A Systematic Approach To Institutional Analysis

Political Research Quarterly OnlineFirst, published on April 14, 2009 as doi:10.1177/1065912909334430

A Systematic Approach to Institutional Analysis
Applying Crawford and Ostrom’s Grammar
Xavier Basurto
Indiana University and Duke University

Political Research Quarterly Volume XX Number X Month XXXX xx-xx © 2009 University of Utah 10.1177/1065912909334430 http://prq.sagepub.com hostedat http://online.sagepub.com

Gordon Kingsley
Georgia Institute of Technology

Kelly McQueen
Administrative Office of the Courts of Georgia

Mshadoni Smith
Georgia Institute of Technology

Christopher M. Weible
University of Colorado
In 1995, Crawford and Ostrom proposed a grammatical syntax for examining institutional statements (i.e., rules, norms, and strategies) as part of theinstitutional analysis and development framework. This article constitutes the first attempt at applying the grammatical syntax to code institutional statements using two pieces of U.S. legislation. The authors illustrate how the grammatical syntax can serve as a basis for collecting, presenting, and analyzing data in a way that is reliable and conveys valid and substantive meaning for the researcher.The article concludes by describing some implementation challenges and ideas for future theoretical and field research. Keywords: grammar of institutions; institutional statements; rules; norms; institutional analysis and development framework; IAD

Introduction
One of the challenges with applying institutional theories to policy environments is translating key concepts into reliablestrategies for observation. The institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework provides a definition of institutions as “shared concepts used by humans in repetitive situations organized by rules, norms, and strategies” (Ostrom 2007, 23). This improves on the multiple, opaque, and sometimes conflicting definitions of institutions that exist in the literature (for discussion, see Table 1 in Crawfordand Ostrom 1995, 589). However, Ostrom’s definition is challenging to observe since the concept occurs across multiple scales, operates interdependently in configurations, and exists in form or in use (Ostrom 2007, 23–25). Crawford and Ostrom (1995) have developed one promising approach to observing institutions by focusing on how they are expressed linguistically through

“institutionalstatements.” As defined by Crawford and Ostrom (1995, 583), “Institutional statement refers to the shared linguistic constraint or opportunity that prescribes, permits, or advises actions or outcomes for actors (both individual and corporate).
Xavier Basurto, Visiting Research Associate, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, and Assistant Professor, Nicholas School ofthe Environment Duke University; e-mail: xbasurto@indiana.edu. Gordon Kingsley, Associate Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology. Kelly McQueen, Policy Analyst, Administrative Office of the Courts of Georgia. Mshadoni Smith, Graduate Research Assistant, College of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Christopher M. Weible, Assistant Professor. School of Public Affairs,University of Colorado Denver. Authors’ Note: We are thankful for the excellent comments and suggestions of three anonymous reviewers. 1

2

Political Research Quarterly

Institutional statements are spoken, written, or tacitly understood in a form intelligible to actors in an empirical setting.” Institutions and institutional statements share many of the same conceptual descriptions. Bothmust be shared by the relevant actors, can be in form or in use, occur across all scales as holons from a part of a system to a whole system,1 operate interdependently in configurations, and include concepts of strategies, norms, and rules. However, institutional statements differ from institutions in two conceptually important ways. The first difference is that Crawford and Ostrom (1995, 2005)...