Abstract
This article argues that theory holds its ground when it confronts itself with the empirics of its claims and this confrontation is geared to the project of increasing analytical specificity. This means (1) shedding as much light as possible on the very process whereby a type of outcome gets generated or takes shape and (2) identifying the factors that condition the likelihood of this process. From this perspective, sound theorizing is predicated on both empirical grounding and analytical specificity. Combined together, these two requirements constitute the epistemic matrix of claims and concepts geared to cumulative knowledge.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
