Modification de Political Behaviour: Historical and methodological benchmarks
Attention : vous n’êtes pas connecté(e). Votre adresse IP sera visible de tout le monde si vous faites des modifications. Si vous vous connectez ou créez un compte, vos modifications seront attribuées à votre propre nom d’utilisateur(rice) et vous aurez d’autres avantages.
La modification peut être annulée. Veuillez vérifier les différences ci-dessous pour voir si c’est bien ce que vous voulez faire, puis publier ces changements pour finaliser l’annulation de cette modification.
Version actuelle | Votre texte | ||
Ligne 11 : | Ligne 11 : | ||
* [[Political Behaviour: Historical and methodological benchmarks]] | * [[Political Behaviour: Historical and methodological benchmarks]] | ||
* [[The structural foundations of political behaviour]] | * [[The structural foundations of political behaviour]] | ||
* [[The | * [[The Cultural Basis of Political Behaviour]] | ||
* [[Political socialization]] | * [[Political socialization]] | ||
* [[The rational actor]] | * [[The rational actor]] | ||
Ligne 21 : | Ligne 21 : | ||
We will situate the study of political behaviour in history and discuss some methodological elements. Ideally, a distinction should be made between the historical constitution of the study of electoral behaviour and that of non-electoral behaviour, since these two fields have historically spoken very little to each other. How has the study of electoral behaviour developed and constituted? | We will situate the study of political behaviour in history and discuss some methodological elements. Ideally, a distinction should be made between the historical constitution of the study of electoral behaviour and that of non-electoral behaviour, since these two fields have historically spoken very little to each other. How has the study of electoral behaviour developed and constituted? | ||
The emergence of the subject raises questions about how the subject emerged in European thought. The emergence of the behaviourist approach is the starting point for the empirical study of political behaviour. We will deal with the emergence of the autonomous citizen, i.e. the "intentional" citizen who introduces the theories of rational choice with, in particular, the economic theories of the vote. Finally, we will discuss the development of analytical techniques that have contributed to making the study of political behaviour one of the most important disciplines of political science with main instruments such as polling. | The emergence of the subject raises questions about how the subject emerged in European thought. The emergence of the behaviourist approach is the starting point for the empirical study of political behaviour. We will deal with the emergence of the autonomous citizen, i.e. the "intentional" citizen who introduces the theories of rational choice with, in particular, the economic theories of the vote. Finally, we will discuss the development of analytical techniques that have contributed to making the study of political behaviour one of the most important disciplines of political science with main instruments such as polling.{{Translations | ||
{{Translations | |||
| fr = Repères historiques et méthodologiques | | fr = Repères historiques et méthodologiques | ||
| es = | | es = | ||
}} | }} | ||
Ligne 87 : | Ligne 84 : | ||
If we go back to the old institutionalism, in the end we were not interested in empirical concerns. The first beginnings of empirical analysis, and therefore of methodological reflection understood as an instrument and a set of tools that allow us to make a link between theoretical thought and empirical reality, took place at the beginning of the 20th century, shortly before the development of behaviorism in the United States, and in France with electoral geography, which worked on aggregate data that are data that characterize a given political-administrative unit. Behaviourists immediately saw that with this type of approach and this type of data, we cannot study individual behaviour, since the data are at the level of a unit and not at the level of the individual. For behaviourists, it is necessary to find a way to study individual behaviour by collecting individual data, which is why they developed the sample survey, which is still an instrument used today. The survey is based on random sampling that can be generalised and is representative. Paul Lazarsfeld, in the 1940s, first applied the sampling instrument to study electoral behaviour. We're going to talk about the Michigan approach, and it was precisely at the University of Michigan that the first systematic national surveys were developed beginning in the 1950s. Starting in 1978, they established national electoral studies that were institutionalized and developed in other countries. It is a valuable tool to study political behaviour from a perspective that was once called micropolitics. From the 1980s onwards, it is possible to point out important innovations with the systematic use of computers, which increased the possibilities of analysis, but also with the social organization of access to data. The idea is that, at certain times, it is possible to ensure that all researchers have access to the data. This responds to a concern for science as a collective effort, but it also responds to a methodological concern for the replicability of research results. Finally, the increasing sophistication of analytical techniques has led to the possibility of multi-level analyses, which have existed since the late 1970s and early 1980s, but in political science this is a relatively recent development. These are analyses that can integrate both individual and contextual data. | If we go back to the old institutionalism, in the end we were not interested in empirical concerns. The first beginnings of empirical analysis, and therefore of methodological reflection understood as an instrument and a set of tools that allow us to make a link between theoretical thought and empirical reality, took place at the beginning of the 20th century, shortly before the development of behaviorism in the United States, and in France with electoral geography, which worked on aggregate data that are data that characterize a given political-administrative unit. Behaviourists immediately saw that with this type of approach and this type of data, we cannot study individual behaviour, since