The trouble with multi-methodism

Quick, pick the statement that best represents practice in political science: (1) To the political scientist who comes equipped with a hammer, everything in the world presents itself as a nail; (2) the political scientist employs multiple methods, tailoring the mix to illuminate from various angles the phenomenon to be explained. The first statement rings true; not so the second statement. Political science favors the deeply specialized over the multi-methodist. The specialized political scientist knows everything about nothing and nothing about everything. He regularly hangs out with similarly specialized political scientists. They are his kin. When he submits a paper to a journal or applies for a grant or comes up for tenure, he can rely upon his “friends and family” for a favorable review. Meanwhile, the political scientist who takes a multi-method approach knows a little about a lot or a lot about a little (depending on whom you ask). She lives on the fringes of several specialized clusters. She connects the clusters to each other, but is herself only loosely connected to any given cluster. When she submits a paper to a journal or applies for a grant or comes up for tenure, her specialized reviewers compare her paper submission or her grant proposal or her tenure record to the papers or proposals or records of their specialized kin, and she inevitably comes up short.