خلاصة:
Supporters of explanationism are extreme about the ultimate goal of political study and the consequences of the principle of causality. This group of researchers' tendency towards law-like analogies from empirical matters makes it more difficult to understand the complexity of political phenomena and developments. The purpose of writing this article is to criticize this view and defend an explanatory method that gives more importance to descriptive aspects, considers historical frameworks and requirements, and is not solely based on borrowing from natural sciences. In this regard, the concept of "causality" in its common meaning in political science has been criticized. Finally, the author states that the time has come to abandon formal-argumentative methods of explanation and that a combination of explanation and interpretation will yield better results.
ملخص الجهاز:
The purpose of this article is to criticize this view and defend an explanatory method that gives more importance to descriptive aspects, considers historical frameworks and requirements, and is not solely based on borrowing from the natural sciences.
Introduction Several years of teaching in “Research Methods” and “Methodology” classes at various university levels in the field of political science gradually made me realize that many consider scientific research possible only within the framework of “Explanation” (Explanation) in its conventional sense.
Of course, proponents of explanation in its conventional sense, in political science, do not settle for these two rules and, in the next stage, talk about order and regulation (Regulation) in the causal relationship.
” Humeanism in the discussion of causality in political science was interpreted as meaning that in analyzing political phenomena, one should not settle for description but go beyond it and try to provide an explanation of the role of forces and processes effective in the formation of political events.
The dominance of positivist approaches in political science has often led to “scientific explanation” and “causal explanation” being used as synonyms, and the main goal of scientific research is considered to be explaining and predicting observable phenomena based on observational or experimental laws.
Conventional explanatory approaches consider establishing this functional relationship as a condition for achieving knowledge and do not exclude the humanities, including political science, from this rule.
Conventional theories of explanation do not establish a correct relationship between action and causality, and as a result, an important part of the human agent’s concept in politics is lost.
(
, 
, 
)
