Critique of the Final Report for Interpretive Methods
Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:15 pm
While a crystal clear analysis and critique of mainstream positivism’s antiquated and ill-fitting methodological paradigm for political science, as I will argue below, the Final Report’s “Recommendations” lack practical substance.*
The problem is that the positivists have already captured the profession, its prestige and resources, and will not let it go. Their numbers crunching, unempathetic, mendacious neutrality defines “Political Science,” as the APSR, our main journal, shows in every issue. While the profession retains its nonthreatening lackey posture before Washington, DC, graduate students who dare defy the dominant doctrine risk serious damage to their careers. Interpretivism is being falsely branded as somehow less than “science.”
The Final Report is correct that the DA-RT “transparency” issue is a Fake Ideal, meant to trap the unwary, and preserve positivist domination. But its “Recommendations” seem too timid and overly deferential.
Rather than the presentation of an alternative comprehensive interpretive definition of the political science profession, the Final Report appears to suggest that a concession be given the interpretivist dissenters. Their praise of Perspectives on Politics (POP) seems to be an offer that interpretivists be given POP, APSA’s second level journal; thereby allowing the positivists to keep their APSR, and their dominant position in the profession.
In my view, this won’t do. Interpretivists have a better point of view. We have an approach that is true to, reflective of, and sensitive to the subject matter of political science – i.e., the political behavior of individuals and groups within a political system. I have articulated this point of view in the interpretivist’s APSA Section 37 Newsletter, QMMR, at,
William J. Kelleher, “Letting Easton Be Easton—An Interpretivist,” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 15:2 (Fall 2017), pp. 22-28.
Open Access at, https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/cmnvx/
The Final Report is also confused about the relationships of facts and values in the practice of political science, and about the role of political philosophy in political science as a science. Yes, facts and values are not separable in reality, and political philosophy is inseparable from political science. But the Final Report lacks an understanding of how to keep the profession from degenerating into the muck of party politics.
Actually, David Easton clarified this relationship way back in the 1950s. But it has been misunderstood and misrepresented by positivists and protestors, alike. I explain this in my essay in New Political Science at, William J. Kelleher, “Back to the Future: How Understanding David Easton Can Give Guidance to the Caucus for a New Political Science,” New Political Science 39:4 (2017), pp. 473-486. Open Access:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Science
Also see, Clyde W. Barrow, “There are Better Alternatives than Easton:
A Critical Rejoinder to William J. Kelleher,” New Political Science 40:1(2018), pp. 186-198.
Open Access: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... J_Kelleher
The practical problem, then, is to displace the dominant paradigm, with an approach to which members of the profession can happily and heartily commit themselves. Interpretivists already have an understanding of political science which will liberate our researchers and writers to engage in a wide mix of methods without fear of undue journal rejections or negative career repercussions. Perhaps, rather than asking for concessions, the time has come to formulate standards and a strategy for naming and shaming the dominant positivists who are enabling the marginalization of Interpretivist Political Scientists. Public shaming will put that paradigm to pasture.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
*The Final Report for III.2 Interpretive Methods by Lisa Björkman, Lisa Wedeen, Juliet Williams, and Mary Hawkesworth is available at
Summary: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3333463
Full report: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3333411
The problem is that the positivists have already captured the profession, its prestige and resources, and will not let it go. Their numbers crunching, unempathetic, mendacious neutrality defines “Political Science,” as the APSR, our main journal, shows in every issue. While the profession retains its nonthreatening lackey posture before Washington, DC, graduate students who dare defy the dominant doctrine risk serious damage to their careers. Interpretivism is being falsely branded as somehow less than “science.”
The Final Report is correct that the DA-RT “transparency” issue is a Fake Ideal, meant to trap the unwary, and preserve positivist domination. But its “Recommendations” seem too timid and overly deferential.
Rather than the presentation of an alternative comprehensive interpretive definition of the political science profession, the Final Report appears to suggest that a concession be given the interpretivist dissenters. Their praise of Perspectives on Politics (POP) seems to be an offer that interpretivists be given POP, APSA’s second level journal; thereby allowing the positivists to keep their APSR, and their dominant position in the profession.
In my view, this won’t do. Interpretivists have a better point of view. We have an approach that is true to, reflective of, and sensitive to the subject matter of political science – i.e., the political behavior of individuals and groups within a political system. I have articulated this point of view in the interpretivist’s APSA Section 37 Newsletter, QMMR, at,
William J. Kelleher, “Letting Easton Be Easton—An Interpretivist,” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 15:2 (Fall 2017), pp. 22-28.
Open Access at, https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/cmnvx/
The Final Report is also confused about the relationships of facts and values in the practice of political science, and about the role of political philosophy in political science as a science. Yes, facts and values are not separable in reality, and political philosophy is inseparable from political science. But the Final Report lacks an understanding of how to keep the profession from degenerating into the muck of party politics.
Actually, David Easton clarified this relationship way back in the 1950s. But it has been misunderstood and misrepresented by positivists and protestors, alike. I explain this in my essay in New Political Science at, William J. Kelleher, “Back to the Future: How Understanding David Easton Can Give Guidance to the Caucus for a New Political Science,” New Political Science 39:4 (2017), pp. 473-486. Open Access:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Science
Also see, Clyde W. Barrow, “There are Better Alternatives than Easton:
A Critical Rejoinder to William J. Kelleher,” New Political Science 40:1(2018), pp. 186-198.
Open Access: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... J_Kelleher
The practical problem, then, is to displace the dominant paradigm, with an approach to which members of the profession can happily and heartily commit themselves. Interpretivists already have an understanding of political science which will liberate our researchers and writers to engage in a wide mix of methods without fear of undue journal rejections or negative career repercussions. Perhaps, rather than asking for concessions, the time has come to formulate standards and a strategy for naming and shaming the dominant positivists who are enabling the marginalization of Interpretivist Political Scientists. Public shaming will put that paradigm to pasture.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
*The Final Report for III.2 Interpretive Methods by Lisa Björkman, Lisa Wedeen, Juliet Williams, and Mary Hawkesworth is available at
Summary: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3333463
Full report: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3333411