Literature Positioning (cps-literature-positioning)
A CPS paper earns space by moving a comparative-politics debate, not by citing everything. Position
the paper so a comparativist immediately sees the gap, the rival accounts, and what your paper adds.
CPS spans several literatures (regimes, institutions, behavior, ethnic politics & conflict, comparative
political economy, parties & elections) — engage the right one(s) deeply rather than all shallowly.
When to trigger
- Writing or rewriting the literature/positioning section or the introduction's "gap" paragraph
- A reviewer said the paper "doesn't engage the relevant comparative literature" or "reinvents a known result"
- You cannot name the single strongest rival explanation your design must rule out
- The paper cites broadly but does not locate itself in a specific debate
Positioning logic (in order)
- Name the debate. One identifiable comparative-politics conversation (e.g., institutional vs.
structural accounts of regime survival; supply- vs. demand-side explanations of ethnic voting).
- State the standing answer and its limits. What does the literature currently believe, and where
is it incomplete, contradicted by cases, or untested with adequate comparative leverage?
- State the gap as a claim, not a topic. "X is understudied" is not a gap. "The dominant account
predicts A, but cases B and C show ¬A, and no design has separated A from D" is.
- Name the rival explanation(s) your evidence will adjudicate — these become the design's job
(
cps-research-design) and the theory's contrast class (cps-theory-building).
- Cross-regional breadth. Cite comparative work beyond your own region so the contribution reads as
general, not parochial — CPS reviewers police regional insularity.
Engaging the right literatures
| Subfield |
Engage |
Common miss |
| Democratization & regimes |
modernization, elite-bargain, institutionalist accounts |
ignoring measurement debates (V-Dem vs. Polity) |
| Comparative political economy |
VoC, redistribution, welfare-state, growth-coalition work |
treating economics literature as the only frame |
| Ethnic politics & conflict |
constructivist vs. primordialist, mobilization, salience |
conflating ethnicity with region without theory |
| Parties & elections / behavior |
cleavage theory, electoral systems, turnout, vote choice |
US-centric framing of a cross-national claim |
Comparative debate map
Create a short map before writing the literature review:
| Element |
What to specify |
Why CPS reviewers care |
| Units |
countries, subnational units, parties, voters, organizations, events |
Defines the comparison and the level of inference |
| Time |
period, reform window, election cycle, conflict phase, regime episode |
Separates change over time from cross-case difference |
| Region/case logic |
why these cases, and what they represent theoretically |
Prevents "case convenience" from masquerading as leverage |
| Rival accounts |
institutional, structural, cultural, strategic, or historical alternatives |
Shows what the paper will adjudicate rather than merely add |
| Portability |
where the mechanism should travel, and where it should fail |
Turns a regional study into a comparative contribution |
Use the map to prune citations. Keep works that define the debate, create the rival, or anchor
portability across regions; move background-only citations to footnotes or cut them.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- "Literature dump" — a paragraph of citations with no debate and no gap
- Regional insularity — citing only work on your own country/region
- Straw-man rivals — beating a weak version while the strong rival stands
- Reinventing a settled comparative finding without acknowledging it
- Positioning to the whole discipline (APSR-style) instead of the comparative-politics conversation
Output format
【Debate】the one comparative-politics conversation
【Standing answer + limit】what the field believes / where it breaks
【Gap】stated as a falsifiable claim
【Strongest rival】the explanation the design must rule out
【Comparative debate map】units / time / case logic / rival / portability
【Cross-regional anchors】2–3 works beyond your own region
【Next】cps-theory-building
Supplementary resources
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Comparative-Political-Studies-Skills/skills/cps-literature-positioning/SKILL.md
1---2name: cps-literature-positioning3description: Use when positioning a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript against the comparative-politics literature and the rival explanations it must beat. Sharpens the gap and the engaged debate; it does not build the theory or design the study.4---567# Literature Positioning (cps-literature-positioning)89A CPS paper earns space by moving a **comparative-politics debate**, not by citing everything. Position10the paper so a comparativist immediately sees the gap, the rival accounts, and what your paper adds.11CPS spans several literatures (regimes, institutions, behavior, ethnic politics & conflict, comparative12political economy, parties & elections) — engage the *right* one(s) deeply rather than all shallowly.1314## When to trigger1516- Writing or rewriting the literature/positioning section or the introduction's "gap" paragraph17- A reviewer said the paper "doesn't engage the relevant comparative literature" or "reinvents a known result"18- You cannot name the single strongest rival explanation your design must rule out19- The paper cites broadly but does not locate itself in a specific debate2021## Positioning logic (in order)22231. **Name the debate.** One identifiable comparative-politics conversation (e.g., institutional vs.24 structural accounts of regime survival; supply- vs. demand-side explanations of ethnic voting).252. **State the standing answer and its limits.** What does the literature currently believe, and where26 is it incomplete, contradicted by cases, or untested with adequate comparative leverage?273. **State the gap as a claim, not a topic.** "X is understudied" is not a gap. "The dominant account28 predicts A, but cases B and C show ¬A, and no design has separated A from D" is.294. **Name the rival explanation(s)** your evidence will adjudicate — these become the design's job30 (`cps-research-design`) and the theory's contrast class (`cps-theory-building`).315. **Cross-regional breadth.** Cite comparative work beyond your own region so the contribution reads as32 general, not parochial — CPS reviewers police regional insularity.3334## Engaging the right literatures3536| Subfield | Engage | Common miss |37|----------|--------|-------------|38| Democratization & regimes | modernization, elite-bargain, institutionalist accounts | ignoring measurement debates (V-Dem vs. Polity) |39| Comparative political economy | VoC, redistribution, welfare-state, growth-coalition work | treating economics literature as the only frame |40| Ethnic politics & conflict | constructivist vs. primordialist, mobilization, salience | conflating ethnicity with region without theory |41| Parties & elections / behavior | cleavage theory, electoral systems, turnout, vote choice | US-centric framing of a cross-national claim |4243## Comparative debate map4445Create a short map before writing the literature review:4647| Element | What to specify | Why CPS reviewers care |48|---------|-----------------|------------------------|49| Units | countries, subnational units, parties, voters, organizations, events | Defines the comparison and the level of inference |50| Time | period, reform window, election cycle, conflict phase, regime episode | Separates change over time from cross-case difference |51| Region/case logic | why these cases, and what they represent theoretically | Prevents "case convenience" from masquerading as leverage |52| Rival accounts | institutional, structural, cultural, strategic, or historical alternatives | Shows what the paper will adjudicate rather than merely add |53| Portability | where the mechanism should travel, and where it should fail | Turns a regional study into a comparative contribution |5455Use the map to prune citations. Keep works that define the debate, create the rival, or anchor56portability across regions; move background-only citations to footnotes or cut them.5758## Checklist5960- [ ] One named debate, not a topic list61- [ ] Standing answer stated, then its specific limit62- [ ] Gap framed as a falsifiable claim63- [ ] Single strongest rival explanation named (and handed to `cps-research-design`)64- [ ] Cross-regional citations so the contribution reads as comparative, not parochial65- [ ] Distinguished from a known prior result (no reinvention)6667## Anti-patterns6869- "Literature dump" — a paragraph of citations with no debate and no gap70- Regional insularity — citing only work on your own country/region71- Straw-man rivals — beating a weak version while the strong rival stands72- Reinventing a settled comparative finding without acknowledging it73- Positioning to the whole discipline (APSR-style) instead of the comparative-politics conversation7475## Output format7677```78【Debate】the one comparative-politics conversation79【Standing answer + limit】what the field believes / where it breaks80【Gap】stated as a falsifiable claim81【Strongest rival】the explanation the design must rule out82【Comparative debate map】units / time / case logic / rival / portability83【Cross-regional anchors】2–3 works beyond your own region84【Next】cps-theory-building85```8687## Supplementary resources8889- [`../../resources/exemplars/library.md`](../../resources/exemplars/library.md) — how verified CPS papers locate themselves in a debate90- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — comparative datasets that define many CP debates9192---9394**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Comparative-Political-Studies-Skills/skills/cps-literature-positioning/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain