An Intervention on ‘Democracy’ as a Term in Empirical Political Analysis

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Two separate sets of data derived from recent scholarship on the subject are examined to show that the term 'democracy' is problematically used in certain empirical political analyses. The first data set concerns thirty articles published by the journal Political Analysis between the years 2005 and 2010. The second data set is a body of 30 prominent monographs and edited volumes dealing substantively with 'democracy' from the years 2006 to 2011. Twenty-five out of thirty articles in the first data set do not explicitly define what is meant by the use of 'democracy' to the reader. Twenty-nine out of thirty works in the second data set provide subjective conceptualisations of 'democracy' to the reader which is parochial rather than postfoundationally universal. This work proposes that the practice of using a 'disclaimer' is a positive step to solving this problem. When a concept cannot be delivered in a universal framework, it makes a difference to err on the side of caution and make clear to the reader the subjective quality of a term like 'democracy'.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)68-92
    Number of pages25
    JournalPublic Administration and Policy
    Volume15
    Issue number2
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Fingerprint

    democracy

    Cite this

    @article{a982f795a34d4835a81dc8571f2dd382,
    title = "An Intervention on ‘Democracy’ as a Term in Empirical Political Analysis",
    abstract = "Two separate sets of data derived from recent scholarship on the subject are examined to show that the term 'democracy' is problematically used in certain empirical political analyses. The first data set concerns thirty articles published by the journal Political Analysis between the years 2005 and 2010. The second data set is a body of 30 prominent monographs and edited volumes dealing substantively with 'democracy' from the years 2006 to 2011. Twenty-five out of thirty articles in the first data set do not explicitly define what is meant by the use of 'democracy' to the reader. Twenty-nine out of thirty works in the second data set provide subjective conceptualisations of 'democracy' to the reader which is parochial rather than postfoundationally universal. This work proposes that the practice of using a 'disclaimer' is a positive step to solving this problem. When a concept cannot be delivered in a universal framework, it makes a difference to err on the side of caution and make clear to the reader the subjective quality of a term like 'democracy'.",
    keywords = "democracy, political analysis, empirical, conceptual clarit",
    author = "Jean-Paul GAGNON",
    year = "2012",
    language = "English",
    volume = "15",
    pages = "68--92",
    journal = "Public Administration and Policy",
    issn = "1022-0275",
    number = "2",

    }

    An Intervention on ‘Democracy’ as a Term in Empirical Political Analysis. / GAGNON, Jean-Paul.

    In: Public Administration and Policy, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2012, p. 68-92.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - An Intervention on ‘Democracy’ as a Term in Empirical Political Analysis

    AU - GAGNON, Jean-Paul

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - Two separate sets of data derived from recent scholarship on the subject are examined to show that the term 'democracy' is problematically used in certain empirical political analyses. The first data set concerns thirty articles published by the journal Political Analysis between the years 2005 and 2010. The second data set is a body of 30 prominent monographs and edited volumes dealing substantively with 'democracy' from the years 2006 to 2011. Twenty-five out of thirty articles in the first data set do not explicitly define what is meant by the use of 'democracy' to the reader. Twenty-nine out of thirty works in the second data set provide subjective conceptualisations of 'democracy' to the reader which is parochial rather than postfoundationally universal. This work proposes that the practice of using a 'disclaimer' is a positive step to solving this problem. When a concept cannot be delivered in a universal framework, it makes a difference to err on the side of caution and make clear to the reader the subjective quality of a term like 'democracy'.

    AB - Two separate sets of data derived from recent scholarship on the subject are examined to show that the term 'democracy' is problematically used in certain empirical political analyses. The first data set concerns thirty articles published by the journal Political Analysis between the years 2005 and 2010. The second data set is a body of 30 prominent monographs and edited volumes dealing substantively with 'democracy' from the years 2006 to 2011. Twenty-five out of thirty articles in the first data set do not explicitly define what is meant by the use of 'democracy' to the reader. Twenty-nine out of thirty works in the second data set provide subjective conceptualisations of 'democracy' to the reader which is parochial rather than postfoundationally universal. This work proposes that the practice of using a 'disclaimer' is a positive step to solving this problem. When a concept cannot be delivered in a universal framework, it makes a difference to err on the side of caution and make clear to the reader the subjective quality of a term like 'democracy'.

    KW - democracy

    KW - political analysis

    KW - empirical

    KW - conceptual clarit

    M3 - Article

    VL - 15

    SP - 68

    EP - 92

    JO - Public Administration and Policy

    JF - Public Administration and Policy

    SN - 1022-0275

    IS - 2

    ER -