Situating Sociology's Causal Claims: An American Phenomenon?

Abstract

The study into the use and type of causal claims in the discipline of Sociology by Brandon Vaidyanathan et al., provides a much needed empirical assessment as to whether the popular conceptions regarding sociologists use of casual claims capture the current trends in the field. The article crucially highlights how "the conventional wisdom" regarding sociology's relationship with causation does not match the empirical representation put forth. Through highlighting the disjuncture between the assumptions produced from "narrow convenience sample[s] of introductory or methodological texts" (Vaidyanathan et al., 2015, p. 4) this empirical documentation of causal claims inadvertently encourages greater academic reflexivity and the space to question whether assumptions about the way sociological research is conducted could be conditioning academic studies.However, as with all good analyses this empirical assessment raises a series of further questions and the need for future explorations in the discipline. Through drawing on a sociology of knowledge framework I aim to situate the results provided by Vaidyanathan et al., and ask whether the results found are reflective of broader trends taking place within Sociology or whether this is a distinctly American phenomenon? This short response to the article will argue that Sociology is different in different places and that the trends discovered are arguably the consequence of scholars being acculturated within a certain institutional setting and therefore way of approaching the social realm. By looking at the parallels between other social science disciplines, namely International Relations (my own cognate discipline) and Sociology this response aims to contextualise the findings and argue that further analysis is needed to make better sense of the claims made in the article.AMERICAN HEGEMONY?