This article attempts to reformulate and resuscitate the seemingly prosaic methodological task of description, which is often derided in favour of causal analysis. First, the problem of definition is addressed: what does this category of analysis (‘description’) refer to? Secondly, a taxonomy of descriptive arguments is offered, emphasizing the diversity contained within this genre of empirical analysis. Thirdly, the demise of description within political science is charted over the past century, with comparisons to other disciplines. Fourthly, it is argued that the task of description ought to be approached independently, not merely as a handmaiden of causal theories. Fifthly, the methodological difficulties of descriptive inference are addressed. Finally, fruitful research areas within the rubric of description are reviewed.
Department of Political Science, Boston University (email: jgerring@bu.edu). This article has benefited enormously from comments received from Robert Adcock, Ben Bishin, Fred Chernoff, Michael Coppedge, Zachary Elkins, Colin Elman, Gary Goertz, Andy Harris, Patrick Johnston, Evan Lieberman, Drew Linzer, James Mahoney, Fred Schaffer, Andreas Schedler, Carsten Schneider and David Waldner. The author is also grateful to Joshua Yesnowitz, who conducted the content analysis for Figures 2–4.
1 Kaplan, Abraham, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science (San Francisco: Chandler, 1964)Google Scholar
2 Sen, Amartya, ‘Description as Choice’, Oxford Economic Papers, 32 (1980), 353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J. David, ‘The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations’, World Politics, 14 (1961), 77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, John and Banks, Joseph, ‘Description of an Extraordinary Production of Human Generation, with Observations’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 83 (1793), 154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 These areas are reviewed briefly in the concluding section of this article.
4 Laudan, Larry, Science and Values (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983)Google Scholar
Schaffer, Simon, ‘What is Science?’, in John Krige and Dominique Pestre, eds, Science in the Twentieth Century (Amsterdam: Overseas Publishers Association, 1997), pp. 27–42Google Scholar
5 Indeed, readers who are unwilling to accept my terminological argument will find the rest of this essay bewildering.
6 John Gerring, Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar
7 Judea Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar
8 How questions partake of both worlds, which is to say, they can be differently viewed.
9 Stanovich, Keith E. and West, Richard F., ‘Discrepancies between Normative and Descriptive Models of Decision Making and the Understanding/Acceptance Principle’, Cognitive Psychology, 38 (1999), 349–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 One must infer what the outcome of a case might be if were exposed to the counterfactual condition.
11 Elster, Jon, Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar
King, GaryKeohane, Robert O. and Verba, Sidney, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994)Google Scholar
12 Dessler, David, ‘Beyond Correlations: Toward a Causal Theory of War’, International Studies Quarterly, 35 (1991), 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Wendt, Alexander, ‘On Constitution and Causation in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 24 (1998), 101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander, The Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Gelman, Andrew, ‘Describing Descriptive Studies Using Descriptive Language, or the Practical Virtues of Statistical Humility’, Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science (March 2009)Google Scholar
15 Achen, Christopher H., Interpreting and Using Regression (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 White, Theodore H., The Making of the President 1960 (New York: Atheneum House, 1961)Google Scholar
17 Morgan, Garethed., Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1983)Google Scholar
Williams, Malcolm, ‘Interpretivism and Generalisation’, Sociology, 34 (2000), 209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Contra King, Keohane and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, p. 34.
19 Gerring, John, Case Study Research: Principles and Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar
20 Berk, Richard A., Regression Analysis: A Constructive Critique (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Jacoby, William G., ‘Levels of Measurement and Political Research: An Optimistic View’, American Journal of Political Science, 43 (1999), 271–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, ‘Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2006’, (2007), http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm.
