Abstract
Interdisciplinary integration of adult and political development knowledge into the study and process of countries’ democratic transitions is necessary, so democratization does not become an incendiary process further destabilizing the planet. The incoherence in research and practice can be resolved by employing insights into the political reasoning, culture, and institutional structures at key stages of development. Drawing on Chilton’s (1988, Defining political development, Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 1991, Grounding political development, Boulder: Lynne Rienner) theory of political development, this coherent micro/macro connection is required for study of the central co-reinforcing elements for stable democracy: civil society, political society, rule of law, usable state bureaucracy, institutionalized economic society, and cultural conditions for psychologically healthy power relations. Developmental analyses of these factors provide the compelling theoretical framework the political science of democratization requires.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, L. (1999). Introduction. In L. Anderson (Ed.), Transitions to democracy (pp. 1–13). New York: Columbia University Press.
Bangura, Y. (1991). Authoritarian rule and democracy in Africa: A theoretical discourse (Discussion Paper No. 18). New York: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Retrieved 31 Dec 2001, from http://www.unrisd.org/engindex/publ/list/dp/dp18/toc.htm#TopofPage
Briggs, J., & Peat, F. D. (1989). Turbulent mirror. New York: Harper & Row.
Chilton, S. (1988). Defining political development. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Chilton, S. (1991). Grounding political development. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Commons, M. L., Danaher-Gilpin, D., Miller, P. M., & Goodheart, E. A. (2002). Hierarchical complexity scoring system: How to score anything. Retrieved 13 Sept 2002, from http://www.tiac.net/∼commons/Scoring%20Manual.html
Coppedge, M. (2001). Political Darwinism in Latin America’s lost decade. In L. Diamond & R. Gunther (Eds.), Political parties and democracy (pp. 173–205). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Diamond, L., & Gunther, R. (2001). Types and functions of parties. In L. Diamond & R. Gunther (Eds.), Political parties and democracy (pp. 3–39). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fisher, J. (1998). Non-governments: NGOs and the political development of the Third World. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.
Fisher, D., Rooke, D., & Torbert, B. (2000). Personal and organisational transformations: Through action inquiry. Boston: Edge\Work Press.
Gustavsson, B. (1994). Organisational learning based on transforming collective consciousness. Retrieved 9 Jan 2002, from http://www.fek.su.se/home/gus/PAPERS/learnpap.htm
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1976).
Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (1995). The political economy of democratic transitions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Johnson, A. W., & Earle, T. (2000). The evolution of human societies (2nd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Levy, R. (1992). Structural blindness. In F. Geyer & W. R. Heinz (Eds.), Alienation of society and the individual (pp. 61–74). New Brunswick: Transaction.
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Ozbudun, E. (2001). The institutional decline of parties in Turkey. In L. Diamond & R. Gunther (Eds.), Political parties and democracy (pp. 238–265). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Progoff, I. (1985). Jung’s psychology and its social meaning (3rd ed.). New York: Dialogue House Library.
Pula, B. (2002) Kosova: From elections to democracy? Kosova & Balkan Observer, 3, 16–23.
Pye, L. W. (1997). Introduction: The elusive concept of culture and the vivid reality of personality [Electronic version]. Political Psychology, 18, 241–254.
Rosenberg, S. W. (1988). Reason, ideology and politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, S. W. (2002). The not so common sense: Differences in how people judge social and political life. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rosenberg, S. W., Ward, D., & Chilton, S. (1988). Political reasoning and cognition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Rustow, D. A. (1999). Transitions to democracy: Toward a dynamic model. In L. Anderson (Ed.), Transitions to democracy (pp. 14–41). New York: Columbia University Press.
Ruutsoo, R. (n.d.). Estonian post-communist transition, civil society and social sciences in the context of EU enlargement. Retrieved 3 Jan 2003, from http://www.riigikogu.ee/osakonnad/msi/ruutsoo.html
Saunders, H. H. (1999). A public peace process: Sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Schwable, M. (1992). Aesthetic experience. In F. Geyer & W. R. Heinz (Eds.), Alienation of society and the individual (pp. 90–103). New Brunswick: Transaction.
Tan, K. P. A. Sze-Sian. (2001). Theories in civil society: A framework for thinking about civil society. Retrieved 25 Dec 2002, from http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/resources/civilsoc/theory/theoryov.html
Turmanidze, K. (2001). Models of governance in divided societies: The case of Georgian decentralization. Retrieved 3 Jan 2003, from http://www.policy.hu/turmanidze/propos/html
Waterbury, J. (1999). Fortuitous byproducts. In L. Anderson (Eds.), Transitions to democracy (pp. 261–283). New York: Columbia University Press.
Watters, P. A., Ball, P. J., & Carr, S. C. (1996). Social processes as dynamical processes: Qualitative dynamical systems theory in social psychology. Current Research In Social Psychology, 1. Retrieved 3 Jan 2003, from http://www.uiowa.edu/∼grpproc
Zuern, E. K. (1999). Bibliographical essay. In L. Anderson (Eds.), Transitions to democracy (pp. 284–289). New York: Columbia University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ross, S.N. The Case for Developmental Methodologies in Democratization. J Adult Dev 14, 80–90 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-007-9015-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-007-9015-6