Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Twenty-five Questions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Casualties of Causality

Abstract

This chapter presents twenty-five questions about causality, which the researcher in social science is likely to encounter in practice. Examples include: Is causation the most important and honorable task in the social sciences? Is causality only one thing? Will social science cleanse itself of ideology and normativity, if it restricts itself to causal analysis? Does causation always require a counterfactual? Can you sell your study by pretending that its design is better than it actually is? Well-reflected answers to these questions may lead to a revision of one’s position vis-à-vis The Causality Syndrome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The American Political Science Review, 63(3), 689–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, H. (1950). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S. (1996). The Epistemology of Qualitative Research. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. Schweder (Eds.), Essays on Ethnography and Human Development. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S. (2017). Evidence. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., Berger, B., & Kellner, H. (1974). The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness. Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M. & Blakely, J. (2018). Interpretive Social Science. An Anti-Naturalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. (2007). Are RCTs the Gold Standard? BioSocieties, 2, 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. (2013). Knowing What We Are Talking About: Why Evidence Doesn’t Always Travel. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 9(1), 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castoriadis, C. (1997). World in Fragments: Writings on Politics, Society, Psychoanalysis, and the Imagination. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, B., Gillies, D., Illari, P., Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2014). Mechanisms and the Evidence Hierarchy. Topoi, 33, 339–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahler-Larsen, P., Sundby, A., & Boodhoo, A. (2020). How and How Well Do Workplace Assessments Work? Using Contextual Variations in a Theory-based Evaluation with a Large N. Evaluation—The International Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahler-Larsen, P., & Sylvest, C. (2013). Hvilken pluralisme? Betragtninger om det kausale design og definitionen af god samfundsvidenskab. Politik, 16(2), 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (2010). Against Method (4th ed.). Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankl, V. E. (2008). Man’s Search for Meaning. The Classic Tribute to Hope from the Holocaust. Ebury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geggel, L. (2018). One of Psychology’s Most Famous Experiments Was Deeply Flawed. Livescience.com. Retrieved August 12, 2021, from https://www.livescience.com/62832-stanford-prison-experiment-flawed.html

  • Goodstein, E. S. (2017). Georg Simmel and the Disciplinary Imaginary. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, G. T. (2000). Why Not Use? In V. J. P. H. Caracelli (Ed.), New Directions for Evaluation (pp. 85–98). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koselleck, R. (2010). “Erfahrungsraum” und “Erwartungshorizont”. Zwei historische kategorien. In Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Suhrkamp Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurki, M. (2006). Causes of a Divided Discipline: Rethinking the Concept of Cause in International Relations Theory. Review of International Studies, 32(2), 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M. (2009). How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life, the Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luckmann, T. (1970). On the Boundaries of the Social World. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Phenomenology and Social Reality. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Using Qualitative Methods for Causal Explanation. Field Methods, 16(3), 243–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, D., & Monforton, C. (2005). Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment. American Journal of Public Health 95, 39-48, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.043059

  • Morin, E. (1990). Kendskabet til Kundskaben. En erkendelsens antropologi. Ask.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, R. (1966). The Social Bond. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, R. (1976). Sociology as an Art Form. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogilvie, D., Adams, J., Bauman, A., Gregg, E. W., Panter, J., Siegel, K. R., Wareham, N. J., & White, M. (2020). Using Natural Experimental Studies to Guide Public Health Action: Turning the Evidence-based Medicine Paradigm on Its Head. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 74(2), 203–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osimani, B. (2014). Hunting Side Effects and Explaining Them: Should We Reverse Evidence Hierarchies Upside Down? Topoi, 33, 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, J. R. A. (2007). The Honest Broker, Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Podems, D. (2018). Being an Evaluator: Your Practical Guide to Evaluation. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, Robert N. & Schiebinger, Londa (eds.) (2008). Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford University Press Stanford, California. https://philarchive.org/archive/PROATMv1

  • Robson, L., Clarke, J., Cullen, K., Bielecky, A., Severin, C., Bigelow, P., Irvin, E., Culyer, A., & Mahood, Q. (2007). The Effectiveness of Occupational Health and Safety Management System Interventions: A Systematic Review. Safety Science, 45, 329–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (2011). Why Things Matter to People: Social Science, Values and Ethical Life. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. (1978). Phenomenology and the Social Sciences. In T. Luckmann (Ed.), Phenomenology and Sociology: Selected Readings (pp. 119–141). Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, T. A. (2002). Evaluation Practice Reconsidered. Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smismans, S. (2003). Towards a New Community Strategy on Health and Safety at Work? Caught in the Institutional Web of Soft Procedures. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 19(1), 55–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soss, J. (2018). On Casing a Study Versus Studying a Case. Qualitative and Multi-Method Research, 16(1), 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 435–453). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, E., Stame, N., Mayne, J., Forss, K., Davies, R., & Befani, B. (2012). Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluations. Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department for International Development. Working Paper 38, Department for International Development, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundhedsstyrelsen. (2018). Evidens for livsstilsinterventioner til børn og voksne med svær overvægt. En litteraturgennemgang. Sundhedsstyrelsen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vattimo, G. (2004). Nihilism and Emancipation: Ethics, Politics, Law. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallot, S., & Kelty-Stephen, D. G. (2018). Interaction-Dominant Causation in Mind and Brain, and Its Implication for Questions of Generalization and Replication. Minds and Machines, 28, 353–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (2004). Science as Vocation. In D. Owen & T. B. Strong (Eds.), The Vocation Lectures (pp. 1–31). Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Peter Dahler-Larsen

Authors
  1. Peter Dahler-Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Dahler-Larsen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dahler-Larsen, P. (2022). Twenty-five Questions. In: Casualties of Causality. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18246-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18246-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18245-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-18246-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation