Over the years, my research has focused on addressing significant methodological challenges in the study of nation-building and the social sciences more broadly. Through a series of publications discussed in more detail below, I have critiqued common practices in social science research, such as inferring intentions from behavior, relying on census data to study nation-building, and attributing modern political phenomena to historical concepts unknown to historical actors. My work emphasizes the importance of avoiding anachronism, unjustifiable comparisons, and other methodological pitfalls by proposing strategies to improve analytical rigor. Across these efforts, I have consistently argued for more nuanced, multi-dimensional approaches that bridge disciplinary silos, encourage cross-field dialogue, and foster innovative research designs that combine qualitative and quantitative methods to enhance the study of nationalism, conflict, and political development.
I have been preoccupied with methodological problems in the study of nation-building for many years. My first contribution, “Methodological Problems in the Study of Nation-Building: Behaviorism and Historicist Solutions in Political Science,” appeared in a special issue on Nationalism which was published in Social Science Quarterly. In the article, I discussed the methodological problems that flow from the following practices in social science research: i) inferring intentions from observing behavior or outcomes; ii) relying on census data; iii) arbitrary selection of time horizons; and iv) attributing certain actions to concepts and/or phenomena that were not politically salient or even understood by the actors under study. In each section, I use empirical examples from my work in the Balkans to illustrate the methodological pitfalls that may result from these practices and suggest strategies to overcome these difficulties.
“Methodological challenges in the study of stateless nationalist territorial claims” (with Nadav Shelef) was published in Territory, Politics, Governance, a political geography journal. This article draws attention to the analytical distinction between the origin of territorial claims and their consequent changes. Building on this distinction, it also demonstrates the advantages of using a multidimensional understanding of change in territorial claims focusing on its timing, direction, and process. Then it turns to a discussion highlighting the tradeoffs in the choice of the unit of analysis as well as common problems in case selection, i.e., unjustifiable asynchronous comparisons and anachronism. The article concludes by laying out a roadmap for future research in this area.
In another methodologically motivated piece published in Nations and Nationalism, “Nation-building policies in the Balkans: an Ottoman or a manufactured legacy?,” I argue that we should distinguish between actual and manufactured legacies—that are actually the result of geostrategic choices by the various governments rather than some form of legacy. The empirical example I use to illustrate my point is the Ottoman era millet system (self-administration of groups defined by religious affiliation). In particular, I take issue with the contention that the millet system has produced a legacy that accounts for the nation-building policies established by the Balkan nations’ ruling elites. I argue that the persistence of certain features from one period to another may be an actual legacy in some cases, but there is also a possibility that we are dealing with a manufactured legacy, where elites choose to intervene and perpetuate an institution or a particular feature of it. I empirically demonstrate this distinction in a crucial case using archival sources.
I was also recently invited to participate in an “Exchange on the quantitative measurement of ethnic and national identity” with Daniel Bochsler, Elliott Green, Erin Jenne, and Andreas Wimmer published in Nations and Nationalism. In this exchange, we discussed the noticeable increase in the use of quantitative techniques in the study of ethnicity and nationalism and reflect on how these techniques have contributed to our understanding of ethnic and national identities. We also explored the degree to which it is possible to use quantitative data to measure ethnic and national identities, which types of methods are most suitable in measuring these identities and what the major research findings of this quantitative research are that were not possible using qualitative approaches.
A co-authored article with Meghan Garrity (George Mason University) entitled, “The various facets of eliminationist politics: Conflict, nation-building, and forced migration,” was recently published in International Political Science Review. In this article, we define eliminationist policies as deliberate actions by state or non-state actors that aim to destroy, remove, or erase certain groups on the basis of salient social identity characteristics. We argue that conflict, nation-building, and forced migration scholars examine different facets of these policies, and related tactics, motivated by different research questions and methodological choices. And this has resulted in academic silos, with varied conceptualizations, operationalizations, and scope conditions. These, in turn, limit theory-building and testing, introduce sources of potential bias, and undermine the generalizability of the findings. To address these shortcomings, we propose a broader field of ‘eliminationist politics’ encouraging cross-field dialogue. We propose that bringing these scholars into conversation will enhance theorizing, generate new research questions, and spur data collection efforts.
Finally, I have co-authored a paper with H. Zeynep Bulutgil and Luis L. Schenoni entitled “Political Science’s Quest for Methodological Pluralism: Valuating Methods in Comparative Theory-Testing.” In this paper, currently under review, we examine the epistemological and methodological implications of comparative theory testing in political science, a practice that emphasizes the empirical evaluation of competing theories based on their distinct, observationally non-equivalent predictions. By encouraging the use of diverse empirical dimensions, comparative theory testing challenges the dominant methodological tradition, which prioritizes a narrow understanding of causal identification. We argue that this tradition has promoted a hierarchy of methods, with randomized control trials at the top. However, many influential political science studies continue to employ a range of methods, including qualitative, observational, and multi-method research, guided by theoretical considerations rather than strict adherence to experimental approximations. Through an exploration of various research designs that effectively compare theories across different methods, we advocate for an eclectic approach to research in political science, one that recognizes the value of diverse methodologies in advancing theoretical understanding.
Harris Mylonas 