Some of the Approaches to Identify the Elites are: 1. Positional Approach, 2. Reputational Approach, 3. Issue Participation Approach.
The problem of identifying elites is not a new one to social scientists today. Studies in this sphere have mostly been conducted in western communities following three approaches in the main: (a) positional, (b) reputational, and (c) issue participation. In this paper, an attempt has been made to describe briefly each of these approaches.
1. Positional Approach:
Prior to 1953, the positional approach was very popular. The basic assumption of this approach is that “those holding positions of authority actually make key decisions while those who do not occupy such positions do not make key decisions”. Followers of this approach adopted different criteria in selecting important positions. For instance, following Marx, both Lynds and Mills maintained that those who were at the apex of the economic concerns were better situated to decide and thus economic dominants were regarded as positional elites. Stouffer did not take top economic position into consideration; he selected top civic and political statuses instead.
Schulze and Blumberg chose economic dominance and such other objective criteria to determine positional elites. Jennings selected government officials, civic staff personnels and economic dominants as their positional elites. This approach has been criticized because of the variation in terminology characteristics of different associations in designating similar offices.
2. Reputational Approach:
In the study of social stratification, Warner, Hollingshed and several others used the reputational approach. Weber and Lasswell provided the theoretical framework for it. However, in the context of the community power structure, this approach was first used by Hunter and by Angell.
There are several variants of this approach but irrespective of those variants, the respondents desired to name influential persons in the community who play a significant role and can get things done for the community.
The basic assumption of this approach is that the respondents understand the question well and they are able to perceive the power structure accurately. The respondents may form a panel of knowledgeable or they may be selected through a “snow-ball”.
At times heads of organizations are asked to nominate people to these panels. They may also be randomly selected from a cross-section of the population. Nominations are secured from the respondents, and then a cut-off point is decided; and those who obtain a larger number of nominations above the cut-off point, are considered to be elites.
Though this approach has been widely used, it has been criticized on various grounds. It is considered subjective and indeterminate. It is pointed out that it measures reputation for power and not the possession of actual power. It locates the existence of a monolithic power structure, the respondents are unable to perceive the power structure accurately, that there is no correspondence between the researcher and the respondent about the use of the term.
3. Issue Participation Approach:
The issue participation approach is also well known as the “event-analysis” or “decision-making” approach. This approach is based on the assumption that those who actually participate in the decision-making process are the elites because they have shown their influence in real-life situations.
The first task, according to this approach, is to specify those decisions which are considered vital for the community at large. Once the decisions are specified, attempts are made to find out those who are the active participants in the decisions. The elites, according to this approach, are those who actually shape the decisions.
This approach is likely to identify overt power rather than the power potential and thus it provides a more realistic viewpoint of power relations. But this too did not escape criticism and it is considered to be less expedient than the others.
The basic assumption of the various approaches and the various points of criticism has very ably been rephrased by Danzger and in his opinion the following questions are open to investigation and research:
1. Does the informant’s perception of power actually correspond to the power structure as measured by some objective means?
2. If the informant’s perception is “incorrect” or if objective “correctness” cannot be determined, then what is the relation between the power structure as perceived through the reputational technique and as perceived through other techniques?
3. What do “informed” informants mean by the term “power”? Do they understand this term in the same sense as the researcher?
4. Do the leaders identified through the use of the reputational technique lead in “several scopes of power” or is their leadership restricted to one or few scopes?
5. Is the power structure as described through the use of the reputational technique stable over time or is it merely a description of power based on the highly variable “popularity” of certain individual at a particular moment?
A comparison of elites identified by reputation, position and issue participation approaches can answer the questions raised. If reputational elites are also identified by positional and issue participation approaches, then it can be said that: ”
(a) Reputation for power corresponds to the realities of the power distribution,
(b) That the respondents understand the term power or use it in a way similar to the usage intended by the researcher,
(c) That once research techniques have located informants whose perception of the power structure is indeed accurate.”
The present paper tries to answer some of the questions raised here. The objectives of the study may be spelled out in brief:
1. To identify elites through positional, reputational and issue participation approaches;
2. To examine the extent of correspondence of elites identified through different variants of reputational approach;
3. To examine whether or not randomly selected respondents from a cross-section of the population are able to identify elites of the community; and
4. To explore the relative adequacy of the three basic approaches— positional, reputational, and issue participation.