IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v15y2003i2p201-232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Putting Ordinary Language to Work

Author

Listed:
  • John Gerring

    (Political Science Department at Boston University, jgerring@bu.edu)

  • Paul A. Barresi

    (Southern New Hampshire University, p.barresi@snhu.edu)

Abstract

This article proposes a ‘min-max’ strategy of definition applicable to all concepts intended for general usage within some language region. The min-max strategy relies on the conjoined use of minimal and ideal-type definitions. A minimal definition identifies the bare essentials of a concept with traits sufficient to bind it extensionally while maintaining all non-idiosyncratic meanings associated with it. An ideal-type definition includes all attributes that together define the concept in its purest, most ‘ideal’ form. Minimal definitions are minimal in their attributes but maximal in their phenomenal range, while ideal-type definitions are maximal in their attributes but minimal in their phenomenal range. This min-max strategy serves to bind a concept in semantic and referential space, providing the most satisfactory general definition for that concept. We illustrate this strategy with the keyword ‘culture’. We identify the minimal and maximal definitions of ‘culture’, within which all definitions developed in particular research settings fall, thus resolving the conceptual ambiguity that has plagued the use of the term ‘culture’ and demonstrating the utility of the min-max approach as a strategy of general definition.

Suggested Citation

  • John Gerring & Paul A. Barresi, 2003. "Putting Ordinary Language to Work," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 201-232, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:15:y:2003:i:2:p:201-232
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629803015002647
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629803015002647
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629803015002647?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sartori, Giovanni, 1970. "Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 1033-1053, December.
    2. Mullins, Willard A., 1972. "On the Concept of Ideology in Political Science," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(2), pages 498-510, June.
    3. A. Whiten & J. Goodall & W. C. McGrew & T. Nishida & V. Reynolds & Y. Sugiyama & C. E. G. Tutin & R. W. Wrangham & C. Boesch, 1999. "Cultures in chimpanzees," Nature, Nature, vol. 399(6737), pages 682-685, June.
    4. Merelman, Richard M., 1969. "The Development of Political Ideology: A Framework for the Analysis of Political Socialization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 750-767, November.
    5. Collier, David & Mahon, James E., 1993. "Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(4), pages 845-855, December.
    6. Wildavsky, Aaron, 1987. "Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 3-21, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giovanni Capoccia, 2002. "Anti-System Parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 14(1), pages 9-35, January.
    2. Thomas Rixen & Lora Anne Viola, 2015. "Putting path dependence in its place: toward a Taxonomy of institutional change," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 301-323, April.
    3. Michener, Gregory, 2015. "Policy Evaluation via Composite Indexes: Qualitative Lessons from International Transparency Policy Indexes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 184-196.
    4. Gong, Cheng & Ribiere, Vincent, 2021. "Developing a unified definition of digital transformation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. August Wierling & Valeria Jana Schwanitz & Sebnem Altinci & Maria Bałazińska & Michael J. Barber & Mehmet Efe Biresselioglu & Christopher Burger-Scheidlin & Massimo Celino & Muhittin Hakan Demir & Ric, 2021. "FAIR Metadata Standards for Low Carbon Energy Research—A Review of Practices and How to Advance," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Vüllers, Johannes, 2014. "Geographical Patterns of Analysis in IR Research: Representative Cross-Regional Comparison as a Way Forward," GIGA Working Papers 256, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    7. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    8. Victoria Finn, 2022. "A qualitative assessment of QCA: method stretching in large-N studies and temporality," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 3815-3830, October.
    9. Gunnar Grendstad & Per Selle, 1995. "Cultural Theory and the New Institutionalism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(1), pages 5-27, January.
    10. Matthijs Bogaards, 2000. "The Uneasy Relationship between Empirical and Normative Types in Consociational Theory," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(4), pages 395-423, October.
    11. Rodrigo Barrenechea & Isabel Castillo, 2019. "The many roads to Rome: family resemblance concepts in the social sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 107-130, January.
    12. Gary Goertz & James Mahoney, 2005. "Two-Level Theories and Fuzzy-Set Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 33(4), pages 497-538, May.
    13. Christel Koop & Martin Lodge, 2017. "What is regulation? An interdisciplinary concept analysis," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 95-108, March.
    14. Xinyu Zhang & Yue Liao, 2023. "A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of Populism Research (2000–2020)," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    15. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. Peters, Ina, 2014. "Too Abstract to Be Feasible? Applying the Grounded Theory Method in Social Movement Research," GIGA Working Papers 247, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    17. Bisin, Alberto & Verdier, Thierry, 2000. "A model of cultural transmission, voting and political ideology," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 5-29, March.
    18. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    19. Thomas Denk, 2013. "How to measure polyarchy with Freedom House: a proposal for revision," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 3457-3471, October.
    20. Emre Toros, 2010. "The Relationship Between Islam and Democracy in Turkey: Employing Political Culture as an Indicator," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 253-265, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:15:y:2003:i:2:p:201-232. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.