CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,318Political Science Research and EducationQualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchSocial Science and Policy Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics

Sartori, Giovanni·1970·American Political Science Review
DOI 10.2307/1958356
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

“To have mastered ‘theory’ and ‘method’ is to have become a conscious thinker , a man at work and aware of the assumptions and implications of whatever he is about. To be mastered by ‘method’ or ‘theory’ is simply to be kept from working.” The sentence applies nicely to the present plight of political science. The profession as a whole oscillates between two unsound extremes. At the one end a large majority of political scientists qualify as pure and simple unconscious thinkers. At the other end a sophisticated minority qualify as overconscious thinkers, in the sense that their standards of method and theory are drawn from the physical, “paradigmatic” sciences. The wide gap between the unconscious and the overconscious thinker is concealed by the growing sophistication of statistical and research techniques. Most of the literature introduced by the title “Methods” (in the social, behavioral or political sciences) actually deals with survey techniques and social statistics, and has little if anything to share with the crucial concern of “methodology,” which is a concern with the logical structure and procedure of scientific enquiry. In a very crucial sense there is no methodology without logos , without thinking about thinking. And if a firm distinction is drawn—as it should be—between methodology and technique, the latter is no substitute for the former. One may be a wonderful researcher and manipulator of data, and yet remain an unconscious thinker.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1958356

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Flanigan, Contemporary Political Analysis, 82
  2. Eléments de Mathématique
  3. Sartori, 1959, Il Mulino, 7
  4. Bendix, Concepts and Generalizations …, 536
  5. Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry, 63
  6. 1952, Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science, 54
  7. Salmon, 1963, Logic, 90
  8. Truman's, 1931, The Governmental Process
  9. 1968, Comparative Politics, 72
  10. Spengler, Quantity and Quality, 176
  11. 1968, Comparative Politics, 81
  12. 1967, Transactions of the Sixth World Congress of Sociology, II, 103
  13. Almond, 1966, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach, 21
  14. Demerath, 1967, System, Change and Conflict
  15. Rose, Social Measure and Public Policy in Britain—The Empiricizing Process, 8
  16. Lazarsfeld, The Policy Sciences, 170
  17. Charlesworth, Contemporary Political Analysis, 72
  18. Charlesworth, Contemporary Political Analysis, 88
  19. Eckstein's, 1963, Comparative Politics
  20. Kemeny, Quantity and Quality, 35
  21. Dowse, 1966, World Politics, 607
  22. Hempel, Symposium on Sociological Theory, 87
  23. Boudon, 1965, Méthodes de la Sociologie, 2
  24. Allen, African Perspectives
  25. 1968, Comparative Politics, 66
  26. Urbani, 1968, General Systems Theory: Un Nuovo Strumento per l'Analisi dei Sistemi Politici?, Il Politico, 4, 795
  27. Meotti, 1969, L'Eliminazione dei Termini Teorici, Rivista di Filosofia, 2, 119
  28. Holt, 1970, The Methodology of Comparative Research, 95
  29. MacKenzie's, 1958, Free Elections
  30. 1957, Social Theory and Social Structure, 19
  31. Lasswell, 1950, Power and Society, XVI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 3,318

Related

Metadata

Authors
Sartori, G.
Affiliations
University of Florence (IT)
Corresponding author
Sartori, Giovanni
Venue
American Political Science Review
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1970-12
Volume
64
Issue
4
Pages
1033-1053
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
DOI
10.2307/1958356
OpenAlex
W2009952390
Cited by
3,318
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 182 · 2025: 248 · 2024: 212 · 2023: 225 · 2022: 182 · 2021: 213 · 2020: 189 · 2019: 190 · 2018: 184 · 2017: 112 · 2016: 94 · 2015: 131 · 2014: 125 · 2013: 126 · 2012: 107
FWCI
138.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 15949 d)
Locations
  • American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Science and Policy Research
Keywords
comparative politics, political science methodology, theory and method, unconscious thinking, survey techniques, social statistics

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