Introduction

Should the social sciences focus more than they now do on solving real (explanatory) problems and less on developing methodologies or pursuing methodological programs? Two distinct worries animate this question. One is that too many resources may be devoted to the development and refinement of methodologies and theories, while too little attention is paid to the actual things needing explanation. In this sense there may be a misallocation of social scientific resources. The other worry is that when proponents of some methodology turn to explaining a particular event or phenomenon, they tend to produce distorted accounts; they are deflected by their inordinate attention to and sympathy for their favorite method. Method-driven social science comes up with defective explanations. Proper attempts to explain things, one might think, ought to be open ended and responsive to the phenomenon to be explained and not be committed in advance to any particular explanatory methodology. Such a commitment smacks of dogmatism or a priori-ism. These complaints are often illustrated by the familiar metaphors of drunks searching under street-lamps and the law of the hammer.

My inclination is to resist the question as not quite usefully posed. The development of systematic methodologies and theories is what permits the social sciences – or particular approaches to social science – to make distinctive and sometimes valuable contributions to understanding the events that interest us.;;There are several reasons why this is the case.