'New political history:' some statistical questions answered

Abstract

In the Spring, 1981, number of Social Science History, William G. Shade defended the "ethnocultural" historians' conclusions and offered some general methodological advice to political historians. Examining his five-part argument point by point, we find his analysis of the issues muddled, his "tests" of the robustness of the ethnoculturalists' results misconceived and inconclusive, and his specific prescriptions for future historians misleading. After attempting to clarify the arguments and propose some useful guidelines, we conclude that Shade's article underlines (once again) the necessity for more intensive statistical training for social scientific historians.