Explaining a political phenomenon is not to be viewed as a multi-variant function but rather a comprehensive research tool ensuring adequacy (in a broader context – chances of arriving at an explanation) at the expense of universality. The proposed coincidence paradigm provides possibilities of applying explanations seemingly contradictory from the substantive and methodological perspective. The concepts of “meta-activity” and “quasi-expert” are used for the sake of explaining the criteria ensuring development of a political science research tool composed of multiple elements. At the core of deliberations lies broadly-defined exemplification of the dispute between normative and empirical methodology.