Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Saward (2) (remove)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2) (remove)
Representation is a process of making, accepting, or rejecting representative claims (Disch, 2015; Saward, 2014). This groundbreaking insight challenged the standard assumption that representative democracy can be reduced to elections and activities of elected representatives (Pitkin, 1967). It broadened the scope of representative democracy to encompass representation activities beyond those authorized by elections, transformed our thinking and provided a new perspective, putting claims and their reception into the center. This paradigm shift erased the distinction between elected and non-elected representatives and disclosed the potential of non-elected actors’ claims to represent (Andeweg, 2003; Kuyper, 2016; Rosanvallon & Goldhammer, 2008; Saward, 2006, 2009; Van Biezen & Saward, 2008). In spite of this lively debate, we identify an important gap in the literature: while this paradigmatic shift inspired many authors, conceptual frameworks that can be applied for systematic empirical analysis of real-life cases are missing. In this article, we fill this gap and propose frameworks for assessing and validating a variety of real-life claims. Our study provides empirical substance to the ongoing theoretical debates, helping to translate the mainly theoretical ‘claim approach’ into empirical research tools. It helps to transform the conventional wisdom about what representation can (not) be and shines a new light on the potential future of (claims on) representation.
Relying on the theory of Saward (2010) and Disch (2015), we study political representation through the lens of representative claim-making. We identify a gap between the theoretical concept of claim-making and the empirical (quantitative) assessment of representative claims made in the real world’s representative contexts. Therefore, we develop a new approach to map and quantify representative claims in order to subsequently measure the reception and validation of the claims by the audience. To test our method, we analyse all the debates of the German parliament concerned with the introduction of the gender quota in German supervisory boards from 2013 to 2017 in a two-step process. At first, we assess which constituencies the MPs claim to represent and how they justify their stance. Drawing on multiple correspondence analysis, we identify different claim patterns. Second, making use of natural language processing techniques and logistic regression on social media data, we measure if and how the asserted claims in the parliamentary debates are received and validated by the respective audience. We come to the conclusion that the constituency as ultimate judge of legitimacy has not been comprehensively conceptualized yet.