Abstract
Should constructivist research engage empirical debates with other approaches, especially non-constructivists? Calls for “eclectic” and “pluralistic” scholarship seem to encourage engagement, including across epistemological divides many constructivists have long perceived with non-constructivists. Yet this literature downplays competition between approaches, instead emphasizing that they answer different parts of questions. In seeming to evoke a division of labor, the eclectic turn actually strengthens a sense that approaches occupy distinct spaces. This article offers a sympathetic corrective to the eclectic turn, and to common accounts of older epistemological divides. Prior to eclectic combinations, empirical work necessarily begins from contrasting accounts on the same terrain. Only a naïve positivist imagines that meaningful scholarship tests solitary hypotheses against reality. Today’s scholars vary in how far they move toward more socially-based epistemologies, with constructivists moving furthest—and the further we move, the more the shape and significance of our accounts depends on contrasts to others. Thus all scholars should seek out competing alternatives, especially constructivists.
NOTE: Craig is circulating a 2016 paper on this topic, but has plans for a future book and is eager for your reactions.
Download paper (restricted access).
Please note that this paper is work in progress and thus has limited distribution, please contact us if you would like access. Do not cite without permission from the author.
If you would like to attend digitally, contact Tyra Kristiansen Stave to get the zoom link.