II.

C O N C EP TS A N D
TH EO R IES IN
P O LITIC A L S C IEN C E

A. Concept Formation (September 14, 16)

1. Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias (Chapter 2 Conceptual Foundations of Research)
2. Gerring (Chapters 3-4)

Application
1. David Collier and Steven Levitsky. 1997.
Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. World Politics, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Apr.,
1997), pp. 430-451.
B. Theory Construction (September 21, 23)
1. Gerring (Chapters 5-7)
2. King, Keohane and Verba (Chapters 2-3)
Applications
1. Zeev Maoz; Bruce Russett, Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986. The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3. (Sep., 1993), pp. 624-638. (JSTOR)
2. Zilber and Niven. 1995.
Black versus African-American: Are Whites Political Attitudes Influenced by the Choice of Racial Labels? Social
Science Quarterly 76: 655-664.
3. William H. Riker; Peter C. Ordeshook, A Theory of the Calculus of Voting. The American Political Science
Review, Vol. 62, No. 1. (Mar., 1968), pp. 25-42.

Concepts
Definitions
an abstraction; a representation of an

object, one of that objects properties, or

a natural/behavioral phenomenon (FN&N)
A general idea applicable to particular
instances or examples of behavior (Gray
et al.)

Concepts
Definitions
an abstraction; a representation of an

object, one of that objects properties, or

a natural/behavioral phenomenon (FN&N)
A general idea applicable to particular
instances or examples of behavior (Gray
et al.)

Concepts
Functions of Concepts
communication
allow classification and generalization
*components of theories*

Conceptualvs.O perationalD efi

nitions
Conceptual Definitions
define concepts using other concepts,

derived or primitive terms

must be clear
May still be abstract and may not be
useful for empirical observation
occur in the context of theoretical
discussion

G erring (p.38)
Large-order concepts comprise the

scaffolding on which we hang

observables. Without general
concepts, science cannot generalize.
A social science without abstract
concepts would be a series of
disconnected facts and
microtheories.

Conceptualvs.O perationalD efi

nitions
Operational definition
must define concept in terms that

clearly define what is to be observed

usually occur in the context of empirical
analysis (measurement)

G errings Criteria for SuccessfulConcept

Form ation
Coherence
Operationalization
Validity
Field Utility
Resonance
Contextual Range
Parsimony
Analytic/empirical utility

G errings Criteria for SuccessfulConcept

Form ation

Coherence
Internal coherence
External differentiation

G errings Criteria for SuccessfulConcept

Form ation

Ease of Operationalization
Operationalization = The task of

translating a concept into an empirically

observable variable
Concepts that are more easily
operationalized are, ceteris paribus,
better
Need to specify empirical traits
necessary and sufficient for concept to
be recognized

G errings Criteria for SuccessfulConcept

Form ation

Concept Validity
The degree of alignment between a

terms definition and its extension (the

phenomenon out there that the term is
expected to capture). (48)
To say that a concept is valid is to say
that its referents are, in fact, as they are
purported to be. (48)

G errings Criteria for SuccessfulConcept

Form ation

Resonance
clarity
Try to use words that are commonly

used/understood
Avoid inventing new terms if possible,
but if necessary do so

G errings Criteria for SuccessfulConcept

Form ation

Contextual Range
Conceptual breadth the more

contexts a concept applies to, the better

the concept will be

G errings Criteria for SuccessfulConcept

Form ation

Parsimony
Good concepts do not have endless

definitions

Analytic/Empirical Utility
The degree to which the concept fits the

theoretical context in which it is applied

G errings Criteria for SuccessfulConcept

Form ation

Field Utility
The extent to which a given concept

respects the coherence,

operationalization, validity, resonance,
contextual range, parsimony, and
analytic utility of neighboring concepts.
(51)

The O gden-Richards Triangle

Term

Definition

Referents

G errings Criteria for SuccessfulConcept

Form ation
Coherence
Operationalization
Validity
Field Utility
Resonance
Contextual Range
Parsimony
Analytic/empirical utility

Alternative D efi
nitions ofSocialM ovem ent
a collectivity acting with some continuity to

promote or resist a change in the society or

organization of which it is a part. As a
collectivity a movement is a group with
indefinite and shifting membership and with
leadership whose position is determined more
by informal response of adherents than by
formal procedures for legitimizing authority.
(Turner and Killian, 1957)

