Continuing
this blog’s viability statement regarding the construct, liberated federalism,
this posting will review Eugene Meehan’s[1]
third criterion, precision, and the fourth criterion, reliability. The blog has already addressed Meehan’s
concern for comprehensiveness and power (see the two previous postings at http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/[2]).
Precision is a criterion that asks:
does a construct specifically and precisely treat its
concepts, making them clear in their use?
The concern is whether a construct is clearly usable in its uses.
As
applied to liberated federalism, this blog, preceding the actual description of
the model with a presentation of its elements, presented the model’s key
concepts. They were identified and
explained as to their meaning and significance.
In addition to the explanation of the individual concepts, the relations
among them were explored. This was carried
through in the description of the model itself.
Certain
concepts, such as equality, were introduced more than once since they have
significance within the different components of the model. For example, equality is important within the
relation between entities outside the domain of the arrangement as well as
within it. These distinctions were added
to the description in the attempt to be as clear as possible.
So,
carrying this example further, if the concern of a study is how cohesion among
members of a minority group and members of that group who hold positions within
a government bureaucracy, such a condition would be addressed if that condition
affects the concern under study. This
sort of clarity is carried forth with all its elements – its concepts and
claims.
The
fourth Meehan criterion is reliability or consistency and asks: does a construct explain its components and
their relationships the same way time after time? Can it be used reliably across various
studies or different elements of a particular study? The proposed model attempts to generalize the
factors that are present in any moral, political decision-making, but maintain
their meaning in its different applications.
Not
every important decision-making event in politics and government is moral or
effective. If one accepts the stated
assumption that only moral decision-making furthers, in the long term, the
self-interests of all parties involved, then the model serves as an ideal
standard by which all political and governmental decisions can be analyzed and
even judged.
It
also serves to identify the viable factors involved with such decision-making
and can, therefore, provide a springboard for asking insightful questions of
any similar or related activity within and without government. As a standard, the relationship between or
among the factors can be judged to be reliable in all political
situations.
As a model that
designates the factors necessary for effective decision making for a given
association, the primary emphasis is that they be coordinated and contextualized
as communal efforts, i.e., federalist unions are best equipped to gain
political objectives, particularly in the long run. As with the previous notes on the other
Meehan criteria, use of the model will serve to see if these claims are in
effect true.
The following posting
will address the next Meehan criterion, isomorphism.
[1] Philip Selznick, The
Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and
the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1992).
[2] Use the archives feature. If readers want to read the blog’s presentation
of the liberated federalism model, they should start with the posting, “From Natural Rights to Liberated Federalism” (June 2, 2023).
No comments:
Post a Comment