Causality in Contemporary American Sociology: An Empirical Assessment and Critique

Abstract

Using a unique data set of causal usage drawn from research articles published between 2006–2008 in the American Journal of Sociology and American Sociological Review, this article offers an empirical assessment of causality in American sociology. Testing various aspects of what we consider the conventional wisdom on causality in the discipline, we find that (1) “variablistic” or “covering law” models are not the dominant way of making causal claims, (2) research methods affect but do not determine causal usage, and (3) the use of explicit causal language and the concept of “mechanisms” to make causal claims is limited. Instead, we find that metaphors and metaphoric reasoning are fundamental for causal claims‐making in the discipline. On this basis, we define three dominant causal types used in sociology today, which we label the Probabilistic, Initiating and Conditioning types. We theorize this outcome as demonstrating the primary role that cognitive models play in providing inference‐rich metaphors that allow sociologists to map causal relationships on to empirical processes.

Situating Sociology's Causal Claims: An American Phenomenon?

“…However, in American sociological theory circles positivism has been “declared dead” according to C. David Gartrell and John W. Gartrell (). The study by Vaidyanathan et al., supports this claim in practice through showing that it is Conditioning Claims (CC) that are the most popular claims, as opposed to Probabilistic Causal Claims (PC) which we would expect if there was a positivist dominance within US sociology and therefore the preponderance of “the covering‐law model based on ‘variables‐language” (Vaidyanathan : 10). Whilst there is evidence to suggest that the dominance of positivism has waned, the American commitment to “science” or “scientific approaches” remains, meaning that there is arguably an inbuilt tendency to adopt scientific discourse, which could take the form of employing causal language.…”

“…The dominance of American sociology has arguably resulted in national sociology communities becoming dependent on American theories, methods, and texts and thus replicating American intellectual trends (Mucha, ; Uys, ). If the journals investigated do have a constitutive effect upon the discipline due to their content being “widely cited and often emulated” (Vaidyanathan et al., , p. 12) one could expect that the trends exhibited not only are reflective of the current field but also may represent a future trajectory for Sociology.…”

“…If the same can be said for sociology, that sociology is different in different places, which it looks like it can be, the findings presented by Vaidyanathan et al., could be singular to the American sphere of the discipline. Therefore the “naturally occurring” claims (Vaidyanathan et al., , p. 19) are not natural but the product of their environment. Rather than being a “passive form of cognition” the usage of such language and claims are conditioned by their context.…”

“…It is these settings that need examining. In order to understand the “practical logic and use” (Vaidyanathan : 19) of the casual claims indentified we need to explore the conditions in which the claims have been made.…”

“…The article crucially highlights how “the conventional wisdom” regarding sociology's relationship with causation does not match the empirical representation put forth. Through highlighting the disjuncture between the assumptions produced from “narrow convenience sample[s] of introductory or methodological texts” (Vaidyanathan et al., , p. 4) this empirical documentation of causal claims inadvertently encourages greater academic reflexivity and the space to question whether assumptions about the way sociological research is conducted could be conditioning academic studies.…”