“For me democracy is …” meanings of democracy from a phenomenological perspective

Abstract

Meanings of democracy are far more complex than results of standardized survey research imply. They are diverse and intertwined with other individual concepts and subjective experiences. In terms of phenomenological adequacy, they are important first order constructions that can be used for building second order typologies and explanations for political action. Survey-based quantitative research has clear limits in terms of gathering such first order constructions, even if one wants to integrate them. Drawing from a phenomenological perspective of methodology and experience from 389 qualitative interviews conducted in the state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, we argue that research on meanings of democracy might rather use open, qualitative assessments and consider four methodological aspects. First, we need to have a theoretical and methodological basis for analyzing “everyday philosophies” and root our concepts in these first order constructions. Phenomenology and the concept of lifeworld offer such a guideline. Second, we should not oversimplify analysis. People differ greatly in how they define democracy, and this should be reflected in research. Third, we advocate a qualitative multi-dimensional analysis that separates democracy, politics and actual use of democracy. This can be used to develop a typology of individual, but collectively shared, political lifeworlds. Finally, we argue that insights from this kind of research could be used to compliment standard survey instruments and contribute to developing and frequently testing a comprehensive instrument to assess the meanings of democracy in a more holistic way and to control our scientific second-order constructions of democracy.

Measuring democracy among ordinary citizens—Challenges to studying democratic ideals

“…Measuring democracy, or more concretely, attitudes toward democracy, has a long tradition; however, what has been analyzed has changed more and more. Notably, the "meanings of democracy" approach to its measurement demands better measurement of the way democracy is perceived (Schedler and Sarsfield, 2007;Shin, 2017;Frankenberger and Buhr, 2020;Osterberg-Kaufmann et al, 2020;Quaranta, 2020;Davis et al, 2021). Amidst growing criticism, notably of the famous "satisfaction with democracy" question in international surveys (Canache et al, 2001;Shin, 2017), new measures are developed in an effort to differentiate between different understandings of democracy.…”

“…Thus, with respect to validity, it is essential not to include this question, except perhaps in interviews to begin the debate. It is definitely possible to ask questions about democracy's dimensions in interviews, as research has shown (Refle, 2019;Frankenberger and Buhr, 2020). However, this means that we descend at least one level and do not ask questions about democracy in general, but more concrete questions about minority rights, for example, to capture multiple dimensions.…”

“…Keeping this in mind, it is likely that respondents to quantitative surveys will also skip certain questions or simply respond with a neutral value because of limited conceptions of democracy. Those shortcomings of surveys led Frankenberger and Buhr (2020) to conclude that quantitative surveys are inherently inappropriate to assess what democracy means to citizens. Still, I argue that in case of neutral and reduced conceptions, it is useful to assess what items differ from averages for which individuals or groups of individuals.…”

“…Extending research on the meanings of democracy measured on an individual level (Schedler and Sarsfield, 2007;Shin, 2017;Frankenberger and Buhr, 2020;Osterberg-Kaufmann et al, 2020;Quaranta, 2020;Davis et al, 2021), this paper discusses the possibility of measuring attitudes of democracy on an individual level using quantitative methods. This reflection realized in a survey conducted between July and December 2020 to test different methodological elements.…”

Challenges in conceptualizing and measuring meanings and understandings of democracy

“…Second, all contributions deal with different aspects of the challenges mentioned above, as they discuss theoretical questions on conceptualization, expand knowledge about survey research by offering new theory-based conceptualizations based on new (Baniamin 2020) and existing (Wegscheider and Stark 2020) items. In addition to the use of qualitative interviews (Frankenberger and Buhr 2020), they introduce new methodological approaches from psychology (Osterberg-Kaufmann and Stadelmaier 2020) and linguistics (Dahlberg et al 2020) which underlines the importance of interdisciplinary research. The studies also vary according to regions (World: Wegscheider and Stark 2020; Europe: Dahlberg et al 2020;Frankenberger and Buhr 2020;Africa: Baniamin 2020;Asia: Osterberg-Kaufmann and Stadelmaier 2020) and different political levels (local level: Osterberg-Kaufmann and Stadelmaier 2020; regional level: Frankenberger and Buhr 2020;national level: Wegscheider and Stark 2020;Baniamin 2020;Dahlberg et al 2020).…”