, EPT can certainly adopt radical standards in its evaluative step, and prescribe very different institutions from existing ones. This is actually done, to point to a recent example, by Leif Wenar (2015), in his suggestion that buying oil from authoritarian countries is identical to buying stolen goods (see also J.Hickel’s (2020) environmental work). In these works, the noted scholar starts with an empirical observation, and moves to an evaluation based on a standard which is radical, and ends with a prescription for institutions very different from existing ones.

To conclude, there is no reason to think that EPT scholarship will be bent toward the status quo, and the actual evidence indicates quite the opposite.

Evaluation in Empirical CAPT

Evaluation of institutions and rules in empirical CAPT lies between the descriptive and the prescriptive steps. Given that this is a normative step, it seems to be outside the scope of the empirical turn in political theory.²¹ It is important to argue that this is not the case. The attributes of empirical CAPT can contribute to the evaluative step, in at least three ways: in the conceptual stage, in the usage of models, and in the parts of evaluation that necessitate comparing real-life and suggested institutions. We shall take each in turn.

Clarity and Measurement of Concepts

Concepts are crucial building blocks in social science and philosophical research. Concepts, aside from providing definitions, are the spectacles through which a researcher views the phenomenon of interest, be it war, political party, justice or any other.²² As can be expected, the study of concepts has won much scholarly attention across disciplines and different ways to approach concepts and definitions were suggested: ordinary language, family resemblance, necessary and sufficient conditions, stipulative, and so on (Austin, 1956; Pitkin, 1972: 7). Within the voluminous literature examining concepts, the following two central functions of concepts are of interest in the context of this article: (1) to suggest a precise definition of a given phenomenon within the political sphere and (2) to enable an operationalization of this definition.²³

The first function aims to provide a set of attributes that would adequately describe the phenomenon at hand, while the latter aims to enable the extraction, from this definition of a set of concrete observations regarding the defined political concept.²⁴ Once we enter the empirical CAPT realm, in the sense that we wish to study a political institution in order to adequately evaluate it according to some standard, careful thinking is required as to how to define some of the contested concepts used in political theory, such as justice or equality. While the difficulties associated with operationalism of complex concepts in political science were discussed by methodologists (Adcock and Collier, 2001), arguably concepts in empirical CAPT introduce an additional difficulty because of the complexity of certain concepts in political theory, from which a very specific evaluative function is derived. Even a cursory exploration of the debate in political theory regarding the “equality of what” (Sen, 1992) would reveal the non-triviality of the required precise operationalism of say, equality of welfare, or equality of resources, as applied to a specific policy.²⁵ Furthermore, the attempt to operationalize concepts in political theory might reveal that some such concepts are internally incoherent, which means that the empirical turn in political theory will contribute to a better understanding of the complexities of concepts in political theory.²⁶

In other words, empirical CAPT would have to encounter the difficulty of creating an “observable definition” that would sufficiently resemble the “philosophical” definition, as to avoid losing the aspects of the definition that differentiate the concept from other phenomena and so to measure something else than a given philosopher’s framework. Otherwise, no suggested approach or model in political theory will be clarified in ways that can point to its actual functioning in the world.²⁷

Models

Models, to point to one simple meaning of this complex concept, are a stylized, typically a simplified description of a target system.²⁸ That is, in order to describe a given piece of reality (a democracy, a taxation system), a detailed description will not do, there are too many details and variables in any targeted system in political science. Hence, a simplified representation is required (Gaus, 2018). The function of models in science is often to assist in theory building and in refuting, adjusting or confirming a given hypothesis. In political theory, models generally have two different functions. The first one is similar to any other empirical project in the social sciences, which utilizes the representative attribute of models, and its location in research design is in the descriptive step of empirical CAPT. The second function, slightly less typical, is in the evaluative step of empirical CAPT. Here, models are required in order to be used as simplified versions of much more complicated normative idealizations. For example, Nozick’s (1974) model of the minimal state can be used to evaluate the state of affairs in a given country, and if the state of affairs in this country differs from the model’s content, a change is in order according to Nozick’s parameters. Here, it is obvious that the Nozickian model of the just state is simplified, as an actual constitutional framework of a given libertarian country, would include many more attributes (Epstein, 2014). Differently than the function of a model in a scientific research, the model in the evaluative step of empirical CAPT is used to criticize a given political institution, who is supposed to be changed following dissimilarities between the model and the institution, while in a regular empirical-research scenario the model would have to be changed or abandoned if unable to precisely describe an institution or behavior.

