For Methodological Pluralism

We are grateful to Henry E. Brady and Colin Elman for their commentary on our book, A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. In this reply, we briefly respond to their concerns, especially those involving the integration of qualitative and quantitative research. Elman usefully contrasts “pluralism” and “monism” as two approaches to methodological diversity. Whereas pluralism embraces diversity and accepts different approaches on their own terms, monism advocates a single approach that can subsume all others. Framed in this way, as Elman notes, A Tale of Two Cultures unambiguously embodies methodological pluralism. The leading monist alternative in the social scieces holds that qualitative methodology is based on principles of statistical methodology (e.g., King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994). Qualitative research may have its own vocabulary and methods, but it “has no inferential machinery distinct from that of quantitative research” (Elman, p. 266). We believe that this monist position—specifically the tolerant, respectful version described by Elman—is well represented in Brady’s essay. As Brady writes, “To the extent that there are differences between the Quants and the Quals, I believe that many of them are simply differences in language and tools and not in their fundamental paradigms for doing research”. Brady allows for the possibility that the traditions represent separate cultures, but he rejects the idea that they are different paradigms. He suggests that “with a little bit of work we can develop a common framework”. In the second half of his essay, he illustrates this common