METHODOLOGY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

By Famous S. Eseduwo, PhD

CONTENTS
 The Concept of Epistemology (The Theory of Knowledge)
 Different Methods of acquiring Knowledge.
 Major Approaches to the Study of Political Science e.g. classical/traditional approach,
systems approach, behavioural approach, radical/Marxist approach, etc.
 Political Science Methods of Inquiry e.g. the observational or inductive and deductive
methods, the comparative method, the analytical method, the statistical or quantitative
and qualitative methods, the scientific method, etc.
 Theory and data in political science i.e. the inseparability of theory and data in political
research, criteria for accepting a theory, major components of a political science theory.
_______________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Political scientists employ combinations of approaches and methods in their inquiries. It is
imperative, therefore, for political science students to understand the theory of knowledge and
the different methods of acquiring knowledge in order to use same in the application of the
different approaches and methods in the investigation of political phenomena. As a result, this
section discusses the concept of epistemology and the different methods of acquiring it; the
different methods and approaches of political science inquiry; as well as the characteristics of a
political science theory and data. At the end of the discourse, students are expected to understand
and explain the following significant aspects of political science methodology: (i) the meaning of
the theory of knowledge (epistemology), and the different methods of acquiring knowledge as
well as their limitations; (ii) the difference between methods and approaches as well as their
usefulness in political science inquiry; (iii) the limitations of political science in the application
of the experimental method in the same degree with the natural sciences. In all, students are
expected to develop the habits of thinking systematically about politics; and learn how to
practice the required skills for the study of politics.
______________________________________________________________________________
The Concept of Epistemology (The Theory of knowledge)
Epistemology is the ‘theory of knowledge’. It is concerned with the prediction, acquisition,
creation, testing, and utilization of knowledge as well as the filtering and attendant discarding of
outdated knowledge. Knowledge here refers to idea, information, facts, truth, data, awareness,
and so on. The concept of epistemology, therefore, enables us to: (a) know the stock of past and
current information; (b) test the current information; (c) predict likely future occurrences; and
(d) it represents the dynamic view of knowledge i.e. knowledge is dynamic. As Ake (1981:3) in
his work, A political Economy of Africa, while emphasizing the dynamic character of reality,

1
aptly described the World as neither simple identities nor discrete elements or static. As a result,
Ake (1981:3) in his dialectical materialism method admonish us to think of the World in terms of
continuity and relatedness and with keen awareness that this continuity is essentially very
complex and also problematic. In sum, to understand and explain the complex problems of
society, political scientists are required to look at the World, dialectically. This is where the
‘theory of knowledge’ comes in. If epistemology is the theory of ‘knowing’, then how do we
know what we know? We now turn to the different methods of acquiring knowledge.
______________________________________________________________________________
Different Methods of acquiring knowledge
We know what we know through the following methods:
(1) Tenacity
(2) Authority
(3) Intuition
(4) Science

1. Tenacity: - This is one method of acquiring knowledge whereby people hold on firmly to
an idea simply because that is the only alternative knowledge available. Such idea or
body of knowledge is not evaluated by adherents e.g. the concept of given a befitting
burial to our late relatives, circumcision (especially the mutilation of the female sexual
organ), the idea that thrones are sacrilegious, the idea of hereditary thrones, the idea of
patriarchy, and so on.
2. Authority: - As a method of acquiring knowledge is an improvement on the method of
tenacity. In the authority method the idea is traceable to some authority on a subject or
issue. In this case, arguments and/or evaluations are permitted but reference must be
made to a recognized authority such as religious authorities as enshrined in the Bible, the
Koran, and so on. We also have international, national and local priests. Also in this
category are legal luminaries, physicists and literary gurus. Certain individuals and
groups can challenge and discard other authorities. This, therefore, places serious
limitations on authority as a source of knowledge.
3. Intuition: - This is another method of acquiring knowledge whereby persons create
knowledge or ideas on their own. Acquisition of knowledge here is spontaneous.
Knowledge through intuition depends on past experience. For instance, adherents of
intuitional knowledge often argue thus: ‘this is how it has been done over the years’. In
this method of acquiring knowledge, there is no empirical data to carry out empirical test.
Thus, this is the major limitation to intuition as a method of acquiring knowledge or idea.
4. Science: - This is the formalized and systematized method employed by scientists in
carrying out investigations. It is sequential and consists of clearly spelt out steps in
solving identifiable problems. For any research to be scientific it must fulfill the
following conditions or steps:
 A problem must be identified
 Objective(s) of the study must be known
 Hypotheses and/or propositions must be formulated from existing theories
 Data must be collected
2
  Data must be presented and analyzed
 Data must be synthesized and/or hypotheses tested/discussed
 Stated hypotheses must be Confirmed or refuted.
______________________________________________________________
Approaches to the Study of Political Science
Every political reality has different perspectives or angles. For instance, if we are required to
examine the Nigerian voters’ behaviour in the 2010 presidential election in the six geopolitical
zones in Nigeria, we need to look at it from different angles such as historical, sociological,
psychological, economic, religious, geographical, political, and so on. It is after undergoing the
rigors of finding and selecting the appropriate perspective or a combination of perspectives that
we can contextualize the regional voters’ behaviour in the last presidential election to enable us
raise relevant questions for such study.

