The many roads to Rome: family resemblance concepts in the social sciences



What are the different ways in which family resemblance conceptual structures can be used in the social sciences? When should they be used and what are the specific advantages and challenges they pose? What are the descriptive and causal implications derived from their use? This paper advances our understanding of these conceptual structures by answering these questions and illustrating them with examples from established scholarship in political science. The paper first breaks down the broad category of family resemblance concepts into three types of structures, using set theoretic logic: individual sufficiency, INUS, and mixed structures. Second, we discuss when these alternative structures are more useful for concept formation, proposing three different prototypical situations to use them: when we seek to disaggregate an abstract attribute, when our concept relies on the negation of classic concepts, and when our concept rests on what we label as cumulative signification. Third, the paper introduces the logic of subtype formation in family resemblance and compares it with classical subtypes, showing that unlike the latter, subtypes in family resemblance do not require additional attributes; sufficient combinations of the main concept can at the same time be subtypes. Forth, the paper analyzes the descriptive and causal implications of using family resemblance conceptual structures, showing a trade-off between empirical differentiation and potential causal heterogeneity. A concluding section evaluates some misuses of family resemblance, highlighting the importance of avoiding empirical and theoretical pitfalls.


Concepts Conceptual structures Family resemblance Set-theory 



The authors would like to thank Laura Acosta, Mariana Borges, Daniel Encinas, Laura Garcia, Gary Goertz, Emilio Lehoucq, Alex Mierke-Zatwarnicki, Silvia Otero, and Diana Rodriguez for their helpful comments on previous versions of this article. We also thank participants at the 2017 meeting of American Political Science Association, and workshops at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and Northwestern University. A special recognition goes to James Mahoney, who carefully read and commented on every draft and encouraged us to pursue this project every step of the way.


  1. Adcock, R., Collier, D.: Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95(03), 529–546 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birch, S.: Electoral Malpractice. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolleyer, N., Ruth, S.P.: Elite investments in party institutionalization in new democracies: a two-dimensional approach. J. Politics 80(1), 288–302 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Celis, K.: Gendering representation. In: Goertz, G., Mazur, A.G. (eds.) Politics, Gender, and Concepts: Theory and Methodology, pp. 71–93. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandra, K.: What is ethnic identity and does it matter? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 9(1), 397–424 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chartock, S.: “Corporatism with adjectives”? conceptualizing civil society incorporation and indigenous participation in Latin America. Latin Am. Politics Soc. 55(2), 52–76 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Childs, S.: Women and British Party Politics: Descriptive. Routledge, Substantive and Symbolic Representation (2008)Google Scholar
  8. Cochrane, C.: Left and Right: The Small World of Political Ideas. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Kingston (2015)Google Scholar
  9. Collier, D.: Trajectory of a concept: ‘corporatism’ in the study of Latin American Politics. In: Smith, P.H. (ed.) Latin America in Comparative Perspective. New Approaches to Methods and Analysis. Westview Press, Boulder (1995)Google Scholar
  10. Collier, D., Gerring, J. (eds.): Concepts and Method in Social Science: The Tradition of Giovanni Sartori, 1st edn. Routledge, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  11. Collier, D., LaPorte, J., Seawright, J.: Putting typologies to work: concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor. Polit. Res. Q. 65(1), 217–232 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collier, D., Levitsky, S.: Democracy with adjectives: conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Polit. 49(3), 430–451 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collier, D., Mahon, J.E.J.: Conceptual “stretching” revisited: adapting categories in comparative analysis. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 87(04), 845–855 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collier, D., Mahoney, J.: Insights and pitfalls: selection bias in qualitative research. World Polit. 49(1), 56–91 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elman, C.: Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. Int. Org. 59(2), 293–326 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. George, A.L., Bennett, A.: Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  17. Gerring, J.: Social Science Methodology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambride (2012)Google Scholar
  18. Gerring, J., Bond, P., Barndt, W.T., Moreno, C.: Democracy and economic growth: a historical perspective. World Polit. 57(03), 323–364 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giraudy, A.: Conceptualizing state strength: moving beyond strong and weak States. Revista de Ciencia Política 32(3), 599–611 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giraudy, A.: Democrats and Autocrats: Pathways of Subnational Undemocratic Regime Continuity within Democratic Countries, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goertz, G.: Assessing the trivialness, relevance, and relative importance of necessary or sufficient conditions in social science. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 41(2), 88–109 (2006a). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goertz, G.: Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2006b)Google Scholar
  23. Goertz, G., Mahoney, J.: A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goertz, G., Mazur, A.G.: Mapping gender and politics concepts: ten guidelines. In: Goertz, G., Mazur, A.G. (eds.) Politics, Gender, and Concepts: Theory and Methodology, 1st edn, pp. 14–46. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hicks, A.: Social Democracy and Welfare Capitalism: A Century of Income Security Politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1999)Google Scholar
  26. King, G., Keohane, R.O., Verba, S.: Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G.: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, 1st edn. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levitsky, S.: Institutionalization and peronism the concept, the case and the case for unpacking the concept. Party Polit. 4(1), 77–92 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levitsky, S., Way, L.: Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Locke, R.M., Thelen, K.: Apples and oranges revisited: contextualized comparisons and the study of comparative labor politics. Politics Soc. 23(3), 337–367 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luna, J.P.: Party system institutionalization: do we need a new concept? Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 49(4), 403–425 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mackie, J.L.: The Cement of the Universe. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahoney, J.: Toward a unified theory of causality. Comp. Polit. Stud. 41(4–5), 412–436 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mahoney, J.: After KKV: the new methodology of qualitative research. World Polit. 62(01), 120–147 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mahoney, J., Vanderpoel, R.S.: Set Diagrams and qualitative research. Comp. Political Stud. 1, 36 (2014)Google Scholar
  36. Mainwaring, S., Scully, T.: Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America (Reprint edition). Stanford University Press, Stanford (1995)Google Scholar
  37. Mann, M.: The autonomous power of the state: its origins, mechanisms and results. Eur. J. Sociol. 25(2), 185–213 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marshall, M.G., Gurr, T.R., Jaggers, K.:Polity IV Project: Dataset Users’ Manual. (2016). Accessed 23 Oct 2017
  39. Medin, D.L., Wattenmaker, W.D., Hampson, S.E.: Family resemblance, conceptual cohesiveness, and category construction. Cogn. Psychol. 19(2), 242–279 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paxton, P.: Women’s suffrage in the measurement of democracy: problems of operationalization. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 35(3), 92–111 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pigliucci, M.: Species as family resemblance concepts: the (dis-)solution of the species problem? BioEssays 25(6), 596–602 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piscopo, J.M.: Rethinking descriptive representation: rendering women in legislative debates. Parliam. Aff. 64(3), 448–472 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ragin, C.C.: The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press, Berkeley (1987)Google Scholar
  44. Sartori, G.: Concept misformation in comparative politics. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 64(4), 1033–1053 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schaffer, F.C.: Elucidating Social Science Concepts: An Interpretivist Guide, 1st edn. Routledge, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  46. Schmitter, P.C.: Still the century of corporatism? Rev. Politics 36(01), 85–131 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singh, P.: How Solidarity Works for Welfare: Subnationalism and Social Development in India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skocpol, T.: States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stokes, S.C., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M., Brusco, V.: Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  50. Wängnerud, L.: Women in parliaments: descriptive and substantive representation. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 12(1), 51–69 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wittgenstein, L.: Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edn. Pearson, New York (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations