Researching Authoritarianism in the Discipline of Democracy*

Abstract

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.

Archivists and Adventurers: Research Strategies for Authoritarian Regimes of the Past and Present*

“…Not only do the solutions they propose seem sensible for those working in authoritarian settings, but also for comparativists committed to getting the most out of their fieldwork in general. I take up Ahram and Goode's (2016) implicit invitation in the introduction to this issue to suggest how these tactics can be helpful in fieldwork in democracies by offering a few examples from my own research (without, of course, making any claim that they represent "best practices").…”

Reflexivity and Temporality in Researching Violent Settings: Problems with the Replicability and Transparency Regime

“…In positivist-leaning fields that are increasingly demanding transparency and replicability, understanding conflict and violence requires a relaxation of expectations and greater realism: realism about researchers' role in the research process; realism about the chaotic nature of research and the specific ethical dilemmas that arise in research on violence and in violent settings (Wood 2006;Ahram and Paul Goode 2016;Fujii 2012; Cronin-Furman and Lake 2018; S. P. Campbell 2017; van Baalen 2018); and realism about the tradeoffs and emotional burdens faced by researchers themselves in collecting and analyzing data while attempting to remain safe and mentally healthy both in the field and after returning (Loyle and Simoni 2017;Malejacq and Mukhopadhyay 2016;Mazurana, Jacobsen, and Gale 2013;Sriram et al 2009;Theidon 2014;Thomson, Ansoms, and Murison 2012). Professional pressures that hinder research on sensitive topics or impose excessive, unequal burdens on researchers employing particular approaches (Monroe 2018) in fact impede the data gathering and knowledge accumulation that is vital both for the collective social scientific enterprise in combining situated knowledge to approach the shared 'truth,' and for formulating practical, humanitarian solutions to conflict and violence.…”

Special Issue Editors’ Introduction: Observing Autocracies from the Ground Floor*

“…The article by Ariel Ahram and Paul Goode elaborates these challenges by framing authoritarian regimes as self-conscious producers of ignorance (Ahram and Goode, 2016). An essential shared characteristic of all dictatorships is their use of bureaucratic obstruction, disinformation, or coercion to conceal their informal and formal operations.…”

“…Goode's article similarly considers the relationship between regime change and scholarship, focusing on studies of post-Soviet politics before and after the wave of Color Revolutions in the 2000s (Goode, 2016). While the scientific opening of the 1990s and the booming study of postcommunist democratization generated a wealth of data and connected post-Soviet politics with broader theoretical studies in comparative politics, these sit uneasily with the retreat from democracy across Eurasia.…”