Thoughts on a research democracy
Lately there’s been a lot of talk about “democratization of research” — and every time I see an article, post, or a conference talk, I cringe. Not because it’s an unworthy discussion to have, but because I wonder: what do we mean by all of this?
Yet, I shy away from asking the big question because as a political scientist I know the deep dark abyss to which the conversation can go. So we’re left in a position where none of us will broach the elephant (pun intended for the Americans in the audience) in the room.
I have written thoughts about this a thousand times and deleted them a thousand times over. In the previous versions I have called on democratization scholars such as Linz, Putnam, Lipset & Rokkan, Levitsky & Ziblatt, Boix & Stokes, O’Donnell, and many more. I get deep in the weeds.
But my biggest worry is that many of my research companions do not recognize there are weeds to go deep into. Democracy can be beautiful when its appropriate, but it can also be dangerous and deadly when it’s not.
What is democracy?
… And why should research be a “democracy”? Why not collective governance? Why not a confederation? Or a form of federalism? Or let’s just go for it and declare anarchy?
In this scramble for democracy, I ask: what type of democracy is the research community, assuming we even are “democratic”? Or what type of democracy do we want to be? A delegate democracy? A representative democracy? A DINO (democracy in name only)? Democracies are full of power dynamics, whether we like it or not. So, in these research democracies: who holds the power? To invoke American political scientist Robert Dahl, “who governs?”
“You’re going too far,” some might say. Or “this is too detailed,” and “it’s just a word,” but that is exactly why we need to examine deeply what we mean when we say research democratization.
To assume that imposing a political structure in (mostly) capitalistic profit-minded companies in which there is no “power of the vote,” and where decisions are not made by the masses, and then not have a “Plan B” is not only fool-hardy, but it is reckless.
Furthermore, what happens when our democracy fails? What happens when we experience democratic backsliding? Will we even recognize it? Or will we become Pollyannas speeding along the path to self-obsolescence?
A call for action
With this, I ask you: what problem are we trying to solve? Are we striving to be inclusive? To empower folks to do good research? To understand data and how it can enable everyone to make more informed decisions?
Are we just asking people to pay attention to us by using sexy buzzwords?
If we are empowering and enabling good research, let us call it that. But “empowerment” and “enablement” are not as sexy as “democracy” — there are no “rock the enablement” campaigns, no “empowerment now” movements.
I am not saying we should not invite people to research — in fact, that is exactly what we should be doing. I am asking: what is the end state we seek to achieve? Is it a “democracy,” or something else?
