The Explanatory Potential of ‘Dilemmas’: Bridging Practices and Power to Understand Political Change in Interpretive Political Science
| Author | Marc Geddes |
| Published date | 01 August 2019 |
| Date | 01 August 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929918795342 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918795342
Political Studies Review
2019, Vol. 17(3) 239 –254
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929918795342
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
The Explanatory Potential
of ‘Dilemmas’: Bridging
Practices and Power to
Understand Political
Change in Interpretive
Political Science
Marc Geddes
Abstract
This article explores the potential of the concept of ‘dilemma’, as introduced in Mark Bevir and
R.A.W. Rhodes’ interpretive political science, to understand and explain change within and beyond
political institutions. This article argues that the current conceptualisation of the concept has been
underdeveloped and the potential opportunities of using it have been overlooked. The concept
of dilemmas must be developed in two directions: first, through a greater linkage with everyday
practices and, second, through a greater linkage to the concept of power. To do so, this article draws
on insights from the concept of ‘problematisation’ as a way to explain change. This adds more detail
to dilemmas by arguing that, while dilemmas pose problems for existing beliefs and webs of belief,
they also erect boundaries over what is an acceptable answer or resolution to dilemmas. It is this
simple yet key insight that offers an opportunity to further strengthen interpretive political science,
and offers much potential for future research on political change.
Keywords
interpretive political science, problematisation, political change, contestation, Michel Foucault,
policy problems
Accepted: 26 July 2018
‘Die Formulierung einer Frage ist ihre Lösung’
Karl Marx, 19191
Political upheavals continue to disrupt not only established institutions and organisa-
tions, but raise a fundamental challenge to political scientists’ capacities to understand
and explain political change. Recent changes in British politics, including the
School of Social and Political Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Corresponding author:
Marc Geddes, School of Social and Political Science, The University of Edinburgh, 19 George Square,
Edinburgh EH8 9LD, UK.
Email: marc.geddes@ed.ac.uk
795342PSW0010.1177/1478929918795342Political Studies ReviewGeddes
research-article2018
Article
240 Political Studies Review 17(3)
organisational make-up and ideological direction of political parties, outcomes of recent
general elections, and the referendum to leave the European Union, for example, indi-
cate that questions about how we conceive of political change matters. These questions
may revolve around the process of change (revolutionary, evolutionary, punctuated equi-
librium, etc.) and the causes of change (critical junctures, anomalies, exogenous shocks,
material interests, windows of opportunity, the role of power, etc.), within and across
institutional boundaries.
The continuing growth of interpretive approaches to political science (what Gofas and
Hay (2010) term the ‘ideational turn’) gives us an opportunity to further understand
change from different theoretical perspectives. Interpretive approaches call on social sci-
entists to take actors’ ideas and beliefs seriously as a part of explanatory political analysis
(Bevir and Rhodes, 2016). These approaches shift focus directly to actors’ interpretations,
attitudes, beliefs and everyday behaviours. With respect to political change, this implies
a focus on how actors make sense of their place in situations, institutions or broader con-
stellations of ideational frameworks and how those beliefs not only shape action but can
and do change behaviour (within, as part of, or beyond institutions). Although there exist
many varieties of interpretive analysis, a key reference point in UK political science and
beyond is the theoretically informed empirical research undertaken by Mark Bevir and
R.A.W. Rhodes (2003, 2006, 2010, 2016). Since the publication of their seminal study,
Interpreting British Governance (2003), their approach has made an important and dis-
tinctive contribution to debates about not only British governance but also, and more
widely, to debates about how we approach and study political phenomena (e.g. Finlayson
et al., 2004; Glynos and Howarth, 2008; Marsh and Hall, 2016).
Bevir and Rhodes have consistently engaged with debates on interpretive theory and
how it can be taken forward. In doing so, their approach has developed over time (e.g.
Bevir and Rhodes, 2008a, 2008b, 2012). The continuing relevance of their approach can
be seen in the wide range of settings to which it has been applied, including community
leadership (Sullivan, 2007), crisis management (Wilkinson, 2011), bureaucratic elites
(Gains, 2009) and parliamentary practices (Geddes, in press). However, and despite the
growing importance of their work (as seen with the growth of edited collections on their
approach: Bevir and Rhodes, 2016; Turnbull, 2016), we still understand little about how
the interpretive approach can help to explain change. This may be an odd statement given
that Bevir and Rhodes have long focused on how traditions have clashed in order to
explain conflict and modification of political practices over time. Moreover, they have
identified a concept – ‘dilemmas’ – as a way to explain those shifting practices. In short,
they argue that political actors amend their beliefs, and therefore their actions, practices
and wider webs of belief, in response to problems or questions that actors face. However,
detailed theoretical explication or its empirical application has been neglected. And with
it, a chance is missed to use the concept of ‘dilemmas’ as analytical hook to develop a
deeper and more substantial understanding around political change within and beyond
institutions, organisations and practices.
Bevir and Rhodes’ limited application of dilemmas has a number of repercussions.
First, it limits the dynamism of their approach (Hay, 2011: 178; Wagenaar, 2011: 4).
Without a detailed explication of dilemmas, the heart of interpretive political science is
removed in the sense that there is no clash or contest of ideas. This is important because,
if we define politics as the process of contestation between different worldviews
(Finlayson, 2007: 549–552), then Bevir and Rhodes unintentionally elide a fundamental
element of politics. Second, without an adequate explanation of why things change or
To continue reading
Request your trial