The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mere Description
Abstract
This article attempts to reformulate and resuscitate the seemingly prosaic methodological task of description, which is often derided in favour of causal analysis. First, the problem of definition is addressed: what does this category of analysis (‘description’) refer to? Secondly, a taxonomy of descriptive arguments is offered, emphasizing the diversity contained within this genre of empirical analysis. Thirdly, the demise of description within political science is charted over the past century, with comparisons to other disciplines. Fourthly, it is argued that the task of description ought to be approached independently, not merely as a handmaiden of causal theories. Fifthly, the methodological difficulties of descriptive inference are addressed. Finally, fruitful research areas within the rubric of description are reviewed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things
Lakoff, G. (1987) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 · Cited by 12,386
Social Theory of International Politics
Wendt, A. (1999) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612183 · Cited by 7,664
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.1515/9781400821211 · Cited by 7,225
Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition.
Ericson, J. E., & Dahl, R. A. (1972) · American Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2711442 · Cited by 7,203
Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics
VERBA, S., SCHLOZMAN, K. L., & BRADY, H. E. (1995) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv1pnc1k7 · Cited by 6,626
Reliability and Validity Assessment
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1979) · doi:10.4135/9781412985642 · Cited by 5,884
Statistics and Causal Inference
Holland, P. W. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 · Cited by 5,293
Case study research: principles and practices
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-1530 · Cited by 4,167
Elder, J. W., Geertz, C., & Rosenhack, K. P. S. (1964) · Cited by 3,878
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community
Keddy, J. (2001) · Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality · doi:10.1353/scs.2001.0014 · Cited by 3,764
Cited by
American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108914123 · Cited by 481
Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action?
(2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108284646 · Cited by 426
Why Hypothesis Testers Should Spend Less Time Testing Hypotheses
Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D. (2021) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620966795 · Cited by 382
“Research that is “merely” descriptive is often considered less valuable despite being crucial for forming concepts, developing measures, and establishing phenomena that need explaining (Dubin, 1969; Gerring, 2012a; Rai & Fiske, 2010; Rozin, 2001).”
BackgroundDigital well-being theory and research
Büchi, M. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211056851 · Cited by 277
Right-Wing YouTube: A Supply and Demand Perspective
Munger, K., & Phillips, J. (2022) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161220964767 · Cited by 265
Metadata
- Authors
- Gerring, J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012-05-04
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 721-746
- ISSN
- 0007-1234 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-2112
- OpenAlex
- W4211071057
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 95
- FWCI
- 44.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mere Description. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0007123412000130
- The paper
- Gerring, J. (2012). Mere Description. British Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123412000130
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
