Eyes Wide Shut: Democratic Reversals, Scientific Closure, and the Study of Politics in Eurasia*

Abstract

Objectives The article examines the relationship between democratic reversals and scientific closure. It focuses on the effects that authoritarian and hybrid regimes are likely to have on the ways scholars study them and conduct their fieldwork. Method Thematic content analysis of articles on Eurasian politics published over a 10‐year period, with particular attention paid to reported methods and fieldwork. Results Scientific closure had as much to do with research cycles in the discipline as with democratic reversals. Notions of the region as democratizing persisted into the 2000s as scholars recycled data and conceptual frames from the 1990s. Fieldwork‐driven research was more likely to detect autocratization. Conclusion While disciplinary consensus reframed the region as autocratizing, the field remains vulnerable to scientific closure. Aside from the challenges posed by autocracies for fieldwork, the new disciplinary consensus may deter qualitative fieldwork and innovation in studying authoritarianism in Eurasia.

Research, Ethics and Risk in the Authoritarian Field

“…A more recent study on the political risks of field research in Central Asia found that '(s)everal respondents reported that they no longer work in Uzbekistan' and a 'few respondents singled out Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan as sites where they have experienced significant censorship/restrictions, chosen not to go, or experienced difficulty going' (CESS 2016, 7). Goode (2010) initially discerned a relation between Russia becoming more autocratic and a decline in fieldwork, but qualified his conclusions in a later study of the broader region (Goode 2016). Nonetheless, we would logically expect the most repressive regimes within the authoritarian universe to be less likely settings for field research: either because it would be too dangerous, or simply because it is impossible to gain access.…”

“…Naivety is a commonly used interview strategy (Goode 2011;Solinger 2006;HenrionDouncy 2013), typically more available to young women and foreigners. Our China researcher, while not actually foreign, uses both elements, especially with older men in senior positions (whether in government, research institutions, or companies) who often possess both stereotypical views of young women and valuable information.…”

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

“…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, ). 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.…”

On Sensitivity and Secrecy: How Foreign Researchers and their Local Contacts in Myanmar Deal with Risk under Authoritarian Rule

“…Such restrictions, created by the situation on the ground as well as the preferences of the home institution, infl uence the themes and types of research fi ndings that emerge from a particular country (Reny 2011). The lack of previously established infrastructure and the limited availability of secondary literature and ongoing academic debate can also lead researchers to focus on more "established" research areas (Goode 2011). In the case of Myanmar, I would argue that the situation of migrants and refugees in Thailand and elsewhere (although certainly worth the att ention) has featured disproportionally in academic research.…”