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

Abstract

Objective To analyze the theoretical and political stakes involved in researching authoritarian regimes. Method A meta‐analysis of recent books and articles on authoritarianism, including the articles in this special volume. Results The prevailing research methods set unrealistic standards for analyses of authoritarianism, with serious consequences for theory building and American foreign policy. Conclusion The old rules of fieldwork still apply, and scholars are well advised to develop tactics and “work‐arounds” to meet the inherent challenge of discovering useful knowledge about authoritarian regimes. Historical cases of authoritarianism also provide an underused resource for theory development and testing.

New findings from conflict archives

“…When dealing with convenience samples, the data generating process limits population-level inferences (Seybolt, Aronson & Fischhoff, 2013). And as a general rule, we agree with Krüger et al’s (2013: 261) assessment that ‘[w]hen convenience data are used in any capacity, it is best to “stay close to the data,” guarding against overly ambitious inferences or quantifying potential biases’ (see also Art, 2016). But, given the gravity of the problem of violence, good data are often better than none.…”

“…To prevent their opponents from accessing sensitive information, governments carefully protect and preserve the data and analysis contained in conflict archives. The fact that conflict archives are typically kept confidential even after the cessation of violence implies that they also contain some residual value for those hoping to challenge the state (Art, 2016). 6 Finding, releasing, and analyzing materials from conflict archives democratizes knowledge that had previously remained proprietary, bringing into the public sphere formerly secretive information on the causes and consequences of violent resistance and/or repression (Nalepa, 2010).…”

“…Taking time to understand the contents of an archive and the manner politics influenced the construction and preservation of documents has a second, theory building, benefit. The construction of the texts contained in conflict archives provides insight into what sorts of information were being collected, what language was used to describe that information, what is conspicuously absent, and how the bureaucratic machine that created and preserved these documents operated (Stoler, 2002; Dimitrov & Sassoon 2014; Art, 2016). Viewing the archive as a system of information collection, transmission, accumulation, reduction, consumption, and preservation can reveal the hidden machinations organizing political violence.…”

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

“…In the concluding article, David Art argues that the stakes could not be higher in the quest for quality information about the inner workings of nondemocratic regimes (Art, ). In synthesizing the findings of the previous articles, he emphasizes that studies of authoritarian regimes cannot be held to the same methodological standards as studies of democracies and urges scholars to “think more like detectives.” For this, scholars must be willing to adopt a historical stance and learn from studies of past authoritarian regimes.…”

Writing It Up

“…So the only other alternative would be not to publish anything that would have to rely on anonymous sources, which raises its own ethical challenges, since it furthers the interests of authoritarian powerholders in opaqueness and potentially ignores voices that can and want to tell us about abusive practices. It is possible in principle to do authoritarianism research entirely based on named sources, for instance, by focusing on historic cases (Art 2016). But we believe that in our field of research-as well as many others-too much would get lost.…”