Kate's Blog

Scholars have been engaged in a debate over the choice between using dichotomies or a degree-based approach to define democracy. Many attempt to identify their choice as the “best” but they often fail to justify why that is. In light of many generic justifications by numerous scholars, Collier & Adcock attempt a pragmatic strategy. They maintain that choices between dichotomous or graded approaches to concept formation should be based on the “theoretical framework, analytic goals, and context of research involved in a particular study” (p. 539).

Despite the fact that at some points I felt that Collier & Adcock were leaning towards the justification of dichotomies, they effectively challenged the flaws of general justifications introduced by other scholars. I enjoyed “Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts” because the authors did not attempt to answer if it’s better to classify or rank but rather acknowledged that the methodological choice of either was dependant on the conditions mentioned above. Collier & Adcock argue that as these change and evolve, conceptualizations of democracy could as well. They argue that achieving sharper differentiation is necessary for conceptualization of democracy and that this can be done with the least room for error by combining a graded approach with dichotomous categories.

I particularly liked the section on “Normative Evaluation” in which Collier & Adcock touched on Dahl’s evaluation of regimes on a graded scale. They take into consideration his arguments on the “dynamics of change, and particularly the direction and rate of change” (p. 557) and argue that his flexible approach is not embedded in a certain historical period. I find this important because it relates back to the purpose of choosing dichotomies vs. gradations. It seems almost arbitrary to promote one approach over the other when the research has different purposes.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS