Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis

Evaluate Diamond’s methodology, which has faced some criticism for being at times anecdotal. What kind of research does he draw upon? What are the strengths and weaknesses of his methodology and sources?

In comparative politics, it is essential to compare apples to apples, or similar types of societies, such as constitutional democracies. Do Diamond’s pairings have enough in common to serve as good comparative cases? Why or why not?

Why is selective change so important in the resolution of national crises? Use one of Diamond’s cases to illustrate how the proper balance between change and continuity is achieved. Are there any cases in which more drastic change may be necessary?

How much emphasis does Diamond place on fixed criteria, such as geographical restraints, in the resolution of crises? Can nations overcome such obstacles in all cases to resolve national crises? Explain.

Choose one of the pairings Diamond uses, such as Germany and Japan. What factors lead Diamond to consider it an appropriate pairing? What factors, if any, has he downplayed or overlooked? Do these other factors strengthen his analysis or challenge it?

Diamond offers various case studies of successful crisis resolution, but his definition of success is sometimes unclear. What does Diamond’s analysis suggest about what success means? In what ways, if any, could some of these successful cases be considered failures in some other respects?

Are all 12 of Diamond’s factors capable of being operationalized and quantified in a larger study? Are any more problematic to operationalize than others? Explain.

Pick a nation that is currently facing a crisis that Diamond’s book does not spotlight, such as Ukraine or Kenya, and apply Diamond’s analytical model to it. In what ways does your case study validate some of Diamond’s assumptions and theories? In what ways, if any, does it challenge or modify them?