Conceptual Exhibits: Typologies, Mechanism Diagrams, Process Models (soctheory-conceptual-exhibits)
When to trigger
- The theory is built and you need a figure or typology to make it legible
- Your figure is "boxes and arrows" with no readable mechanism
- A typology's cells are not all distinct, defined concepts
- You are tempted to include a data plot or a results table (ST has neither)
Every exhibit at ST is conceptual. There are no regression tables, no scatterplots, no
coefficient figures — ST does not test, so it has nothing to plot. The exhibit must carry
theoretical work: it shows a mechanism, a process, or a classification that the prose alone
conveys less clearly.
The exhibit types ST uses
| Exhibit |
Carries |
Design rule |
| Mechanism diagram |
the social process linking concepts |
every arrow is a stated mechanism, not a vague "influences" |
| Process model |
sequence/feedback over time |
each stage is a defined concept; loops are theorized, not decorative |
| Typology (2x2 / nxm) |
a classification along dimensions |
dimensions are clearly named; every cell is a distinct, defined type |
| Concept map |
the relations among a concept family |
hierarchy/overlap shown deliberately; no orphan nodes |
| Comparison table |
this theory vs. rivals, conceptually |
rows are theoretical properties, never empirical results |
Design discipline (the "earn its keep" test)
A conceptual exhibit must do work the prose cannot do as efficiently. Before including it, pass
all three tests:
- Readability test. Can a reader reconstruct the core argument from the figure plus its
caption alone? If not, it is decoration.
- Concept test. Is every box/cell/node a concept that is defined in the text and labeled
identically? A box with an undefined label is a hole in the theory.
- Mechanism test. Does every arrow / transition name the mechanism it represents? "A → B"
with no mechanism is exactly the failure
soctheory-theory-construction warns against,
reproduced graphically.
Typology construction
A good ST typology is a theoretical claim, not a filing system:
- The dimensions must be conceptually motivated (why these two axes?), not convenient.
- Every cell must be a real, distinct type — name it and define it; an empty or forced cell
signals the dimensions are wrong.
- The typology should generate propositions (e.g., types in cell 3 behave differently
because of mechanism M), tying back to
soctheory-theory-construction.
- Watch scope: a typology that implies coverage beyond the stated domain over-claims (see
soctheory-boundary-conditions).
Propositions table (optional, for proposition-heavy papers)
If the paper has many propositions, a compact table listing P1…Pn with their one-line
mechanisms helps reviewers track the theory. It is a theoretical table — propositions and
mechanisms only, never coefficients or significance.
Format notes
- Figures should meet the publisher's resolution/format requirements; confirm exact specs on
the SAGE/ST author page (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- Figures and tables count toward ST's overall length limit (all material is inclusive of the
word cap; see
soctheory-writing-style / soctheory-submission), so an exhibit must earn its
space against the cap, not just against the page.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Boxes-and-arrows with undefined labels or unlabeled arrows
- A data plot or regression table imported from an empirical template (impossible at ST)
- A 2x2 with a forced or empty cell, revealing mis-chosen dimensions
- A figure that merely restates a sentence, adding nothing
- Labels in the figure that differ from the concept names in the text
- A typology that implies coverage outside the theory's domain
Output format
【Exhibit type】mechanism diagram / process model / typology / concept map / theory-comparison
【Concepts in exhibit】all defined in text + identically labeled: yes / fix [...]
【Arrows】each names a mechanism: yes / fix [...]
【Readability test】argument recoverable from figure+caption: yes / no
【Typology】dimensions motivated; every cell distinct: yes / n/a
【Next step】soctheory-contribution-framing
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Sociological-Theory-Skills/skills/soctheory-conceptual-exhibits/SKILL.md
1---2name: soctheory-conceptual-exhibits3description: Use when building the figures and typologies of a Sociological Theory (ST) manuscript — mechanism diagrams, process models, 2x2 typologies, and concept maps that carry theoretical work (never regression tables or data plots). Designs conceptual exhibits; it does NOT build the underlying theory (soctheory-theory-construction) or write the prose (soctheory-writing-style).4---5
6
7# Conceptual Exhibits: Typologies, Mechanism Diagrams, Process Models (soctheory-conceptual-exhibits)
8
9## When to trigger
10
11- The theory is built and you need a figure or typology to make it legible
12- Your figure is "boxes and arrows" with no readable mechanism
13- A typology's cells are not all distinct, defined concepts
14- You are tempted to include a data plot or a results table (ST has neither)
15
16> Every exhibit at ST is **conceptual**. There are no regression tables, no scatterplots, no
17> coefficient figures — ST does not test, so it has nothing to plot. The exhibit must carry
18> *theoretical* work: it shows a mechanism, a process, or a classification that the prose alone
19> conveys less clearly.
