Common Sense and Sociological Explanations
Abstract
Sociologists have long advocated a sociological approach to explanation by contrasting it with common sense. The argument of this article, however, is that sociologists rely on common sense more than they realize. Moreover, this unacknowledged reliance causes serious problems for their explanations of social action, that is, for why people do what they do. Many such explanations, it is argued, conflate understandability with causality in ways that are not valid by the standards of scientific explanation. It follows that if sociologists want their explanations to be scientifically valid, they must evaluate them specifically on those grounds--in particular, by forcing them to make predictions. In becoming more scientific, however, it is predicted that sociologists' explanations will also become less satisfying from an intuitive, sense-making perspective. Even as novel sources of data and improved methods open exciting new directions for sociological research, therefore, sociologists will increasingly have to choose between unsatisfying scientific explanations and satisfying but unscientific stories.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
We cannot infer true causality from this observational study.
“As with other observational studies, we recognize that we cannot infer true causality (Watts, 2014).”
From Impacts of school shooter drills on the psychological well-being of American K-12 school communities: a social media study (2021) · cites this paper as Watts, 2014
It is impossible to test all explanations and confounders simultaneously.
“Watts [111] noted the impossibility to test all explanations and confounders simultaneously.”
From Psychosocial Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Large-scale Quasi-Experimental Study on Social Media (2020) · cites this paper as [111]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 142 · Cited by 176
- Authors
- Watts, D. J.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Watts, Duncan J.
- ORCID
- Watts, Duncan J.
- Venue
- American Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 313-351
- ISSN
- 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5390
- OpenAlex
- W2090754762
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 142
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 37.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Sociology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Realism in Sociology
- Keywords
- common sense, sociological explanation, scientific explanation, social action, causal explanation, comprehensibility, prediction, scientific validity, sensemaking
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Decision Making, Sociology, Empirical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review