Vince Cable, a British politician and former leader of the Liberal Democrats, saw that much in the real world is driven by the Five S’s of speed, superficiality, spin, secrecy, and scientific ignorance (ODI, 2004). Because the volume of research greatly exceeds its application in practice, the failure of researchers to link evidence to policy and practice produces evidence that no one uses. In conjunction with further exploration of interesting topics, it is assuredly worthwhile to also bridge the know–do gap.

Further Reading

Overseas Development Institute. (2004, October 1). Does evidence matter? An ODI Meeting Series. September. London: Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved from https://odi.org/en/publications/does-evidence-matter-an-odi-meeting-series/

Article Linking Research to Practice

Article Disseminating Knowledge Products

Article Enriching Policy with Research

Every person is a scientist, to a greater or lesser degree. An essential aspect of science is producing tested theory that others can depend on. The highest level of dependability is in critical areas like technology, architecture, health, etc. One problem area of science is politics, theory of the use of power. A reason for this is the denial of those in power to accept anyone's personal observation, testing, and modification of experiment. Perhaps this could change, but not soon.

Absolutely, and this is the foundation of significant empirical work in political science, public policy. and economics. In these domains, scholars evaluate the efficacy of policy, laws, and even local regulations as they impact a variety of criterion variables. In management, we also evaluate how corporations engage with political entities (i.e., corporate political activity) to gain a competitive advantage. Nearly all of this work is based on a hypothetico deductive approach with falsifiable hypotheses, and a growing body of literature invokes inductive scientific approaches to shed light on these phenomena with a different lens. Finally, in mathematics, scholars are developing sophisticated analytical and machine learning models to act as decision-support systems that produce high-quality forecasts for scenario planning as policy-makers consider certain actions. Science is absolutely helpful even in the study of politics, which should be an encouragement.

I don't think it is possible to apply scientific methods on politics. Scientific method has a starting point in certain problems or questions, has logically approved ways to follow from premisses to conclusions. The objects normally do not change in an uncalculable way. That is quite different in the public affairs; you will have to experieve, to try, to test following an interaction in the way Lévi-Strauss called "bricolage" or Michel Serres "randonnée". In general see my book "Das Soziale denken" (2021)

When we talk about applying scientific method to the question of politics, we essentially mean that we want to create knowledge of political questions which will be objective - as much as possible. Why do we do survey in political science? Because we want to create knowledge which can be generalized for the broader perspective as well. Science possesses exact same quality, you can reproduce the knowledge as many times as you want if it follows appropriate protocol. The problem is very often you may miss the subtle dynamics of a society if you do not dig into deeper of the social context through qualitative tools and techniques. Too much concentration over creating value neutral and objective knowledge may essentially compromise the identity of the social science which itself is a value laden body of knowledge. Therefore a careful approach to incorporate both subjective and objective knowledge is required while studying social science like political science.

You can have a look on the following book:

Making Social Science Matter - by Bent Flyvbjerg

With respect to Kurt Röttgers , the scientific method can be applied to nearly any phenomenon, including politics, but this is also an admittedly post-positivist position (which is consistent with hard science assumptions). To study the science of politics, we often have to gather and model tacitly-held states by questioning or examining people, which is accomplished using classical test approaches, but it is possible. To see another example, look at the rise of modern polling techniques offered by Gallup and other organizations. Nations spend billions each year gathering data to draw inferences about political issues (i.e., science). Politicians often pay attention to polls when making policy decisions, which means that we're already "applying science" to politics.

It is analogous to observational techniques offered in physics, hydrology, geology, and many other "hard" scientific disciplines (e.g., one cannot create and manipulate black holes or galaxies, but we observe them with increasingly sophistication based on improved instrumentation; similarly, we cannot stratify rock formations over thousands or millions of years - we observe and make inferences on the basis of existing data). In politics, we simply develop instruments that help us observe (and sometimes manipulate) phenomena in a given area of inquiry, from which we can develop theory and hypotheses, refine and refute these, and more closely approximate truth for a given context. In some countries, we can actually "pilot test" ideas at the local level before institutionalizing them nation-wide, which gives us even greater ability to draw causal inferences (i.e., the gold standard of science).

Politics is competition for power. It is a game. If science can be applied to football or tennis, it can be applied to politics. Politics is also institutionalized conspiracy, which means there is an added complication for science, political facts are closely held secrets.

The scientific method, in the context of social science research, can be applied to politics.

This can largely depend on case to case. There has been an established school in the discipline of politics that subscribe to positivism paradigm and employ scientific quantitative approach in studying political phenomena. Whether this approach is ideal for studying politics is a debate that has been going on since the outset and is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Yes, it depends what you mean by science. Lay persons think of physics and medicine and geology as science. So do I. In that sense, social science (psychology, political science...) is not science.

Timothy P. Munyon would have it otherwise but I would point out two things. (1) after a good century of effort, social science has failed to build a body of theory (economics is a partial exception), and (2) all that billion dollar research is devoted to counting not measuring. Real science doesn't count, it measures (at least above the molecular level). And when it measures it does it in agreed measurement units (metres, litres, etc).

When you count things, you count things you think you see, things you think are interesting, things you think exist. Such counting can be very useful - statistics are vital for administration - but it ain't science. It is no more science than gathering baseball or cricket statistics is science. "Data" is a slippery word.

Vitally, it ain't the science which in the last couple of centuries has transformed human life. This science - real science - observes nature through predictive theory. Social "science" doesn't have any theory.

As long as social science thinks counting things is science, it will not build a body of theory. Until it constructs theories which interrelate the strengths or intensities of concepts (i.e., not their incidence frequencies) and which predict some measurable (not countable) outcome, its understandings and judgements won't be genuinely scientific.

Science is supposed to be objective:

Here is another recent opinion on objectivity --

https://bigthink.com/videos/objective-reality-

Kurt

Kurt, that site asks: “Is there an external reality? Is reality objective?” Those are tired questions and unless I assume I am living in a dream or I am a brain in a vat they are pretty foolish. Even than, they are pointless questions because the dream is so good, the sensory feed to my vat brain is so good, I can’t tell the difference anyway. So I must conclude (like all scientists) there is a real, objective reality and if there isn’t I can nevertheless assume there is because the simulation is perfect.

The site then asks, “Is the information your senses are feeding you an accurate depiction of reality?” Another tired old question. The answer is yes for accuracy is matter of degree. What the question implies but can’t actually ask (because too silly) is: “Are our senses perfectly accurate?” Verbal trickery is afoot. The site is not, anyway, discussing science.

Science is supposed to be objective? Again, it depends what you mean by "science." Anything the depends on language will have subjective elements. To be objective requires independence from language.

Science theory is objective. Science theories are understood and applied by millions of people with an enormous range of subjective opinions and foibles but the theories mean exactly the same for all of them. A theory like F=ma can appear in Russian or Chinese or any other script or language and it makes not a jot of difference. It means the same to everyone who understands it.

Mike Pepperday

"unless I assume I am living in a dream"

As you can see, some people are recently seriously considering this!

Thank you for your consideration.

Kurt