Evaluating the historiography of the Great Depression: explanation or single-theory driven?

Following James Rule and Colin Clark, a single-theory-driven approach to scientific inquiry which focuses on testing particular theories can be distinguished from an explanation-driven approach which is open to all observations and whose results do not cease to have value with the passing of a particular theory. Several 'decision points' in the historiography of the Great Depression are examined and it is shown that the decisions made at each point reflect a single-theory-driven orientation. It is argued that the single-theory-driven approach likely characterizes other fields of Economics, and also that this paper's method of applying a 'test' to various decision points in the evolution of economic thought is of widespread utility. The likely cost of a single-theory-driven bias in terms of our collective understanding is discussed.