CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 279Qualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchPhilosophy and History of SciencePolitical Science Research and Education

Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But…

Gerring, John·2010·Comparative Political Studies
DOI 10.1177/0010414010376911
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In recent years, the importance of mechanism-centered explanation has become an article of faith within the social sciences, uniting researchers from a wide variety of methodological traditions—quantitative and qualitative, experimental and nonexperimental, nomothetic and idiographic, formal models and narrative prose. Despite its many virtues, there are reasons to be skeptical of social science’s newfound infatuation with causal mechanisms. First, the concept of a mechanism-centered (“mechanismic”) explanation is fundamentally ambiguous, meaning different things to different people. Second, the minimal objectives associated with the turn to mechanisms—to specify causal mechanisms and engage in detailed causal reasoning—are not at variance with traditional practices in the social sciences and thus hardly qualify as a distinct approach to causal assessment. Finally, the more demanding goal of rigorously testing causal mechanisms in causal arguments is admirable but often unrealistic. To clarify, this is not a polemic against mechanisms. It is a polemic against a dogmatic interpretation of the mechanismic mission. Causal mechanisms are rightly regarded as an important, but secondary, element of causal assessment—by no means a necessary condition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0010414010376911

Cites

190 of 190 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

8 of the 198 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gerring, J.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Gerring, John
ORCID
Gerring, John
Venue
Comparative Political Studies
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-07-28
Volume
43
Issue
11
Pages
1499-1526
ISSN
  • 0010-4140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3829
DOI
10.1177/0010414010376911
OpenAlex
W2106833468
Cited by
279
References
198
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 19
FWCI
49.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Comparative Political Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
Keywords
causal mechanisms, causal reasoning, causality assessment, social science methodology, causal inference

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