A Systematic Approach to Institutional Analysis: Applying Crawford and Ostrom’s Grammar

• Published date: 01 September 2010
• Author: Xavier Basurto,Kelly McQueen,Gordon Kingsley,Christopher M. Weible,Mshadoni Smith
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912909334430
• Date: 01 September 2010
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly
63(3) 523 –537
A Systematic Approach to
© 2010 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Institutional Analysis: Applying
DOI: 10.1177/1065912909334430
http://prq.sagepub.com
Crawford and Ostrom’s Grammar
Xavier Basurto1, Gordon Kingsley2, Kelly McQueen3,
Mshadoni Smith4, and Christopher M. Weible5
Abstract
In 1995, Crawford and Ostrom proposed a grammatical syntax for examining institutional statements (i.e., rules,
norms, and strategies) as part of the institutional analysis and development framework. This article constitutes the
first attempt at applying the grammatical syntax to code institutional statements using two pieces of U.S. legislation.
The authors illustrate how the grammatical syntax can serve as a basis for collecting, presenting, and analyzing data in
a way that is reliable and conveys valid and substantive meaning for the researcher. The article concludes by describing
some implementation challenges and ideas for future theoretical and field research.
Keywords
grammar of institutions, institutional statements, rules, norms, institutional analysis and development framework, IAD
Introduction
system,1 operate interdependently in configurations, and
include concepts of strategies, norms, and rules. How-
One of the challenges with applying institutional theories
ever, institutional statements differ from institutions in
to policy environments is translating key concepts into
two conceptually important ways. The first difference is
reliable strategies for observation. The institutional analy-
that Crawford and Ostrom (1995, 2005) provide a gram-
sis and development (IAD) framework provides a defini-
matical syntax with concrete directions for coding insti-
tion of institutions as “shared concepts used by humans in
tutional statements as strategies, norms, and rules.2 The
repetitive situations organized by rules, norms, and strate-
second difference is that institutional statements are “lin-
gies” (Ostrom 2007, 23). This improves on the multiple,
guistic” statements, meaning that they are actually spoken
opaque, and sometimes conflicting definitions of institu-
tions that exist in the literature (for discussion, see Table 1
in Crawford and Ostrom 1995, 589). However, Ostrom’s
definition is challenging to observe since the concept
1Indiana University and Duke University
occurs across multiple scales, operates interdependently
2Georgia Institute of Technology
in configurations, and exists in form or in use (Ostrom
3Administrative Office of the Courts of Georgia
4
2007, 23–25).
Georgia Institute of Technology
5University of Colorado
Crawford and Ostrom (1995) have developed one
promising approach to observing institutions by focusing
Corresponding Authors:
on how they are expressed linguistically through “institu-
Xavier Basurto, Visiting Research Associate, Workshop in Political
tional statements.” As defined by Crawford and Ostrom
Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, and Assistant
Professor, Nicholas School of the Environment Duke University
(1995, 583), “Institutional statement refers to the shared
Email: xbasurto@indiana.edu.
linguistic constraint or opportunity that prescribes, per-
mits, or advises actions or outcomes for actors (both indi-
Gordon Kingsley, Associate Professor, School of Public Policy,
Georgia Institute of Technology.
vidual and corporate). Institutional statements are spoken,
written, or tacitly understood in a form intelligible to
Kelly McQueen, Policy Analyst, Administrative Office of the Courts
actors in an empirical setting.”
of Georgia.
Institutions and institutional statements share many of
Mshadoni Smith, Graduate Research Assistant, College of Civil and
the same conceptual descriptions. Both must be shared by
Environmental Engineering.
the relevant actors, can be in form or in use, occur across
Christopher M. Weible, Assistant Professor. School of Public Affairs,
all scales as holons from a part of a system to a whole
University of Colorado Denver.

