Sure, it is a dynamic process and one in which positivist and non-positivist research can work together. Certainly VDem (available since 2018) has attempted to move beyond Dahlian institutional checklists to account for this. I'd quibble about the execution, but perhaps for another day!

This would happily balance out across the discipline if interpretive research had equal access to the top journals; but comparative studies proclaiming overall success were not opposed in the same spaces by nose-to-the-ground studies, which tended more pessimistic. (2/2)

We believe that it is the approach to research that tends to predict the object of study. For obvious reasons, more positivist research tends to seek the most quantifiable data which will not always be the most pertinent to the object of study. (1/2)

We got this a fair bit in review. This is a trees and forest problem in polsci. If states are to be declared successfully democratised, does it not follow that the component parts of democracy - minority rights, civil society etc - should look democratic when examined from up close?