​This is a reply to Sid Ahmed Goudjili's article, appearing in this issue, on the critique of analytical eclecticism in IR. The reply attempts to engage with the main, but not all, ideas in the article, it seeks to open an in-depth debate not about the merits or limits of analytical eclecticism in International Relations discipline, which have been widely addressed in the recently growing literature, but rather about understanding analytical eclecticism itself, what it means, what it does, what we as IR students and scholars do with, its position on the idea of the grand theory, and how it relates to International Relations theories.