Objective. We argue that the "everyday nationalism" approach is both useful and necessary for improving existing constructivist approaches in the comparative study of nationalism and ethnic politics. Methods. A meta-analysis of existing studies reveals pervasive conceptual and methodological problems of contemporary constructivist approaches. We consider the implications of replacing individuals or groups with ethnic or nationalist practices as units of analysis. Results. Everyday nationalism promises to address the gap between constructivist theory and the methodological individualism of existing studies. This approach proceeds from ethnographic observation and utilizes methods reliant on observing societal interaction or relational meaning making for verification. We illustrate such a research strategy using examples of nationalist legitimation in authoritarian regimes and the ethnicization of economic development. Conclusion. The everyday nationalism approach promises to overcome the shortcomings in much contemporary constructivist work. The potential for developing qualitative data sets of nationalist or ethnic practices further promises to complement constructivist insights.Over the last 25 years, the comparative study of nationalism and ethnic politics in the social sciences witnessed something of a renaissance. A new generation of scholars advanced research agendas concerning nationalist mobilization (Stroschein, 2012). In decisively breaking with primordial assumptions about ethnicity and nationality as a function of descent, this new literature formed creative linkages with related work on social movements, social and political institutions, social psychology, cognitive science, and international relations. This intellectual ferment found infrastructural support for scholarship in the founding (and revival) of new academic journals, scholarly organizations, degree-granting programs, and inclusion in standard disciplinary curricula. Yet the depth and success of these efforts also cast into sharp relief the gaps, omissions, and opportunities in the field: in brief, the masses remain something of a mystery.That the study of ethnic and nationalist politics would be challenged by the incorporation of mass society into analysis is surprising, given the widespread scholarly acceptance of the constructivist paradigm. In broad terms, constructivists hold that power is both ideational *

Pandemics and other crisis situations result in unsettled times, or ontologically insecure moments when social and political institutions are in flux. During such crises, the ordinary and unnoticed routines that structure everyday life are thrust into the spotlight as people struggle to maintain or recreate a sense of normalcy. Drawing on a range of cases including China, Russia, the UK, and USA, we examine three categories of everyday practice during the COVID-19 pandemic that respond to disruptions in daily routines and seek a return to national normality: performing national solidarities and exclusions by wearing face masks; consuming the nation in the form of panic buying and conspiracy theories; and enforcing foreign policies through social media and embodiment. This analysis thus breaks with existing works on everyday nationalism and banal nationalism that typically focus on pervasively unnoticed forms of nationalism during settled times, and it challenges approaches to contentious politics that predict protest mobilization for change rather than restoration of the status quo ante. In highlighting the ways that unsettled times disrupt domestic and international structures, this work also presents a first attempt to link everyday nationalism with growing work on international practices.

Object This article examines the ways social science research approaches the study of authoritarian regimes and identifies ways to engage with regimes that are both deliberately opaque and oppressive. Method The article examines existing methodological prescriptions and practices as they pertain to the study of authoritarian regimes. These cover issues of data collection, research safety, subjective safety, and the positioning of knowledge about authoritarianism within the wider scope of social sciences. Results The article identifies three distinct but interrelated challenges in the study of authoritarian regimes: (1) access and timing, (2) data validity and integrity, and (3) ethical issues. Conclusion Methods commonly deployed in the study of democratic and open regimes cannot be readily deployed to the study of authoritarian ones. Greater reflexivity is needed to understand the methodological challenges inherent to the study of authoritarianism.

All qualitative research faces fundamental hurdles in overcoming issues of access and ensuring the credibility of one's observations. These issues are particularly acute when conducting research in hybrid regimes when the area of investigation is explicitly political and local authorities are sensitive to scrutiny. In the study of Russian politics, growing authoritarianism has meant a shrinking of the field and a corresponding adjustment in fieldwork practices. The disciplinary silence concerning the impact of regime type on fieldwork further threatens the quality and usefulness of comparative research on non-democratic regimes beyond Eurasia. The danger is that interesting and necessary questions about hybrid regimes are sacrificed as scholars opt to conduct fieldwork in more congenial locales where high status methods may be utilized. One can already see this effect as Russianists leave Russia rather than risk isolation within the discipline.

No abstract