Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:59:28.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2015

Andrew Sabl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Empirical political scientists and normative political theorists both seek to assess the quality of democracy. But they apply to this task very different criteria and assumptions. Empiricists (in particular those who study American politics) often assume that a—perhaps the—key indicator of democratic quality is responsiveness, the degree to which policy outcomes reflect public opinion. They often cite “democratic theory” as endorsing this criterion. Normative theorists, however, all but universally reject responsiveness, proposing instead very different criteria of democratic quality. I document a divide between two research cultures; trace some of its causes; and suggest some ways of overcoming it so that scholars on each side may benefit from the insights of the other. Empiricists, I argue, should acknowledge that the responsiveness criterion is neither value-neutral nor, in its pure form, particularly persuasive. Theorists adduce other criteria for sound and commonsensical reasons. In particular, to the extent that empiricists find that policy outcomes reflect not median voter preferences but either random factors or the concerns of the wealthy and organized, they would render their findings more compelling by presenting them as troubling according to a variety of persuasive democratic theories, not just a stylized theory that posits pure responsiveness as its ideal. Normative theorists, I argue, may learn from empiricists greater respect for ordinary citizens’ existing opinions, however imperfect the social and political circumstances in which they originate. and greater concern regarding empirical evidence that the median voter’s opinions may have little independent effect on policy. In spite of all this, the two cultures remain properly distinct in many respects. Some substantial differences in approach reflect a necessary, permanent, and salutary division of labor between two very different modes of studying democracy and assessing its quality.

Type
Articles
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 345 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 475–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2004. “Musical Chairs: Pocketbook Voting and the Limits of Democratic Accountability.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 2–5.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor, W., et al. . 1976. The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology. Trans. Adey, Glyn and Frisby, David. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Arnold, Christine, and Franklin, Mark N.. 2012. “Introduction: Issue Congruence and Political Responsiveness.” West European Politics 35(6): 1217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S.. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56(4): 947–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, Terence, Farr, James, and Hanson, Russell L., eds. 1989. Political Innovation and Conceptual Change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence, and Pocock, J. G. A., eds. 1998. Conceptual Change and the Constitution. New ed. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2003. “Democracy with Attitudes.” In Electoral Democracy, ed. MacKuen, Michael B. and Rabinowitz, George. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John, 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10(3): 571–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Ben. 2011. Attention Deficit Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James, and Rehg, William. 1997. “Introduction.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. Bohman, James and Rehg, William. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecht, Bertolt. 1976 [1959]. “The Solution.” In Poems 1913–1956. Ed. Williett, John and Manheim, Ralph. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2009. “Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?” Political Theory 37(3): 323–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, ed. Hamlin, Alan and Pettit, Philip. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Condorcet, Jean-Antoine-Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de, . 2012 [1789]. “On Despotism/Thoughts on Despotism.” In Political Writings, ed. Lukes, Steven and Urbinati, Nadia. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1990. “Popular Representation and the Distribution of Information.” In Information and Democratic Processes, ed. Ferejohn, John and Kuklinski, James H.. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 2012. Democratization and Research Methods. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, Michael, and Gerring, John, with Altman, David, Bernhard, Michael, Fish, Steven, Hicken, Allen, Kroenig, Matthew, Lindberg, Staffan I., McMann, Kelly, Paxton, Pamela, Semetko, Holli A., Skaaning, Svend-Erik, Staton, Jeffrey, and Teorell, Jan. 2011. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach.” Perspectives on Politics 9(2): 247–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1961. “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest.” American Political Science Review 55(4): 763–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., Farrell, David M., and McAllister, Ian. 2011. Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, John. 1930. Individualism Old and New. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation.” American Political Science Review 105(1): 100–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2012. “Democratic Representation and the Constituency Paradox.” Perspectives on Politics 10(3): 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2002. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2007. “Theory, Evidence, and the Tasks of Deliberation. In Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, ed. Rosenberg, Shawn W.. Houndmills, England, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1997. “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. Bohman, James and Rehg, William. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James. 2012. “Deliberative Polling: Reflections on an Ideal Made Practical.” In Evaluating Democratic Innovations, ed. Geissel, Brigitte and Newton, Kenneth. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James, and Laslett, Peter. 2002. “Introduction.” Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2): 125–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2003. “Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and their Consequences.” Journal of Political Philosophy 11(3): 338–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2007. “Democratic Theory and Political Science: A Pragmatic Method of Constructive Engagement.” American Political Science Review 101(3): 443–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallie, W. B. 1956. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, new series, 56: 167–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2009. “Representative Government and Popular Sovereignty.” In Political Representation, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Stokes, Susan C., Wood, Elisabeth Jean, and Kirshner, Alexander S.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John, and Yesnowitz, Joshua. 2006. “A Normative Turn in Political Science?” Polity 38 (1): 101–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2005. “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69(5): 778–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin, and Page, Benjamin I.. 2014. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2003. Reflective Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E., and Dryzek, John. 2006. “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-political Uptake of Mini-publics.” Politics and Society 34(2): 219–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, John D. 2006. “Electoral Competition and Democratic Responsiveness: A Defense of the Marginality Hypothesis.” Journal of Politics 68(4): 911–21.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy. 1999. “Deliberative Democracy and Majority Rule: Reply to Waldron.” In Deliberative Democracy and Human Rights, ed. Koh, Harold Hongju and Slye, Ronald. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander, Jay, John, and Madison, James. 2001 [1818]). The Federalist. Edition, Gideon, ed. Carey, George W. and McClellan, James. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hartley, Thomas, and Russett, Bruce. 1992. “Public Opinion and the Common Defense: Who Governs Military Spending in the United States?” American Political Science Review 86(4): 905–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 2011 [1960]. The Constitution of Liberty. “The Definitive Edition,” ed. Hamowy, Ronald. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1994. “Studying Substantive Democracy.” PS: Political Science and Politics 27(1): 9–17.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kateb, George. 1992. The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Theory. