Premium
Argumentum ad populum : A reply to Bonikowski and DiMaggio
Author(s) -
Eger Maureen A,
Hjerm Mikael
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
nations and nationalism
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.655
H-Index - 44
eISSN - 1469-8129
pISSN - 1354-5078
DOI - 10.1111/nana.12791
Subject(s) - argument (complex analysis) , replication (statistics) , nationalism , epistemology , sociology , psychology , social psychology , positive economics , law , political science , philosophy , mathematics , statistics , economics , medicine , politics
Our reply to Bonikowski and DiMaggio (2021) is in three parts. First, we clarify the aim of our research note (Eger & Hjerm, 2021). Our original critique was based on a replication of their inductive analysis, and we evaluated their work using best practices for the methodology that they chose. Our argument is straightforward: If one is going to use inductive methods to say something meaningful about the real world, one needs to make sure that the model being advanced fits the data. We present additional evidence supporting our original critique. Second, we discuss whether their new analyses bolster their original results and conclusions. Third, because their own results actually suggest that different levels of American nationalism exist rather than qualitatively different types, we question their claim of convergent validity. In short, we stand by our original critique.