23 Freedom House, ‘Freedom in the World’ (2010), www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15.
24 Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960)Google Scholar
Verba, SidneySchlozman, Kay Lehman and Brady, Henry, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Life (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
25 Putnam, Robert D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001)Google Scholar
26 Knoke, David, Broadbent, Jeffrey, Tsujinaka, Yutaka and Pappi, Franzeds, Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in U.S., Germany, and Japan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Hartz, Louis, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt, Brace, World, 1955)Google Scholar
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945)Google Scholar
28 Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar
29 Smith, Rogers M., ‘Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America’, American Political Science Review, 87 (1993), 549–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Bailey, Kenneth D., ‘Polythetic Reduction of Monothetic Property Space’, Sociological Methodology, 4 (1972), 83–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capecchi, Vittorio, ‘On the Definition of Typology and Classification in Sociology’, Quality and Quantity, 2 (1968), 9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, DavidLaPorte, Jody and Seawright, Jason, ‘Putting Typologies to Work: Levels of Measurement, Concept-Formation, and Analytic Rigor’, Political Research Quarterly, 65 (2012), 217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Colin, ‘Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics’, International Organization, 59 (2005), 293–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Alexander L. and Bennett, Andrew, Case Studies and Theory Development (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005)Google Scholar
Wiarda, Howard J.ed., New Directions in Comparative Politics (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1991)Google Scholar
Lenski, Gerhard, ‘Societal Taxonomies: Mapping the Social Universe’, Annual Review of Sociology, 20 (1994), 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend, ‘Typologies of Democratic Systems’, Comparative Political Studies, 1 (1968), 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marradi, Alberto, ‘Classification, Typology, Taxonomy’, Quality & Quantity, 24 (1990), 129–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, John C., ‘The Role of Constructive Typology in Scientific Sociological Analysis’, Social Forces, 28 (1950), 235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, John C., ‘Polar Variables of Type Construction’, Social Forces, 35 (1957), 300–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, John C., ‘Typification, Typologies, and Sociological Theory’, Social Forces, 48 (1969), 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowotny, Helga, ‘The Uses of Typological Procedures in Qualitative Macrosociological Studies’, Quality & Quantity, 6 (1971), 3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Kevin B., ‘Typologies, Taxonomies, and the Benefits of Policy Classification’, Policy Studies Journal, 30 (2002), 379–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, John C.Caulkins, Douglas and Kamp, Kathryn A., ‘Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 5 (1998), 129–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, H. V., Political Systems: Some Sociological Approaches (New York: Praeger, 1966)Google Scholar
31 Samuel E. Finer, The History of Government, Vols. 1–3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar
32 Doorenspleet, Renske, ‘Reassessing the Three Waves of Democratization’, World Politics, 52 (2000), 384–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991)Google Scholar
33 Some writers define ‘typology’ as having a matrix form. This usage seems more common in settings where the typology is playing a causal role, i.e., where the intersection of two or more attributes explains (causally) the values found in the resulting cells (Elman, ‘Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics’). My understanding of a matrix typology does not preclude causal relationships, but it does not presume them either. This is consistent with Collier, LaPorte and Seawright, ‘Putting Typologies to Work’, who use the term ‘multidimensional typology’.
34 Dahl, Robert A., Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971)Google Scholar
35 Collier, David and Jr, James E. Mahon, ‘Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis’, American Political Science Review, 87 (1993), 845–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Michael Coppedge, John Gerring, et al., ‘Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach’, Perspectives on Politics, 9 (2011), 247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David Held, Models of Democracy, 3rd edn (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006)Google Scholar
37 A more detailed treatment is offered in Gerring, Social Science Methodology, chap. 6.
38 Hoover, Kevin D., ‘Lost Causes’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 26 (2004), 149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Backhouse, Roger E. and Fontaine, Philippeeds, The History of the Social Sciences Since 1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40 Crosland, Maurice P., Historical Studies in the Language of Chemistry (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962)Google Scholar
Linsley, E. G. and Usinger, R. L., ‘Linnaeus and the Development of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature’, Systematic Zoology, 8 (1959), 39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, Ernst, ‘Origin and History of Some Terms in Systematic and Evolutionary Biology’, Systematic Biology, 27 (1978), 83–88Google Scholar
41 Michell, Joel, Measurement in Psychology: A Critical History of a Methodological Concept (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 Duncan, Otis Dudley, Notes on Social Measurement: Historical and Critical (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984)Google Scholar
43 Lerner, Daniel and Lasswell, Harold D.eds, The Policy Sciences (Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1951)Google Scholar
44 Boumans, Marceled., Measurement in Economics: A Handbook (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007)Google Scholar
45 E.g. David J. Bartholomew, ed, Measurement, 4 vols (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2007)Google Scholar
Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, ed., Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 3 vols (New York: Academic Press, 2004)Google Scholar
Wright, Benjamin D., ‘A History of Social Science Measurement’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16 (1997), 33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46 Carmines, Edward G. and Zeller, Richard A., Reliability and Validity Assessment (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47 Henry E. Brady and David Collier, eds, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edn (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), pp. 67–82Google Scholar
