Considering the Alternatives: A Typological Framework

• In Event: One of a Kind Meets the Ties That Bind Us

Abstract

Recent developments across political science have lead to an explosion of debate on common techniques of empirical inquiry across social scientific methodological traditions. In this paper, I argue for re-centering social scientific research on a common Bayesian philosophical foundation, oriented around the empirical comparison of pairs of primary alternative explanations. First, I argue for the value of isolating social inquiry into simplified dyads of contested explanatory truths, and avoiding research designs attempting to parse too many alternatives. Second, building on Zaks (2017) I offer a typology of alternative explanation heuristics to offer a unifying methodological framework to orient research designs by their distinctive methodological, ontological, and epistemic objectives. I conclude by illustrating the potential advantages for cumulative knowledge in adopting this simplified dual-alternative mindset in research design.

Author

• Michael J. Reese, University of Chicago