ABSTRACT
The behavioral revolution produced generations of scholars convinced of the rightness of naturalism–the idea that social inquiry can and should be constructed on the model of natural inquiry. Consequently, most contemporary social scientists would expect the empirical products of rule-oriented Constructivism to employ modeling techniques borrowed from natural science. These methods, however, contradict the central Constructivist commitment concerning the co-constitution of agents and structures. The empirical studies attract adherents to the research program and they simultaneously protect the research program from external attack. Behavioral studies seem circular, as conclusions tend to reinforce perspectives that motivate the study and are embedded even in the data. Causal explanation differs across the natural and social sciences at least in one respect. Historians acknowledge the difficulty as they seek to limit the influence of their own effective histories and critique their pre-understandings while at the same time relying on them inferentially.
