AbstractThe recent trend toward democratization in countries across theglobe has challenged scholars to pursue two potentiallycontradictory goals. On the one hand, they seek to increaseanalytic differentiation in order to capture the diverse forms ofdemocracy that have emerged. On the other hand, they areconcerned with conceptual validity. Specifically, they seek to avoidthe problem of conceptual stretching that arises when the conceptof democracy is applied to cases for which, by relevant scholarlystandards, it is not appropriate. This article argues that the pursuitof these two goals has led to a proliferation of conceptualinnovations, including numerous subtypes of democracy-that is tosay, democracy 'with adjectives.' The article explores thestrengths and weaknesses of alternative strategies of conceptualinnovation that have emerged: descending and climbing Sartori'sladder of generality, generating 'diminished' subtypes ofdemocracy, 'precising' the definition of democracy by addingdefining attributes, and shifting the overarching concept with whichdemocracy is associated.
Duke University Political Science 330 Research Design & Qualitative Methods Spring 2006 Tuesdays, 2:50 - 5:20, Keohane Quad, Building 4B, Room 402. And David Collier. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. David and Steven Levitsky. 'Democracy With Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in. CAUSALITY (MON., 02/04/13 and WED., 02/06/13) TOPICS/QUESTIONS: What is causality?Can we demonstrate it in social science research and how? What are the following terms: tautology, spuriousness and endogeneity?
The goal of the analysis is to make morecomprehensible the complex structure of these strategies, as wellas to explore trade-offs among the strategies. Even when scholarsproceed intuitively, rather than self-consciously, they tend tooperate within this structure.
Yet it is far more desirable for them todo so self-consciously, with a full awareness of these trade-offs.