Mapping the Judicialization of Politics: A Reflection on Methodological Issues in Writing a Social Science Review Paper

Abstract

The research process of authoring a review paper constitutes a uniquely important context for interrogating tacit premises and presuppositions, especially when the review aspires to synthesize a methodologically diverse field of research. This article presents a reflexive recounting of a research experience with mixed methods team-based review paper authorship, showing how the function of a review paper may be differently conceptualized by scholars situated in methodological traditions that place their emphasis on drawing-together knowledge about the social world versus those situated in methodological traditions whose primary aim is to unpack accepted categories. The analysis thus offers insights into dimensions of methodological difference as they operate in practice, while underscoring the significance of reflexivity in the review paper context for purposes of advancing meaningfully inclusive maps of an intellectual community’s self-understanding(s).