We All Need Philosophy Of Science: Analyticism As A Vehicle For Explanatory Understanding In Multi-method Research

Explaining and Understanding are considered mutually exclusive in political research. In this view, Explaining involves making observations as an outsider, with emphasis on causal laws, generalizations, and predictions. Conversely, Understanding occurs from the inside, with emphasis on meaning-making. This research note addresses Explaining, Understanding, and the related concept of reflexivity in multi-method/mixed-method research involving fieldwork. Rather than taking for granted the dichotomy between Explaining and Understanding that stems from Cartesian anxiety, I argue for the non-mutually exclusive alternative of ‘explanatory understanding’ and propose analyticism as the appropriate methodological path. An analyticist methodology involves creating a model that is a general account of a phenomenon, which is then used in case-specific analytical narratives to reveal departures from the model. Since understanding requires adequate explanation, explanatory understanding helps us better make sense of the world. Therefore, Explaining and Understanding are not merely oppositional stances between identifying causes and making sense. We cannot identify causes without making sense, and making sense involves a degree of causal inference. Explanatory understanding also necessitates reflexivity, which I conceptualize as methodological and personal positionality. I apply these arguments to my study of post-election violence in West Africa, drawing on fieldwork experience in Ghana, Nigeria, and Côte d’Ivoire.