Causation, complexity, and the Concert: the pragmatics of causal explanation in International Relations

Humphreys, Adam

doi:10.1057/jird.2016.10

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By consequence, there are no reasons why we should build our basic notion of causality on a predetermined notion of how complex an explanation needs to be to be useful. Such choices are invariably theory driven and pragmatic as well as, to some degree, informed by the specific aspect of the social world for which an explanation is sought (Humphreys, 2017).…”

Section: Causal Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking causal explanation in interpretive international studies

Norman

2021

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article develops a model for causal explanations amenable to interpretive International Relations (IR) research. A growing field of scholars has turned toward causal inquiry while stressing the importance of shared understandings, identities, and social practices for their explanations. This move has considerable potential to strengthen the contributions of interpretive approaches to IR. However, the article identifies shortcomings in the causal models on which this research is based which work to limit this potential. The article provides a detailed discussion of these limitations and offers an alternative model of causal explanations for interpretive IR. The proposed model builds on a clear differentiation between constitutive and causal analysis and supplies an explicit argument for how they can be combined to generate causal explanations. This paves the way for a more well-defined notion of causal explanation than has commonly been the case in interpretive IR. In doing so, it also offers a more coherent and detailed account of the points at which interpretive explanations intersect with more mainstream approaches and where they differ. Finally, the paper outlines an application of the model through a discussion on an updated form of interpretive process tracing (IPT).

show abstract

Section: Causal Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking causal explanation in interpretive international studies

Norman

2021

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In posing these questions, I do not mean to imply that powerful answers cannot be provided. It is, though, pertinent to note that these are all areas in which there has been innovative work by philosophically oriented scholars in IR, both from a critical realist perspective and from alternative perspectives (see, e.g., Grynaviski, 2013;Humphreys, 2017b;Jackson, 2011Jackson, , 2017Kurki, 2008;Lebow, 2014;Patomäki, 2002Patomäki, , 2017Wight, 2006). I have shown that recognizing the extent of the challenge that this work provides to mainstream approaches to causal inquiry in IR does not require the adoption of SR and the repudiation of empiricism.…”

Section: What Is At Stake For Causal Inquiry In Ir?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It also underpins a number of recent innovations in philosophically informed discussions of causality in IR that are not rooted in SR. These include Patrick Jackson’s (2011) demonstration that neopositivism is not the only properly ‘scientific’ approach to empirical and causal inquiry in IR, Ned Lebow’s (2014) concept of ‘inefficient causation’, and the investigations, in a recent collection on ‘Problems of causation in world politics’ (Humphreys, 2017a), into how causal understandings play out in contemporary world politics (see Betts and Pilath, 2017; Guzzini, 2017; Kurki, 2017), and into alternatives to the philosophically discredited covering-law model of explanation (see Humphreys, 2017b; Jackson, 2017; see also Grynaviski, 2013; Suganami, 2008). A puzzle therefore emerges: are critical realists right to contend that moving causal inquiry in IR beyond the search for regularities requires a philosophical revolution involving the widespread adoption of SR (Kurki, 2006; Patomäki and Wight, 2000)?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realism, empiricism and causal inquiry in International Relations: What is at stake?

Humphreys

2018

European Journal of International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both van Fraassen's and Garfinkel's work have been drawn on in subsequent discourse regarding the nature of causation and concerning the problem of what there is to explain. This has become part of discourses of the nature of theory and method in a range of fields; for example, in international studies, most recently in works by Grynaviski (2011) and Humphreys (2016;cf. Patomäki 2016).…”

Section: Positioning Lawson's Use Of the Concept Of Contrast Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrast explanation in economics: its context, meaning, and potential

Morgan

Patomäki²

2017

Cambridge Journal of Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we place Tony Lawson's account of contrast explanation in context. Lawson's development of it is given meaning both by the roots of the approach in his work on social ontology and the state of economics that provides the grounds for the critique contained in that social ontology. This is important because such an approach to explanation is not new. Most notably van Fraassen and Garfinkel have developed it in particular ways and for particular purposes within the philosophy of science and social theory. Setting out the different ways in which the contrastive approach has been developed is useful for identifying what is different about Lawson's approach, its potential and limits. Lawson's proposal is more modest and focusses on causal investigation in a manner that flows from his approach to social ontology. Contrast explanation provides a substitute for controlled experiments and facilitates identifying social mechanisms. It also enables exploration of the manifold presuppositions of our explanatory questions. We argue that this is a useful and important contribution to overcoming some of the many problems economics faces.

show abstract

Causation, complexity, and the Concert: the pragmatics of causal explanation in International Relations

Cited by 10 publications

References 28 publications

Rethinking causal explanation in interpretive international studies

Rethinking causal explanation in interpretive international studies

Realism, empiricism and causal inquiry in International Relations: What is at stake?

Contrast explanation in economics: its context, meaning, and potential

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About