The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Model Discipline
Abstract
Models have come to be the dominant feature of modern political science and can be found in every corner of the field. Despite this ubiquity, most political scientists know very little about models, their properties, or how to think about models in a rigorous fashion, all despite the fact that political scientists are highly skilled at model construction. This chapter introduces the model-based view of science that is advocated in this book. It is contrasted with the dominant way of thinking in the field: theory testing. The chapter also introduces the five main themes of the book: science is not what we think it is; current practice is not “philosophy-free”; models are objects; models are not tested with data; and theoretical models are necessary components of explanations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Formal theory complements informal, experience-based theory, helping to define areas of dysfunction in healthcare systems, pinpoint their loci, and identify their possible mechanisms.18”
From Demystifying theory and its use in improvement (2015) · cites this paper as [18]
Citations
Cites
Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811241 · Cited by 8,092
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
Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards
(2010) · doi:10.5040/9798216385530 · Cited by 405
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Demystifying theory and its use in improvement
Davidoff, F., Dixon-Woods, M., Leviton, L., & Michie, S. (2015) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627 · Cited by 714
Metadata
- Authors
- Clarke, K. A., & Primo, D. M.
- Venue
- A Model DisciplinePolitical Science and the Logic of Representations
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2012-01-20
- Pages
- 1-19
- OpenAlex
- W2481348753
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 79.95
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
- Keywords
- theory testing, philosophy of science, theoretical model, explanation, scientific rigor, model development
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