The IAD framework — framework/theory/model, exogenous variables, diagram logic
The idea
IAD sits at the most general of three levels of specificity. A framework identifies the universal elements any relevant theory must address and supplies a metatheoretical language for comparing theories; a theory makes working assumptions about which elements matter; a model fixes precise parameters (Ostrom 2007, pp. 25–26; McGinnis p. 4). Many theories fit one framework, many models fit one theory.
The diagram logic (Ostrom 2007, Fig. 2.1 p. 27; McGinnis pp. 7–8, Fig. 1 p. 27): three clusters of exogenous variables — (1) rules-in-use, (2) biophysical/material conditions ("attributes of states of the world"), (3) attributes of the community — jointly structure an action arena, which generates patterns of interaction and outcomes, which are assessed by evaluative criteria and feed back on every component. The three clusters combine configurally, not additively (Ostrom pp. 24–25): working rules alone are never a sufficient explanation (p. 37). McGinnis adds that the whole is a system of nested, "nearly decomposable" action situations (p. 8).
The Nostr engagement
The thesis uses IAD as the diagnostic grid but inverts its epistemics: IAD was built because institutions are invisible and must be elicited; on Nostr the exogenous-variable cluster "rules-in-use" is materialized as signed events and machine-readable relay policy, so the framework's categories can be populated by observation rather than interview ({{ref:claim-formation-observable|Formation is observable for the first time}}, {{ref:claim-interviews-carry-claim|Interviews carry the claim; the trace locates}}). Biophysical conditions map to protocol/code constraints ({{ref:concept-governance-as-software|Governance as software}}); community attributes are the strained cluster — pseudonymous, open-entry, no shared culture.
Sources
- Ostrom 2007, pp. 25–28 (framework/theory/model, Fig. 2.1), 35–43 (three exogenous clusters), 24–25 (configural). - McGinnis, pp. 4 (2.2), 7–8 (§5), Fig. 1 p. 27.
Related: - {{ref:emergentgov|Index}} - {{ref:src-ostrom-irc-iad|Ostrom 2007}} - {{ref:src-iad-guide|McGinnis 2010/2011}} - {{ref:concept-action-arena|Action arena}} - {{ref:concept-rules-in-use|Rules-in-use vs rules-in-form}} - {{ref:concept-rule-levels|Levels of rules}} - {{ref:concept-institutional-invisibility|Institutional invisibility}} - {{ref:concept-gkc-framework|The GKC research framework (knowledge commons as modified IAD)}} - {{ref:concept-adaptive-governance|Adaptive governance as feedback architecture}}