The division of labor in social science research: Unified methodology or "organic solidarity"?

Since contending methodological perspectives and different types of research products are Founded on irreconcilable philosophical assumptions, the sharp, recurrent debates over social science research methods are likely to be fruitless and counterproductive. This article begins by exposing some of the philosophical assumptions underlying the most recent calls for a unified social science methodology and seeks to help develop a common appreciation of how different kinds of methods and research products advance our understanding of different aspects of social life at different levels of abstraction. Such commonly posited dichotomies as deductivist/inductivist logic, quantitative/qualitative analysis, and nomothetic/idiographic research products ore shown to obscure significant differences along a continuum of strategies through which context-bound information and analytic constructs are combined to produce interpretations of varying degrees of complexity or generality. Durkheim's conception of "organic solidarity" in a social "division of labor" serves as a useful metaphor here to capture the complementary roles performed by various research products as well as the trade-offs arising from the strengths and weaknesses of various methodological approaches (ranging from formal and statistical approaches to various case-based and interpretive approaches). Thus, sharp claims regarding the strengths and limitations of particular methods are transformed into elements of an overarching agnostic understanding of the trade-offs and complementarities among these methods. Finally, a distinctive role is identified for an ideal-typical "middle-range" comparative-historical approach in fostering greater communication among a more inclusively defined community of methodologically diverse social scientists.