Perspectives on Pluralism

The Bennett, Barth, and Rutherford and Schwartz-Shea articles that prompted this symposium are invaluable, both for the (sometimes surprising) data that they provide on methodological trends within the discipline and for their discussions of the implications of those trends for instruction and research. While the data are fascinating, on a few points they lend themselves well to alternative interpretations and recommendations, especially on the issue of methodological pluralism. I would contend that the discipline is both more pluralistic and less pluralistic than the authors have claimed: more pluralistic because their comparison of numbers of qualitative and quantitative coursework is misleading, and less pluralistic because long-term trends suggestive of increasing (or even constant) pluralism are hard to tease out of the data. I conclude by addressing some of the questions that must be answered if the discipline is to achieve the goal of increased pluralism.