Alternative D efi
nitions ofSocialM ovem ent
a sustained series of interactions

between power holders and persons

successfully claiming to speak on behalf
of a constituency lacking formal
representation, in the course of which
those persons make publicly visible
demands for changes in the distribution
or exercise of power, and back those
demands with public demonstrations of
support (Tilly 1978)

Concept D efi
nition
Briefly provide a conceptual

definition for the following concept:

Public policy

G erring Strategies ofD efi

nition (Ch.
4)
Sample
Typologize
Define
Minimally
Ideal-Typically
Inverse relation between intension and
extension

Typology
Location
Subject Matter
Subject(s)
Function
Motivation

M inim alD efi

nition

Ideal-Type D efi
nition

Collier and Levitsky

Sartori ladder of generality
Maximizing differentiation (how?)
The danger of conceptual stretching

(what to do?)

Collier and Levitsky

Collier and Levitsky

Alternative to Sartori:
Diminished Subtypes (what are they?)
Limited Suffrage Democracy
Illiberal Democracy

Collier and Levitsky

Collier and Levitsky

Collier and Levitsky

Precising the Definition
South America and Effective power to

rule

Scholars should avoid definitional

gerrymandering
What does this mean?

Collier and Levitsky

Shifting the Overarching Concept
What does this mean?
Brazil Democratic regime vs.

Democratic state

Advantages:
Additional analytic category to increase
differentiation
Helps avoid conceptual stretching

Sum m ary ofStrategies

Sartori
Diminished Subtypes
Precising the Definition
Shifting the overarching concept (to

raise or lower standard for

democracy)

Theory
What is theory?
Considerable disagreement
Some define as virtually any form of

conceptualization
Others (most?) have a higher threshold

Theory
A theory is a reasoned and precise

speculation about the answer to a

research question, including a statement
about why the proposed answer is
correct (KKV 19)

Theory
A set of assumptions involving a set of

interrelated concepts from which a

causal statement(s) can be derived.
These assumptions and causal
statement(s) constitute an explanation
for the phenomenon under investigation.

Theory
A theory is used to generate one or

more hypotheses that are empirically

observable.

Hypotheses are the logical (empirically

observable) implications of theories, but

they are not theories.

Types ofTheory
Different purposes (Gerring)

Generalization
abstracts from the immediate and observable
facts of the case
Classification
Mutual exclusivity
Exhaustiveness
Comparability
Prediction
Covariation
Priority
Causal Inference

D escriptive Theory
Ad Hoc / Taxonomy
place observations into categories

(arbitrary or well-defined, conceptually

relevant)
does not provide predictions

D escriptive Theory
Conceptual frameworks
take taxonomies/typologies one step

further and provide empirical

proposition/predictions (however these
predictions are not established
deductively)

Conceptualfram ew orks
(exam ples)
Barbers presidential character
Role Conception: Active / Passive
Personality: Positive / Negative

For more information, see:

Barber's Typological Analysis of Political
Leaders.
James H. Qualls
The American Political Science Review
Vol. 71, No. 1 (Mar., 1977), pp. 182-211

D escriptive Theory (?)

Conceptual frameworks (examples)
Lowis policy typology
Distributive
Regulatory
Redistributive
(Procedural)

CausalTheory
Requires at least two variables
A dependent (outcome) variable (usually

Y)
One or more independent (explanatory)
variables (usually X)
X causes Y

CausalTheory
Defining cause:
From KKV:

CausalTheory
Defining cause:
From KKV:

the causal effect is the difference between

the systematic component of observations

made when the explanatory variable takes one
value and the systematic component of
comparable observations when the explanatory
variable takes on another value (81-82)

CausalTheory
Theoretical Systems combine a set

of assumptions/propositions that
logically (by deduction) lead to
empirical propositions/predictions
(hypotheses)
provide causal explanation

CausalTheory
Axiomatic Theory
1. set of concepts and definitions (conceptual and

operational)
2. set of statements describing the situations in
which the theory can be applied
3. set of relational statements, divided into

Axioms (assumed)
Theorems (deduced, testable)

4. A system logic employed to

Relate all concepts within statements
Deduce theorems from axioms, combinations of
axioms, and other theorems

CausalTheory
Social scientists generally regard
theoretical systems (and axiomatic
theory) as the highest/most desirable
form of theory.
However, social scientists (political
scientists) rarely construct theories in
such a formal manner.
Typical theory in political science
literature:

Set of concepts
Set of interrelated assumptions
Hypotheses (testable propositions) derived
from assumptions

Exam ples ofTheory

Zilber and Niven (SSQ, 1995)
Stack and Gundlach (SF, 1992)

CausalCom plexity
Linear relationships
Non-linear relationships
Asymmetric relationships
Multiple causality
Conditional relationships

W hat M akes a G ood Theory?

