Putting Typologies to Work

• DOI: 10.1177/1065912912437162
• Author: Jody LaPorte,David Collier,Jason Seawright
• Published date: 01 March 2012
• Date: 01 March 2012
• Subject Matter: Articles

437162PRQXXX10.1177/10659129124371
62Collier et al.Political Research Quarterly
Political Research Quarterly
65(1) 217 –232
Putting Typologies to
© 2012 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Work: Concept Formation,
DOI: 10.1177/1065912912437162
http://prq.sagepub.com
Measurement, and Analytic Rigor
David Collier1, Jody LaPorte1, and Jason Seawright2
Abstract
Typologies are well-established analytic tools in the social sciences. They can be “put to work” in forming concepts,
refining measurement, exploring dimensionality, and organizing explanatory claims. Yet some critics, basing their
arguments on what they believe are relevant norms of quantitative measurement, consider typologies old-fashioned and
unsophisticated. This critique is methodologically unsound, and research based on typologies can and should proceed
according to high standards of rigor and careful measurement. These standards are summarized in guidelines for careful
work with typologies, and an illustrative inventory of typologies, as well as a brief glossary, are included online.
Keywords
typology, concept formation, measurement, levels of measurement, scale types, qualitative methods, multimethod
research
1. Introduction
illustrative list of over one hundred typologies, covering nine
subfields of political science, is presented in the appendix.1
Typologies—defined as organized systems of types—are a
This article develops two arguments, the first focused on
well-established analytic tool in the social sciences. They
skepticism about typologies. Some critics, who base their
make crucial contributions to diverse analytic tasks: form-
position on what they understand to be the norms of quanti-
ing and refining concepts, drawing out underlying dimen-
tative measurement, consider typologies—and the categori-
sions, creating categories for classification and measurement,
cal variables from which they are constructed—to be
and sorting cases.
old-fashioned and unsophisticated. We show that this cri-
Older, well-known typologies include Weber’s (1978)
tique is methodologically unsound and is based on a mislead-
distinction among traditional, charismatic, and rational
ing comparison of qualitative and quantitative approaches.
authority; Dahl’s (1971) analysis of polyarchies, competi-
This critique underestimates the challenges of conceptual-
tive oligarchies, inclusive hegemonies, and closed hege-
ization and measurement in quantitative work and fails to
monies; Krasner’s (1977) discussion of makers, breakers,
recognize that quantitative analysis is built in part on qualita-
and takers in the formation of international regimes; and
tive foundations. The critique also fails to consider the
Carmines and Stimson’s (1980) distinctions among nonis-
potential rigor and conceptual power of qualitative analysis
sue, easy-issue, hard-issue, and constrained-issue voters.
and likewise does not acknowledge that typologies can pro-
In current research, typologies are used in diverse sub-
vide new insight into underlying dimensions, thereby
stantive areas. This includes work focused on union–gov-
strengthening both quantitative and qualitative research.
ernment interactions (Murillo 2000), state responses to
women’s movements (Mazur 2001), national political econ-
omies (Hall and Soskice 2001), postcommunist regimes
(McFaul 2002), social policy (Mares 2003), time horizons in
1University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
patterns of causation (Pierson 2003), transnational coalitions
2Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
(Tarrow 2005), state economic intervention (Levy 2006),
political mobilization (Dalton 2006), national unification
Corresponding Author:
(Ziblatt 2006), personalistic dictatorships (Fish 2007), con-
David Collier, University of California, Berkeley, Charles and Louise
Travers Department of Political Science, 210 Barrows Hall #1950,
tentious politics (Tilly and Tarrow 2007), vote buying
Berkeley, CA 94720-1950, USA
(Nichter 2008), and types of nation-states (Miller 2009). An
Email: dcollier@berkeley.edu

---

218
Political Research Quarterly 65(1)
A second set of arguments examines the contribution of
Table 1. Scale Types: Basic Structure and Areas of Dispute
typologies to rigorous concept formation and measurement.
3. Corresponding
We offer a basic template for careful work with typolo-
1. Level of
2. Permissible
definition of
gies that can advance such rigor, drawing on the ideas
Scale type
information
statisticsa
measurementa
about categorical variables and measurement presented
Nominal
• Equal/not

