Search

The GLES Open Science Challenge 2021 was a pilot project aimed at demonstrating that registered reports are an appropriate and beneficial publication format in quantitative political science that helps to increase transparency and replicability in the research process and thus yields substantial and relevant contributions to our discipline. The project resulted in the publication of this special issue, which includes seven registered reports based on data from the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) collected in the context of the 2021 German federal election. This concluding article of the special issue brings together the perspectives of the participating authors, reviewers, organizers, and editors in order to take stock of the different experiences gained and lessons learned in the course of the project. We are confident that future projects of a similar nature in political science, as well as authors, reviewers, and editors of registered reports, will benefit from these reflections., Die GLES Open Science Challenge 2021 ist ein Pilotprojekt, das zeigt, dass Registered Reports ein geeignetes und gewinnbringendes Publikationsformat in der quantitativen Politikwissenschaft sind, die dazu beitragen können, die Transparenz und Replizierbarkeit im Forschungsprozess zu erhöhen und somit substanzielle und relevante Beiträge für unsere Disziplin zu liefern. Das Ergebnis ist die Veröffentlichung dieses Sonderheftes mit sieben Registered Reports, die auf Daten der German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) basieren, die im Rahmen der Bundestagswahl 2021 erhoben wurden. Dieser abschließende Artikel des Sonderheftes bringt die Perspektiven von Autor*innen, Gutachter*innen, Organisator*innen und Herausgeber*innen zusammen, um eine Bilanz der verschiedenen Erfahrungen und Lehren zu ziehen, die im Laufe dieses Projektes gewonnen wurden.

Multidimensional concepts are non-compensatory when higher values on one component cannot offset lower values on another. Thinking of the components of a multidimensional phenomenon as non-compensatory rather than substitutable can have wide-ranging implications, both conceptually and empirically. To demonstrate this point, we focus on populist attitudes that feature prominently in contemporary debates about liberal democracy. Given similar established public opinion constructs, the conceptual value of populist attitudes hinges on its unique specification as an attitudinal syndrome, which is characterized by the concurrent presence of its non-compensatory concept subdimensions. Yet this concept attribute is rarely considered in existing empirical research. We propose operationalization strategies that seek to take the distinct properties of non-compensatory multidimensional concepts seriously. Evidence on five populism scales in 12 countries reveals the presence and consequences of measurement-concept inconsistencies. Importantly, in some cases, using conceptually sound operationalization strategies upsets previous findings on the substantive role of populist attitudes.

Recent research in the populism literature has devoted considerable efforts to the conceptualisation and examination of populism on the individual level, that is, populist attitudes. Despite rapid progress in the field, questions of adequate measurement and empirical evaluation of measures of populist attitudes remain scarce. Seeking to remedy these shortcomings, we apply a cross-national measurement model, using item response theory, to six established and two new populist indicators. Drawing on a cross-national survey (nine European countries, n = 18,368), we engage in a four-folded analysis. First, we examine the commonly used 6-item populism scale. Second, we expand the measurement with two novel items. Third, we use the improved 8-item populism scale to further refine equally comprehensive but more concise and parsimonious populist measurements. Finally, we externally validate these sub-scales and find that some of the proposed sub-scales outperform the initial 6- and 8-item scales. We conclude that existing measures of populism capture moderate populist attitudes, but face difficulties measuring more extreme levels, while the individual information of some of the populist items remains limited. Altogether, this provides several interesting routes for future research, both within and between countries.

This study examines the differences and commonalities of how populist parties of the left and right relate to democracy. The focus is narrowed to the relationship between these parties and two aspects of democratic quality, minority rights and mutual constraints. Our argument is twofold: first, we contend that populist parties can exert distinct influences on minority rights, depending on whether they are left-wing or right-wing populist parties. Second, by contrast, we propose that the association between populist parties and mutual constraints is a consequence of the populist element and thus, we expect no differences between the left-wing and right-wing parties. We test our expectations against data from 30 European countries between 1990 and 2012. Our empirical findings support the argument for the proposed differences regarding minority rights and, to a lesser extent, the proposed similarities regarding mutual constraints. Therefore we conclude that, when examining the relationship between populism and democracy, populism should not be considered in isolation from its host ideology.