Concept formation in Political Science

Abstract

Introduction: The article examines the theoretical and methodological foundations of concept formation in Political Science, underscoring its importance for the systematic analysis of political phenomena. It problematizes the imprecise use of concepts and the risks of conceptual stretching for research validity and reliability. It shows how symbolic disputes, political uses of language, and historical variation shape the definition and application of concepts, which invariably carry political and epistemological implications. Materials and methods: The study adopts a theoretical–analytical approach grounded in a critical review of the specialized literature. It draws on classical and contemporary authors—such as Sartori, Gerring, Collier, Koselleck and Vygotsky—as well as empirical examples from comparative research and public debate, to examine strategies of conceptual formation and operationalization in political analysis. Results: The article identifies the limits and risks associated with imprecision, ambiguity and conceptual stretching. It systematizes major contributions in the literature on conceptual definition, abstraction and comparison, with particular attention to Sartori’s ladder of abstraction and Gerring and Barresi’s min–max strategy. It also offers guidelines for translating abstract concepts into measurable dimensions, variables and indicators, illustrated through examples such as political disaffection, state fragility, democracy and coalition presidentialism. Discussion: The article demonstrates that concepts are not neutral analytical instruments. They are shaped by discursive struggles and historical contexts, which require a critical stance and methodological rigor. It argues that conceptual construction must balance analytical precision and adaptability, treating concepts as open tools subject to revision in light of social and political change.