# data[].attributes.body
Feminism : Interpretative Turn

First, if we are to define feminism, the idea that comes together on a common ground is that the position of women in society is unequal. The idea that feminism opposes is that men and women are naturally unequal. As Vicky Randall says that rather than maintain that ''feminism offers a coherent account or meta-theory of its own … it is more appropriately viewed as a developing dialogue around a common but evolving agenda''.

There are four waves of feminism. First-wave feminism had a fairly simple goal: to have society recognize that women are humans, not property. While in the second wave of feminism, Three main types of feminism emerged: mainstream/liberal, radical, and cultural. Mainstream feminism focused on institutional reforms, which meant reducing gender discrimination, giving women access to male-dominated spaces, and promoting equality. Radical feminism wanted to reshape society entirely, saying that the system was inherently patriarchal, and only an overhaul would bring liberation. It resisted the belief that men and women were basically the same. Cultural feminism had a similar view and taught that there’s a “female essence” that’s distinct from men. In the third wave of feminism, they were able to think about other aspects of their identity, welcoming individuality and rebellion. This was an era of reclaiming. When the internet became more commonplace, it was even easier to hear perspectives and ideas from feminists around the world. Feminism was expanding. Some people say that we are still in the third wave, but many believe that we’re living in a new wave. Social media activism has propelled the movement firmly into the technological age. It builds on the third wave’s emphasis on inclusivity and asks hard questions about what empowerment, equality, and freedom really mean.

There are many challenges for gender politics. The first challenge is to continue to gender political science research. The second challenge is of incorporating the concept of gender into quantitative research. A third challenge is that of comparison and its role in theory building. But still, the achievements of feminist political science have been substantial, making important contributions to the study of both ''women in politics'' and ''gender and politics''.

Utku Burak KATIPOGLU - 150110029

# data[].attributes.body
According to the constructivist theory, people; act or not according to their norms, beliefs, ideas, identities, or how they perceive the world. Thanks to these identities, environments, and relationships, people form their own making worlds/groups and form a social construct. But, they address different levels of action. They draw on many kinds of methods, from interpretive ethnography and process-tracing narrative to conventional comparisons and even quantitative studies. There are also 2 arguments from Max Weber, explanation and understanding. The explanation is an argument on a causal level, and understanding is about the level of meaning. But in recent years, the Explanation/Understanding line has attracted much criticism. Those are debatable definitions.

It is important to see that non-interpretive theories like Marxism, realism in International Relations, or the variety of rational choice theories do not claim that people have no ideas, norms, identities, or culture. Instead, they claim that we arrived at our apparent ideas, norms, and identities by the more or less rational and objective process. Thus, non-constructivists argue that ideas and norms are not ‘constitutive’ of anything. Both sides agree that people have some ideas in their heads and social norms around them. The debate is about whether people arrived at these ideas or norms as a roughly rational reaction to objective conditions or through a process of social construction. However, Constructivists root their arguments in contingency. They say certain people faced an indeterminate set of real conditions and only arrived at a course of action as they adopted certain social constructs. In addition, the crucial point is that there is no single constructivist idea. There are lots of debates and variations with different methods.

We must recognize that the Understanding/Explanation distinction, the Causal line, and the basic problem of observers’ subjectivity shift our focus away from causal explanation and social science. Briefly, constructivists explain the world as a function of a ‘landscape’ of ideas, norms, identities, and practices.

Utku Burak KATİPOĞLU - 150110029

# data[].attributes.body
BEHAVIORISTS

There are three main branches of Behavioral Analysis. These are; Conceptual Behavior Analysis, Experimental Behavior Analysis, and Applied Behavior Analysis. The central questions that behaviorists seek to answer are simple: what do the actors involve actually do? How can we best explain why they do it? Behaviorism’s view of the nature of empirical theory and of explanation was strongly influenced by the positivist tradition. Empirical theory tests and defines abstract statements through hypotheses of phenomena. Explanation, on the other hand, offers a causal explanation of these phenomena. Implications are important.