48 King, Keohane and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, p. 34.
49 Sobel, Michael E., ‘An Introduction to Causal Inference’, Sociological Methods and Research, 24 (1996), 353–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Schedler, Andreas, ‘The Measurer's Dilemma: Coordination Failures in Cross-National Political Data Collection’, Comparative Political Studies, 45:2 (2012), 237–266Google Scholar
51 Firebaugh, Glenn, Seven Rules for Social Research (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008)Google Scholar
52 Lieberson, Stanley, Making it Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985)Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, ‘Causality and Statistical Learning’, American Journal of Sociology, 117 (2011), 955–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53 Hamilton, Richard F., The Social Misconstruction of Reality: Validity and Verification in the Scholarly Community (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1996)Google Scholar
Lars E. Fyberg, Paul Biemer, Martin Collins, Edith De Leeuw, Cathryn Dippo, Norbert Schwarz and Dennis Trewin, eds, Survey Measurement and Process Quality (New York: Wiley, 1997)Google Scholar
Herrera, Yoshiko M. and Kapur, Devesh, ‘Improving Data Quality: Actors, Incentives, and Capabilities’, Political Analysis, 15 (2007), 365–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, Marcus J. and Schrank, Andrew, ‘Growth and Governance: Models, Measures, and Mechanisms’, Journal of Politics, 69 (2007), 538–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L., Measuring Democracy: A Bridge between Scholarship and Politics (Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins University Press, 2009)Google Scholar
Campbell, Stein Rokkan with AngusTorsvik, Per and Valen, Henry, Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development (New York: David McKay, 1970)Google Scholar
54 Bowman, KirkLehoucq, Fabrice and Mahoney, James, ‘Measuring Political Democracy: Case Expertise, Data Adequacy, and Central America’, Comparative Political Studies, 38 (2005), 939–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L. and Verkuilen, Jay, ‘Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Alternative Indices’, Comparative Political Studies, 35 (2002), 5–34Google Scholar
March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., Democratic Governance (New York: Free Press, 1995)Google Scholar
Pagden, Anthony, ‘The Genesis of Governance and Enlightenment Conceptions of the Cosmopolitan World Order’, International Social Science Journal, 50 (1998), 7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierre, Joned., Debating Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar
55 Habitat, UN, State of the World's Cities 2004–2005: Globalization and Urban Culture (New York: Earthscan Publications, United Nations, 2004)Google Scholar
56 Nie, Norman H.Verba, Sidney and Petrocik, John R., The Changing American Voter (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976)Google Scholar
57 Apter, David E.ed., Ideology and Discontent (London: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964)Google Scholar
58 Milanovic, Branko, Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005)Google Scholar
59 Bourguignon, Francois and Morrisson, Christian, ‘Inequality Among World Citizens: 1820–1992’, American Economic Review, 92 (2002), 727–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, Michael M.ed., Globalization: What's New? (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005)Google Scholar
Firebaugh, Glenn, The New Geography of Global Income Inequality (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60 Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America; Tocqueville, Democracy in America.
61 Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment.
62 Smith, ‘Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz’.
63 Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Harper & Row, 1934/1968)Google Scholar
64 Note that in the following discussion I address the generic characteristics of descriptive work; later, I shall attend to differences among descriptive arguments.
65 Resolving membership in the category ‘majoritarian electoral system’ is easier than resolving membership in the category ‘democracy’, just as analysing the cause or effect of a majoritarian electoral system is easier than analysing the cause or effect of democracy.
66 Brown, Michael E., Lynn-Jones, Sean M. and Miller, Steven E.eds, Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996)Google Scholar
Elman, Miriam Fendius, Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997)Google Scholar
67 Buonaccorsi, John P., Measurement Error: Models, Methods, and Applications (London: Chapman & Hall, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68 Lewis, Jeffrey B. and Linzer, Drew A., ‘Estimating Regression Models in which the Dependent Variable Is Based on Estimates’, Political Analysis, 13 (2005), 345–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69 Casper, Gretchen and Tufis, Claudiu, ‘Correlation versus Interchangeability: The Limited Robustness of Empirical Findings on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets’, Political Analysis, 11 (2003), 196–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70 Weber, Max, The Methodology of the Social Sciences (New York: Free Press, 1905/1949)Google Scholar
71 Collier, DavidHidalgo, Fernando Daniel and Maciuceanu, Andra Olivia, ‘Essentially Contested Concepts: Debates and Applications’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 11 (2006), 211–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Maxed., The Importance of Language (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962)Google Scholar
72 Heider, Karl G., ‘The Rashomon Effect: When Ethnographers Disagree’, American Anthropologist, 90 (1988), 73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Wendy D. and Mehta, Jal D., ‘The Rashomon Effect: Combining Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches in the Analysis of Contested Events’, Sociological Methods and Research, 31 (2002), 131–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73 Holland, Paul W., ‘Statistics and Causal Inference’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81 (1986), 945–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74 For further discussion, see Gerring Social Science Methodology, chap. 12.
