The Dilemma of Correct Analysis in Contemporary Political Studies

By SAKHRI Mohamed

Abstract

This paper examines the challenges and dilemmas facing political scientists today in conducting accurate and unbiased analysis of political issues and events. With the proliferation of new media and online information sources, as well as increased polarization in politics, there are difficulties in objectively analyzing data and avoiding biases. The paper argues for the need for political scientists to uphold rigorous methodological standards, acknowledge limitations and biases, seek multiple perspectives, and focus on evidence-based analysis. Utilizing examples from recent political contests and policy debates, it explores the tensions between normative biases and empirical analysis. It concludes by emphasizing the important role political scientists can play in contemporary democracies by providing sound, thoughtful, and balanced analysis to better inform the public and policymakers.

Introduction

Political analysis serves a vital function in modern democracies by helping provide insight into complex policy issues, political behavior, and governance systems. Accurate and rigorous analysis helps inform citizens, media, governments, and other stakeholders to make better decisions. However, conducting sound political analysis faces considerable challenges today due to the highly polarized and partisan climate, the proliferation of questionable or biased information online and in certain media outlets, and the intermixing of empirical evidence with normative assumptions (Somin, 2020). This paper examines the dilemmas confronting political scientists in carrying out correct and unbiased analysis in contemporary political studies. It utilizes examples from recent political contests and policy debates to highlight the difficulties of objective analysis given current conditions. The paper argues for upholding methodological rigor as well as acknowledging limitations and biases as ways for political analysis to retain legitimacy and better serve democratic discourse.

The Changing Information Environment

One major dilemma stems from the radically changed nature of the information environment today compared to the past. The rise of cable television and especially the internet has led to a flooding of the information space with data, interpretations, misinformation, and propaganda from an ever-increasing array of sources (Benkler et al., 2018). Social media allows misinformation to spread rapidly without traditional journalistic practices of verification. At the same time, audiences are bifurcating more into polarized “echo chambers” of like-minded individuals who reinforce each other’s worldviews. All of this complicates the ability of political scientists to sift through the material and find credible facts and data to base analysis upon.

In the past, the flow of political information was largely controlled and filtered through a relatively small number of television networks, radio stations, and print outlets. Professional reporters and editors served as gatekeepers to screen out unverified rumors or obvious falsehoods, adhere to basic journalistic standards, and cover events from a broad mainstream perspective (Schudson, 2003). This is not to suggest the old media environment was ideal or unbiased, but there were norms and filters providing a shared baseline for political debate. The explosion of partisan cable channels in recent decades started to erode this mainstream consensus. But the rise of social media and its ability to spread content rapidly among niche groups has further fragmented any common political information base today (Benkler et al., 2018).

In this radically decentralized environment, there is no widely accepted arbiter of political facts and data. This complicates political analysis, which relies upon having rigorous, transparent empirical evidence to examine. With fewer universally agreed upon facts and data sources, it becomes much easier to selectively choose or skewer information to favor one’s argument or predetermined position. Accusations of “fake news” and biased analysis abound today in ways not seen before. In a highly contested analysis or policy debate, one side can simply reject the empirics presented by the other as illegitimate or flawed. This tendency is exacerbated by motivated reasoning bias, where individuals are more likely to accept evidence supporting their existing views (Flynn et al., 2017). Political scientists must navigate this turbulent environment carefully to find credible evidence and justify their methodological choices rigorously.

The Intertwining of Facts and Values

Another dilemma arises from the intertwining of factual evidence with normative assumptions and values in contemporary political debates. Political questions inherently involve both empirical and moral components – the facts of a situation as well as who benefits or loses. In the past, political scientists tended to focus analysis primarily on measurable political behavior and quantifiable data. But today, politics is often analyzed through more explicitly normative frames like social justice or morality. This is a positive development in many ways. However, it poses challenges for conducting detached, neutral analysis. If the analytical lens itself stems from a moral framework, it becomes harder to separate the empirical facts from normative conclusions.

For example, a political scientist studying inequality may approach it from a social justice perspective focused on economic fairness. The same data about inequality trends could be looked at through a libertarian lens focused on individual rights. Both approaches may marshal empirical data and trends. But the interpretation and conclusions drawn would differ significantly based on the underlying normative framework employed. While social scientists cannot be completely value-neutral, making these frameworks explicit and scrutinizing them is important for accurate analysis (Gunnell, 2019). Being transparent about normative starting points enables more rigorous debate about not just competing empirical claims but also competing moral reasoning. Political scientists today face dilemmas balancing empirical and normative analysis, and scrutinizing the intersection between facts and values.

Partisanship and Polarization

Heightened partisanship and political polarization also complicate conducting objective political analysis in the current era. Politics has grown more tribal and identities more rooted to political affiliations. This makes it much harder to analyze politics in a dispassionate, non-partisan way. Contemporary political contests are often framed in existential terms as a battle between opposing cultural groups (Mason, 2018). Under such conditions, avoiding being seen as taking sides is difficult for any political commentator or analyst.