An approach to political inquiry, therefore, is not only a strategy for studying political
phenomena but also an angle to look at a political problem under study. As Dyke (1960 as
quoted in Gauba 2003:79) rightly stated that the term approach consists of criteria of selection
i.e. criteria employed in selecting the questions to ask and the data to bring to bear in political
inquiry. It contains standards governing the inclusion and exclusion question and data. This
implies that whilst one approach may require historical data, another may emphasize economic
data and the next one religious data on the same political phenomenon under examination. Thus,
an approach enables political scientists to breakdown a political question into measurable
portions and concentrates on specific aspects of political phenomena with a view to defining the
context for which a phenomenon is to be studied. Dyke (1960) while remarking on the
distinction between approach and method concluded that approaches denote the criteria for
selecting problems and relevant data, while methods are procedures for getting and utilizing data.

Gauba (2003:79) observed that an approach is usually linked to a particular method while a
method is not always linked to a particular approach. Implicit in the foregoing observation is that
approach comes before method and an appropriate approach suggests the relevant method,
logically. For instance, the behavioural approach is linked to scientific method because the
behaviour of several actors in a political condition deserves a scientific study. In the same token,
the normative approach is linked to philosophical method as norms and values can better be
determined, philosophically. Also, the historical approach and philosophical approach call for the
use of historical method and philosophical method, respectively. Again, the empirical approach
to the study of political phenomena leads us to political analysis e.g. systems analysis, structural-
functional analysis, decision-making analysis, and so on. In sum, approaches to the study of
political science are lenses used by political scientists for focusing on specific aspects of politics
and society. We now turn to some of the major approaches to the study of politics.

Traditional Approaches
Political science has an age-old tradition. Several approaches have been employed in this regard.
Generally, the approaches which endured till the end of the World War II (1939-1945) are

3
referred to as traditional approaches. Traditional approaches, therefore, represent classical
approaches to the study of politics though arguably not outdated in all ramifications. As Ball
(1988) aptly argued that the use of the label traditional is neither a criticism nor a refutation of
the obvious fact that they still play important roles in modern political studies. However, Gauba
(2003:80) noted that the traditional approaches are no longer favoured by the adherents of
contemporary approaches, yet it is very difficult to furnish any comprehensive list of traditional
and contemporary approaches. This implies that there is no water-tight boundary between the
two categories of approaches. Nonetheless, it has been argued that one of the major distinctions
between the two groups of approaches is that traditional approaches focus on values while
contemporary approaches focus on facts. This argument is still on, yet, not convincingly won by
the supporters of contemporary approaches. Nevertheless, of a fact, the traditional study of
politics was dominated by the study of philosophy, history, law and institutions (Gauba
2003:80). As a result, traditional approaches encompass philosophical, historical, institutional
and legal approaches. Let us look at these traditional or classical approaches, briefly.
(i) Philosophical Approach: - It is concerned with the clarification of concepts used in a
particular discipline towards ascertaining clarity of conceptions of reality i.e. to arrive
at consistent and lucid explanations about political phenomena. The philosophical
approach also aims at evolving standards of right and wrongs for the purpose of
evaluation of existing institutions, legislations and/or policies. In sum, the
philosophical approach seeks truth through the use of reason and the truth in search
may be normative, descriptive and/or prescriptive. This approach assumes that values
and facts are tied, inextricably so as philosophy and political science. As a result, the
philosophical approach is imperative for a critical and coherent analysis of political
institutions and activities in quest for a better society. And that without such analysis,
assumptions regarding political phenomena take the character of opinions.
(ii) Historical Approach: - This approach emphasizes on the process of arriving at the
principles guiding politics through an analysis of past events. This is in line with the
theories of Hegel, ‘zeitgeist’ (the spirit of the time); and Marx, ‘historical
materialism’. These two classic theorists argued that things do not happen by
accident; everything has a cause (Roskin and Cord 2010:26). However, Hegel argued
that the underlying cause that moves history forward is spiritual, whilst Marx
contended that the greatest underlying cause is economics.
(iii) Institutional Approach: - This approach is concerned with the study of the state and
government the institutions and various organs such as the legislature, executive,
judiciary, political parties, and so on.
(iv) Legal Approach: - This refers to an attempt to understand politics in terms of law and
policies.