---

524
Political Research Quarterly 63(3)
or written (Crawford and Ostrom 1995, 583). The concept
The overarching goal of this article is to move
of institutions, in contrast, does not involve a linguistic
Crawford and Ostrom’s grammatical syntax from theory
component, which suggests a more conceptual or abstract
development to application. More specifically, the objec-
definition. Obviously, IAD researchers have been
tives are to provide a set of guidelines for (1) identifying
observing institutions in various linguistic forms for
institutional statements; (2) coding the institutional state-
nearly two decades, but they have not yet applied the con-
ments as strategies, norms, and rules; and (3) conducting
cept of institutional statements to describe their units of
a nested analysis of the coded institutional statements.
observation or to help operationalize their variables.
This article is divided into two parts. The first describes
This article contributes to IAD research in three ways.
the guidelines for applying the theory developed in
First, this article provides one approach for using Crawford
Crawford and Ostrom (1995, 2005). This first part begins
and Ostrom’s grammatical syntax to code institutional
with a brief overview of the grammatical syntax within
statements as strategies, norms, and rules. In the past, IAD
the IAD framework. It then introduces a set of guidelines
field research focused mostly on rules (either rules-in-use
for identifying the institutional statements, applying and
or rules-in-form) to help understand the constraints and
coding Crawford and Ostrom’s syntax, and then in con-
opportunities of individuals in a particular action arena and
ducting a nested analysis. This first part is briefly illus-
not on the difference between strategies, norms, and rules.
trated with an example from the U.S. Transportation
Furthermore, most of the work conducted with Crawford and
Policy. The second part applies the approach to two case
Ostrom’s grammatical syntax has focused on concept and
studies, one from the U.S. Transportation Policy and the
theory development. We know of only two other efforts—
other from abortion policy in the State of Georgia. The
none of them empirical studies—toward operationalizing
article concludes by describing some of the struggles in
Crawford and Ostrom’s grammar (Schluter and Theesfeld
applying the grammatical syntax and additional theoreti-
2008; Smajgl, Izquierdo, and Huigen 2008). However,
cal and applied uses of Crawford and Ostrom’s work. We
other institutional scholars outside of the IAD tradition
also consider issues of translating the lessons of this
have recognized the value of the grammar to identify
research out to the field.
between rules, norms, and strategies (Vatn 2005, 68).
Second, this article provides guidelines for identifying
Background on the IAD
institutional statements in legislation. To date, IAD
researchers have focused broadly on an action arena using
and Its Grammatical Syntax
evaluative criteria to assess interactions among actors and
The IAD focuses attention on the resulting patterns of
on the institutional incentives guiding their interactions that
interaction and outcomes of an action arena in which deci-
result in observable outcomes. The data going into such
sion making takes place as well as the evaluation of these
research come from the aggregation of observations col-
outcomes. There are three types of institutional statements
lected through interviews, focus groups, analysis of texts,
that we might observe in action arenas: rules, norms, and
and observations of behavior. We take a more fine-grained
strategies (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995, 2005). To these
approach by treating institutional statements as single units
three types, Crawford and Ostrom provide an “ADICO”
of observation in two different legislative policies.
grammatical syntax. The ADICO syntax is an acronym
Third, this article uses an explicit approach to nesting
that stands for five subcomponents of an institutional
institutional statements and treats institutional statements
statement: attribute (A), deontic (D), aim (I), condition
as holons, that is, operating simultaneously both as a whole
(C), and or else (O). The three types of institutional state-
system and as part of a larger system (Ostrom 2005, 11).
ments are created from different combinations of the
The IAD framework is very clear that institutions are
ADICO syntax: Strategies include only the attribute, aim,
often nested within other institutions. In this article, we do
and a condition (AIC); norms include the attribute, deon-
not consider how these institutional statements could be
tic, aim, and condition (ADIC); and rules consist of the
analyzed in the context of a larger legal system. Instead,
entire syntax, an attribute, deontic, aim, condition, and or
we analyze institutional statements as single units of
else (ADICO).
observations, and we discuss an approach for analyzing
The attribute is the individual or organization to which
units of observation either as stand-alone statements or as
the institutional statement applies. The portion of an insti-
aggregated units of observation configured into more
tutional statement that belongs with the attribute includes
complex statements, which then serve as the unit of analy-
the subject and the...