Membership Growth of the Progress Party - Thesis Proposal Example

Thesis: An In Depth Study Of The Membership Growth Of The Progress Party Introduction The master thesis by Hilmar Mjelde, ‘Explaining membership growth in the Norwegian Progress Party from 1973 to 2008,’ is a strong thesis put forward with seven hypothesis propositions to explain the phenomenal growth in the number of the party membership. The author’s motivation behind choosing this topic for thesis was his belief that the thesis should try to answer a question that is relevant to the real world and hence, can prove to be a study that can be used by others to take actions (Mjelde 2008, p.1). Looking at this understanding, the topic was perfect. Two major studies conducted in year 1992 and 2001 shows that the western-European parties, including Norwegian parties, lost members and continue doing so. This proves the phenomenal growth of the Norwegian Progress Party, Fremskrittspartiet, is an exception and hence worth studying. The thesis is strongly supported by proper utilization of extensive literature review, data and qualitative method. Methodology The thesis, ‘Explaining membership growth in the Norwegian Progress Party from 1973 to 2008,’ is a case study (Mjelde 2008, p.1). Case study can be defined as “a detailed examination of an aspect of a historical episode to develop or test historical explanations that may be generalized to other events”(George & Baskette 2005, p.4). The selection of case study as a methodology proved to be advantageous in many ways. The intention of the author was to study the membership growth of the Progress Party in its breadth and depth (Mjelde 2008, p.6). Hence, the choice of case study as a method for this topic was appropriate. The two important strengths of the case study method are: 1. Conceptual Validity, 2. Deriving new hypothesis (George & Baskette 2005, pp.19-22). The choice of case study method helped the author due to its strengths in following ways: 1. Conceptual Validity: Case study allows the researcher to study the validity of the concept at high level(George & Baskette 2005, p. 19). The study of the membership growth in the Norwegian Progress Party was a difficult study as it demanded the researcher to study the growth in presence of different contexts. To study the theoretical concept in depth, it is important to identify and measure the factors that represents the theory(George & Baskette 2005, p. 19). Case study makes it possible to study the contextual factors in detail while it is difficult to do so in statistical studies (George & Baskette 2005, p. 19). 2. Deriving new Hypothesis: The case study can help in development of theory as it allows the researcher to form new hypothesis from the already existing study and during the research (George & Baskette 2005, p. 12). Due to the ability to form new hypothesis and identification of new variables during the field work, the case study has an advantage of creating a new dimension to the study and create a path for future investigations (George & Baskette 2005, p. 19). In the thesis, ‘Explaining membership growth in the Norwegian Progress Party from 1973 to 2008,’ hypothesis 3 ‘The Progress Party leadership has made systematic efforts to increase membership,’ was found weak as the author found that the success of the Party was not guaranteed just by the decision of the party leadership to recruit new members and retain current ones (Mjelde 2008, p.42). Hence the hypothesis was modified to ‘The Progress Party leadership efforts to increase membership have been successful.’ Data Analysis Since the thesis topic spanned more than four decades, the collection of the data to support the hypothesis was very crucial. The author has taken great efforts to collect the data that was valid and not based on assumptions. However, there is a lack of enough data to support the hypothesis. As the thesis topic boasts of the study of the membership growth from 1973 to 2008, the ideal task was to support the hypothesis with the data available from all these years. However, from the thesis, it is clear that the data that was collected was not sufficient. The insufficiency of data is visible in the context of most of the hypothesis. They are as follows: Hypothesis 1 : Electorate Success Has Led To Membership Growth In The Progress Party In hypothesis 1, the author was not able to get the data of the results of the Progress Party in parliamentary election before 1991(Mjelde 2008, p.53) . Hence, the lack of data of nearly two decades fails to support the time span considered in the topic of the thesis, which is nearly four decades. Hypothesis 2: Increased Public Funding Has Led To Membership Growth In The Progress Party. In hypothesis 2, the data for the budget is not available for the entire period being analyzed (Mjelde 2008, p.55). The data for the period before the year 1977 is missing and the data is also missing from 1990 to 2004 (Mjelde 2008, p.56). Hypothesis 6: Support Of The Progress party’s Policies Have Led To Membership Growth. The data presented to prove this hypothesis is the questionnaire survey that was conducted during 1991 and 2000 (Mjelde 2008, p.74). However, the data for the motivation factors for joining the party is not available for the time period before 1990. Although the available data strongly supports the hypothesis, the fact remains that the data does not cover the whole time period that is undertaken for the topic. This weakened the hypothesis. Hypothesis 7: The Availability Of Political Positions for Individuals Has Led To Membership Growth in the Progress Party. This hypothesis is drawn from the inference and not with the aid of the data analysis. The explanation of the hypothesis is supported with the aid of the actions taken by Progress Party to strengthen and develop the party organization through a movement called ‘The Progress Party Movement.’ This movement was devised in the year 1990. Hence, the lack of data does not strengthen the hypothesis. The lack of valid data for the above hypothesis were instrumental in making the hypothesis weak. It also made the author to conclude that these hypothesis were uncertain and dependent on other factors. It was possible to strengthen the hypothesis if the complete data was available. Strength of the Thesis: 1. Reference of extensive research material: The topic of the thesis is not only interesting but also of major importance in understanding the reasons behind the exceptional membership growth of the Norwegian Progress Party. Chapter 3 in the thesis is dedicated to an extensive comparative research that the author has undertaken to explain why he has chosen the topic. He studied the performance of the west European and Norway parties to understand how the performance of Progress Party regarding the membership growth is phenomenal compared to others. In this chapter, he has referred to two articles, one by Katz and Mair (1992) and other by Mair and Biezen (2001). These articles provided the author with comprehensive amount of information about the European parties (Mjelde 2008, p.14). 2. Extensive comparative analysis data: The strength of the thesis is its development of the theory with the aid of extensive literature analysis. The thesis, according to the author, is a case study of comparative analysis(Mjelde 2008, p.5). For the causal analysis in comparative historical analysis, a systematic and contextualized comparison is necessary (Mahoney & Rueschemeyer 2003, p.6). Mjelde has taken great efforts to cover all the issues that are relevant to get into the depth of the topic. For e.g. he undertook the comparative study of membership growth of Progress Party from 1,020 members in 1973 to 25000 in 2008, comparative study of West European parties and Norwegian parties in post-war era and comparative studies of political parties. According to Paul Pierson, the events being studied are not static occurrences taking place at fixed point but they are processes unfolding over time and in time (Mahoney & Rueschemeyer 2003, p.12). So, the events being studied have to be clearly described and explained with the aid of historical sequences and the processes that unfold over time (Mahoney & Rueschemeyer 2003, p.12). Mjelde, in chapter 3 of his thesis, has given a clear and in depth description of all the comparative studies that he has conducted with the aid of detailed information and data about the following: a. The Progress Part’s election results through 1973 to 2007 (Mjelde 2008, p.15) b. Information about Progress Party leader from 1973 till date (Mjelde 2008, p.16). c. Party membership change in Europe from 1960 to 1990 (M/E Ratios)(Mjelde 2008, p.19). d. Party membership change in Europe from 1980 to 2000 with absolute numbers and M/E ratios (Mjelde 2008, p.19). This shows that the author did not ignore the importance of these studies and fulfilled the fundamental concern of the comparative historical analysis, which is, to explain and identify the causal elements that produce major outcomes (Mahoney & Rueschemeyer 2003, p.12) 3. The study is focused on specific issue: The study to be strong and meaningful, it has to focus on specific issues (Mahoney & Rueschemeyer 2003, p.8). The topic chosen by Mjelde is specific and focused. Nowhere in the whole thesis does he lose the focus of his topic. All the variables that he had studied are relevant to the topic. 4. Efforts to reach the root of the topic: By analyzing the study from the macro, meso and micro level, the author has demonstrated his intention of reaching the roots of the reasons that explain the membership growth of the Progress Party. By studying the electorate success, leadership efforts and the motivation of the individual to join the party, he has tried to cover topic at all the levels like social, organizational and personal. This strengthens the thesis to great extent. Weakness of the Thesis: 1. Selection of time span: The weakness of the thesis is the time span that the author has tried to cover in his topic. When choosing a topic of the thesis, it is important to understand the limits of the study. It is interesting to explain the membership growth from the time of the establishment of the party. However, the hypothesis proposed can be strengthened only when it can be supported by the data. Although the Norwegian Progress Party was established in 1973, the author was not able to explain the reason behind membership growth since that time as the data was not available. The lack of data from 1973 has weakened the topic. 2. Hint of bias: In the conclusion section, the author has made a statement that, “the alleged skepticism of right-wing populist parties towards academics and journalists could be exaggerated.” This statement is based on the fact that the author was treated with warmth by the party members. Progress Party members co-operated with him in his effort to understand the work and the functioning of the Progress Party. He said that he was allowed to speak to everyone in the Progress Party headquarters in Oslo and also was provided with all the information that was needed (Mjelde 2008, p.82). However, making this statement on the basis of personal experience shows a hint of bias. The fact that he was allowed access to the headquarters and was provided with the information does not prove that everyone from the academic or media field will be treated that way. The Progress Party’s behavior towards him does not represent a behavior towards whole academic and media world. Different people approaching them may get treated differently. Suggestions for improvement: 1. The study of membership growth of the Progress Party can be improved by limiting the focus of the study to the years from which the complete and valid data is available. This will reduce the occurrence of assumptions and increase the strength of the hypothesis. 2. A true comparative study can be conducted where the performance and the elements responsible for the growth of the membership of the Progress Party can be tested with other parties. A study can be called truly comparative when not only the ‘what’ is tested for both the elements being compared, but also ‘when’ and ‘how’ of both the elements involved are compared. Overall, with the aid of extensive literature analysis, qualitative interview, data analysis and studying the variables on macro, meso and micro level, the thesis has succeeded in explaining the membership growth in the Norwegian Progress Party from 1973 to 2008. However, the lack of data for all the years from 1973 to 2008 creates a doubt about the success of the thesis regarding the time span that was selected for the study. References: George, Alexander L. and Andrew, B. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press, 2005. Mahoney, J. & Rueschemeyer, D. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Mjelde, Hilmar, L. “Explaining Membership Growth In Norwegian Progress Party from 1973 to 2008.” Master Thesis. The University of Bergen, 2008. Read More