Causation: A Unified Framework for the Social Sciences
Abstract
This paper offers four main arguments about the nature of causation in the social sciences. First, contrary to most recent work, I argue that there is a unitary conception of causation: a cause raises the probability of an event. This understanding of causation, borrowed from but not wedded to Bayesian inference, provides common semantic ground on which to base a reconstruction of causation. I argue, second, that rather than thinking about causation as a series of discrete types or distinct rules we ought to re-conceptualize this complex form of argument as a set of logical criteria applying to all arguments that are causal in nature (following the foregoing definition), across fields and across methods. Here, it is helpful to distinguish between the formal properties of a causal argument and the methods by which such an argument might be tested, the research design. Sixteen criteria apply to the former and seven criteria apply to the latter, as I show in the body of the paper. In summary, causation in the social sciences is both more diverse and more unified than has generally been recognized.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.1515/9781400821211 · Cited by 7,225 · see citing works
Statistics and Causal Inference
Holland, P. W. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 · Cited by 5,293 · see citing works
Explanation and Scientific Understanding
Friedman, M. (1974) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2024924 · Cited by 1,386 · see citing works
The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry
Skocpol, T., & Somers, M. (1980) · Comparative Studies in Society and History · doi:10.1017/s0010417500009282 · Cited by 1,074 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…under many names – e.g. ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973), ‘configurative analysis’ (Heckscher, 1957: 46– 51, 85–107; Katznelson, 1997), ‘contrast of contexts’ (Skocpol and Somers 1980), and ‘holistic analysis’ (Ragin 1987).8 In statistical terms, it is the variation explained by a given model.”
Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research
Collier, D., & Mahoney, J. (1996) · World Politics · doi:10.1353/wp.1996.0023 · Cited by 658 · see citing works
Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case Study
Dion, D. (1998) · Comparative Politics · doi:10.2307/422284 · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Temporality, Events, and Explanation in Historical Sociology: An Introduction
GRIFFIN, L. J. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192020004001 · Cited by 207 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…‘pattern-matching’ (Campbell, 1975), ‘microfoundations’ (Little, 1998), ‘causal narrative’ (Abbott, 1990, 1992; Abrams, 1982; Aminzade, 1992; Bates et al., 1998; Griffin, 1992, 1993; Katznelson, 1997; Kiser, 1996; Mink, 1987; Quadagno and Knapp, 1992; Roth, 1994; Rueschemeyer and Stephens, 1997;…”
The Logic of Historical Explanation
Roberts, C. (1996) · doi:10.1515/9780271097657 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research
LIEBERMAN, E. S. (2005) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055405051762 · Cited by 1,515 · see citing works
Rihoux, B. (2006) · International Sociology · doi:10.1177/0268580906067836 · Cited by 461 · see citing works
Toward a Unified Theory of Causality
Mahoney, J. (2008) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/0010414007313115 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Gerring, J. (2010) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/0010414010376911 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Self-citationSelecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms
Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2018) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124115622510 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
A Unifying Framework for Causal Analysis in Set-Theoretic Multimethod Research
Rohlfing, I., & Schneider, C. Q. (2018) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124115626170 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Rohlfing, I., & Zuber, C. I. (2021) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124119826156 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gerring, J.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gerring, John
- ORCID
- Gerring, John
- Venue
- Journal of Theoretical Politics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 163-198
- ISSN
- 0951-6298 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-3667
- OpenAlex
- W2000413006
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 34.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Theoretical Politics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- causality, social science methodology, probabilistic causation, Bayesian inference, causal criteria, causal argument, research design, causal inference, philosophy of social science
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