Empirical and Normative Approaches

Contemporary political science gives preference to empirical approach in spite of the fact that
traditional study of politics was dominated by normative approach. The major concern of the
empirical approach is fact i.e. ‘it is so’, while that of normative approach is value i.e. ‘it ought to
be so’. Empirical approach is scientific and descriptive in nature while the normative approach is

4
critical and prescriptive. Empiricism is based on sense-experience and logic whilst normative
approach is based on speculation and logic. In sum, the criterion of validity for an empiricist is
true or false while that of a normative thinker is right or wrong. It implies that some features of
empirical and normative approaches can be found both in the traditional and contemporary
approaches.

Contemporary Approaches
Basically, contemporary approaches to the study of politics denote a departure from traditional
approaches. This is evident in the following two major characteristics of most contemporary
approaches:
 Creating a separate identity of political science by focusing on the real character of
politics.
 Trying to understand politics in totality, transcending its formal aspects and looking for
those aspects of social life which influence and are influenced by politics.

According to Gauba (2003:88), contemporary approaches are legion and all of them may not
fulfill the foregoing characteristics. Nonetheless, the major contemporary approaches to the
study of politics include: behavioural approach, post-behavioural approach, and some models of
political analysis such as systems analysis, structural-functional analysis, decision-making
analysis, Marxian analysis, etc. let us look at them, briefly.

Behavioural Approach
The behavioural approach to the study of political science basically refers to the empirical study
of actual human behaviour instead of abstract theories. It derives its foundations from
Philosopher Auguste Comte’s doctrine of Positivism which theorized that society can be studied
scientifically and incrementally improved with the knowledge gained (Roskin and Cord
2010:28). Behaviouralists, therefore, concentrate on actual behaviour rather than thoughts or
feelings. In the 1950s, Behaviouralists started gathering statistics from elections, public-opinion
surveys and so on in numerical terms and used same to test, confirm or refute hypotheses for
political studies. The behavioural approach to the study of politics records its highest
achievements in dismantling the age-old tradition of using unexamined assumptions and as such,
boosts an empirical culture in political theory. In truth, the behavioural approach emanated as a
response to the falling standards of political science research results compared to results of
studies of natural sciences that evolve around experimentalism.

Post-behavioural Approach
This denotes a paradigm shift of focus in political inquiry from the strict adherent to
methodological issues to a greater concern with public responsibilities of political scientists, vis-
à-vis political problem-solving. The post-behavioural approach to the study of political science,
therefore, is a synthesis of the traditional, behavioural, and other approaches. It calls for the
combination of relevance and action as well as the consolidation of political science gains for
problem-solving and crisis-management. Post-Behaviouralists argued that methodology without
problem-solving will reduce Behaviouralists and/or intellectuals to mere technicians or

5
mechanics for tinkering with society (Kuhn, 1962; Strauss, 1957; etc). The post-behavioural
approach reminds intellectuals their avowed responsibility to reshape society in their task and
quest to identifying, defining and explanation of reality. In sum, Post-Behaviouralism seeks the
reintroduction of the concern for values in the behavioural approach and synchronizes value and
empiricism in the enquiry of political reality. The distinction between Behavioral Approach (BA)
and Post-Behavioral Approach (PBA) is succinctly expressed in table 1.

