The essay by James Mahoney and Gary Goertz explores the contrasting research traditions of quantitative and qualitative methods in political science, framing them as distinct cultures with different practices, beliefs, and norms. They highlight ten areas where these traditions diverge: approaches to explanation, conceptions of causation, multivariate explanations, equifinality, scope and causal generalization, case selection, weighting observations, substantively important cases, lack of fit, and concepts and measurement. The authors argue that understanding these differences can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and enhance cross-cultural communication in political science. They emphasize that both traditions have valid goals and methods, but they differ in their specific research goals and norms, which lead to different practices. For example, qualitative researchers focus on explaining outcomes in individual cases, while quantitative researchers aim to estimate average effects across populations. The essay also discusses the importance of equifinality in qualitative research, where multiple causal paths to the same outcome are considered, and the broader scope of quantitative research, which seeks to generalize findings to large numbers of cases. The authors conclude that recognizing these differences can foster more productive dialogue and collaboration between the two traditions.The essay by James Mahoney and Gary Goertz explores the contrasting research traditions of quantitative and qualitative methods in political science, framing them as distinct cultures with different practices, beliefs, and norms. They highlight ten areas where these traditions diverge: approaches to explanation, conceptions of causation, multivariate explanations, equifinality, scope and causal generalization, case selection, weighting observations, substantively important cases, lack of fit, and concepts and measurement. The authors argue that understanding these differences can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and enhance cross-cultural communication in political science. They emphasize that both traditions have valid goals and methods, but they differ in their specific research goals and norms, which lead to different practices. For example, qualitative researchers focus on explaining outcomes in individual cases, while quantitative researchers aim to estimate average effects across populations. The essay also discusses the importance of equifinality in qualitative research, where multiple causal paths to the same outcome are considered, and the broader scope of quantitative research, which seeks to generalize findings to large numbers of cases. The authors conclude that recognizing these differences can foster more productive dialogue and collaboration between the two traditions.