We were having discussions on the famous “World Systems Theory” by Wallerstein in class. Someone criticized that Wallerstein has his theory first and picks examples that fit his theory. Fair enough, he is a sociologist and social scientists are usually encouraged to create theories in an inductive way. I asked, “is that a problem to have a theory first?” Then another student said, “We should not presume theories in historical research. It’s important to bear it in mind”
I did not say anything, but I think Wallerstein certainly bore that in mind when he wrote these volumes on the world-systems theory. To me, it is a hypocrisy of many historians to say they did not have theories first. Everyone has a hunch, an idea, or a perspective at least, before digging into history. Everyone has to answer the “so what?” question. Of course you need to let the facts, documents, and evidence speak for themselves. But that’s the same for social scientists. Why is it bad to have ideas and theories first?
There are a lot of debates in the graduate level political science 101 on methodology. It’s usually about inductive vs deductive, large-N vs small-N vs single case process tracing, sample selection, etc. It is also hypocritical for political scientists to say “I chose this case because it is a perfect case for testing this hypothesis.” They often already have an interest in certain cases or regions (because of their family connection, language background, former experiences) before they come up with their theories. Why is it bad to have a personal interest in cases before theories?
I still do not think there is (or should be) a huge difference in the thinking process of historians and social scientists. Some have a clearer hypothesis to test at the beginning, and others have more interest in cases before that. But it is often a mixed and dual process that we go through, and the difference in which comes first (if you can tell) does not coincide with the disciplinary divide. I am tired of these discussions. We all have to have both empirical evidence and a broader perspective that contributes to the understanding of human society at large. All these “should”s and “should-not”s in research process sound very hypocritical to me.
Well said Sayaka.