How do we tell authoritarian diffusion from illusion? Exploring methodological issues of qualitative research on authoritarian diffusion

Abstract

With the recent proliferation of comparative authoritarianism studies, a new research agenda on authoritarian diffusion has emerged. Authoritarian diffusion concerns the study of how events, institutions, and strategies relevant for autocratic political systems travel between them. So far, scholars have strived towards proving that authoritarian diffusion is real and is happening across a wide range of contexts. Now the time has come for the field to develop further. This involves improving our understanding of how important diffusion effects really are (the effect size), how diffusion effects come about (the mechanisms), and how contextual factors shape these two (diffusion's conditional nature). To do this, more methodological reflection and rigor is needed. The aim of this paper is to push qualitative researchers of authoritarian diffusion to reflect more upon the methodological issues and challenges associated with examining diffusion in autocratic contexts. Based on a survey of the existing qualitative literature, we show that insufficient attention to issues such as case-selection, causal mechanisms and evidentiary requirements, restrictions on data availability, process-tracing methods, and alternative explanations is holding back the emergent research field on authoritarian diffusion. We provide researchers involved in this research agenda with guidance on both potential pitfalls and feasible solutions, and where possible we draw on best-practice examples from within the field itself and the wider diffusion literature. Authoritarian diffusion is a challenging topic to study; only conscious, analytical stringency and serious methodological reflection will pave the way for its further advancement.

Rethinking Islamist politics in North Africa: a multi-level analysis of domestic, regional and international dynamics

“…Whereas externally-driven mechanisms put the external actor centre stage and focus on the ways it causes others to adopt a particular item or innovation (Ambrosio & Tolstrup, 2019), internally-driven mechanisms shift the focus to the 'adopters' or 'resisters', too often overlooked (Koesel & Bunce, 2013). As mentioned above, this Special Issue aims to detect Islamist actors' transformations and continuities in their strategic and/or normative thinking and behaviour as a response to foreign-generated factors.…”

“…In light of this, internally-driven mechanisms of diffusion are considered, whereby the 'primary impetus' comes from within the actor adoptingor eventually resistingthe policy innovation, idea or repertoire of behaviour (Ambrosio & Tolstrup, 2019). In this process, and to paraphrase Acharya's words (2014a), domestic actors play a crucial role as they do not only 'reinterpret' and 're-represent outside norms' but also make them more 'congruent with a preexisting local normative order' (p. 244).…”

“…When focusing on internally-driven mechanisms, the logic of consequences is brought into play, for instance, to describe decision-makers' cost-benefit analysis in the adoption of certain policies, as well as in the evaluation of other actors' successful and failed experiences to search for similar or opposite outcomes (Ambrosio, 2010;Ambrosio & Tolstrup, 2019;Manea & Rüland, 2020). From this rationalist perspective, action is driven by actors' preferences and expectations according to 'conscious instrumental calculations' (Checkel, 2017 , p. 597).…”

“…By contrast, the logic of appropriateness evokes a kind of 'rule-based' action (Bank, 2017), in which the adoption (or rejection) of new norms, ideas or rhetorical devices is shaped by their perceived normative value (Ambrosio & Tolstrup, 2019), that is very time and context specific. This reflexive perspective emphasises the relevance of certain ideas and norms in a given situation or context, making them the epicentre of the diffusion process (Manea & Rüland, 2020).…”

“…The simultaneous access to multiple firstand second-hand sources allows the authors to triangulate the information gathered and reach a more nuanced understanding. Methodologically, most of the articles draw upon process-tracing readings, which are 'well-suited to the puzzle' of diffusion (Ambrosio & Tolstrup, 2019), defined as 'the transfer among countries of an innovative idea, product, policy, institution or repertoire of behaviours' (Koesel & Bunce, 2013, p. 753). In so doing, they trace the decisions of Islamists back to specific events and others' experience.…”