This paper suggests a typology of usages for empirical data in normative theorizing in political theory. Theorizing about data and political theory is a growing field, and so is (somewhat more slowly), actual research in political theory that uses empirical data as a significant part of its theorizing. This article responds to the following question: when political theorists go beyond a cursory mention of pieces of data, and posit or use empirical data as a substantive aspect of their arguments and theorizing – what is it that they do? A typology of usages is indicated, providing ‘names’ and an analysis for each usage, while pointing to examples from the relevant literature. While not exclusive by any means, this paper aims to identify, classify and understand such usages via a novel typology; and to enable a more nuanced, self-conscious usage of empirical data by political theorists.
The typology includes the following categories: (i). Spotlighting: using data in order to better understand the severity of a given political or social situation, and hence to justify making it the focus of normative investigation. E. Anderson's wide usage of data in her research on integration is an example of this category (ii). Definition: examining data in order to fill a contested concept with adequate content. For example, de Shalit and Wolff's usage of interviews in order to better understand the meaning of ‘disadvantage’. (iii) Conversion: examining moral or normative intuitions that have empirical content. Once it is revealed that the intuition has empirical content, it can be refuted, supported or qualified according to collected and analyzed data. Banting and Kymlicka’s exploration of multicultural policies and welfare policies is a case in point. (iv). Institutional clarity: Here data is used in order to properly understand the ways in which a given political institution functions, in order to allow for a proper evaluation of this institution. J. Brennan's analysis of voter ignorance as a part of his critical evaluation of democracy is a case in point. (v). Theoretical clarity: here data is used to explain what a theory would consist of or demand in particular cases. Carens’ exploration of evenhandedness in the case-study of Fiji is an example of this usage. (vi) Theory improvement: here data is used to point to ways in which a given theory suffers from blind spots or other imperfections. The data points to the ways in which a theory needs to take into account relevant aspects of the social and political world previously not included in a given theory. Jobani and Perez addition of contested sacred sites to normative theories of religion and state is a case in point.
