1. ^aDepartment of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1950, USA. E-mail: mbevir@berkeley.edu
2. ^bResearch School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia. E-mail: rhodes@coombs.anu.edu.au

Abstract

This paper offers a commentary on critical realism by proponents of an interpretive political science. It does, in part, by responding to McAnulla's suggestion that critical realists might join the conversation, initiated by interpretive political scientists, about the nature of a post-positivist political science. The paper argues that the critical realist concept of "structure" is too vague to be of much use; it needs to be disaggregated into various types of structure, including "tradition", "dilemma", "practice", and "unintended consequence". The paper also suggests that if critical realists are to disaggregate the concept of structure in a post-positivist manner, they need to avoid philosophical pitfalls such as contrasting the ideational with the material, treating social concepts as natural kinds, and adopting naturalist forms of explanation.