the data are at the level of a unit and not at the level of the individual. For behaviourists, it is necessary to find a way to study individual behaviour by collecting individual data, which is why they developed the sample survey, which is still an instrument used today. The survey is based on random sampling that can be generalised and is representative. Paul Lazarsfeld, in the 1940s, first applied the sampling instrument to study electoral behaviour. We're going to talk about the Michigan approach, and it was precisely at the University of Michigan that the first systematic national surveys were developed beginning in the 1950s. Starting in 1978, they established national electoral studies that were institutionalized and developed in other countries. It is a valuable tool to study political behaviour from a perspective that was once called micropolitics. From the 1980s onwards, it is possible to point out important innovations with the systematic use of computers, which increased the possibilities of analysis, but also with the social organization of access to data. The idea is that, at certain times, it is possible to ensure that all researchers have access to the data. This responds to a concern for science as a collective effort, but it also responds to a methodological concern for the replicability of research results. Finally, the increasing sophistication of analytical techniques has led to the possibility of multi-level analyses, which have existed since the late 1970s and early 1980s, but in political science this is a relatively recent development. These are analyses that can integrate both individual and contextual data. | ||
= | =Niveaux d’analyse= | ||
Plusieurs niveaux rentrent en ligne de compte dans l’analyse des comportements politiques avec les analyses « micro » donc individuelles qui sera pour une grande partie du cours notre variable dépendante et les analyses « macro » comme, par exemple, le fait que la participation électorale dépende du contexte institutionnel et intervenant dans l’explication qui sont des facteurs qui ne relèvent pas de l’individu, mais qui sont soit l’agrégation de comportements individuels que l’on regarde de façon agrégée soit de propriétés qui dépendent directement du contexte. | |||
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="20" border="1" align="center" | {| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="20" border="1" align="center" | ||
Ligne 94 : | Ligne 91 : | ||
!Macro | !Macro | ||
|- | |- | ||
| - | | - acteur ;<div>Individus ;<div>choix individuels ;<div>préférences individuelles. | ||
| - | | - système ;<div>- institutions ;<div>- changement structurel ;<div>- changement culturel. | ||
|} | |} | ||
La grande question est de savoir comment les lier au-delà du fait qu’aujourd’hui il y a des outils méthodologiques statistiques qui permettent de lier des mesures individuelles et contextuelles dans une seule analyse. Cette réflexion est au cœur de la réflexion en science sociale et en tout cas en sociologie et en science politique. Les théoriciens de la sociologie se sont souvent préoccupés de comment faire le lien entre le niveau individuel et le niveau macro institutionnel dans d’autres cas. | |||
== | ==Lien micro-macro : Coleman== | ||
James Coleman | James Coleman a élaboré un modèle très simple qui consiste à donner une image de comment le macro et le micro sont liés. Dans le modèle du lien micro – macro, ce qu’on veut expliquer est le changement politique et social. La tâche du sociologue est d’expliquer les grands changements sociaux et politiques. Ces changements découlent à leur tour de grandes transformations structurelles et culturelles. Il y a l’idée d’un lien entre ce qu’on veut expliquer, à savoir les changements politiques et sociaux aujourd’hui, et les grandes transformations qui ont eu lieu dans l’histoire de l’Europe ou d’un pays. | ||
[[Fichier:comportement politique lien micro macro Coleman 1.png|center|vignette|]] | [[Fichier:comportement politique lien micro macro Coleman 1.png|center|vignette|]] | ||
Pour Coleman, qui était un grand institutionnalisme méthodologique, le lien de grandes transformations sociales, structurelles et culturelles et le changement politique et social ne peut pas être fait directement, mais il peut être seulement fait en passant par des choix et des comportements individuels. C’est une approche qui vient de Max Weber. L’idée est que ces transformations culturelles expliquent ensuite des changements au niveau des positions et des attitudes individuelles. Ces préférences individuelles expliquent ensuite la mobilisation individuelle et c’est par l’agrégation des différents comportements individuels que l’on peut expliquer in fine les changements culturels et sociaux. Toute la tradition behavioriste est restée au niveau micro, mais pour Coleman, il faut faire un lien avec le niveau macro politique. Pour Coleman, ce lien ne peut être fait directement, mais par un détour. On ne peut pas expliquer le changement social et politique en restant au niveau du contexte, agrégé et des variables globales. L’idée wébérienne est que pour expliquer les transformations sociales, il faut passer par des variables individuelles qui offrent des mécanismes. | |||
== | ==Lien micro-macro : Rokkan== | ||
Rokkan | Rokkan a également postulé des liens micro et macro. Pour Rokkan, il est possible de concevoir un lien direct micro et macro : | ||
- micro – micro : étude de la relation entre les caractéristiques individuelles, les rôles, les cognitions et les motivations, d’un côté, et les dispositions politiques et décisions, de l’autre ; | |||
- macro – micro : étude des effets des variations et des changements dans les contextes structurels sur les décisions politiques ainsi que sur la force et la direction des relations micro-micro ; | |||
- micro – macro : étude des effets des attitudes et décisions des citoyens sur les politiques, stratégies et tactiques des partis ainsi que sur l’opération des systèmes de contrainte structurelle sur le processus décisionnel ; | |||
- macro – macro : étude des fonctions des contraintes structurelles dans le maintien, la légitimation et la stabilisation du système politique en général. | |||
Il faut garder en tête qu’il y a le niveau micro et macro qu’il faut distinguer et qu’il faut essayer de faire un lien entre ces niveaux. | |||
=Ecological Error= | =Ecological Error= |