Styles of Causal Thought: An Empirical Investigation

Abend, Gabriel; Petre, Caitlin; Sauder, Michael

doi:10.1086/675892

Cited by 54 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In that, VS strengthen the findings of a recent article by Abend et al. () that showed that ethnographic articles in the US invariably contain some form of causal language. VS further argue, and again, with good reason, that the language of causality is metaphorical, and that taking these metaphors seriously qua metaphors , would be wise.…”

supporting

confidence: 87%

Causality and the Cognitive

Tavory

2015

J Theory Soc Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper by Vaidyanathan, Strand et al. (hereafter, VS) is a welcome addition to the recent attempt to think through the question of causality in sociology. Going beyond the ongoing debates in quantitative and historical research, the article shows that although there are few straightforward causal claims on the pages of AJS and ASR, every single one of the papers they looked through included metaphorical causal usage. In that, VS strengthen the findings of a recent article by Abend et al. (2013) that showed that ethnographic articles in the US invariably contain some form of causal language. VS further argue, and again, with good reason, that the language of causality is metaphorical, and that taking these metaphors seriously qua metaphors, would be wise.I am sympathetic to the general thrust of this argument. Most sociologists I know, and all the qualitative sociological projects I have read, use causal language. This is the case even when this language is veiled, and even when their authors explicitly vow that they do not make causal claims. Making sure that we cannot hide from the questions of causality and treating it as it-that-should-not-be-named is an important endeavor.Having said this, and in the spirit of further tinkering with a strong piece of scholarship, there are some problems with this paper. A couple are what I think of as methodological and theoretical "glitches", but others are shaped (note the causal metaphor) by the theoretical presuppositions of a cognitive approach to sociology. I thus use this space both to question VS's specific arguments, but also to problematize some of the more general assumptions and presuppositions that cognitive science-inspired scholars may be "seduced into" making (note, yet another veiled causal claim).First, VS note that they find three metaphorical forms of causality-metaphors of "initiating causes," of "conditioning causes" and of "probabilistic causes." Looking at the coding procedures these categories were based on made me somewhat wary. VS code as "probabilistic causes" statements such as "correlated with" and "varied with." This, however, is empathetically not what philosophers of science mean by a probabilistic account of causality. Rather, probabilistic accounts of causality claim that the occurrence of X directly affects the probability Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 87%

Causality and the Cognitive

Tavory

2015

J Theory Soc Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding is also corroborated by Abend et al. [, p. 16n12], who found ethnographic articles in their sample to seldom use the term “mechanism”—even though they might actually be describing these in other words—in comparison to quantitative articles, which were more likely to use the term.…”

supporting

confidence: 79%

“…The one exception is Abend et al. (), which empirically examines “styles of causal thought” in ethnographic articles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first two co-authors share authorship equally. Please direct correspondence to Brandon Vaidyanathan (brandonv@rice.edu) or Michael Strand (mstrand@bgsu.edu).2 The one exception isAbend et al (2013), which empirically examines "styles of causal thought" in ethnographic articles.3 Here we follow the programmatic view of reflexivity that it involves "[taking] as one's topic one's target's resource"(Zammito, 2004, p. 2; emphasis original).4 Indeed, our coding (described below) was remarkably consistent in identifying these metaphors as bearing a causal meaning in the sites where they were used In fact, it was only when we subsequently enlisted a theory about what causation is or should be (like critical realism or empiricism) that our coding efforts, which we will describe further below, became most equivocal.5 The larger point to make, especially for sociology, is that retaining an anti-realist view of the mind by remaining tied to discourse, particularly as the conceptual basis for reflexive analysis in the sociology of science and knowledge, has diminishing returns given the collapse of behaviorism in psychology and the corresponding rise of the "cognitive revolution"(Gardner, 1985).6 However, Cartwright doesn't try to boil these "thick" terms down to any more basic meaning, making it difficult to see why, from her perspective, metaphors in science aren't simply just good writing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Causality in Contemporary American Sociology: An Empirical Assessment and Critique

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Although it is not a necessary condition, at its most basic level, the bulk of social science relies on a degree of comparison (Abend, Petre, & Sauder, 2013). The sampling decisions we make in qualitative family research also reflect comparisons.…”

Section: Case-and Variable-based Logicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sampling Richness and Qualitative Integrity: Challenges for Research With Families

Roy

Zvonkovic

Goldberg

et al. 2015

J of Marriage and Family

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sampling is one of the most difficult and contentious aspects of qualitative research design. There are few guidelines for sampling decisions or for understanding saturation in qualitative family research. The authors frame the problematic of data quality in the selection of units of analysis and observation and consider how to enhance sample richness. They outline considerations for data quantity and sample size as well as case‐ and variable‐based approaches. With multiple examples from recent and classic studies to illustrate the consequences of sampling decisions, they explore links between saturation and validity. Finally, they encourage researchers to craft a coherent statement on qualitative integrity to demonstrate how their sampling decisions are rooted in epistemology, theory, and richness and quality of data.

show abstract

Styles of Causal Thought: An Empirical Investigation

Cited by 54 publications

References 72 publications

Causality and the Cognitive

Causality and the Cognitive

Causality in Contemporary American Sociology: An Empirical Assessment and Critique

Sampling Richness and Qualitative Integrity: Challenges for Research With Families

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About