75 Bourguignon, FrancoisLevin, Victoria and Rosenblatt, David, ‘Declining International Inequality and Economic Divergence: Reviewing the Evidence through Different Lenses’, Economic Internationale, 100 (2004), 13–25Google Scholar
76 Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968)Google Scholar
77 Sen, ‘Description as Choice’.
78 Coppedge, Gerring, et al., ‘Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy’.
79 I am speaking of what might be called average-quality publications. Publications in top journals are probably more likely to involve some original data collection, whether the arguments are causal or descriptive.
80 Bollen, Kenneth A., ‘Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy’, American Sociological Review, 45 (1980), 370–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pemstein, DanielMeserve, Stephen A. and Melton, James, ‘Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type’, Political Analysis, 18 (2010), 426–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treier, Shawn and Jackman, Simon, ‘Democracy as a Latent Variable’, American Journal of Political Science, 52 (2008), 201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81 Lalonde, Robert J., ‘Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data’, American Economic Review, 76 (1986), 604–620Google Scholar
82 Sartori, Giovanni, ‘Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics’, American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), 1033–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83 Of course, it can never truly be written out since it undergirds all causal analysis and comprises our factual knowledge of the world.
84 Donsbach, Wolfgang and Traugott, Michael W.ed., Handbook of Public Opinion Research (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Honaker, JamesJoseph, Anne and Scheve, Kenneth, ‘Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation’, American Political Science Review, 95 (2001), 49–69Google Scholar
85 Clinton, Joshua D.Jackman, Simon and Rivers, Douglas, ‘The Statistical Analysis of Legislative Behavior: A Unified Approach’, American Political Science Review, 98 (2004), 355–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Brady, Henry and Collier, Davideds, The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar
86 Smithson, Michael and Verkuilen, Jay, Fuzzy Set Theory: Applications in the Social Sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuilen, Jay, ‘Assigning Membership in a Fuzzy Set Analysis’, Sociological Methods & Research, 33 (2005), 462–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87 Abdelal, Rawi, Herrera, Yoshiko M., Johnston, Alastair Iain and McDermott, Roseeds, Measuring Identity: A Guide for Social Scientists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D., ‘Ethnic Structure and Cultural Diversity by Country’, Journal of Economic Growth, 8 (2003), 195–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Daniel N., ‘Measuring Ethnic Fractionalization in Africa’, American Journal of Political Science, 48 (2004), 849–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
88 Jonathan Andrew Harris, ‘A Method for Extracting Information about Ethnicity from Names’ (presented to the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, 2011).
89 Sniderman, Paul M. and Grob, Douglas B., ‘Innovations in Experimental Design in Attitude Surveys’, Annual Review of Sociology, 22 (1996), 377–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
90 ‘Special Issue: The Statistical Analysis of Political Text’, Political Analysis, 16 (2008), 351–477.
91 Hegre, HåvardØstby, Gudrun and Raleigh, Clionadh, ‘Poverty and Civil War Events: A Disaggregated Study of Liberia’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53 (2009), 598–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidmann, Nils B. and Ward, Michael D., ‘Predicting Conflict in Space and Time’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54 (2010), 883–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
92 King, Gary, ‘An Introduction to the Dataverse Network as an Infrastructure for Data Sharing’, Sociological Methods and Research, 36 (2007), 173–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, ‘Ensuring the Data-Rich Future of the Social Sciences’, Science, 331 (2011), 719–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93 Raleigh, Clionadh, Linke, AndrewHegre, Håvard and Karlsen, Joakim, ‘Introducing ACLED: An Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset’, Journal of Peace Research, 47 (2010), 651–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goemans, Hein E.Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede and Chiozza, Giacomo, ‘Introducing Archigos: A Dataset of Political Leaders’, Journal of Peace Research, 46 (2009), 269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Thorsten, Clarke, George, Groff, AlbertoKeefer, Philip and Walsh, Patrick, ‘New Tools and New Tests in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions’, World Bank Economic Review, 15 (2001), 165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidmann, Nils B.Rod, Jan Ketil and Cederman, Lars-Erik, ‘Representing Ethnic Groups in Space: A New Dataset’, Journal of Peace Research, 47 (2010), 491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
94 Goertz, Gary, Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006)Google Scholar
95 Collier, LaPorte and Seawright, ‘Putting Typologies to Work’.
96 Adcock, Robert and Collier, David, ‘Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research’, American Political Science Review, 95 (2001), 529–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
97 Gerring, John and Yesnowitz, Joshua, ‘A Normative Turn in Political Science?’ Polity, 38 (2006), 101–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar