Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T11:49:26.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking Autonomy: Traveling between Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2022

Susan Divald Open the ORCID record for Susan Divald [Opens in a new window]
Susan Divald*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford, UK
*
Email: susan.divald.phd@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To improve the validity of our comparative endeavors in ethno-politics, this piece re-examines the relationship between conceptual definitions, categories of classification used in large-N datasets, and thick description found through case studies. It does this through the lens of claims to autonomy by ethnic minorities, and in particular through a detailed comparative case study of what autonomy means as a programmatic goal for ethnic minority Hungarian elites in Romania and Slovakia. Three unexpected findings emerge which make the case for qualitative research to better inform the categories and variables used in large-N datasets (1) there is a weak relationship between the conceptual definitions of autonomy and the way it is coded in relevant datasets like the Minorities at Risk (MAR) dataset; (2) empirically, the Hungarian comparative case studies show that elites do not think of autonomy in the same way as the conceptual literature nor do their understandings of autonomy easily fit into the coding categories of datasets; (3) there is inconsistency across Hungarian minority elites in their own definitions of autonomy as well as the lack of distinctions between autonomy and other institutional arrangements. This raises issues of equivalence and ambiguity and I conclude with suggestions for better measurement.

Keywords

autonomymeasurementethnic conflictinstitutionsHungarian minority
Type
Review Article
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 51 , Issue 4: Special Issue on Mass Mobilization in Belarus , July 2023 , pp. 727 - 735
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for the Study of Nationalities

