Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Conference
Location
About APSA
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
On November 10, 2019, Bolivia’s central labor union, armed forces, and police issued separate statements asking for the resignation of President Evo Morales following a controversial election. The following day, Morales resigned. Despite agreement on the basic facts, public opinion was split on how to interpret these events, with Evo supporters decrying it as a coup d’état and others not. Knowledgeable academic audiences also disagreed on how to interpret this and other contentious political events.
In this study, we ask if there are systematic patterns to the way events of political instability (e.g., coups d’état), are defined by different groups of experts. If differences exist, we ask if they are due to respondent’s ideology, academic discipline, or exposure to different sets of facts. We argue that (H1) the more extreme left or right the respondent’s ideological position, the less accurate their classification of the contentious political event; (H2a) leftist respondents will be more likely to correctly classify coups which remove leftist leaders and non-coups of rightist leaders, while (H2b) rightist respondents will be more likely to correctly classify coups which remove rightist leaders and non-coups of leftist leaders. To test these hypotheses, we administer an original survey experiment to Latin American Studies Association (LASA) members (n=8,047). Our findings show that accepted understandings of social science concepts differ in predictable ways according to both individual-level and organizational characteristics. Our findings hold implications for the evolution of conceptual understanding, and how scholars from different fields engage one another on polemical issues.