Search results

The author of the paper undertakes to present and analyze one of the research instruments applied by comparative political science in quantitative surveys, namely scales of democracy (sometimes referred to as indices or factors of democracy). This instrument is quite common in Western, in particular Anglo-Saxon political science, whereas it remains relatively unknown in Polish political science. The aim of the paper is therefore to introduce the reader to this theoretical and methodological construct. In order to achieve this aim the author indicates the possible uses of scales of democracy and the areas of research that apply them. He also analyzes methodological problems related to the development and application of scales of democracy. Although they offer a useful tool in comparative analyses, the essence of this instrument may raise certain methodological and epistemological doubts. Therefore it is significant to maintain the utmost diligence when developing these scales, which must be based on the application of advanced statistical instruments and research algorithms. On the basis of the conclusions of G. L. Munck and J. Verkuilen, the author presents a model process for developing scales of democracy and demonstrates the challenges faced by the researcher trying to develop such scales. The last part of the paper discusses the place of the issue of democracy measurement in Polish political science. The author claims that Polish researchers' interest in this issue does not correspond to its significance and the potential advantages that could be obtained.

The author reviews and characterizes the most important scales for measuring the democracy of political systems, applied in Western, mainly Anglo-Saxon, comparative political science. He refers to his article published in a back issue of Przegl¹d Polityczny, where the fundamental theoretical and methodological issues of democracy measuring were presented, and tries to indicate how these issues are dealt with by various researchers whose scales and data bases are most common and most frequently referred to in research into political comparative studies. The paper describes S. Huntington's analyses, the Freedom House scale, the IDEA assessment of the quality of democracy, the EIU democracy index, Bollen's scale, the Political Regimes Project, the Polity Project, T. Vanhanen's democracy index and the scale of polyarchy by Coppedge and Reinicke. As the author analyzes one scale and database after another, he tries to identify their strengths and weaknesses, determine the most characteristic properties of each proposal, and assess their applicability in comparative analyses, pointing to their potential benefits and the threats of using them. In conclusion, he recommends caution in the selection of a scale to become a foundation for potential analyses, while he acknowledges that this theoretical and methodological tool is highly useful.

The author of the paper undertakes to present and analyze one of the research instruments applied by comparative political science in quantitative surveys, namely scales of democracy (sometimes referred to as indices or factors of democracy). This instrument is quite common in Western, in particular Anglo-Saxon political science, whereas it remains relatively unknown in Polish political science. The aim of the paper is therefore to introduce the reader to this theoretical and methodological construct. In order to achieve this aim the author indicates the possible uses of scales of democracy and the areas of research that apply them. He also analyzes methodological problems related to the development and application of scales of democracy. Although they offer a useful tool in comparative analyses, the essence of this instrument may raise certain methodological and epistemological doubts. Therefore it is significant to maintain the utmost diligence when developing these scales, which must be based on the application of advanced statistical instruments and research algorithms. On the basis of the conclusions of G. L. Munck and J. Verkuilen, the author presents a model process for developing scales of democracy and demonstrates the challenges faced by the researcher trying to develop such scales. The last part of the paper discusses the place of the issue of democracy measurement in Polish political science. The author claims that Polish researchers' interest in this issue does not correspond to its significance and the potential advantages that could be obtained.

The author reviews and characterizes the most important scales for measuring the democracy of political systems, applied in Western, mainly Anglo-Saxon, comparative political science. He refers to his article published in a back issue of Przegl¹d Polityczny, where the fundamental theoretical and methodological issues of democracy measuring were presented, and tries to indicate how these issues are dealt with by various researchers whose scales and data bases are most common and most frequently referred to in research into political comparative studies. The paper describes S. Huntington's analyses, the Freedom House scale, the IDEA assessment of the quality of democracy, the EIU democracy index, Bollen's scale, the Political Regimes Project, the Polity Project, T. Vanhanen's democracy index and the scale of polyarchy by Coppedge and Reinicke. As the author analyzes one scale and database after another, he tries to identify their strengths and weaknesses, determine the most characteristic properties of each proposal, and assess their applicability in comparative analyses, pointing to their potential benefits and the threats of using them. In conclusion, he recommends caution in the selection of a scale to become a foundation for potential analyses, while he acknowledges that this theoretical and methodological tool is highly useful.

