JOURNAL for the SCIENTIFIC STUDY of RELIGION A Critical Appraisal of Amish Studies’ De Facto Paradigm, “Negotiating with Modernity” CORY ANDERSON Independent Scholar JOSEPH DONNERMEYER School of Society & Natural Resources The Ohio State University JEFFREY LONGHOFER School of Social Work Rutgers University STEVEN D. RESCHLY Department of History Truman State University The predominant paradigm for Amish research over the past three decades has been “negotiating with modernity” (NWM). NWM explains how the Amish as a distinctive American culture and religion have overcome the threats modernity poses to their existence. This article argues that NWM has been accepted and replicated uncritically and without empirical testing due to properties making it inherently untestable. We first synthesize the central NWM literature, as the paradigm has never been fully constructed in one place. We then call attention to two sets of impairments that prevent empirical tests. First, the perspective contains several logical fallacies and terminology problems. NWM reifies “the Amish” as its unit of analysis; creates circular variable relationships (the Amish are Amish because they are not something else); employs terms problematically, notably “modernity” and “modernization”; dichotomizes phenomena; and is grounded in no particular theoretical tradition. Second, we argue that the production of knowledge within core NWM literature has not been sufficiently substantiated. Data collection procedures and methodological strategies are unclear or undefined and scientific peer review is relatively low. We conclude by suggesting more promising theoretical directions for Amish studies. Keywords: Amish, modern, dichotomy, falsifiable, technology, cultural materialism, Donald Kraybill, Elizabeth- town College. INTRODUCTION For scholars researching a small religious group, any sustained theoretical commitments have enduring consequences. In this article, we consider one area of specialty in the study of religious communities, Amish studies, and the impact of its dominating paradigm, “negotiating with modernity” (NWM). 1 In this article, we provide a review and synthesis of NWM that concludes that NWM is theoretically problematic. Science is preoccupied with responding to research questions by constructing theories that include falsifiable propositions. These propositions are then subjected to qualitative, quantitative, or other empirically derived methods. NWM is one example: it theorizes how the Amish have survived the modern world. However, as we will argue here, NWM, while often treated as an Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the following for their insights through conversations during this article’s development or in reviewing it: Jennifer Anderson, Andy Borella, Corey Colyer, Katherine Jellison, Christopher Petrovich, Denise Reiling, Vlatka Skender, Rachel Stein, Janelle Zimmerman, Elam Zook, and the autumn 2017 Truman State University “Amish Culture” class. Correspondence should be addressed to Cory Alexander Anderson, 7010 State Route 241, Millersburg, OH 44654. E-mail: dranderson@amishstudies.org 1 Even though “negotiating” and “modernity” as concepts are but a portion of the broader paradigm, it aptly describes the foundational concepts. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2019) 0(0):1–18 C  2019 The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion