Causal claims and causal explanation in international studies

Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Existing neopositivist approaches to causal explanation focus their time and effort on the evaluation of nomothetic causal claims, and spend very little energy on the question of how, precisely, a nomothetic generalization explains a particular observed outcome. Against this approach I develop a more pragmatic analysis of the act of explanation in order to flesh out the context of causal explanation more broadly. Causal explanation, I argue, responds to a problem-situation in which the challenge involves how to do something, and unfolds by clarifying why and how some outcome rather than some other outcome came about — thus giving instructions on how to make the desired outcome happen. The resulting account of causal explanation encompasses a wide variety of explanatory strategies including the appeal to causal mechanisms, dispositional properties, everyday experiences, and even nomothetic generalisations; as such, it provides a better and broader basis for thinking about causal explanation in international studies than the restrictive neopositivist models presently on offer.

Keywords

causal claims causal explanation causation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was originally prepared for a workshop at the University of Reading, and for presentation at the subsequent BISA meeting, both in June 2014. The author is grateful to Hidemi Suganami, Adam Humphreys, Derek Beach, and Nick Onuf for detailed feedback on an earlier draft, and to all workshop participants and the BISA panel audience for stimulating discussion. Thanks are also due to two anonymous reviewers of an earlier version of this paper. The support of the SIS Dean’s International Conference Travel Fund is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Abbott, Andrew (1988) ‘Transcending General Linear Reality’, Sociological Theory 6(2): 169–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, Andrew (1992) ‘What Do Cases Do? Some Notes on Activity in Sociological Analysis’, in Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker, eds, What is a Case? 53–82, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan, eds, (2010) Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives On and Beyond Asia, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Achinstein, Peter (1985) The Nature of Explanation, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Achinstein, Peter, ed. (2010a) ‘Can There Be A Model of Explanation?’ in Evidence, Explanation, and Realism: Essays in Philosophy of Science, 143–67, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Achinstein, Peter (2010b) Evidence, Explanation, and Realism: Essays in Philosophy of Science, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Alker, Hayward R. (1966) ‘The Long Road to International Relations Theory: Problems of Statistical Nonadditivity’, World Politics 18(4): 623–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1963) Intention, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1993) ‘Causality and Determination’, in Ernest Sosa and Michael Tooley, eds, Causation, 88–104, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Autesserre, Séverine (2014) Peaceland: Conflict Resolution and the Everyday Politics of International Intervention, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ayer, Alfred J. (1952) Language, Truth and Logic, 2nd edn., New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Barnett, Michael and Martha Finnemore (2004) Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Beach, Derek and Rasmus Brun Pedersen (2013) Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ben-Menahem, Yemima (1998) ‘Explanation and Description: Wittgenstein on Convention’, Synthese 115(1): 99–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bernstein, Richard J. (1992) The New Constellation: Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity, Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bhaskar, Roy (1975) A Realist Theory of Science, London: Verso.Google Scholar
  17. Brady, Henry E. and David Collier, eds, (2004) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, Chris (2010) Practical Judgement in International Political Theory: Selected Essays, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Bush, George W. (2005) ‘President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address’, NPR.org, available at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4460172 (accessed 17 March, 2016).
  20. Buzan, Barry R., Charles O. Jones and Richard Little (1993) The Logic of Anarchy, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Carnap, Rudolf (2012) The Unity of Science, reissue Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Cartwright, Nancy (1983) How the Laws of Physics Lie, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cartwright, Nancy (2007) Hunting Causes and Using Them: Approaches in Philosophy and Economics, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Carus, A. W. (2010) Carnap and Twentieth-Century Thought: Explication as Enlightenment, 1st edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Desrosières, Alan (1998) The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dewey, John (1910) How We Think, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dewey, John (1920) Reconstruction in Philosophy, New York: Kessinger Publishing, LLC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dewey, John (2007) Essays in Experimental Logic, edited by D. Micah Hester and Robert B Talisse, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Dray, William H. (2000) ‘Explanation in History’, in James H. Fetzer ed., Science, Explanation, and Rationality: The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel, 217–42, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Falleti, Tulia G. and Julia F. Lynch (2009) ‘Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis’, Comparative Political Studies 42(9): 1143–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fetzer, James H., ed. (2000) ‘The Paradoxes of Hempelian Explanation’, in Science, Explanation, and Rationality: The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel, 111–37, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Geertz, Clifford (2000) Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, Vol. 3, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett, eds, (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gerring, John (2005) ‘Causation: A Unified Framework