3/3 "level" of scientific inquiry does this choice take place? Is every experiment, every semi-structured interview a choice between these two approaches? Or does the choice happen at the level of whole research grants and programmes?

2/3 case-worker is still the best way to find stability before switching to a stability-theorist approach. Not sure about the smoothness of this transition... this brings up a general worry one might have: how dichotomous is the choice between case-worker and stability-theorist really? And at what

1/3 Good question. Northcott is mainly worried about the opposite problem: science loses something (esp. wasted resources) when scientists insist on stability-theorist when, in fact, lots of relations are fragile. According to Northcott, the idea is that in cases of mere epistemic unpredictability

tl;dr I think Northcott makes a compelling case that scientists should more often proceed on the assumption that the causal/explanatory relations they're studying are "fragile" (i.e. unpredictable), and that this necessitates a "case-worker" approach to inquiry.

Hmm good question: I think Brewer intends it squarely from the human participant perspective, but that of course includes making sense of humans in relation to/with their environments... this relates, I think, to my last little paragraph/worry about whether this is too "Western" and anthropocentric.

Me too!

Mr Fortune’s Maggot also good