Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T10:22:13.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence for Causal Mechanisms in Social Science: Recommendations from Woodward’s Manipulability Theory of Causation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Rosa W. Runhardt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I analyze process tracing, a causal mechanism-based technique for testing causal claims in the social sciences that requires one to specify a chain of intervening causes between any putative cause and effect. I argue that one should not only give evidence that the intervening causes are present in a suitable case study, as process tracing methodologists recommend, but also provide counterfactual evidence to show that each link in the chain is genuinely causal. I detail what that counterfactual evidence should consist of, using Woodward’s manipulability theory, and argue that this evidence relies on tentative comparisons to other case studies.

Type
Social Sciences and Policy
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 82 , Issue 5 , December 2015 , pp. 1296 - 1307
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bakke, Kristin M. 2013. “Copying and Learning from Outsiders? Assessing Diffusion from Transnational Insurgents in the Chechen Wars.” In Transnational Dynamics of Civil War, ed. Checkel, Jeffrey T., 31–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Checkel, Jeffrey T.. 2015. “Process Tracing: from Philosophical Roots to Best Practices.” In Process Tracing: from Metaphor to Analytic Tool, ed. Bennett, Andrew and Checkel, Jeffrey T., 3–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2013. “Symposium: Tracing the Progress of Process Tracing.” European Political Science 12:20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedström, Peter, and Ylikoski, Petri. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, Peter, Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl F.. 2000. “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 67 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2001. “Beyond Correlational Analysis: Recent Innovations in Theory and Method.” Sociological Forum 16 (3): 575–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 2004. “A Glimpse of the Secret Connexion: Harmonizing Mechanisms with Counterfactuals.” Perspectives on Science 12 (3): 288–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, James Forthcoming. “Methodology, Ontology, and Interventionism.” Synthese. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-014-0479-1.Google Scholar