The concept of ‘explanation’ has attracted considerable attention in the social sciences, and particularly within political science. However, scholars are not always familiar with what explaining political phenomena means, let alone with what it entails for developing sound causal arguments. This article introduces Craig Parsons’ typology of explanation before assessing its value for the causal analysis of political behaviour and processes. As argued, despite its limitations, this typology clearly maps four types of explanation in political science (institutional, ideational, structural and psychological) while helping scholars to combine them more rigorously when needed. This is why Parsons’ typology has the potential to move political scientists to the ‘next level’ as far as ‘explanation’ is concerned.
BélandD. (2010) ‘The Idea of Power and the Role of Ideas’, Political Studies Review, 8 (2), 145–54.
2.
BerthelotJ.-M. (1990) L'intelligence du social: le pluralisme explicatif en sociologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
3.
BradyH. E. (2004) ‘Doing Good and Better: How Far Does the Quantitative Template Get Us?’, in BradyH. E.CollierD. (eds), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 53–67.
4.
BradyH. E.CollierD. (eds) (2004) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
5.
CollierD.ElmanC. (2008) ‘Qualitative and Multi-Methods Research: Organization, Publications and Reflections on Integration’, in Box-SteffensmeyerJ.BradyH. E.CollierD. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 779–95.
6.
CoxR. H.BélandD. (2013) ‘Valence, Policy Ideas and the Rise of Sustainability’, Governance, 26 (2), 307–28.
7.
DaigneaultP.-M. (2012) ‘Introduction to the Symposium “Conceptual Analysis in Political Science and Beyond”’, Social Science Information, 51 (2), 183–7.
8.
DaigneaultP.-M. (2014) ‘Reassessing the Concept of Policy Paradigm: Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Policy Studies’, Journal of European Public Policy, 21 (3), 453–69.
9.
DaigneaultP.-M.JacobS. (2012) ‘Les concepts souffrentils de négligence bénigne en sciences sociales? Éléments d'analyse conceptuelle et examen exploratoire de la littérature francophone à caractère méthodologique’, Social Science Information, 51 (2), 188–204.
10.
EunY.-S. (2012) ‘Rethinking Logic of Inference and Explanation in the Field of International Relations’, Politics, 32 (3), 162–74.
11.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA. (2004) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
GerringJ. (2004) ‘What is a Case Study and What is it Good For?’, American Political Science Review, 98 (2), 341–54.
13.
GerringJ. (2012) ‘Mere Description’, British Journal of Political Science, 42 (4), 721–46.
14.
GoertzG. (2006) Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
HayC. (2011) ‘Ideas and the Construction of Interests’, in BélandD.CoxR. (eds), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–82.
16.
HempelC. G.OppenheimP. (1948) ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation’, Philosophy of Science, 15 (2), 135–75.
17.
HenryG. T.MarkM. M. (2003) ‘Beyond Use: Understanding Evaluation's Influence on Attitudes and Actions’, American Journal of Evaluation, 24 (3), 293–314.
18.
ImbeauL. M. (2005) ‘Pour un pluralisme explicatif en analyse des politiques’, in ImbeauL. M. (ed.), Politiques publiques comparées dans les États fédérés: L'Allemagne, l'Australie, le Canada, les États-Unis et la Suisse. Quebec City: Les Presses de l'Université Laval, pp. 243–53.
19.
ImbeauL. M. (2012) ‘Conclusion: Plea for a Real Epistemic Pluralism’, Social Science Information, 51 (2), 301–7.
20.
KeohaneR. O. (2009) ‘Political Science as a Vocation’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 42 (2), 359–63.
21.
KingG.KeohaneR. O.VerbaS. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
LittleD. (1991) Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
23.
ParsonsC. (2007) How to Map Arguments in Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
PolanyiK. (1957 [1944]) The Great Transformation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
25.
RossiP. H.LipseyM. W.FreemanH. E. (2004) Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (seventh edition), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
SartoriG. (1970) ‘Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics’, American Political Science Review, 64 (4), 1033–53.
27.
SartoriG. (2009 [1975]) ‘The Tower of Babel’, in CollierD.GerringJ. (eds), Concepts and Method in Social Science: The Tradition of Giovanni Sartori. London: Routledge, pp. 61–96.
28.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
29.
StanleyL. (2012) ‘Rethinking the Definition and Role of Ontology in Political Science’, Politics, 32 (2), 93–9.
30.
StokerG. (2010) ‘Exploring the Promise of Experimentation in Political Science: Micro-Foundational Insights and Policy Relevance’, Political Studies, 58, 300–19.
31.
Van EveraS. (1997) Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
32.
WeissC. H. (1979) ‘The Many Meanings of Research Utilization’, Public Administration Review, 39 (5), 426–31.