The author of the paper undertakes to present and analyze one of the research instruments applied by comparative political science in quantitative surveys, namely scales of democracy (sometimes referred to as indices or factors of democracy). This instrument is quite common in Western, in particular Anglo-Saxon political science, whereas it remains relatively unknown in Polish political science. The aim of the paper is therefore to introduce the reader to this theoretical and methodological construct. In order to achieve this aim the author indicates the possible uses of scales of democracy and the areas of research that apply them. He also analyzes methodological problems related to the development and application of scales of democracy. Although they offer a useful tool in comparative analyses, the essence of this instrument may raise certain methodological and epistemological doubts. Therefore it is significant to maintain the utmost diligence when developing these scales, which must be based on the application of advanced statistical instruments and research algorithms. On the basis of the conclusions of G. L. Munck and J. Verkuilen, the author presents a model process for developing scales of democracy and demonstrates the challenges faced by the researcher trying to develop such scales. The last part of the paper discusses the place of the issue of democracy measurement in Polish political science. The author claims that Polish researchers' interest in this issue does not correspond to its significance and the potential advantages that could be obtained.

The author reviews and characterizes the most important scales for measuring the democracy of political systems, applied in Western, mainly Anglo-Saxon, comparative political science. He refers to his article published in a back issue of Przegl¹d Polityczny, where the fundamental theoretical and methodological issues of democracy measuring were presented, and tries to indicate how these issues are dealt with by various researchers whose scales and data bases are most common and most frequently referred to in research into political comparative studies. The paper describes S. Huntington's analyses, the Freedom House scale, the IDEA assessment of the quality of democracy, the EIU democracy index, Bollen's scale, the Political Regimes Project, the Polity Project, T. Vanhanen's democracy index and the scale of polyarchy by Coppedge and Reinicke. As the author analyzes one scale and database after another, he tries to identify their strengths and weaknesses, determine the most characteristic properties of each proposal, and assess their applicability in comparative analyses, pointing to their potential benefits and the threats of using them. In conclusion, he recommends caution in the selection of a scale to become a foundation for potential analyses, while he acknowledges that this theoretical and methodological tool is highly useful.

The subject of the article concerns the determinations of choices made by a person and their sources. Upon analysing the concepts that have appeared in social sciences to date, three model approaches were distinguished: (1) voluntarism, which assumed a lack of determination and pure volition of the source of the decision; (2) internal determinism, which searches for the source of the decision in factors within the human being itself, but not controlled by it; (3) fatalism, seeing the decisions made by persons as products of the environment in which they function. Next, the article presents the manner of approaching this issue as displayed by the most typical, in this respect, concepts in modern social sciences: sociological symbolic interactionism, sociologism with the idea of homo sociologicus, psychological behaviourism and psychoanalysis, sociobiology with evolutionary inclinations, the theory of rational choice and the Marxist approach.

The subject of the article concerns the determinations of choices made by a person and their sources. Upon analysing the concepts that have appeared in social sciences to date, three model approaches were distinguished: (1) voluntarism, which assumed a lack of determination and pure volition of the source of the decision; (2) internal determinism, which searches for the source of the decision in factors within the human being itself, but not controlled by it; (3) fatalism, seeing the decisions made by persons as products of the environment in which they function. Next, the article presents the manner of approaching this issue as displayed by the most typical, in this respect, concepts in modern social sciences: sociological symbolic interactionism, sociologism with the idea of homo sociologicus, psychological behaviourism and psychoanalysis, sociobiology with evolutionary inclinations, the theory of rational choice and the Marxist approach.

The aim of the article is to examine whether and what are the characteristics of political science research and reflection conducted in Poland. To achieve this, two dimensions of specificity were distinguished, namely disciplinary specificity (features that distinguish political science from other disciplines, especially those within the social sciences) and local specificity (characteristic features of Polish political science compared to the discipline practiced in other countries, particularly Anglo-Saxon). The specificity of Polish political science was then analysed in four fundamental areas that determine the discipline's identity: 1) the subject of research, 2) research methods, 3) subdisciplinary structure, and 4) structure of theories functioning within the discipline.