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1964. Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., and Segura, Gary M.. 1995. “Endogeneity, Exogeneity, Time, and Space in Political Rpresentation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, Hélène. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lawson, Kay, ed. 1980. Political Parties and Linkage: A Comparative Perspective. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1914. Drift and Mastery. New York: Mitchell Kennerley.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C. B. 1973. “Problems of a Non-Market Theory of Democracy.” In Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval, ed. Macpherson, C. B.. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press [Clarendon Press].Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Trans. Stein, Elly and Mansbridge, Jane. Political Theory 15(3): 338–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999a. “Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System.” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement , ed. Macedo, Stephen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane 1999b. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61(3): 628–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97(4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2007. “‘Deliberative Democracy’ or ‘Democratic Deliberation’?” In Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy, ed. Rosenberg, Shawn W.. Houndmills, England, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2012. “On the Importance of Getting Things Done.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1962 [1861]. Considerations on Representative Government. Introduction by Hayek, F. A.. South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1975 [1859]. On Liberty. Ed. Spitz, David. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Monroe, Alan D. 1998. “Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980–1993.” Public Opinion Quarterly 62(1): 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana. 2008. “Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory? Annual Review of Political Science 11: 521–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1994. “‘Democratic Responsiveness?’ Untangling the Links between Public Opinion and Policy.” PS: Political Science and Politics 27(1): 25–29.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., Bartels, Larry M., and Seawright, Jason. 2013. “Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans.” Perspectives on Politics 11(1): 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, John, and Mansbridge, Jane, eds. 2012. Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 2012. “Participatory Democracy Revisited.” Perspectives on Politics 10(1): 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 1997. Republicanism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press [Clarendon Press].Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2000. “Democracy, Electoral and Contestatory.” In NOMOS 42: Designing Democratic Institutions, ed. Shapiro, Ian and Macedo, Stephen. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1998. The Politics of Presence. New ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Plamenatz, John. 1973. Democracy and Illusion. London: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2013. “Representation in Context: Election Laws and Ideological Congruence Between Citizens and Governments.” Perspectives on Politics 11(1): 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1999. “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense.” In Democracy’s Value, ed. Shapiro, Ian and Hacker-Cordón, Casiano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009. “Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy.” American Political Science Review 103(2): 214–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2010. “Offensive Political Theory.” Perspectives on Politics 8(2): 465–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew, and Schwartzberg, Melissa. 2013. “Designing Electoral Systems: Normative Tradeoffs and Institutional Innovations.” Perspectives on Politics 11(3): 824–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Robert, Christopher, and Zeckhauser, Richard. 2011. “The Methodology of Normative Policy Analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30(3): 613–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Andrew, and Kim, Byung-Yeon. 2011. “Policy Responsiveness in Post-communist Europe: Public Preferences and Economic Reforms.” British Journal of Political Science 41: 819–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabl, Andrew. 2008. “Democratic Sportsmanship: Contested Games and Political Ethics.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 4(1): 85–112.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael J. 1996. Democracy’s Discontent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Belknap Press).Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1980 [1960]. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schudson, Michael. 1998. The Good Citizen. New York: Martin Kessler Books.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. 3d ed. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Schwartzberg, Melissa. 2014. Counting the Many: The Origins and Limits of Supermajority Rule. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 1996. Democracy’s Place. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2002. “Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, or What’s Wrong with Political Science and What to Do about It.” Political Theory 30(4): 596–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shklar, Judith N. 1991. “Redeeming American Political Theory.” American Political Science Review 85(1): 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Peter. 2011. Practical Ethics. 3d ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. 2004. “Reconnecting Political Theory to Empirical Inquiry, or, A Return to the Cave?” In Theory and Inquiry in American Politics, ed. Mansfield, Edward D. and Sisson, Richard. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, C. P. 1993 [1959]. The Two Cultures. 2d ed. With an introduction by Collini, Stefan. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. “Opinion-Policy Dynamics: Public Preferences and Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom.” British Journal of Political Science 35(4): 665–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepan, Alfred, and Linz, Juan J.. 2011. “Comparative Perspectives on Inequality and the Quality of Democracy in the United States.” Perspectives on Politics 9(4): 841–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James, MacKuen, Michael B. and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89(3): 543–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Donald. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 57(2): 368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, Robert. 1995. “A Theory of Focal Points.” Economic Journal 105(430): 533–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teorell, , Jan. 2006. “Political Participation and Three Theories of Democracy: A Research Inventory and Agenda.” European Journal of Political Research 45(5): 787–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 1970. The Democratic Citizen. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 1976. John Stuart Mill and Representative Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 2002. Just Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 2008. “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2000. “Representation as Advocacy: A Study of Democratic Deliberation.” Political Theory 28(6): 758–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2005. “Continuity and Rupture: The Power of Judgment in Democratic Representation.” Constellations 12(2): 194–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2006. Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uslaner, Eric M., and Weber, Ronald E.. 1983. “Policy Congruence and American State Elites: Descriptive Representation versus Electoral Accountability.” Journal of Politics 45(1): 183–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry. 1995. Voice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1998. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2012. “Unbinding the Executive: The Challenge to Liberal Legalism.” University of Oxford Podcast, October 4. http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/unbinding-executive-challenge-liberal-legalism.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1981. “Philosophy and Democracy.” Political Theory 9: 379–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, Greg. 2012. Madison’s Metronome: The Constitution, Majority Rule, and the Tempo of American Politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Williams, Melissa. 2000. Voice, Trust, and Memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon S. 2006. Politics and Vision. Expanded ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar