The Tension between American Political Development as a Research Community and as a Disciplinary Subfield

Abstract

John Gerring's methodological critique of American political development can be viewed from at least three perspectives. First and most generally, Gerring proposes procedural and analytical standards that should apply to all the social and natural sciences. As a methodological virtue, for instance, conceptual clarity strengthens the underpinnings of knowledge, regardless of the substantive focus. Rigorous specification of causal relations is equally universal. From a second perspective, Gerring invites his readers to at least entertain the possibility that methodological rigor might vary over the lifespan of a research field. From this angle, seminal work often involves more relaxed methodological styles because initial exploration of a topic or area, almost by definition, must be unguided by research conventions and norms. Such conventions and norms only emerge if and when that exploration attracts a self-sustaining community of scholars.