There are three main ways for positivists and behaviorists that theory can be evaluated. A good theory must be internally consistent. There is no place for making statements. Also, it should be consistent with other theories that explain associated phenomena. Lastly, it must be capable of making empirical predictions against observations. Behavioral research can make a considerable theoretical and empirical contribution to the understanding and explanation of social behavior. For behaviorists, the main purpose of social scientific inquiry is to explain behavior at individual and aggregate levels. The central questions that behaviorists ask are: Why do individuals, institutional actors, and nation-states behave the way they do? And what are the consequences of their actions? According to these people, although reality exists somewhere, we need to explain it with a causal theory. Therefore, they draw attention to the importance of empirical theory and tests.

RATIONAL CHOICE

The rational choice theory states that individuals rely on rational calculations to make rational choices that result in outcomes aligned with their own best interests. People can be relied upon to act in ways that best secure their goals, and these goals reflect their self-interest. But, there are also six criticisms/objections against the rational choice theory. People are not rational. People are not selfish. The rational choice theory ignores individual agency and ideas. Rational choice has a very poor empirical record. It depends upon equilibrium explanations. It is a political project.

Utku Burak KATIPOGLU - 150110029

# data[].attributes.body
As a start, there is a figure in our textbook, and we can see that positivism and realism are categorized under the name of Foundationalism (Ontology). On the other side, Interpretive is under the name of Anti-Foundationalism (Ontology). As methodologies, Positivism uses Quantitative, privileged; Realism uses both quantitative, and qualitative and lastly, interpretivism uses qualitative, privileged. Those three are Epistemologies. Ontological and epistemological issues are inevitably related, given that epistemology is concerned with how human agents can ask about, and make sense of, ontology. But, the relationship between ontology and epistemology is a contested issue. There are many arguments about this issue from various people.

For positivism, like realism, the world exists independent of our knowledge of it, unlike interpretivism. To many extents, realists and positivists share the same ideas. They see natural science and social science are broadly analogous. We can establish a regular relationship between social phenomena with a hypothesis that can be tested by direct observation. Social science aims to make causal statements, to establish causal relationships between social phenomena. Realists agree upon that, while interpretivists deny the possibility of such statements. Direct observation is important and it can be objective. Positivists thought that the goal of social science was to pursue empirical questions, and it is possible to separate.

Realists are foundationalists like positivists. They say the world exists independently of our knowledge of it. Like positivists, realists say that a causal statement can be made. However, unlike positivists, realists contend that not all social phenomena, and the relationships between them, are directly observable. There are deep structures that cannot be observed, and what can be observed may offer a false picture of those phenomena/structures and their effects. Unlike two others, realists believe that it would acknowledge the utility of both quantitative and qualitative data.

Interpretivism is distinctly different from positivism. It is related to feminism and institutionalism. Unlike positivists, the social phenomenon cannot be understood independently of our interpretation of them. It is the interpretations/ meanings of social phenomena. They say that social scientists are not privileged. As a result, objective analysis is unachievable. Thus, quantitative methods can be blunt instruments and may produce misleading data. So, we need to use qualitative methods to help us establish how people understand their world.

Utku Burak KATİPOĞLU - 150110029

# data[].attributes.body
"Is political science a science? If yes, why? If not, why not?"

There are different views that argue that Political Science is a science and that it is not. I think that political science is a science. Of course, this science is not like basic/natural sciences such as math, physics, biology etc. Political Science; It is a social science branch like sociology, psychology and philosophy. This branch of science is not about physical research and experiments; It is about collecting data, analyzing it, revealing relationships and facts. Many conclusions can be reached by using other tools such as mathematics and statistics. Since this term of the science of politics emerged in not too distant times, definite and sharp conclusions should not be drawn. For this reason, it can be said that it is dynamic and very suitable for progress. Because today's conditions, human relations, management styles of states and leaders are constantly changing from a global perspective. It is a science that analyzes theories, behaviors and practices with different researches and includes many research areas such as international relations.
With the development of information technologies, as a result of easily collecting data from all over the world and doing research with qualitative and quantitative methods, the subject that politics is a science becomes stronger. It studies those with very empirical way. Develops a theory and hypothesis, searches the literature, collects data, designs research, and presents data analysis and results. These steps further support that it is science. This process involves a lot of planning and practice. The steps are taken academically and known to everyone. In this way, reliability increases, doubt decreases. It should not be a case that a branch of science will only examine people physically. Behaviors and thoughts should also be considered a science when studied in the same way. Not everything has to be materialistic. For many of these reasons, I personally think that political science is a science.

Utku Burak KATIPOGLU - 150110029