ABSTRACT
Understanding the practice of social science necessarily entails looking at forms rather than content. This proposition may seem counterintuitive. Normally, when we account for disciplinary developments it is the content that matters. This is because meta-studies often have not liberated themselves from their field of origin – what they study. When an analysis is part of an intra-disciplinary discussion it risks leading to normative evaluations related to perceptions about correct, current scientific practice. This is the Whig history trap of meta-studies. Focusing on form, rather than the content which the discipline itself aims to produce and focuses on, gives us a promising way to go beyond the Whig trap. This is so because form is exactly the medium for content. It is the order of the argument and its paratext, which make the peer reviewed article in International Security or any other leading journal what it is. The same words in a less convincing (or recognisable) order are not granted imprimatur.
