When Is Old Too Old? The Problem of Leaning on Outdated Historical Work and a Simple Distinction between Two Kinds of Evidence to Address This

Abstract

Abstract While international relations and comparative politics scholars are often hesitant to lean on old empirical findings in their own discipline, they have no similar qualms when it comes to the work of historians. This is sometimes problematic and sometimes not. To help political scientists who are going historical address this issue, I revisit prior methodological work by Cameron Thies, published in these pages, to introduce a distinction between two kinds of historical evidence: (i) “factual evidence,” which is relatively specific descriptive evidence that ages well and where there is often no alternative to enlisting older work, and (ii) “inferential evidence,” which is broader historical interpretations that tend to become outdated much more quickly. This distinction provides a shortcut for political scientists going historical who do not have the resources to systematically review historiography to document whether a certain piece of historical evidence has stood the test of time or not.