In 1995, Crawford and Ostrom proposed a grammatical syntax for examining institutional statements (i.e., rules, norms, and strategies) as part of the institutional 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.
Babbie, Earl R., 2004. The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones .1993. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Berry, Francis Stokes, and William D. Berry .2007. "Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research" In Theories of the Policy Process , ed. Paul A. Sabatier, 21-64. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
4.
Crawford, Sue, and Elinor Ostrom.1995. A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review89 (3): 582-600.
5.
---. 2005. A grammar of institutions. In Understanding institutional diversity, ed. Elinor Ostrom , 137-74. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Georgia General Assembly.2005. House Bill197. http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/sum/hb197.htm.
7.
Koestler, Arthur.1973. The tree and the candle. In Unity through diversity, part 1, ed. William Gray and Nicholas D. Rizzo, 287-314. New York: Gordon and Breach Science.
8.
Ostrom, Elinor.2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
---. 2007. Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Theories of the policy process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier, 21-64. Boulder, CO: Westview.
10.
Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank S. Jenkins-Smith .1993. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
11.
Schluter, Achim, and Insa Theesfeld.2008. The grammar of institutions: The challenge to distinguish between norms and rules. Paper presented at the Colloquium Series of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis , Bloomington, IN.
12.
Schneider, Anne L., and Helen Ingram.1997. Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
13.
Singleton, Royce A., and Bruce C. Straits .1999. Approaches to social research . New York: Oxford University Press .
14.
Smajgl, Alex., Luis R. Izquierdo, and Marco Huigen.2008. Modeling endogenous rule changes in an institutional context: The ADICO sequence. Advances in Complex Systems11 (2): 199-215.
15.
Stone, Deborah.1997. Policy paradox and political reason. Boston: Little, Brown.
16.
U.S. Transportation Policy.2002. Title 23. Chapter 1. Subchapter 1. General Provisions Section 134. http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title23/23usc134.html.
17.
Vatn, Arild.2005. Institutions and the environment. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
