Empirical-Analytical Approaches in the Social Sciences (Macrolevel)

Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism is "a framework for building a theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability". Such parts of the whole system may vary in terms of functions but they are all related to each other. lnterdependent as they are, they all have one goal and that is to maintain or keep the whole system, at least in its present form. lt follows therefore that the working of one part would have effects on the other parts.

Structural functionalism was developed by Talcott Parsons in the 1930s under the influence of the works of Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. lt emphasizes social structure, "any relatively stable pattern of social behavior'' and social functions, "the consequences of any social pattern for the operation of society as a whole". Examples of social structure are the family, government, religion;education, and economy. Social structure shapes our lives in various contexts such as the family, the workplace, classroom, and community; and all social structure functions to keep society going, at least in its present form.

Robert Merton (1910-2003) expanded the concept of social function by arguing that any social structure may have many functions. He distinguished between manifest functions, "the recognized and intended consequences of any social pattern" and latent functions, the unrecognized and unirrtended consequences of any social pattern." Merton recognized that the effects or outcomes of social structure are not all necessarily good and not necessarily good for everyone. He coined the term "social dysfunction."

"Robert Merton"

A social dysfunction is "any social pattern that may disrupt the operation of society"

The structural-functional approach built on the following premises:

1. Within every social structure or system--politics, family, organizations--each member of the system has a specific function.
2. Those functions can be small or substantial, are dynamic in nature (i.e., they can change), and work toward the same purpose: to keep the system operational within its environment.
3. Change is evident within any society or system; however for the system to survive, it must adapt to that change in order to maintain its equilibrium.

To maintain the equilibrium of the system, Parsons identified four imperatives for societies to survive, which he called the AGIL model, the acronym stands for the first letter of each of these four imperatives. These are:

• Adaptation: acquiring and mobilizing sufficient resources so that the system can survive.
• Goal Attainment: setting and implementing goals
• Integration: maintaining solidarity or coordination among the subunits of the system
• Latency: creating, preserving, and transmitting the system's distinctive culture and values.

Institutionalism

The institutional approach can be understood as a subject matter, as a method, and as a theory. As a subject matter, the study of political institutions is central to the identity of the discipline of political science. 

To Quote Rhodes, "If there is any subject matter at all that political scientist can claim exclusively for their own, a subject matter that does not require acquisition of the analytical tools of sister fields and that sustains their claim to autonomous existence, it is, of course, formal-legal political structure". 

Public administration, a sub-discipline within political science, has the study of institutions as its key characteristics. William Robson, describes the dominant approach in public administration as institutional. As a method, the traditional or classic institutional approach is "descriptive, inductive, formal-legal, and historical-comparative". As a theory, the  traditional or classic institutional approach does not only make statements about the causes and consequences of political institutions. 

• Roy Macridis, a comparativist in political science, critiques the approach's subject matter and method while focusing on the study of comparative government. The historical methods and legal analysis of the classic institutional approach are inadequate. 
• David Easton, the most influential critic of the traditional study of politics, found the classic institutional approach wanting on two grounds.

• First, the analysis of law and institutions could not explain policy or power because it did not cover all the relevant variables. Second, 'hyperfactualism', or reverence for the fact, meant that the political scientist suffered from 'theoretical malnutrition', neglecting 'the general framework within which these facts could acquire meaning. 

• Other critics noted that the approach was concerned with the institutions of government, and yet operated with a restricted understanding of its subject matter.

By the 1980s,   the traditional or classic institutional approach has declined in its importance in political science. In contrast to the traditional or classic institutional approach, now referred to as the "old institutionalism", new institutionalism has a much broader, yet sophisticated definition of its subject matter.