• Cell count, mode,
in the first part of the article. Our discussion examines
equalb
contingency cor-
errors and missed opportunities that can arise if the tem-
relation
plate is not followed and explores how typologies can be
Partial
• Order among
• Cell count, mode,
Assignment of
put to work in refining concepts and measurement and
Order
some but not contingency cor-
numerals based
also in organizing explanatory claims and causal infer-
on rules
all categories
relation
ence. The conclusion presents guidelines for creating and
Ordinal
• Order among
• Median, percen-

refining typologies that are both conceptually innovative
all categories
tiles
and rigorous.
Interval
• Equal inter-
Before we proceed with the discussion, key distinc-
vals
tions must be underscored.

• Mean, standard
a. Conceptual typologies. Given the concern here with
deviation, correla-
conceptualization and measurement, this article focuses
tion and
on what may be called conceptual typologies.2 These
regression
typologies explicate the meaning of a concept by map-
Ratio

• Meaningful
Measurement as
ping out its dimensions, which correspond to the rows
zero
quantification
and columns in the typology. The cell types are defined
Absolute

• Numerical
• Mean, standard

by their position vis-à-vis the rows and columns.3
count of enti- deviation, correla-
b. Descriptive versus explanatory typologies. Conceptual
ties in a given tion, some forms
typologies may also be called descriptive typologies,
category
of regressionc
given that the dimensions and cell types serve to identify
and describe the phenomena under analysis. These may
a. The distinctions among scale types presented in columns 2 and 3 are disputed,
as discussed in the text. For present purposes, the distinctions presented in
be contrasted with explanatory typologies (Elman 2005;
column 1 are not treated as problematic. The distinctions in column 1 may be
Bennett and Elman 2006), in which the cell types are the
formulated in terms of mathematical group structure, as discussed in note 7.
outcomes to be explained and the rows and columns are
b. The categories are thus collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive.
c. Because an absolute scale consists entirely of integers (i.e., whole numbers),
the explanatory variables.
according to a strict understanding of permissible statistics only certain forms of
c. Multidimensional versus unidimensional typologies. Our
regression analysis are appropriate.
central focus is on multidimensional typologies, which
deliberately capture multiple dimensions and are constructed
by cross-tabulating two or more variables. Unidimensional
add two further types: the partial order, which has order
typologies organized around a single variable—for exam-
among some but not all the categories;5 and the absolute
ple, Krasner’s makers, breakers, and takers in regime forma-
scale, which is an enumeration of the individuals or enti-
tion noted above—also receive some attention, and many
ties in a given category—for example, the number of
norms for careful work with typologies apply to both.
voters in different electoral districts.6 These types are
An online glossary (available at http://prq.sagepub.
summarized in Table 1.
com/supplemental/) presents definitions of key terms.
The controversy over scale types is focused on four
alternative criteria for evaluating their desirability and
2. Criticisms of Categorical
utility. First, traditional distinctions between lower and
higher levels of measurement are anchored in the idea
Variables and Typologies
that the latter contain a higher level of information, which
Typologies, and the categorical variables on which they are
is formalized in the idea of mathematical group struc-
often constructed, have been subject to sharp criticism. Both
ture.7 This perspective provides valuable distinctions, yet
these critiques and our response hinge in part on issues of
closer examination reveals that the relationship between
scale types and definitions of measurement. We therefore
scale types is complex. For example, the meaning of
review and extend prior treatments of these topics.
higher levels of measurement depends on lower levels, as
we will show below.
2.1. Point of Departure: Scale Types and
A second criterion is permissible statistics—that is,
the statistical procedures that can and should be employed
Measurement
with each scale type. Higher levels of measurement
A basic point of reference here is the familiar framework
were traditionally seen as amenable to a greater range of
of nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scale types.4 We
procedures, which led many scholars to consider

---

Collier et al.
219
categorical variables less useful. However, some of these
ratio level of measurement “provides the richest informa-
earlier...