20
21## The exhibit types ST uses
22
23| Exhibit | Carries | Design rule |
24|---------|---------|-------------|
25| **Mechanism diagram** | the social process linking concepts | every arrow is a stated mechanism, not a vague "influences" |
26| **Process model** | sequence/feedback over time | each stage is a defined concept; loops are theorized, not decorative |
27| **Typology (2x2 / nxm)** | a classification along dimensions | dimensions are clearly named; every cell is a distinct, defined type |
28| **Concept map** | the relations among a concept family | hierarchy/overlap shown deliberately; no orphan nodes |
29| **Comparison table** | this theory vs. rivals, conceptually | rows are theoretical properties, never empirical results |
30
31## Design discipline (the "earn its keep" test)
32
33A conceptual exhibit must do work the prose cannot do as efficiently. Before including it, pass
34all three tests:
35
361. **Readability test.** Can a reader reconstruct the core argument from the figure plus its
37 caption alone? If not, it is decoration.
382. **Concept test.** Is every box/cell/node a concept that is *defined in the text* and labeled
39 identically? A box with an undefined label is a hole in the theory.
403. **Mechanism test.** Does every arrow / transition name the mechanism it represents? "A → B"
41 with no mechanism is exactly the failure `soctheory-theory-construction` warns against,
42 reproduced graphically.
43
44## Typology construction
45
46A good ST typology is a theoretical claim, not a filing system:
47
48- The **dimensions** must be conceptually motivated (why these two axes?), not convenient.
49- Every **cell** must be a real, distinct type — name it and define it; an empty or forced cell
50 signals the dimensions are wrong.
51- The typology should generate **propositions** (e.g., types in cell 3 behave differently
52 because of mechanism M), tying back to `soctheory-theory-construction`.
53- Watch scope: a typology that implies coverage beyond the stated domain over-claims (see
54 `soctheory-boundary-conditions`).
55
56## Propositions table (optional, for proposition-heavy papers)
57
58If the paper has many propositions, a compact table listing P1…Pn with their one-line
59mechanisms helps reviewers track the theory. It is a *theoretical* table — propositions and
60mechanisms only, never coefficients or significance.
61
62## Format notes
63
64- Figures should meet the publisher's resolution/format requirements; confirm exact specs on
65 the SAGE/ST author page (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
66- Figures and tables count toward ST's overall length limit (all material is inclusive of the
67 word cap; see `soctheory-writing-style` / `soctheory-submission`), so an exhibit must earn its
68 space against the cap, not just against the page.
69
70## Checklist
71
72- [ ] Every exhibit is conceptual (mechanism / process / typology / concept map / theory-comparison)
73- [ ] No data plot, scatterplot, coefficient figure, or results table anywhere
74- [ ] Each box/cell/node is a concept defined in the text with an identical label
75- [ ] Each arrow/transition names its mechanism
76- [ ] The figure passes the readability test (argument recoverable from figure + caption)
77- [ ] Typology dimensions are motivated and every cell is a distinct, defined type
78- [ ] Exhibits respect the stated boundary conditions and the word/length cap
79
80## Anti-patterns
81
82- Boxes-and-arrows with undefined labels or unlabeled arrows
83- A data plot or regression table imported from an empirical template (impossible at ST)
84- A 2x2 with a forced or empty cell, revealing mis-chosen dimensions
85- A figure that merely restates a sentence, adding nothing
86- Labels in the figure that differ from the concept names in the text
87- A typology that implies coverage outside the theory's domain
88
89## Output format
90
91```
92【Exhibit type】mechanism diagram / process model / typology / concept map / theory-comparison
93【Concepts in exhibit】all defined in text + identically labeled: yes / fix [...]
94【Arrows】each names a mechanism: yes / fix [...]
95【Readability test】argument recoverable from figure+caption: yes / no
96【Typology】dimensions motivated; every cell distinct: yes / n/a
97【Next step】soctheory-contribution-framing
98```
99
100---
101
102**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Sociological-Theory-Skills/skills/soctheory-conceptual-exhibits/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain