Beyond the empiricist/constructionist divide in social psychology

Jost and Kruglanski (this issue) offer a compelling vision of the professional gains to be derived from a thoroughgoing rapprochement between constructionist and experimental inquiry in social psychology. They effectively establish grounds for dialogue of great importance to the future of the field. While I concur with much that they propose, I would like to make an important distinction between the foundational premises that guide these differing endeavors and the ongoing practices of inquiry. By addressing the ungrounded character of both empiricist and constructionist metatheory, we are better able to explore the pragmatic consequences of the various forms of theory, methods, and politics invited by experimental and constructionist approaches.