for the Social Sciences’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 17(2): 163–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goddard, Stacie E. and Daniel H. Nexon (2005) ‘Paradigm Lost? Reassessing Theory of International Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 11(1): 9–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grynaviski, Eric (2013) ‘Contrasts, Counterfactuals, and Causes’, European Journal of International Relations 19(4): 823–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Daniel, Hausman M. and James Woodward (1999) ‘Independence, Invariance and the Causal Markov Condition’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50(4): 521–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hempel, Carl G. ed. (1965) ‘The Function of General Laws in History’, in Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays, 231–44, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hempel, Carl G. (2001) James H. Fetzer ed. in The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel: Studies in Science, Explanation, and Rationality, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Inayatullah, Naeem and David L. Blaney (2004) International Relations and the Problem of Difference, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Ish-Shalom, Piki (2008) ‘Theorization, Harm, and the Democratic Imperative: Lessons from the Politicization of the Democratic-Peace Thesis’, International Studies Review 10(4): 680–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2011) The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2015) ‘Fear of Relativism’, International Studies Perspectives 16(1): 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kurki, Milja (2008) Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis, 1st edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lebow, Richard Ned (2010) Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lebow, Richard Ned (2014a) Constructing Cause in International Relations, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lebow, Richard Ned (2014b) ‘What Can International Relations Theory Learn from the Origins of World War I?’ International Relations 28(4): 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Machamer, Peter (2004) ‘Activities and Causation: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Mechanisms’, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18(1): 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Machamer, Peter, Lindley Darden and Carl F. Craver (2000) ‘Thinking about Mechanisms’, Philosophy of Science 67(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mahoney, James, Erin Kimball and Kendra L. Koivu (2009) ‘The Logic of Historical Explanation in the Social Sciences’, Comparative Political Studies 42(1): 114–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McAdam, Douglas, Sidney Tarrow and Charles Tilly (2001) Dynamics of Contention, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oneal, John R and Bruce Russett (2000) Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  54. Ruggie, John Gerard, ed. (1998) ‘Introduction: What Makes the World Hang Together?’ in Constructing the World Polity, 1–39, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Russett, Bruce (2005) ‘Bushwhacking the Democratic Peace’, International Studies Perspectives 6(4): 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shotter, John (1996) ‘‘Now I Can Go On’: Wittgenstein and Our Embodied Embeddedness in the ‘Hurly-Burly’ of Life’, Human Studies 19(4): 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Suganami, Hidemi (1996) On the Causes of War, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Suganami, Hidemi (2008) ‘Narrative Explanation and International Relations: Back to Basics’, Millennium — Journal of International Studies 37(2): 327–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tickner, Arlene B. and Ole Wæver (2009) Global Scholarship in International Relations: Worlding Beyond the West, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Tilly, Charles (1998) Durable Inequality, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  61. Tilly, Charles (2001) ‘Mechanisms in Political Processes’, Annual Review of Political Science 4(1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Fraassen, Bas C. (1977) ‘The Pragmatics of Explanation’, American Philosophical Quarterly 14(2): 143–50.Google Scholar
  63. Van Fraassen, Bas C. (2004) The Empirical Stance, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Waldner, David (2007) ‘Transforming Inferences Into Explanations: Lessons from the Study of Mass Extinctions’, in Richard Ned Lebow and Mark Lichbach eds, Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, 145–75, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979) Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  66. Waskan, Jonathan (2011) ‘Mechanistic Explanation at the Limit’, Synthese 183(3): 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weber, Max (1976) Johannes Winckelmann, ed., Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Vol. 5 Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  68. Weber, Max (1999a) ‘Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis’, in Elizabeth Flitner ed., Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, 146–214, Potsdam: Internet-Ausgabe.Google Scholar
  69. Weber, Max (1999b) ‘Kritische Studien auf dem Gebiet der kulturwissenschaftlichen Logik’, in Elizabeth Flitner ed., Gesammelte Aufsätze Zur Wissenschaftslehre, 215–90, Potsdam: Internet-Ausgabe.Google Scholar
  70. Wendt, Alexander (1998) ‘On Constitution and Causation in International Relations’, in Tim Dunne, Michael Cox and Ken Booth eds, The Eighty Years’ Crisis: International Relations 1919–1999, 101–17, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Winch, Peter (1990) The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953) Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  73. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1969) On Certainty, Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  74. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1976) ‘Cause and Effect: Intuitive Awareness’, Translated by P. Winch, Philosophia 6(3–4): 409–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Woodward, James (2005) Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Ziliak, Stephen T. and Deirdre N. McCloskey (2008) The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of International Service, American UniversityWashington DCUSA

Personalised recommendations