• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 751 0

often explicitly disavow any effort to project frequency distributions from the cases they study. Sometimes, investigators deliberately select the least representative cases—deviant cases—to see if they embody previously unexamined causal paths. Thus, the value of typological theory does not rest upon any ability to project the expected frequency distribution of types in the total universe of cases of a given phenomenon. However, a representative sample of the theory’s universe can be drawn, which is not always possible, and a large-N study can be undertaken to determine how frequently each type is likely to occur.481

THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF DEDUCTIVE TYPOLOGICAL THEORIES

In contrast to the inductive method, the deductive approach requires that the investigator first construct a theory-based map of the property space by defining variables and the types these variables constitute through all their mathematically possible configurations.482 Such a framework can then be reduced to the most useful types for the purposes of research design, case selection, and theory development.

Of course, an investigator undertaking such a deductive exercise must first designate the research objective of the investigation. The purpose may be to focus inquiry on the causal powers of particular factors or on the explanation of a particular type of outcome (or class of outcomes). When the research objective is to assess the causal properties or powers of particular factors, the investigator attempts to specify relevant theories, causal mechanisms, and variables that help provide such an assessment. 483 A similar procedure applies when the research objective is to explain a particular type of outcome (or class of outcomes). In assembling relevant theories and variables, it is important to focus on the predicted effects of interactions among combinations of variables.

An important advantage of typological theorizing is that it can move beyond earlier debates between structural and agent-centered theories by including within a single typological framework hypotheses on mechanisms leading from agents to structures and those leading from structures to agents.484 This allows the theorist to address questions of how different kinds of agents (individuals, organizations, or states, depending on the level of analysis) behave in and change various kinds of structures. For example, Randall Schweller’s work on alliance and alignment behavior essentially provides a typological theory on how different kinds of agents (status quo versus revisionist states) behave depending on their structural positions, or their military power and geographic circumstances relative to other states.485 Many opportunities exist for fruitful typological theorizing that combines agents and structures into unified theories, such as theories of personality types and their interactions with different types of organizational designs, theories of types of states and their interactions with different types of international systems, or theories of types of economic systems and their interactions with types of economic sectors or other economic actors.486

As with the inductive development of typological theory, a key set of issues concerns how many independent variables to use, whether to partition these variables into two or more types, and how finely to differentiate the dependent variable. As new variables are added, the number of types multiplies. For example, a typology with n dichotomous variables has 2n possible types. Thus, a theory with four independent variables and one dependent variable, all dichotomous, would have 25, or thirty-two types. It quickly becomes difficult for the researcher to remember, use, and articulate more than a few of the most important types of a typology of five or more variables. As discussed below, the researcher might respond by reducing substantially the number of types to be investigated.487 Alternatively, the researcher can focus on a few variables that are hypothesized to have the greatest causal weight and construct a less complex