Table 2: Distinction between BA and PBA

S/NO Variable Behavioural Post-Behavioural Approach
Approach
1. Nature of Inquiry Search for knowledge Search for applied knowledge and
and theory practice
2. Purpose of Study Knowledge for Relevance of knowledge to satisfy
knowledge sake – Not social needs and action for problem-
interested in action or solving
political problem-
solving
3. Focus of Study Micro-level analysis – Macro-level analysis – Focus on the
Focus on small units – role of big units.
Process of decision-
making
Source: Adapted from Gauba (2003).

Some Models of Political Analysis

Apart from the behavioural and post-behavioural approaches, contemporary approaches to the
study of politics also encompass the following models of political analysis: systems analysis,
structural-functional analysis, and so on. A model is a simplified image of an idea. Political
scientists develop models for the ordering of data, and to hypothesize and predict. Let us also
look at some of them, briefly.
Systems Analysis
David Easton devised the political systems model. The systems model of political analysis
initiated a simplified view of reality and created the understanding of society as a system of
interactions through which binding and/or authoritative decisions are made and implemented.
The model sees the political system as existing within an environment of other systems e.g.
social, economic, cultural, physical, biological, legal, religious systems, and so on. And that the
political system is affected by these systems and it also affects them through continuous
interactions. Easton (1957:383-400) sees policy as a product of the political system and the
output is perceived as the result of different environmental variables responded to by the political
system. The Eastonian systems framework of analysis encapsulates the political system as an
arena of political activity essentially involving inputs from the environment by way of demand
and support that require output from the political system. The demands are the articulated and
sometimes unarticulated needs, problems and aspirations brought to the fore of the political
system. The support encompasses of law-abiding attitudes demonstrating loyalty to the political
system, overtly and/or covertly. And the political system consists of institutions, processes and
human capital. It is the political system that processes and converts the inputs from the
6
environment into outputs (policies) back to the environment. As a model of political analysis,
systems analysis, therefore, sees the political system as a leading actor in an input-throughput-
output process. The theory captured the authoritative position of the political system in the
interaction of the actors involved in the input-output process. It exposes the political system’s
involvement in the authoritative allocations of values. These authoritative allocations or outputs
from the political system are the public policies. The strength of systems analysis model is its
insight into the whole gamut of the policy-making process and the exposition of the interactions
between the actors. Its assumptions of public policies generally emanating from inputs from the
public and public policies as responses to these inputs may be an over-simplification of the
reality of public policy-making, particularly in developing countries. As Dye (1972:267) aptly
argued that, “the supposition that public preferences affect public policy is a myth. Rather
governments mold public opinion in support of the policies it espouses. As a result, sometimes, it
is not the public input that is converted, however public policy is the outcome of the
characteristics, interrelations, values, bargaining and preferences within the political system
itself. The political system therefore cannot be seen only as the converter of inputs to outputs but
also as a major source of policy outputs. The systems model, therefore, left a number of
questions for further enquiry, viz: what is the actual relationship between public input and public
policies? Did public input and the characteristics of the political system affect the content of
public policy? How the content of a public policy affects the implementation of the policy?
However, the model is one of the most employed ones by political scientists in the inquiry of
political phenomena.

Structural-Functional Model
Gabriel Almond first propounded the structural-functional model. The model is very useful for
comparative analysis of political systems. The major tenets of the model include: (i) That, every
political system performs definite functions that are part of the input and output functions of any
political systems; (ii) That, on the input plane such functions like interest articulation and interest
aggregation are prominent, whilst on the output plane, functions like policy-making, policy
implementation, and policy adjudication are feasible. (iii) That, there is also the function of
political communication to keep informed all interacting actors within and outside the political
system. (iv) Finally, there is the function of systems maintenance and adaptation through
political socialization and recruitment of more people. The structural-functional model assumed
that the functioning or non-functioning of any political system can be examined in terms of the
capabilities of that system i.e. the way such political system performs as a unit in its milieu. This
model of political analysis, therefore, creates the understanding of the workings of the different
institutions of government through their various structures and attendant functions.

We also have the decision-making model, the group model, etc. We will come to this later.
Political Science Methods of Inquiry
Like the natural sciences, physics, chemistry, and so on, have developed a number of mechanical
devices for studying their phenomena, political science has also adopted proper procedures for
the study of politics. Although, political science does not have such instruments like the
microscope as in biological sciences and/or the telescope as in astronomical sciences, etc., for
7
carrying out a systematic study of the various human interests/behaviour, institutions and
processes of the state, but it possessed scientific methods as quasi-microscopic procedures for the
inquiry of political phenomenon. As Dyke (1969:179-187) aptly summarized that the term
methods of political inquiry denotes processes for acquiring and treating data. Thus, as
approaches to the study of politics provide the perspective to inquire so as political science
methods are concerned with the processes of inquiry i.e. how and where to collect, analyze and
interpret data (information).

