Cited by 71Qualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsPhilosophy and History of Science

Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography

Lichterman, Paul, Reed, Isaac Ariail·2015·Sociological Methods & Research

Abstract

We propose three interlinked ways that theory helps researchers build causal claims from ethnographic research. First, theory guides the casing and re-casing of a topic of study. Second, theoretical work helps craft a clear causal question via the construction of a contrast space of the topic of investigation. Third, the researcher uses theory to identify social mechanisms that condense causal accounts. We show how each step can accommodate the everyday meanings typically central to ethnographic research’s contributions. This tripartite role for theory thus preserves ethnography’s traditionally recognized strength in interpretive validity, while realizing ethnography’s potential for offering causal, and partly generalizable, accounts that can engage the wider sociological discipline. The discussion brings ethnographic research into conversation with recent debates on the role of mechanisms, comparative and counterfactual thinking in causal accounts. We illustrate and defend our argument for theory in ethnography with an extensive analysis of a contemporary ethnographic monograph along with briefer attention to parallel uses of theory in two other ethnographic studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0049124114554458

Cites

100 of 100 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.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lichterman, P., & Reed, I. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Lichterman, Paul
Venue
Sociological Methods & Research
Published
2014-10-27
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
585-635
ISSN
  • 0049-1241 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8294
OpenAlex
W2131057858
Cited by
71
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4
FWCI
7.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sociological Methods & Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
causal explanation, contrastive explanations, social mechanisms, causal claims, counterfactual reasoning, comparative reasoning, interpretive validity, generalizability

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