The Institutional Grammar: A Method for Coding Institutions and its Potential for Advancing Third Sector Research

Abstract

Institutions—defined as strategies, norms and rules (Ostrom Understanding institutional diversity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2005)—are omnipresent in third sector contexts. In this paper, we present the Institutional Grammar (IG) as a theoretically informed approach to support institutional analysis in third sector research. More specifically, the IG coding syntax allows the researcher to systematically wade through rich text and (transcribed) spoken language to identify and dissect institutional statements into finer syntactical segments of interest to the researcher. It is a versatile method that can generate data for small- or large-N research projects and can be integrated with mixed-method research designs. After first introducing and describing the IG, we present a case study to illustrate how a IG-based syntactic analysis can be leveraged to inform third sector research. In the case, we ask: Do the rules embedded in regulatory text addressing the involuntary dissolution of charity organizations differ between bifurcated and unitary jurisdictions in the United States? Using IG’s ABDICO 2.0 syntax, we identify eleven “Activation Condition” (AC) categories that trigger action and assess variation among the 46 jurisdictions. We ultimately conclude that the rules do not differ between bifurcated and unitary jurisdictions, but that finding is not the primary concern. The case demonstrates IG as an important methodological advance that yields granular, structured analyses of rules, norms and strategies in third sector settings that may be difficult to identify with other methods. We then emphasize four areas of third sector research that could benefit from the addition of IG-based methods: analysis of (1) rule compliance, (2) inter-organizational collaboration, (3) comparative study of institutional design, and (4) the study of institutional change. We close the paper with some reflections on where IG-based analysis is headed.

A grammar of institutions for complex legal topics: Resolving statutory multiplicity and scaling up to jurisdiction‐level legal institutions

“…Known in the institutional analysis as the ADICO syntax, IG's standard components identify to whom the institutional statement applies ( A ttribute), denotes expected behavior ( D eontic), prescribes particular action (a I m), specifies the circumstances under which it applies ( C ondition), and provides the institutionally assigned sanction for noncompliance ( O r else). I review IG's standard mechanics in the Supplemental Information and direct readers to Crawford and Ostrom (1995, 2005), Siddiki and Frantz (2021), Bushouse et al (2021), and Frantz and Siddiki (2021) for further explanations.…”

“…The second implication is that laws are bundles of legal rules. It may be appropriate for researchers to study a specific rule, including rules limiting access to foreign funding or rules that allow governments to dissolve CSOs involuntarily (e.g., Bushouse et al, 2021; DeMattee, 2019a; Reddy, 2018). Yet single rule studies may be insufficient for bigger questions, such as how governments use laws to undermine civil society and retain power.…”

“…After using IG to identify which rules are present, researchers can then study the conditions under which rule‐in‐use diverges from the rules‐in‐form. While researchers continue to use and improve IG (e.g., Bushouse et al, 2021; Rice et al, 2021; Schlager et al, 2021; Vannoni, 2022; Watkins & Westphal, 2016), a considerable proportion of IG applications are legal topics in which a single statute or standalone policy defines the legal institution for the jurisdiction; none tell us how to aggregate multiple laws into a single jurisdiction‐level legal institution. While “monocentric legal domains” 1 may appropriately represent some legal topics, increasingly diverse and interconnected societies are likely to politicize and develop increasingly complex legal institutions that contain multiple statutes with overlapping and cross‐referencing rules (Ginsburg, 2020; Katz et al, 2020; Pedriana & Stryker, 2017).…”

“…To review, existing research studying CSO laws reveals certain qualities that affect researchers in three ways: laws vary, each law is a bundle of rules, and multiple laws can comprise the legal institution in a jurisdiction. The first implications are manageable, and scholars have shown it is possible to apply IG to enhance the research studying civil society laws (e.g., Bushouse et al, 2021;DeMattee, 2019bDeMattee, , 2020.…”

The regulatory breadth index: A new tool for the measurement and comparison of state‐level charity regulation in the United States

“…The RBI provides baseline data that scholars can use to study any number of issues that may depend upon or be influenced by state‐level regulation (e.g., Bushouse et al, 2021; Pettijohn & Boris, 2018). The RBI thus opens up new opportunities for scholars to incorporate state‐level charity regulation data into their research and to promote a better appreciation and understanding of state‐level charity regulation generally.…”