There are several political science methods of inquiry and these include: the observational or
inductive and deductive methods, the comparative method, analytical method, the statistical or
quantitative and qualitative methods, and the scientific method. Let us look at these methods,
briefly.

The Observational or Inductive and Deductive Methods

Earlier, political scientists based their theories on a priori assumptions i.e. drawing conclusions
from premises presumed to be infallible. It was the advent of new discoveries during the
Renaissance and attendant increase in the search for reality that impelled political scientists to
observe, collect and analyze facts about the actual workings of the state, governments and their
institutions. The observational method of political inquiry was first employed by Plato and
Aristotle (Mahajan 2012:54). It was the duo that first visited several countries and closely
studied the socioeconomic and political conditions and then propounded certain principles of
political science. The observational method, therefore, is central to political science as the
experimental method is to the natural sciences. It is a method of investigation that sees the main
laboratory for the real workings of political institutions as not the library but the outside world of
political life. Thus, we observe the actions of others by looking at them and listening to them as
they talk. We infer what others mean when they say something, and we infer the characteristics,
motivations, feelings and intentions of others on the basis of observation (Kerlinger, 1964:537).
However, the caution in using the observational method is that when the facts are very many and
often conflicting, it requires expertise to draw sound conclusions.

The observational method can be inductive or deductive. It is inductive when it seeks to establish
reality by observation and it is deductive when it attempts to draw conclusions from premises
that are taken as given. The deductive method is basically logical whilst the inductive method is
both logical and empirical.

The Comparative Method

The comparative method essentially seeks the identification of similarities and differences
between and/or amongst political phenomena for the formation and classification of concepts.
Proponents of this method assumed that by comparing and contrasting political events,
institutions of government, processes, feelings, experiences, expectations, results and resultant
effects, the phenomena observed become clearer and this stimulates a better understanding of
concepts and symbols employed in the study of politics. It is the comparative method that has
grown to major branches of comparative politics, comparative government, comparative

8
administration, and so on in the political science discipline. The comparative method is one of
the widely used methods in political science.

The Analytical Method

This method seeks the determination of different aspects of the phenomenon under examination
and to explain their interrelationship as well as how they are inextricably fitted in an indivisible
whole.

The Statistical or Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

Statistical or quantitative methods refer to those methods that require measuring and/or counting
of data in numerical and other scales of measurements. It encompasses the proper identification,
definition of counted items to allow replication of the processes of inquiry. For instance, the
characteristics of respondents for a particular study can be statistically given as in table 1.
Table 2: Sample of Statistical Data on Characteristics of Respondents
Sex No. of Respondent Status
Respondents
Junior Staff Senior Staff Mgt. Staff Policy-
(SGL 01-06) (SGL 07-14) SGL 15-17) Maker
(Political
Office
Holder)

Male 80 (67%) 32 (40%) 25 (31%) 15 (19%) 8 (10%)

Female 40 (33%) 19 (48%) 13 (33%) 6 (15%) 2 (5%)

Totals 120 (100%) 51 (43%) 38 (32%) 21 (18%) 10 (8%)

Source: Field Work (2011)

The quantitative method is one of the most recent and useful methods for political inquiry and as
such, very popular in contemporary political studies. It is very useful to studies on political
parties, voters’ behaviour, public opinion, comparative issues, and so on. However, we must be
careful while using the statistical method, especially in the collection and utilization of data in
order to remedy the possibility of collecting wrong information and attendant wrong decision-
making with such wrongly supplied data.

