flashcards analyticist PT (19 nov)
(intersubjective understandings)
something that is sustained by individual memories but exists in a dynamic of interactions between those that engage in sustaining and contesting it
= does not fit positivist accounts well
PT in interpretive research
Analyticist PT = method to study processes under an interpretivist methodology
- methods tend to have affinities with methodologies and research cultures, but sometimes researchers do cross-overs, eg. analyticist approach to PT
PT is method to study social processes developed in positivist research, but it does not necessarily contain methodological assumptions -> can be used in interpretivist projects
what does analyticist PT look like?
remember “minimalistic” causal mechanisms (step toward what we really want: well-specified processes, but stil too abstract)
Meegdenburg invites to rethink the usefulness of delivering abstract mechanisms: not so concrete, not so step by step
- cross-over based on her experience studying foreign policy with interpretivism
adjustments interpretivist vs positivist PT
adjustments in:
- method and concepts to fit the methodological assumptions
- terminology to avoid confusions about our underlying methodological assumptions while using the same method as positivists
positivist/regularist PT -> analyticist/interpretivist PT
- causal mechanisms are processes -> ideal-type (abstract/proper) mechanisms are part of processes + not into details
- typical case -> instantiation (instance of reality)
*won’t ask for diff on exam - generalizable as regularities with scope conditions -> portable to different contexts
- “instrumental” agency (when agents in conditions ABC, they will do D) -> “true” agency (can do unexpected things)
mechanisms vs process
positivism: mechanism = process
-> suits method that aims to uncover the laws of the social world (i.e. detailed processes in specific conditions)
- mechanism as causal process triggered by a cause that produces an outcome
- focus on equifinality + mechanical heterogeneity
interpretivism: mechanism = abstractions that we construct from observing reality, but are not formulated as statements of regularities (like laws)
- define mechanisms in less specific ways than in positivist PT (agents performing activities)
- DONT CLAIM TO PREDICT, want to interpret what they observe with theoretical language
- create theories about reality that also might help interpret other contexts (= they are portable)
analyticist PT - multi-finality
= same mechanism can be involved in a process leading to a different outcome
bc mechanism is not the whole mechanism in analyticist PT
- mechanisms as concepts that help us make sense of processes
- are abstract descriptions that only have specific meaning when contextualized
process exists of multiple mechanisms, diff mechanisms in diff contexts can create diff outcomes
portable statemens in analyticist PT
statements about patterns that are abstract enough to be “portable” to different contexts
- but (not?) specific enough to guide a theoretically informed analysis
researcher is interested in agency: how actors give meaning to their actions given a context
example analyticist PT - state identity
Denmark:
trigger = UN wants to use PMSC (private military and security contractors) in Afghanistan, Danish politicians bring the issue into parliament
outcome = policy of not supporting the use of PMSCs in Afghanistan
mechanisms:
- consensus on state identity: state actors wield dominant narrative about Danish state within formal arenas of political contestation
- collective legitimation of state identity: non-state actors accept or acquiesce to the dominant narrative about Danish state in democratic public debate
these mechanisms are portable to other contexts, e.g. Libertarianland
- consensus on state identity: Queen of Libertarianland wields dominant narrative about the state
- collective legitimation of state identity: non-state actors accept or acquiesce to the dominant narrative about Libertarianland’s state by hearing a statement by the Queen through the radio
-> outcome: Libertarianland supports the use of PMSCs in Afghanistan
“collective memory” politics in South Korea (Jo 2022)
trigger = South Korea’s democratization makes memory of Japanese colonialism salient
M1: nation-building through control of collective memory (parties strive to monopolize and administer the collective memory on Japanese colonialism)
M2: social mobilization of collective memory for contemporary purposes = non-state actors challenge the state’s monopoly on collective memory through:
- M2a: framing: negotiating how the past can be interpreted in interactive feedback
- M2b: accrediting: redefining who has authority to narrate the past
- M2c: binding: enforcing the narrative bounds (who can say what) to which narrators must conform)
outcome = anti-Japanee sentiment becomes salient in South Korea, complicating the official narrative and conditioning the possibilities for interstate cooperation
method:
- theorize the mechanisms
- define practical implications to probe their plausibility
- discuss portability (memory politics, e.g. Argentina)