In the past, political scientists focused more narrowly on measurable factors like voting patterns or policy positions. But affective polarization based on group identities now dominates much political discourse. Even platform-level positions are imbued with moral significance tied to identities. Analysts today face pressures to signal partisan allegiances and conclusions to gain credibility with audiences who view politics tribally (Klein, 2020). But giving into such pressures undermines the very purpose of objective political analysis to accurately explain and predict political behavior.

Overcoming partisan biases takes considerable effort and self-awareness. Political scientists have long faced accusations of groupthink within academia skewing perspectives (Duarte et al., 2015). But rising polarization expands demands on analysts to take explicit partisan stands in ways that undermine neutrality. Avoiding these pressures and transparently scrutinizing assumptions is crucial but growing more difficult. The dilemmas of partisanship bias have become more pronounced and challenging to overcome in recent times.

Big Data and Methodological Rigor

A further dilemma arises from the exponentially increasing amount of complex political data available coupled with pressures to analyze it quickly and superficially. The digitalization of politics through online platforms and communication technologies has created vast datasets for potential analysis. This “big data” holds promise for detecting patterns and gaining insights that were not possible with limited information. But the speed and volume of data today also allows misinterpretation and errors to replicate rapidly before thorough vetting.

The glut of information and demand for swift hot takes on political events prioritizes speed over rigor in analysis. Accurate interpretation often requires careful contextualization, understanding limitations of datasets, and ruling out spurious correlations – things which take considerable time. The scientific method depends upon formulating hypotheses, then systematically testing them to draw warranted conclusions. This iterative process clashes with the rapid-fire online speculation and commentary characterizing much political analysis today (Tufekci, 2014). The dilemma is finding balance between making timely contributions to unfolding debates versus upholding slow, rigorous standards to avoid mistakes or false conclusions.

Big datasets hold potential for political scientists to gain novel insights. But they also enable fishing for spurious correlations and superficially fitting data to preconceived narratives. Avoiding such errors requires understanding the contextual limits of any dataset and focusing analysis on falsifying hypotheses rather than confirming them (Manovich, 2011). With the rising speed of online political discourse and demands for immediate analysis, maintaining deliberate rigor is increasingly difficult yet vital. The dilemmas of big data create risks of mistakes propagating which thoughtful scrutiny can counteract.

The Role and Responsibilities of Political Scientists

What can political scientists do to meet such formidable dilemmas and conduct rigorous, balanced analysis given the current polarized and partisan climate? Firstly, the field needs to have continual discussions about grounding analysis transparently in empirical evidence while also scrutinizing any normative assumptions. Facts and values intertwine in political questions, so elucidating both components clearly is crucial for accurate interpretation. Secondly, the field needs to push against pressures for rapid-fire speculation and superficial analysis in the age of big data. More patient, rigorous analysis focused on incrementally falsifying hypotheses will yield better insights over time.

Thirdly, political scientists need to acknowledge their inherent biases and openly detail their methodologies. Transparency enables analysis to be scrutinized and improved through peer review. Finally, the field should focus more on explanative, exploratory analysis rather than prediction per se, which is highly difficult in fluid political environments. Descriptive analysis of political behavior can inform in productive ways without over-reaching. Overall, political scientists have an important responsibility in the current chaotic information environment to uphold principled analytical standards. Through transparency, methodological rigor, acknowledging limitations, and seeking alternate perspectives, political analysis can better serve democratic discourse despite numerous dilemmas.

Conclusion

In summary, this paper has examined key dilemmas confronting political scientists today in trying to conduct accurate, unbiased analysis regarding political issues and events. Due to the decentralized and partisan information environment, intertwining of facts and values, affective polarization, and proliferation of data, objectively analyzing contemporary politics has grown extremely challenging. However, this makes maintaining analytical principles and standards all the more essential. Though not without flaws, sound political analysis remains crucial for informing policy debates and understanding governance in democratic societies. By thoughtfully examining their own assumptions and limitations, utilizing rigorous methods, focusing on falsification over prediction, and acknowledging diverse perspectives, political scientists can mitigate dilemmas and provide illumination despite the complexities of today’s highly-charged political climate. There are no easy answers, but collecting sound empirical evidence and reasoning honestly within unavoidable normative frameworks can at least help improve the quality of discourse. Through such efforts, political analysis can better serve citizens seeking to understand the dizzying political events unfolding around them.

References

Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.

Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38.

Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38(S1), 127-150.

Gunnell, J. G. (2019). Political theory and social science: Cutting against the grain. Palgrave Macmillan.

Klein, E. (2020). Why we’re polarized. Profile Books.

Manovich, L. (2011). Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. Debates in the digital humanities, 2, 460-475.

Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.

Schudson, M. (2003). The sociology of news. WW Norton & Company.

Somin, I. (2020). The media and polarized democracy. The Social Science Journal, 1-9.

Tufekci, Z. (2014). Big questions for social media big data: Representativeness, validity and other methodological pitfalls. In Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.