Akan Malici - Political Science Research in Practice

To know, according to Websters, is to have a clear perception or understanding of; to be sure or well informed about. There are various types of knowledge. Among them are religious knowledge, instinctual knowledge, common sense, scientific knowledge and so on. Although our book is about scientific knowledge we do want to point out that scientific knowledge is not necessarily better than the other types of knowledge. A mothers intuition about what to do with her unsettled child may trump the conclusions of scientific studies many times, for example. We value scientific knowledge, but we believe it is important to retain an appreciation also for other types of knowledge.

Science is a distinct type of knowledge and it stands apart from any other type of knowledge. The noun science originates from the Latin verb scire, and translates into knowing objectively, more specifically it is a way of knowing that is systematic, replicable, cumulative and falsifiable . In other words, scientific knowledge is based on careful and comprehensive observation of the data (systematic), collected and analyzed in such a way that others can reproduce the analysis (replicable). Scientific knowledge often evolves over time as multiple methodologies are being used and new data is examined ( cumulative ). Finally, scientific knowledge must be open to questioning and the possibility of being disproven by new data (falsifiable). The election of Donald Trump is one we can begin to understand more completely by looking at careful scientific analysis.

While there are many features of the 2016 presidential election scholars are still studying, a body of scholarship prior to the election provides important insight into Donald Trumps win. Headlines explaining Trumps victory immediately after the election suggest that Trump won because of the economy displaced workers in the new economy found Trumps message

However, scholarly research suggests that Trumps election can be better explained by examining the cultural stressors pushing voters toward populist appeals. Inglehart and Norris, for example, use multiple methodologies, and they provide compelling evidence that in both the US and Europe economic concerns of voters are trumped (pun intended) by fears raised by the perceived erosion of stature and identity, especially among traditional white voters, by increasing immigration, perceived loosening of traditional moral values and policies promoting gender and marriage equality.

A careful reading of the journalistic report cited by Luhby of CNN Money would raise red flags in a student such as yourself who is (soon to be) well trained in research methodology. Political scientists and other statisticians KNOW that the 49 percent to 46 percent difference in reported voter support for Trumps versus Clintons ability to handle the economy is well within the range of a typical margin of error , the difference between the sample and the population value when only a sample of people are surveyed. A margin of error is applied to the spread of the percentages reported, meaning that a +/3 percent margin of error applied to these percentages could mean that the actual poll results could be a virtual tie (49% to 49%) or as large a difference as 52 percent (49% + 3%) to 43 percent (46% 3%), or could be flipped (46% for Trump and 49% for Clinton). All of these statistics are very different in terms of potential electoral consequences, but all within the margin of error. In this particular case, the report presented on CNN Money is even more difficult to interpret accurately as, unlike in a scholarly, scientific study, no information is provided to the reader on how the data was collected (it was simply reported that it was a CNN exit poll), what the sample size and margin of error was, and whether it included a true random sample of the population , where no member of the population has any more chance than another of being included. Thus, this study is non-scientific in nature in large part because it is neither systematic, verifiable nor replicable , at least in regard to the form in which we the readers see it online.

But, we are still left with the question: Have political scientists, who point to the cultural influences on Trump voters, discovered the absolute truth about why Donald Trump won the 2016 election? Scientists would caution that scientific findings do not indicate absolute certainty if that is what we mean by truths. Instead, scientists tell us that any scientific knowledge is in fact tentative. Scientists have ensured themselves job security in the fact that it is an enterprise based on continual investigation of new data in new ways. As the evidence accumulates we certainly feel more confident about our conclusions, but any good scientist knows that their conclusions could one day be disproven by the accumulation of contrary scientific evidence. That is why most of us find science such fun! We are constantly exploring our surroundings, making careful observations and testing and re-testing our hunches in a search for knowledge and understanding of the complex and interesting world in which we live.