Contestation and participation: Concepts, measurement, and inference

Pub Date : 2022-09-26 DOI:10.1177/22338659221120970
Vanessa Alexandra Boese, Matthew Charles Wilson
{"title":"Contestation and participation: Concepts, measurement, and inference","authors":"Vanessa Alexandra Boese, Matthew Charles Wilson","doi":"10.1177/22338659221120970","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contestation and participation are commonly viewed as two main constituent dimensions of electoral democracy. How exactly have these two dimensions been conceptualized and measured in the literature? Are they empirically observable and do they matter for democratic development and stability? This article answers the first of these questions and considers their implications for the second by reviewing the literature on these two dimensions. We discuss three issues that affect conclusions about dimensions of democracy and their relevance for understanding democratic development: First, conceptual ambiguities—substantive overlap between the two concepts—obscure the meanings of each of the two dimensions. Such ambiguities led to a second issue, which is a concept-measurement mismatch. The conceptual contributions were never really met with an empirical equivalent that would allow us to properly measure the two dimensions. Scholars continue to invoke theoretical understandings from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, but represent them using measures that were not explicitly concerned with measuring them, which presents the third issue of concept reification. As a result of these three issues, inferences about how democracy has developed and its relevance for democratic stability or for transitions to democratic rule is potentially obscured. Based on these issues, we provide three suggestions for future research concerning the concepts of contestation and participation.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22338659221120970","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Contestation and participation are commonly viewed as two main constituent dimensions of electoral democracy. How exactly have these two dimensions been conceptualized and measured in the literature? Are they empirically observable and do they matter for democratic development and stability? This article answers the first of these questions and considers their implications for the second by reviewing the literature on these two dimensions. We discuss three issues that affect conclusions about dimensions of democracy and their relevance for understanding democratic development: First, conceptual ambiguities—substantive overlap between the two concepts—obscure the meanings of each of the two dimensions. Such ambiguities led to a second issue, which is a concept-measurement mismatch. The conceptual contributions were never really met with an empirical equivalent that would allow us to properly measure the two dimensions. Scholars continue to invoke theoretical understandings from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, but represent them using measures that were not explicitly concerned with measuring them, which presents the third issue of concept reification. As a result of these three issues, inferences about how democracy has developed and its relevance for democratic stability or for transitions to democratic rule is potentially obscured. Based on these issues, we provide three suggestions for future research concerning the concepts of contestation and participation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
竞赛与参与:概念、测量和推论
参选和参与通常被视为选举民主的两个主要组成方面。在文献中,这两个维度究竟是如何被概念化和测量的?它们对民主的发展和稳定有影响吗?本文回答了第一个问题,并通过回顾关于这两个维度的文献来考虑它们对第二个问题的影响。我们讨论了影响民主维度及其与理解民主发展的相关性的结论的三个问题:首先,概念上的模糊性——两个概念之间的实质性重叠——模糊了两个维度中每个维度的含义。这种模糊性导致了第二个问题,即概念与度量不匹配。概念上的贡献从来没有真正得到一个经验上的等价,使我们能够正确地测量这两个维度。学者们继续援引20世纪50年代、60年代和70年代的理论理解,但使用与测量它们没有明确关系的测量方法来表示它们,这就提出了第三个概念具体化问题。由于这三个问题,关于民主如何发展及其与民主稳定或向民主统治过渡的相关性的推论可能会被模糊。在此基础上,本文对未来竞聘与参与概念的研究提出三点建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1