Dichotomous and necessary-and-sufficient structures let researchers silently skip dimension weighting.

Evidence

The ability to weight dimensions thus exists for the mathematics commonlyusedtostructureconcepts. ThepointIstressisthatonecan do this for both necessary and sufficient conditions and family resemblanceconceptstructures. Ofcourse, thisdoesnotsolvethepragmatic problem of how to assign weights. This problem hinges on both the specific substance of the ontological concept as well as its three-level structure. The practical advice for the concept-builder is to explicitly address the weighting question. If one adopts the unweighted option then it should be a conscious choice; if one weights based on theoretical and/or empirical considerations then that too needs explicit defense (pace the polity procedure of unjustified weights). It is particularly easy to avoid the weighting question when using necessary and sufficient condition structures or dichotomous variables. Hence posing explicitly the question of the salience and relative importance of dimensions becomes all the more important. — Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts, 328

Categorization

• SEED: A methodological essay angle: the weighting question as the invisible fork in every concept-building procedure, and why binary variables let scholars evade it.
• DEFINE: Names the weighting problem in concept structure: relative salience of dimensions, and the requirement to defend weighted or unweighted choices explicitly.