“Specifically, I am investigating where the trend towards ‘standards of governance’ – and ‘Good Governance’ in particular – actually stems from.”

An interview with our fellow Stefan Meyer

From finding a topic to the letter of motivation

Romy & Jonathan: Hello Stefan, you have been a member of the Research Training Group since April 2023. What motivated you to apply for the RTG “Standards of Governance”?

Stefan: When the initial call for applications was announced in mid-December 2022, I had just submitted my Master’s thesis. The RTG’s call seemed like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity: The prospect of a paid doctorate was highly appealing, I had already developed a strong sense of belonging to the universities of Darmstadt and Frankfurt during my Master’s studies, and the fact that the “Political Theory and History of Ideas” department, headed by Prof. Dr. Dirk Jörke, was also involved (of which I was sure that it would be a good fit both personally and academically) made the decision an extremely easy one. The much more difficult part came next: conducting research, finding a topic, drafting a project outline, writing a letter of motivation, then doing the job interview, coping with nervousness, trying to remain neither fatalistic nor unreasonable hopeful – and then, finally: relief and excitement for what lay ahead.

“Robert Dahl’s thinking plays a key role here”

Romy & Jonathan: The title of the RTG is quite broad. What are your initial thoughts on “Standards of Governance”?

Stefan: Especially for a political theorist like myself, who was trained to pay close attention to terminology, it is clear that this is a tremendously tense combination. On the one hand, it is about “governance”, i.e. power, control, and authority. However, it is striking that the emphasis lies not on the institution exercising the power (otherwise it would be called “government”), but on the activity or process. This is an interesting conceptual shift that broadens the view to phenomena and ideas beyond the classical nation state. On the other hand, the term “standards” doesn’t seem to fit at first, as it generally describes rather dull, unspectacular processes such as industrial standardization. For me, however, this directly evokes associations with a rhetoric of supposed constraint, depoliticization, and technocracy. And then there are also various other connotations, such as an understanding of “standards” as lofty ideals to strive for.

Romy & Jonathan: What are your research interests and what is the thematic direction of your doctoral thesis?

Stefan: My particular interest in democratic theory and the history of ideas is clearly reflected in my dissertation project. As does the fact that I usually combine this scholarly passion with a normative research interest. Specifically, I am investigating where the trend towards “standards of governance” – and “Good Governance” in particular – actually stems from and how this phenomenon can be explained and evaluated. The thought of Robert Dahl plays a key role here, as it serves as the starting point of a specific democratic-theoretical constellation to which “Good Governance” reacts as the final link of a wide variety of failed theoretical attempts and in a logically coherent shape. At the same time, it functions as an immanent yardstick for revealing the implications, shortcomings, and dangers of this democratic-theoretical innovation. Furthermore, it might even contain considerations that were hastily written off but will – at least in my reasonably hopeful view – prove to be instructive and more viable than its supposed conceptual replacements.

“The history of ideas teaches us humility.”

Romy & Jonathan: Thank you very much for providing insight into your project. To what extent does your research hold societal relevance?

Stefan: Well, I would put it like this: If the fundamental understanding of democracy and democratic legitimacy is undergoing a gradual transformation – one that may not necessarily be for the better, as I may add –, it is definitively a crucial matter for society. I would like to contribute to a deeper understanding of this development and am confident that I will at least partially succeed in doing so. However, I’m not naïve: The fact that even my esteemed colleagues do not fully understand what I’m actually getting at and what exactly I have in mind is very grounding. (Laughs.) Especially as it is absolutely clear that at the end of my dissertation, there won’t be any miraculous solution that will relieve democracy of all its woes and worries. Unfortunately, the look at the history of ideas teaches us humility in this regard.

Romy & Jonathan: Has your doctoral project changed or become more focused since you joined the RTG programme?

Stefan: In preparation for this interview, I revisited the two-page project outline that I applied with, and I have to say: This draft has held up surprisingly well. The very idea of tying it all down to Dahl and thus having a historical starting point, a common thread of criticism, an immanent democratic-theoretical yardstick, and lots of unfulfilled potential all in one is still the mainstay of my theoretical undertaking. But since then, of course, it has all become far more nuanced, more structured, and also more robust in terms of content. Moreover, the groundbreaking idea of understanding not only “Good Governance” but also Dahl’s multidimensional theory of democracy as a specific form of “standardization” only occurred to me through the work within the RTG and thanks to the intensive exchange with colleagues. This perspective has opened up entirely new avenues for my research.

