bjps-theory-building

Theory & Argument Building (bjps-theory-building)

At BJPS a result is not a contribution until it is attached to an **argument the field can use

elsewhere** — across countries, cases, and subfields. This skill turns findings into theory: explicit

mechanisms, scope conditions, and observable implications, in the idiom appropriate to your kind of

work.

When to trigger

• The empirics are strong but the "so what / why" is thin
• A reviewer said the paper is "atheoretical," "ad hoc," or "just a finding"
• You need to state mechanisms, assumptions, and scope conditions explicitly
• Formal modeling: deciding what to model, what to assume, and what the model buys you

Build the argument (by mode of work)

Empirical paper with a theory

1. Concept — define the key constructs precisely; distinguish from neighbours.
2. Mechanism — the causal story: who does what, why, under what incentives/constraints.
3. Observable implications — what we should see if the mechanism operates (and what we should

not see). These become the tests in bjps-research-design.

1. Scope conditions — where the argument holds and where it does not. Portability ≠ universality.

Formal / game-theoretic paper

• State the substantive puzzle the model addresses before the setup.
• Keep assumptions transparent and motivated; flag which results are robust to which assumptions.
• Translate equilibrium predictions into comparative statics a reader can test or recognize.
• Say what the model buys: a non-obvious prediction, a resolution of a puzzle, a unifying logic.

Interpretive / normative paper

• Make the conceptual or normative stakes explicit and connect them to political life.
• Build the argument through reasons and texts, not hypotheses; engage the strongest counter-view.
• Show what the argument lets the field see or justify that it could not before.

The "portability" test (BJPS-specific)

Ask: *Could a scholar studying a different country, or working in another subfield, import this

mechanism/concept to their own problem?* If yes, you have a contribution of general interest. If the

argument only works for your exact case, tighten it into a general logic or reframe (back to

bjps-topic-selection). BJPS's international, cross-subfield readership is the audience for the

argument's portability.

Anti-patterns

• "Hypothesizing after results are known" (HARKing) — state theory before tests; preregister where possible
• A model with opaque assumptions chosen to produce the desired result
• Mechanisms named but never made observable
• A single-case generalization with no scope conditions, or a universal claim with none
• Burying the argument under the empirics — the contribution paragraph must state it plainly

Output format

【Core claim】one sentence
【Mechanism】the causal/logical story
【Assumptions】(formal) the load-bearing ones
【Observable implications】testable consequences → research-design
【Scope conditions】where it holds / fails (and across which cases)
【Portability】who else (which country/subfield) can use this argument
【Next】bjps-research-design

Referee-pushback patterns and the BJPS-specific repair

• "This is a finding, not a contribution." → Attach the result to a mechanism with scope conditions and

state the portable claim a scholar elsewhere could import.

• "The argument only works for this one country." → Generalize the logic: name the institutional or

behavioural feature the case instantiates, and what other cases share it.

• "The model's assumptions are doing the work." → Flag which results survive which assumptions and

motivate each; show the model buys a non-obvious comparative static.

• "Mechanism is asserted, not observable." → Translate it into observable implications (and a

disconfirming pattern) that bjps-research-design can test.

Calibration anchors (hedged)

• BJPS rewards a portable argument: the test is whether a comparativist studying a different country,

or a scholar in another subfield, could carry the mechanism to their own problem.

• Methodological pluralism extends to theory-building: formal, empirical-mechanistic, interpretive, and

normative arguments are all welcome, each judged in its own idiom — do not dress one as another.

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — formal-modeling and analysis tooling
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — BJPS scope and contribution expectations