The advantages of model construction in political theory, that would adopt the attributes (simplicity, representation, parsimony) of empirical research model building, is that such would make the design of the evaluative step more transparent, and would allow readers to understand and repeat the research design (even if using other normative standards and models), thus utilizing and naturalizing within political theory parts of the empirical process familiar from regular social science research.

Evaluation-Grounded in Adequate Description and Patterning of Studied Political Institutions

The third attribute of the evaluative step of empirical CAPT in which taking advantage of recent social science research will be of value, is that evaluation must rely on an adequate description, patterning and understanding of the political institution being evaluated. While this process sounds straightforward and simple, it is actually quite nuanced, as an evaluation of a political institution or behavior requires a proper definition and understanding of said phenomenon. Suppose, say, that a given research emphasizes as a goal assisting those disadvantaged, and hence attempts to evaluate the desirability of current institutions. Such a study would necessitate several empirical and conceptual steps—the identification of disadvantaged individuals, understanding their needs, and the best policies that would assist them. All of which must rely on some empirical content. Indeed, in the relevant well-known study by Wolff and de Shalit (2007), these aspects won an empirical investigation, specifically the identification of the attributes of the term “disadvantaged.” Only once such empirical matters are settled to a reasonable degree, an evaluation of a political institution aiming at assisting the disadvantaged can move forward.

The growth of data collection techniques is also notable, replacing speculations or intuitions used by political theorists. A case in point is advances in studies in religion-state relations. New research demonstrated that inegalitarian state support of religion does not bring about a reduction in the confidence in institutions expressed by non-supported religious groups. This new information was picked up by David Miller (2021: 86), in his defense of the idea of an established church, as he writes:

the thesis that any form of religious preference shown by the state subjectively “denigrates or marginalizes” those who do not belong to that faith is not borne out by the evidence. A recent attempt to test it found that the degree to which the state supported a particular religion had no negative effects on religious minorities’ confidence in the public institutions of their society.²⁹

Without this empirical grounding, the political theorist would have to ground her or his evaluation of this policy in something like an educated guess of the state of affairs of religion-state relations, and it is debatable whether such a guess would have provided adequate grounding to the evaluative and prescriptive stages of empirical political theory.

The Methodology of Empirical CAPT: The Monistic Concern

The growing tendency in CAPT toward research that adopts research methods and research outcomes of political and social science, is bound to be controversial. One main worry seems to be that this empirical turn would be intolerant of other forms of research in political theory. However, it is arguably not relevant to the empirical kind of political theory as understood in the current article, and in seminal examples such as those of Carens (2013) and Anderson (2010). Explaining why, is the focus of the current section, divided to the following steps: (1) the “empirical turn” as an internal development in CAPT; (2) the internal pluralism of empirical CAPT.

The Empirical Turn As An Internal Development in CAPT

One of the often repeated objections against adopting the empirical methods of political science raised by political theorists is that it is an imposition of methodological rules and norms foreign to political theory (Strauss, 1988; Wolin, 1969). It is therefore important to note that the growing tendency in CAPT to insist that political theorists will produce research that is empirically grounded is sourced in the work conducted by political theorists themselves. Indeed, Jonathan Floyd (2022) speaks about a “methodological moment” and looking at Křepelová’s (2019) useful survey article will reveal the large number of political theorists who have, in various ways, started integrating empirical work into their work in political theory. Any list of empirical political theorists will include well-known scholars such as Waldron (2016), Carens (2013), Anderson (2010), and Dowding (2020), to dispel any notion that this development is externally imposed.

A possible explanation for this methodological development is that it provides a valuable service to the goals of CAPT, providing adequate grounding to the evaluative aspects of political theory (Perez, 2023), and avoiding the grounding of political theory in intuitions (Handby, 2022).

