Is, ought and being careful what you wish for

This brief commentary on Henry Wai-chung Yeung’s “Rethinking Mechanism and Process in the Geographical Analysis of Uneven Development” makes three points. First, the commentary supports the article’s assertions that ‘analytical rigor’ is compromised when process and mechanism are conflated, that causal mechanisms are under- theorized in much economic geography, and that a latent realist ontology often lurks beneath interpretive and process-based approaches. Second, it explores the inherent hurdles that a revival of critical realism presents for efforts of engaged pluralism given geography’s contending perspectives on ontology and epistemology and multiple social and substantive theories. Third, the commentary concludes with a hopeful yet cautionary tale of what multidisciplinary engagement on causal mechanisms might entail given the ‘rigor mortis’ mainstream orthodoxy elsewhere in the social sciences.