In contrast, the qualitative method basically relies on the logical aptitude, discernment (right
sense of judgment) or perception, or mindset or intuition or impression and analytical skills of
the researcher to generate data and establish relationships. That is why qualitative studies are
more difficult to replicate than quantitative studies. Of a fact, it is difficult to know how a
qualitative researcher arrived at its conclusions due to the high degree of freedom (discretion)
he/she enjoys in the process of data collection. The quantitative researcher identifies, defines and
counts his/her labels as well as documents the processes for easy verification/replication by any
other researcher(s).
9
The Scientific Method
The scientific method as earlier discussed involves a systematic and step-by-step process of
political inquiry. In sum, this method basically seeks: (i) the statement of the problem to be
investigated; (ii) the objectives of the study; (iii) the formulation of hypotheses i.e. making
tentative statements about the link between and/or amongst variables to be examined; (iv) the
collection of data towards testing the formulated hypotheses i.e. gathering information to prove
or disprove the tentatively stated link between and/or amongst variables ; (v) the presentation and
analysis of data collected; (v) the synthesizing of data and testing of hypotheses for confirmation
or disconfirmation.

In conclusion, it is a combination of two or more methods of inquiry that often makes a more
valid and reliable study of political phenomena. Students and scholars of political science,
therefore, must be always conscious of the evaluative and analytical task ahead of them while
making choice(s) on the appropriate method(s) to the inquiry of political questions.

Theory and Data in Political Science

Political research revolves around theory and data. Theories, therefore, must be relevant to data
i.e. evidence. At a glance, a theory is a body of knowledge systematically put together that is
amenable to verification. This implies that it is of no value to use a theory that is not open to test.
Theory and data reinforce each other i.e. theory reinforces data and vice versa. Thus, theory and
data are inseparable in political inquiry. We now turn to the ways theory and data are
inextricably tied together.

The Inseparability of Theory and Data in Political Research

Broadly, theory and data in political science research are inseparable in two ways. These are: (i)
The accumulation of data or fact without a solid theoretical perspective is incapable of
establishing a causal relationship between and/or amongst variables. In other words, theoretical
analysis that do not conform to or supported by empirical evidence or data is at best a mere
academic exercise without practical relevance; and (ii) A theory, therefore, can be defined as a
set of systematically related propositions specifying causal relationships between and/or amongst
variables. It can also be said to be a set of interrelated concepts, definitions and propositions that
present a systematic view of a phenomenon by specifying relations between and/or amongst
variables or predicting variables or issues. For a theory to be acceptable, therefore, it must fulfill
some specific criteria. This we now turn to.

Criteria for Accepting a Theory

There are at least five major criteria for accepting a theory as good and these include:
 There must be a logical consistency i.e. there should be no discernible or salient
contradictions.
 All parts of a theory must be interrelated i.e. all statements of fact must be closely related
(statements about a phenomenon).

10
  All statements should be exhaustive i.e. the statements should cover the full range of
variations concerning the nature of the phenomenon or issue.
 The proposition should be mutually exclusive i.e. no repetition or duplication of
statements.
 All the propositions must be capable of being subjected to empirical verification and/or
scrutiny.

Major Components of a Political Science Theory

A theory comprises the following components:
1. Assumptions and ideas – the untested premises about the nature of a selected aspect of
political life. Assumptions provide the basis for ideas about the nature of political life.
2. Frame of reference – identifies the major dimensions of political life that have been
subjected to empirical scrutiny i.e. carrying out the delineation of the specific areas of
enquiry.
3. Concepts – mental abstractions that serve to organize our taught and experiences into
measurable mental entities. Concepts vary in terms of their precision, scope, clarity and
acceptability.
4. Variables – relational units of analysis that can assume any one number of designated
set(s) of values e.g. sex has male and female; income has low, medium and high; age also
has old, middle and young; education has different levels viz: primary, secondary and
tertiary, and so on.
5. Propositions – statements of relations between and/or amongst variables. They usually
result from empirical measurement of variables. In other words, once an operational
definition is given to a variable it becomes a proposition, for instance, the richer people
are more conservative in society i.e. income and political behaviour have been linked
with a statement.
6. The theory – the systematically related set of propositions specifying causal relationship
amongst variables.

REFERENCES
Anitowose & Enemuwo (eds.) (1999), Elements of Politics, Lagos: Sam: Iroanusi
Publications.

Dyke, V.V. (1969), Political Science: A Philosophical Analysis, Stanford:

Stanford University Press.

Gauba, O.P. (2004), An Introduction to Political Theory (Fourth Edition), New Delhi:
Macmillan.

Mahajan, V.D. (2012), Political Theory, New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Limited,

Roskin and Cord (eds) (2010), Political Science: An Introduction (Eleventh Edition),
United States: Pearson Education, Inc.

11