Internal Pluralism: Why Empirical CAPT Would Be Pluralistic in its Methodology

The methodology of empirical CAPT is not monistic. It includes many forms of normative argumentation, and both qualitative and quantitative empirical methods, and it does not demand exclusivity of method or approach. When examining the calls for growing empirical sensitivity among political theorists, such as by Dowding (2020), Waldron (2016), Carens (2013), and Blau (2017), at no point do they argue that empirically grounded research is the only legitimate format of research; and Dowding and Blau both dedicated time and effort to examine other forms of research in political theory, including the history of political thought (Blau, 2015), and hypothetical examples (Dowding, 2022).

Furthermore, any examination of the structure of empirical CAPT would reveal that it must be accompanied with non-empirical methods. The reason is that several of the methods used in political theory are aimed at inference at the normative, evaluative step (Opera, 2020). Indeed, the evaluative step in empirical CAPT requires a normative assessment. As noted in the section “The Empirical Turn of Analytical Political Theory” earlier, the goal of using research in the social sciences within empirical CAPT is to assist and enable the proper evaluation of institutions, behavior, and rules. As long as empirical CAPT retains an evaluative step, it must include non-empirical methods and techniques to be used at that stage, hence necessitating pluralism of research methods. Thought experiments, for example, are an important part of political theory, used by Nozick (1974), so are hypothetical examples (Parfit, 1997) and many others, yet they are not based on empirical observations.³⁰ The implication is that empirical methods of inquiry cannot, in principle, become a monistic strategy for all of CAPT.

Conclusion

This article attempted to illustrate a framework for empirical contemporary analytical political theory. Such a framework follows from recent developments toward greater adoption of methods and research output, both qualitative and quantitative, of political science in CAPT. If that is the direction CAPT is taking, what would be a proper research design for such an approach? The suggested framework divides empirical CAPT into three stages: description and patterning, evaluation, and prescription. The structuring of empirical CAPT in this fashion aims to formalize the structure of numerous studies in empirical CAPT that utilize this format in a nascent manner. Clarifying empirical CAPT serves to make the process of integrating empirical methods and data within CAPT more transparent, and might also assist future studies to clearly structure their research design. Importantly, this empirical turn has significant implications for the evaluative step of empirical CAPT, as integrating it within CAPT will introduce changes also in concept formation, the usage of models, and in the evaluation of existing political institutions. Furthermore, empirically sensitive CAPT often results in radical prescriptive conclusions, countering what is perhaps a common mis-conception. This article argues that this empirical turn does not mean monism in research methods, as the evaluative step in CAPT introduces methods that are not based on empirical observations. Finally, this article presents a template for the kind of research design that can be expected from empirical CAPT. While political science as a whole enjoys a plurality of resources assisting scholars as they design their research, this is not the case for scholars in political theory. This article aims also to serve this straightforward, pragmatic goal.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the editors and reviewers of political studies review for excellent comments and suggestions; previous versions of this paper were presented at the ECPR General Conference, University of Innsbruck, August 2022 and at the ECPR Joint Sessions Workshops, Sciences Po Toulouse April 2023, and the author is grateful for the feedback received.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this research was received from the Israel Science Foundation, grant number No. 1814/23.

ORCID iD

Nahshon Perez

Notes

Author Biography

Nahshon Perez is an associate professor at the department of political studies at Bar Ilan U. He has published many articles on the methodology of political theory, in journals such as Political Studies Review, the British Journal of Politics and International Relations, CRISPP, Social Theory and Practice, and others. He also studies the normative aspect of religion-state relations, and his latest book, Worldly politics and divine institutions, was published by Oxford U.P. in 2023. In 2023, he was the co-convenor of the section on methods in normative political theory at the general conference of the ECPR in Prague.

References

Adcock

Collier

(2001) Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review 95 (3): 529–546.

Anderson

(2010) The Imperative of Integration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Austin

(1956) A Plea for Excuses: The Presidential Address. In: Austin

(ed.) Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 57. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp.1–30.

Aytac

Rossi

(2023) Ideology Critique Without Morality: A Radical Realist Approach. American Political Science Review 117 (4): 1215–1227.

Baderin

(2014) Two Forms of Realism in Political Theory. European Journal of Political Theory 13 (2): 132–153.

Banerjee

Duflo

(2012) Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. New York: Public Affairs.

Barakso

Sabet

Schaffner

(2013) Understanding Political Science Research Methods: The Challenge of Inference. New York: Routledge.

Blau

(2015) History of Political Thought as Detective-Work. History of European Ideas 41 (8): 1178–1194.

Blau

(ed.) (2017) Methods in Analytical Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Bosworth

Dowding

(2019) The Cambridge School and Kripke: Bug Detecting With the History of Political Thought. Review of Politics 81 (3): 621–642.

11.

Brennan

(2017) Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

12.

Callies

Moellendorf

(2021) Assessing Climate Policies: Catastrophe Avoidance and the Right to Sustainable Development. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 20 (2): 127–150.

13.

Carens

(2013) The Ethics of Immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

Carens

(2004) A Contextual Approach to Political Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (2): 117–132.

15.

Chalmers

(2013) What Is This Thing Called Science? Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

16.

Chambers

(2005) Measuring Publicity’s Effect: Reconciling Empirical Research and Normative Theory. Acta Politica 40 (2): 255–266.

17.

Collier

Mahoney

(1993) Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis. American Political Science Review 87 (4): 845–855.

18.

Dennett

(2013) Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

19.

De Shalit

(2020) Political Philosophy and What People Think. Australasian Philosophical Review 4 (1): 4–22.

20.

De Vaus

(2001) Research Design in Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Dowding

(2020) The Relationship Between Political Philosophy and Political Science. Australian Journal of Political Science 55 (4): 432–444.

22.

Dowding

(2022) How to Use Imaginary Cases in Normative Theory. Metaphilosophy 53: 512–525.

23.

Dowding

Bosworth

(2021) Ambiguity and Vagueness in Political Terminology: On Coding and Referential Vacuity. European Journal of Political Theory 20 (2): 335–354.

24.

Dowding

Oprea

(2023) Nudges, Regulations and Liberty. British Journal of Political Science 53: 204–220.

25.

Dryzek

Bächtiger

Chambers

, et al. (2019) The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation. Science 363 (6432): 1144–1146.

26.

Dworkin

(1986) Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

27.

Epstein

(2014) The Classical Liberal Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

28.

Erman

Möller

(2018) Political Legitimacy for Our World: Where Is Political Realism Going? The Journal of Politics 80 (2): 525–538.

29.

Erman

Moller

(2023) The Importance and Limitation of Epistemic Norms in Political Theory. In: Paper Presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Toulouse, 25–28 April.

30.

Floyd

(2016) Analytics and Continentals: Divided by Nature but United by Praxis? European Journal of Political Theory 15 (2): 155–171.

31.

Floyd

(2017) Is Political Philosophy Impossible? Thoughts and Behaviour in Normative Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Floyd

(2022) Political Philosophy’s Methodological Moment and the Rise of Public Political Philosophy. Society 59 (2): 129–139.

33.

Gaus

(2018) Political Philosophy as the Study of Complex Normative Systems. Cosmos + Taxis 5 (2): 62–76.

34.

Gerring

(1999) What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences. Polity 31 (3): 357–393.

35.

Gerring

(2001) Social Science Methodology: A Critical Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Gerring

(2012) Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Gerring

McDermott

(2007) An Experimental Template for Case Study Research. American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 688–701.

38.

Goertz

(2006) Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

39.

Hacker

(2002) Analytic Philosophy: What, Whence, and Whither? In: Biletzki

Matar

(eds) The Story of Analytic Philosophy. New York: Routledge, pp.17–48.

40.

Handby

(2022) Assessing the Use of Intuitions in Contemporary Political Theory. The Journal of Politics 84 (3): 1595–1606.

41.

Herzog

(2012) Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory and the Problem of Knowledge. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (4): 271–288.

42.

Herzog

Zacka

(2019) Fieldwork in Political Theory: Five Arguments for an Ethnographic Sensibility. British Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 763–784.

43.

Hickel

(2020) Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. New York: Random House.

44.

Hylton

(2002) Analysis in Analytic Philosophy. In: Biletzki

Matar

(eds) The Story of Analytic Philosophy. New York: Routledge, pp.51–69.

45.

Keynes

(1890) The Scope and Method of Political Economy. Kitchener, ON, Canada: Batoche Books.

46.

Klosko

(2013) Contemporary Anglo-American Political Philosophy. In: Klosko (ed.) The History of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.456–479.

47.

Korsgaard

(1996) The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

48.

Křepelová

(2019) A Methodological Turn in Political Philosophy: Making Political Philosophy More Scientific? Public Reason 11 (1): 77–92.

49.

Lægaard

(2019) Contextualism in Normative Political Theory and the Problem of Critical Distance. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (4): 953–970.

50.

Lassman

(2011) Political Philosophy and the Idea of a Social Science. In: Klosko

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.436–455.

51.

Levy

(2016) There Is No Such Thing as Ideal Theory. Social Philosophy and Policy 33 (1–2): 312–333.

52.

Longo

Zacka

(2019) Political Theory in an Ethnographic Key. American Political Science Review 113 (4): 1066–1070.

53.

MacDonald

(1940) The Language of Political Theory. In: Austin

(ed.) Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 41. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp.91–112.

54.

Mansbridge

(1980) Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York: Basic Books.

55.

Miller

(2017) Distributive Justice: What the People Think. In: Miller

(ed.) Distributive Justice. New York: Routledge, pp.135–173.

56.

Miller

(2021) What’s Wrong with Religious Establishment? Criminal Law and Philosophy 15 (1): 75–89.

57.

Mutz

(2002) Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice. American Political Science Review 96 (1): 111–126.

58.

Nozick

(1974) Anarchy State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

59.

Olsthoorn

(2017) Conceptual Analysis. In: Blau

(ed.) Methods in Analytical Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.153–191.

60.

Opera

(2020) Pluralism in Political Philosophy: A Commentary on Dowding and Walsh. Australian Journal of Political Science 554: 456–462.

61.

Parfit

(1997) Equality and Priority. Ratio 10: 202–221.

62.

Perez

(2020) What Are Data Good for Anyway? A Typology of Usages of Data in Contemporary Political Theory. Social Theory and Practice 46 (2): 339–364.

63.

Perez

(2022) Data Based Radicalism? Data Usage and the Problem of Critical Distance in Contextual and Empirical Political Theory. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. Epub ahead of print 8 September. DOI: 10.1080/13698230.2022.2121519.

64.

Perez

(2023) The Case for Methodological Naturalisation: Between Political Theory and Political Science. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 25: 617–632.

65.

Perez

Fox

(2021) Normative Theorizing and Political Data: Toward a Data-Sensitive Understanding of the Separation Between Religion and State in Political Theory. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 24: 485–509.

66.

Perez

Fox

McClure

(2017) Unequal State Support of Religion: On Resentment, Equality, and the Separation of Religion and State. Politics, Religion & Ideology 18 (4): 431–448.

67.

Pitkin

(1972) Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

68.

Posner

(1985) Wealth Maximization Revisited. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 2: 85.

69.

Rodrik

(2010) Diagnostics Before Prescription. Journal of Economic Perspectives 24 (3): 33–44.

70.

Rodrik

(2015) Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

71.

Roemer

(1986) Equality of Resources Implies Equality of Welfare. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 101 (4): 751–784.

72.

Rossi

Argentin

(2021) Property, Legitimacy, Ideology: A Reality Check. Journal of Politics 83 (3): 710781.

73.

Ryan

Spinner-Halev

(2022) Who Gives Credence to Whom? Exploring Status and Relational Equality with Empirical Tests. The Journal of Politics 84 (2): 1118–1131.

74.

Sartori

(1970) Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. American Political Science Review 64 (4): 1033–1053.

75.

Sen

(1992) Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

76.

Shklar

(1990) The Faces of Injustice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

77.

Skinner

(1974) Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action. Political Theory 2 (3): 277–303.

78.

Strauss

(1988) What Is Political Philosophy? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

79.

Taylor

(1994) Interpretation and the Sciences of Man. In: Martin

McIntyre

(eds) Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.181–211.

80.

Thompson

(2008) Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520.

81.

Treier

Jackman

(2008) Democracy as a Latent Variable. American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 201–217.

82.

Waldron

(2016) Political Political Theory: Essays on Institutions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

83.

Walzer

(1983) Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.

84.

Wenar

(2015) Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence, and the Rules That Run the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

85.

Wolff

(2013) Analytic Political Philosophy. In: Beaney

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.795–824.

86.

Wolff

de Shalit

(2007) Disadvantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

87.

Wolin

(1969) Political Theory as a Vocation. American Political Science Review 63 (4): 1062–1082.

88.

Zacka

(2017) When the State Meet the Street. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.