Final answer:
Normative political science questions are inappropriate for empirical political science because they involve values and moral principles that cannot be quantified or measured empirically. Empirical political science focuses on factual, evidence-based research to describe political realities, whereas normative political science uses reason and logic to discuss what ought to be in the realm of politics.
Step-by-step explanation:
Research questions focusing on normative issues are inappropriate for the empirical study of political science because normative inquiries are concerned with what ought to be, rather than what is observable and measurable. Normative political science, also known as political philosophy, deals with values, ethics, and moral principles regarding politics. It asks questions such as "What is a good citizen?" or "What should governments do?" which are answered using logic and reason, not empirical evidence.
In contrast, empirical political science seeks to understand political realities through observation, data collection, and statistical analysis. It emphasizes factual and evidence-based research to explain how political systems actually operate. Therefore, when empirical researchers study political phenomenon, they avoid making moral or ethical judgments, since these cannot be substantiated through empirical methods.
For example, empirical research might find that a certain policy leads to improved public health outcomes, but whether the policy is morally right would be a conclusion beyond the scope of empirical observation. This is not to say that normative and empirical approaches don't influence each other; empirical findings can inform normative debates, and normative concerns can inspire empirical investigations.