Exploring measurement methods promotes theoretical innovation. Photo: TUCHONG 

The measurement of meso-level concepts is central to enhancing the explanatory and predictive power of meso-level theories. As a quantitative endeavor that both draws from foundational theories and looks ahead to emerging challenges, such measurement must remain faithful to core theoretical insights while also venturing into uncharted theoretical territory. 

Measuring meso-level concepts

Meso-level concepts originate from meso-level theories with their essence lying in the theoretical core. Most such theories are anchored by a single central concept. The relationship between concept and theory can thus be viewed as one of core and extension. For example, in deterrence theory, deterrence is the core concept of the theory, while the theory itself seeks to explain how and why one actor in the international system may coerce another into refraining from a specific action, as well as the resulting processes, outcomes, and long-term effects. The measurement of a meso-level concept refers to the process and methods of transforming abstract, compact, and often unobservable theoretical concepts into concrete indicators that can be quantified or otherwise systematically measured. Take the example of a country’s international reputation—a relatively abstract and complex notion—which can be measured synthetically by using specific indicators such as the country’s historical behaviors in the international arena, the level of the country’s diplomatic relations with other countries, and its contributions to global institutions. 

Meso-level concepts, often shaped in response to trends in global peace and development, tend to exhibit two key features that complicate their measurement: multidimensionality and conceptual growth. Multidimensionality refers to the range of dimensions a concept may span, which exponentially increases the complexity of the measurement. For instance, in evaluating a country’s level of globalization, one must first disaggregate the concept into political, economic, and social sub-dimensions before identifying observable indicators. However, such compartmentalization risks severing the natural linkages among these dimensions, making it necessary to also measure the interactions among them—thereby raising the overall difficulty of the task. 

Conceptual growth, meanwhile, refers to the way in which new categorizations emerge from core concepts, which often creates ambiguities in the scope of measurement. As derivative categories multiply, conceptual boundaries begin to blur, especially when foundational concepts overlap with other meso-level concepts, thus making it difficult to determine whether other concepts used for cross-classification should also be measured when measuring core concepts. Consider the proliferation of alliance types in international relations: defensive alliances versus offensive alliances, symmetrical alliances versus asymmetrical alliances, global alliances versus regional alliances, and so on. From the perspective of concept intersection, these alliance classifications inherently touch upon other meso-level concepts such as offensive and defensive military posture, power symmetry, and regionalism. Thus, when measuring a concept like cohesion within an alliance, if one also measures the aforementioned various meso-level concepts involved in the alliance due to classification, the measurement boundaries of the alliance become blurred. 

Controlling the measurement scale  

Given the multidimensionality and growth potential of meso-level concepts, careful attention must be paid to the issue of measurement scale. This involves navigating three interrelated aspects: the appropriateness of measurement objects, the flexibility of data sources, and innovation with respect to measurement techniques.

Appropriateness of measurement objects: The measurement of meso-level concepts should serve the substantive needs of the research question rather than simply aim for ever-greater granularity or broader scope. In the pursuit of analytical precision, current measurement strategies often attempt to exhaustively cover all dimensions and subtypes of a concept. While this approach aligns with the evolving complexity of theoretical constructs, it may divert focus from the practical questions driving the research. Overemphasis on the refinement of the measurement can lead to redundancy in measurement content and deviation from the original purpose of the research. In applied research, the measurement strategy should therefore prioritize alignment with the specific demands of the inquiry at hand. 

Flexibility of data collecting avenues: Given the frequent problem of inadequate information in international relations, researchers should avoid rigidly insisting on completeness and instead emphasize flexibility in sourcing information. Since the early 2000s, methods such as multiple imputation have gained traction—particularly in economics—as a way to address missing values. These techniques have also been adopted in international relations. However, many international relations concepts involve inherent uncertainty that such statistical techniques may not adequately address. In such cases, rather than relying solely on methodological solutions to ensure information completeness, it may be more productive to consider alternative theoretical avenues for gathering or approximating the necessary information. 

Innovation of measurement techniques: The emergence of newly-developed tools represents the diversification of perspectives from which concepts are approached and the enhancement of the information extraction capability. For example, in theories concerning geopolitical conflict, geographical proximity has long been recognized as a critical predictor of conflict. Traditionally, this was measured using the straight-line distances between the actors involved. However with the introduction of geographic information system (GIS) technologies, more nuanced terrain features—such as mountains, lakes, canyons, and deserts—can now be factored into proximity calculations. This allows for more accurate measurement of the likelihood of direct confrontation between parties, demonstrating how technological advances can yield more refined and meaningful measurements. 

Stressing spatial and temporal concepts

  To accurately track the accelerating changes in international relations, it is essential to integrate both temporal and spatial dimensions into the measurement of meso-level concepts. This enables a more effective response to the evolving attributes of these concepts. The temporal dimension helps uncover how past developments and future trends shape conceptual evolution. Take strategic theoretical concepts such as deterrence, hedging, and interdependence as examples. These types of strategic interaction in international relations cannot be meaningfully understood outside of their historical context. Even in the absence of other historical factors, both the emergence and intensity of such behaviors are often influenced by prior strategic trends. When incorporating the temporal dimension into concept measurement, researchers might draw on techniques used in data analysis—such as the application of lag or lead periods—or adopt approaches like decay function modeling. 

The spatial dimension, in turn, broadens our understanding of how actors influence one another within international interactions. In concept measurement, spatiality involves both domain-specific spaces within a concept and the broader geographic spaces with which it is associated. In compound measurements of meso-level concepts in international relations, analysts often disaggregate and evaluate multiple domains—such as politics, economics, security, and culture—before integrating the findings to produce a more accurate measurement. However, this domain-based approach tends to overlook the interplay among these sectors. Current measurement practices also rarely account for geographic interdependence. For example, due to mechanisms of mutual learning and imitation, neighboring countries may display convergence in their diplomatic policy behaviors. In such cases, assessing a country’s inclination toward a particular behavior—such as balanced diplomacy—is more meaningful when viewed in light of similar behaviors among its neighbors. To systematically incorporate spatial considerations into concept measurement, one useful method is the application of adjacency matrices of spatial data analysis.

Chen Yiyi is an associate professor from the School of Politics and International Relations at Lanzhou University.

Edited by ZHAO YUAN