Scientific vs. Interpretive Models of Political Inquiry

Introduction to Models of Political Inquiry

Scientific methods of inquiry — also called empirical, positivist, or rational approaches — are used by the vast majority of researchers in the social sciences (deLeon, 1998). The scientific approach has largely relied on a behaviorist framework, which defines human behavior as following the laws of nature and therefore as inherently predictable. The logical conclusion from this assumption is that the goal of political research is to be able to predict the behavior of humans as they engage in politics. As Douglas Torgerson stated in 1986, "… knowledge would replace politics" (as cited by deLeon, 1998, p. 148).

Scientific vs. Interpretive Approaches Defined

In contrast, the interpretive school of political inquiry advocates for a more nuanced approach — one that recognizes that human behavior, whether by individuals or groups, is far too complex to render reducible to quantitative measures (deLeon, 1998). Rather than aiming to predict human behavior, interpretive inquiry seeks to gain beneficial insights into the political process. Scholars in this tradition go so far as to claim that a scientific approach that excludes the influence of human traits — such as patriotism or free will — does more damage than good.

Welfare-to-Work Programs as a Case Study

One example of a political issue that received considerable attention in the recent past is the welfare and welfare-to-work programs (WWP) that swept the country in the mid-1990s. Writing in the New York Times, Steven Manos (1994) argued that WWP merely shifts welfare recipients to jobs by displacing others who would have otherwise taken those jobs. From his perspective, WWP does not result in a net savings by reducing the number of welfare recipients or increasing income tax revenue, because WWP does not actually create jobs. In other words, WWP does nothing more than churn the welfare rolls. This cost-benefit analysis represents a scientific approach to the policy issue; however, Manos' argument makes clear that shifting welfare recipients to jobs alone is not a valid measure of welfare reform success.

Using an interpretive approach, Coffield (2002) examined the experiences of a mother as she navigated a WWP implemented in Indiana. President Clinton touted the Indiana program as the most successful WWP in the country based on the magnitude of its welfare roll reductions. What Coffield and Indiana welfare recipients discovered was that the "work first" program in Indiana emphasized gainful employment to such an extent that efforts to overcome persistent poverty were formally marginalized. Among the policies that contributed to this trend was a prohibition on state support for training programs lasting longer than a month and a restriction on the pursuit of college degrees taking longer than a year to complete. The outcome of these policies was a drop in the number of welfare recipients enrolled in training and college programs from 68% to 28%.

Bridgett's Story: An Interpretive Lens

The case study presented by Coffield (2002) centers on an African-American mother named Bridgett — a woman in her late twenties with five children. With a history of cycling on and off welfare and working low-wage jobs, Bridgett had been declared "hostile" by WWP case workers because she refused to reveal intimate details about her personal life or engage in activities required to meet the program's requirements. Bridgett had also "voluntarily" refused benefits so that she could continue attending college classes toward a nursing degree. The "work first" program in Indiana placed so much emphasis on obtaining any job that Bridgett would have been required to attend classes in life skills and job search strategies instead of her nursing courses. The effective goal of these WWP classes was to get Bridgett off welfare by placing her in another low-wage job. As Bridgett declared with conviction: "I can't work some stupid minimum wage job and end up screwing up my chances with my schooling…, and I'm not sticking my kids in some fifth-rate child care center to do it!" (Coffield, 2002, p. 268).

The WWP reforms that swept the nation in the mid-1990s were a response to the conservative belief that many welfare recipients were addicted to public assistance (Coffield, 2002). The solution, conservatives argued, was employment at almost any cost. The social benefits proclaimed to be achievable were a reduced public tax burden and the moral rehabilitation of welfare recipients. From the liberal perspective, vocational training or a college degree was the surest route to ending reliance on public assistance, and the rehabilitative benefit would be an end to the cycle of poverty. The concept of welfare reform therefore meant different things to different people.

Conclusion: Limits of Scientific Measurement in Political Research

The overall result, argues Coffield (2002), is a growing economic divide that perpetuates poverty for low-wage earners while providing businesses with a steady supply of cheap labor. Coffield characterized such a policy as not only misguided but destructive to the social fabric and a violation of democratic principles. She further characterizes Indiana's WWP as exploitative, supporting this allegation by highlighting how welfare recipients are often placed in jobs without pay. Economic support for these recipients comes in the form of cash assistance, food stamps, transportation, and childcare. For example, if Bridgett were to complete a certified nursing assistant (CNA) training position within 12 months — as recommended by case workers — she would likely be placed in a hospital for on-the-job training without pay. Not only would the hospital benefit from free labor, but it would also receive a sizeable fee paid by the state for providing the position.