Analytic eclecticism: Not perfect, but indispensable

Following the pragmatist bent of our conceptualization of analytic eclecticism, we view the four excellent commentaries offered above as a welcome opportunity to engage in open-minded dialogue and to clarify certain defining attributes of eclectic scholarship. Two commentaries are offered by Andrew Bennett and Peter Haas, who are sympathetic critics of our work: They accept our premise that research confined to paradigms has built-in limits, but then offer some frank assessments of the challenges and limitations of analytic eclecticism. They raise important issues about the implications of analytic eclecticism for the cumulation and assessment of theories, and for some of the risks that existing institutional practices pose to eclectic scholarship. We regard their remarks less as a critique of our arguments and more as impressive forays into the sorts of discussions that we hope will displace stale inter-paradigm debates if academic scholarship is to become more connected to the world of policy and practice (Calhoun 2009; Nye 2009; Shapiro 2005). The other two commentaries, by Alice Ba and T.V. Paul, come from “insiders” in the sense that both are authors of works we discuss in our book (2010b) as exemplars of eclectic scholarship. Admittedly, they have little incentive to critique a book that casts their work in a favorable light. Their thoughtful and candid reflections, however, go a long way toward helping us clarify some important points about the different pathways to analytic eclecticism and the complexities involved in coding what counts as eclectic scholarship