Gerrings 10 general criteria for

propositions:
1. Specification
2. Accuracy
3. Precision
4. Breadth
5. Depth
6. Parsimony
7. Analytic Utility
8. Innovation
9.Intelligibility
10. Relevance

W hat M akes a G ood (Causal)

Theory?
Methodological Individualism (?)

Max Weber
social phenomena must be explained by
showing how they result from individual
actions
Theoretical explanation must reference the
intentional states that motivate the individual
actors
claims that explanations of macro social
phenomena must be supplied with micro
foundations

Exam ple
Robert Dahls theory of pluralism

Dahls research question: Is the U.S.

system truly democratic? (Who
Governs)

M ancur O lson and the Logic of

Collective Action

KKVs Five Rules for

Constructing CausalTheories
1. Construct falsifiable theories
2. Build theories that are internally

consistent
3. Select dependent variables
carefully
4. Maximize concreteness
5. State theories in as encompassing
ways as feasible

G errings Criteria for Causal

Explanation
11. Differentiation

G errings Criteria for Causal

Explanation
11. Differentiation conceptual

distinctiveness of X and Y
Example:
Sample: members of Congress
Y = vote on tax increases
X = ideology of member

G errings Criteria for Causal

Explanation
12. Priority

G errings Criteria for Causal

Explanation
12. Priority causal proximity
Example:
Sample: U.S. cities
Y = riot severity
X = police shootings (of citizens)

G errings Criteria for Causal

Explanation
13. Independence

G errings Criteria for Causal

Explanation
13. Independence from other Xs

and from Y (lack of endogeneity)

Example:
Sample: non-democracies
Y = human rights violations
X = receipt of U.S. military aid (arms)

G errings Criteria for Causal

Explanation
14. Contingency

G errings Criteria for Causal

Explanation
14. Contingency is occurrence of X

likely to vary? (can the

counterfactual condition ever exist in
reality?)
Example:
Sample: U.S. states
Y = voter turnout rate
X = two-party system

Identify the Theory and H ypotheses

Maoz and Russett
Zilber and Niven
Riker and Ordeshook

W riting a Literature Review

Typical format for research article
Introduction
Literature Review
Theory
Research Design
Empirical Analysis and Results
Conclusion

W riting a Literature Review

Purpose of literature review
Inform reader of prior relevant work
Persuade reader that your work is

important (justify your research)

Possible Justifi
cations for Your
Research
New question, new theory
New question, existing theory
Old question, new theory
Old question, conflicting theories
Old question, conflicting findings
Old question, new methods
Old question, new data

Literature Review D onts

Dont provide a chronological listing

of article summaries
Dont provide every detail of every
study

Literature Review D os
Organize your discussion of the

literature in a way that reflects and

supports the justification for your
research
Provide more detail for seminal studies,
less detail (or simply a citation) for less
cited studies
For questions that have been studied
extensively, it is not necessary to cite
every study
End your literature review with a
summary and critique that justifies your

Literature Review Assignm ent

Approx. 10 pages, double-spaced
Due November 3rd (5-7 minute class

presentation)

H ow to Identify the Relevant Literature

Use electronic databases and

keyword searches (Google Scholar,

JSTOR)
Prioritize:
Articles
Articles published in highly-ranked

journals
Recently published articles
Seminal articles

Number of articles: 10-20?

M aoz and Russett (1993)

After reading the article by Maoz

and Russett, identify and

summarize:
The research question
The theory
The main hypotheses tested by the

authors

M aoz and Russett (1993)

Critically evaluate the concepts

and theory presented in the article

using the criteria established in
your readings. (Note that I dont
expect that you will be able to
cover ALL the criteria in your
readings, but perhaps you could
focus in on a few that seem
important to you).