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Time Matters: On Theory and Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Adcock, Robert, and Collier, David. 2001. “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 529–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedikter, Thomas. 2009. The World‘s Modern Autonomy Systems Concepts and Experiences of Regional Territorial Autonomy. Bozen: EURAC.Google Scholar
Birnir, Jóhanna K., Wilkenfeld, Jonathan, Fearon, James D., Laitin, David D., Gurr, Ted Robert, Brancati, Dawn, Saideman, Stephen M., Pate, Amy, and Hultquist, Agatha S.. 2015. “Socially Relevant Ethnic Groups, Ethnic Structure, and AMAR.” Journal of Peace Research 52 (1): 110–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochsler, Daniel, and Szöcsik, Edina. 2013. “The Forbidden Fruit of Federalism: Evidence from Romania and Slovakia.” West European Politics 36 (2): 426–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cederman, Lars-erik, Min, Brian, and Wimmer, Andreas. 2019. “The Ethnic Power Relations (EPR) Core Dataset: Codebook.”Google Scholar
Cederman, Lars Erik, Hug, Simon, Schädel, Andreas, and Wucherpfennig, Julian. 2015. “Territorial Autonomy in the Shadow of Conflict: Too Little, Too Late?” American Political Science Review 109 (2): 354–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for International Development and Conflict Management. 2017. “All Minorities at Risk (AMAR) Codebook Version 1.” Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Connell, Janice, Carleton, Jill, Grundy, Andrew, Buck, Elizabeth Taylor, and Ricketts, Thomas. 2018. “The Importance of Content and Face Validity in Instrument Development: Lessons Learnt from Service Users When Developing the Recovering Quality of Life Measure (ReQoL).” Qual Life Res 27: 1893–1902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csergő, Zsuzsa. 2013. “Kosovo and the Framing of Non-Secessionist Self-Government Claims in Romania.” Europe-Asia Studies 65 (5): 889–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, Kathleen G. 2013. “Understanding Strategic Choice: The Determinants of Civil War and Nonviolent Campaign in Self-Determination Disputes.” Journal of Peace Research 50 (3): 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobos, Balázs. 2016. “The Minority Self-Governments in Hungary.” Online Compendium: Autonomy Arraignments in the World. 2016. www.world-autonomies.info.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Mahoney, James. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government of Romania. 1991. Constitution. Romania: Constitute Project. https://www.constituteproject.org/search?lang=en&q=Romania. (Accessed May 20, 2018.)Google Scholar
Government of Romania. 2005. “The Draft Law on the Status of National Minorities (Draft Law No. 502/2005).”Google Scholar
Government of Romania. 2016. “Fourth Report Submitted by Romania Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 2 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.” Bucharest.Google Scholar
Government of Slovak Republic. 2014. “Fourth Report Submitted by the Slovak Republic Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 2 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Annex.” Bratislava.Google Scholar
Gurr, Ted Robert. 2017. “Observations on the Study of Ethnic Conflict.” Ethnopolitics 16 (1): 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannum, Hurst. 1990. Autonomy, Sovereigny and Self-Determination. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, Marks, Gary, Schakel, Arjan H., Osterkatz, Sandra Chapman, Niedzwiecki, Sara, and Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah. 2016. Measuring Regional Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance , Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2013. “The Use and Misuse of the ‘Minorities At Risk’ Project.” Annual Review of Political Science 16: 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenne, Erin. 2007. Ethnic Bargaining: The Paradox of Minority Empowerment. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jenne, Erin, Saideman, Stephen M., and Lowe, Will. 2007. “Separatism as a Bargaining Posture: The Role of Leverage in Minority Radicalization.” Journal of Peace Research 44 (5): 539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kántor, Zoltán, ed. 2014. Autonomies in Europe: Solutions and Challenges. Budapest: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Landman, Todd. 2008. Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapidoth, Ruth. 1997. Autonomy: Flexible Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
Malloy, Tove. 2015. “Introduction.” In Managing Diversity through Non-Territorial Autonomy: Assessing Advantages, Deficiences, and Risks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malloy, Tove, Osipov, Alexander, and Vizi, Balazs. 2015. Managing Diversity through Non-Territorial Autonomy: Assessing Advantages, Deficiences and Risks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minorities at Risk Project. 2007. “Minorities at Risk (MAR) Codebook Version 2/2009.” College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management. http://www.mar.umd.edu.Google Scholar
Nimni, Ephraim. 2007. “National–Cultural Autonomy as an Alternative to Minority Territorial Nationalism.” Ethnopolitics 6 (3): 345–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimni, Ephraim. 2013. “The Conceptual Challenge of Non-Territorial Autonomy.” In The Challenges of Non-Territorial Autonomy: Theory and Practice, edited by Nimni, Ephraim, Osipov, Alexander, and Smith, David J., 1–24. Bern.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nootens, Genevieve. 2015. “Can Non-Territorial Autonomy Bring an Added Value to Theoretic and Policy-Oriented Analysis of Ethnic Politics?” In Minority Accommodation through Territorial and Non-Territorial Autonomy, edited by Tove Malloy and Francesco Palermo, 33–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. “Concept Misinformation in Comparative Politics.” The American Political Science Review 64 (4): 1033–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seawright, Jason, and Gerring, John. 2008. “Case Selection Techniques in A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siroky, David S., and Cuffe, John. 2015. “Lost Autonomy, Nationalism and Separatism.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (1): 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Dan, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2013. “The Enduring Indispensability of the Controlled Comparison.” Comparative Political Studies 46 (10): 1301–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, David. 2014. “Minority Territorial and Non-Territorial Autonomy in Europe: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Challenges.” In Autonomies in Europe: Solutions and Challenges, edited by Zoltan Kantor, 15–24. Budapest: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Stroschein, Sherrill. 2012. Ethnic Struggle, Coexistence, and Democratization in Eastern Europe. Cambridge Studies in Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suksi, Markku. 2014. “Territorial Autonomy: The Åland Islands.” In Autonomies in Europe: Solutions and Challenges, edited by Zoltán Kántor, 37–58. Budapest: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Székely, István Gergő. 2014. “Dynamics of Party Politics, Electoral Competition and Cooperation within the Hungarian Minorities of Romania, Serbia and Slovakia.” Ph.D. diss., Central European University.Google Scholar
Szöcsik, E., and Zuber, C. I.. 2015. “EPAC - A New Dataset on Ethnonationalism in Party Competition in 22 European Democracies.” Party Politics 21 (1): 153–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taherdoost, Hamed. 2016. “Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research.” International Journal of Academic Research Management 5 (3): 28–36.Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1995. “Bridging the Quantitate-Qualitative Divide in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 89 (2): 471–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokár, Géza. 2014. “Autonomy in Slovakia - Difficulties and Problems.” In Autonomies in Europe: Solutions and Challenges, edited by Zoltán Kántor, 141–50. Budapest: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Vogt, Manuel, Bormann, Nils Christian, Rüegger, Seraina, Cederman, Lars Erik, Hunziker, Philipp, and Girardin, Luc. 2015. “Integrating Data on Ethnicity, Geography, and Conflict: The Ethnic Power Relations Data Set Family.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 59 (7): 1327–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, Barbara F. 2006. “Building Reputation: Why Governments Fight Some Separatists but Not Others.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (2): 313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Stefan. 2011. “Post-Conflict State Building: The Debate on Institutional Choice.” Third World Quarterly 32 (10): 1777–1802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuber, Christina Isabel, and Szöcsik, Edina. 2017. “Codebook for EPAC: Summary Version of the EPAC Dataset Editions 2011 and 2017.” https://christinazuber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/EPAC-2011_2017-Codebook.pdf (Accessed 14 June 2018).Google Scholar