“We are fortunate to be surrounded by supportive colleagues with whom you can share successes and challenges”

Romy & Jonathan: A doctorate within a Research Training Group differs from other forms of doctoral studies. In your view, what are the advantages of pursuing a doctorate within a Research Training Group?

Stefan: The advantage over a self-financed – and therefore presumably part-time – doctorate is obvious: We get paid for it and can therefore dedicate more focus to our research and writing. However, it is important to note that our employment conditions cannot be directly equated with those of a book contract, as all fellows are expected to contribute to the RTG’s research, events, and training program. This can, at times, be quite time-consuming.

In contrast to a doctoral scholarship, we are not isolated in our research activities, or at least not so much. Instead, we engage in regular colloquia, seminars, workshops, and conferences, are in constant contact with our ten professors, and are very fortunate to be surrounded by nice colleagues with whom we can share our joys and sorrows. For doctoral students in particular, such an empathetic environment is invaluable.

What’s more, although for me to a somewhat greater extent than for others: Being part of a RTG and having a close connection to the chair of my primary supervisor are by no means mutually exclusive. Not even if the offices are in different buildings, as is the case with me. Rather, I also have close contact with his other employees and, if I wish to do so, even have the opportunity to take on seminars and get involved in teaching.

Romy & Jonathan: This RTG comprises political scientists, sociologists, philosophers, and legal scholars. How does this interdisciplinarity and diversity contribute to the development of your doctoral project?

Stefan: As my academic journey shows, I have never seen myself as solely a political scientist but rather as someone who likes to think beyond the boundaries of a given discipline. I probably ended up in Political Theory because this discipline has always been a fearless border-crosser who feels at home where sociology, philosophy, history, and law all make sovereign claims. That is why I’m so pleased about this interdisciplinary self-understanding.

Romy & Jonathan: How does the collaboration between the Goethe University and the Technical University of Darmstadt influence your research and doctoral project?

Stefan: The increase in diversity and opportunities that comes with having a second university involved is of course a big plus. This was, in fact, one of the main reasons why I decided to do my Master’s degree in Frankfurt and Darmstadt rather than Jena or Innsbruck. What is also of great help for me is that our RTG includes not just one, but – with Sandra Seubert and her employees Lea Radke and Moritz Fromm – even two chairs for Political Theory, probably due to the established cooperation between the political science departments at both universities. And without knowing the composition of all the RTGs, I would venture to say that this is a unique constellation which of course appeals to me greatly.

“How Robert Dahl is viewed in this home country today and what reactions my distinctly European perspective might provoke”

Romy & Jonathan: What benefits do you anticipate gaining from the international research opportunities provided within the framework of the Research Training Group?

Stefan: To be honest: At least right now, at the end of May 2024, I am still uncertain about the specifics of my research stay abroad. There are several options in terms of both the duration and the possible locations, and I haven’t made a final decision yet. That being said: The United States appear to be the most logical choice, as it would be extremely enlightening to engage in personal exchange with American scholars and thereby learn how the people in Robert Dahl’s home country think about him these days. It will also be thrilling to see what irritations my rather European view of him as well as my unusual embedding and utilization of his thought will cause. This change of perspective will challenge pretty much everything I have worked on in my dissertation, that much seems certain. But only time will tell how exactly this probe turns out.

Romy & Jonathan: What will your next few months look like in terms of your research?

Stefan: In the last few days and weeks, I’ve been busy with numerous appointments and commitments, so there hasn’t been as much time for my actual dissertation work as there was before. A seminar, a retreat, two colloquia (and this interview), teaching, higher education politics & union work: Sometimes, it’s just a lot. Unfortunately, this could go on for a few more weeks. But as soon as that changes again and things calm down, I will continue reading, thinking, discussing, and writing as I did in the months before – and I’m actually really looking forward to it. Which, just over a year after I started working at GRK, is a really nice sign and a pleasant interim conclusion.
Romy & Jonathan: Thank you very much for your interesting answers.

The interview was conducted by Romy Knappe and Jonathan Mück in May 2024.