RDSI Comment

Is causal-process observation an oxymoron? a commenton Brady and Collier (eds.) “Rethinking Social Inquiry”∗Nathaniel BeckDepartment of PoliticsNYUNew York, NY USAnathaniel.beck@nyu.eduDraft of August 16, 2005When I first read King, Keohane and Verba (1994), (“DSI” with authors ”KKV”) I wasexcited by the general theme of what seemed to me the obvious, but usually unspoken, ideathat all political scientists, both quantitative and qualitative, are scientists and governed bythe same scientific standards. DSI, as Henry Brady cleverly notes, clearly was preaching tothe qualitative researcher, and the subject of the sermon was that qualitative researchersshould adopt many of the ideas standard in quantitative research. Thus, to abuse both themetaphor and KKV, one might compare DSI to the view of the Inquisition that we are allGod’s children. But, having sat through many talks based on case studies, it is clear to methat getting everyone tothink about the nature of the scientific enterprise we are all engagedin can only be a good thing.Brady and Collier (2004) (“RSI” with authors “BC”) clearly takes no exception to thisgeneral position. But while DSI more or less argues that, mutatis mutandis, qualitativeresearchers should learn much from research design from quantitative ideas, RSI puts moreemphasisonthemutatis,sothatallGod’schildrencanhappilycoexist,whethertheyworshipone or many gods. To continue to abuse the metaphor, RSI clearly believes there are ...