Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T11:14:44.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causal Process “Observation”: Oxymoron or (Fine) Old Wine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Nathaniel Beck
Nathaniel Beck*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, New York University, 19 West 4th Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10003. e-mail: nathaniel.beck@nyu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The issue of how qualitative and quantitative information can be used together is critical. Brady, Collier, and Seawright (BCS) have argued that “causal process observations” can be adjoined to “data set observations.” This implies that qualitative methods can be used to add information to quantitative data sets. In a symposium in Political Analysis, I argued that such qualitative information cannot be adjoined in any meaningful way to quantitative data sets. In that symposium, the original authors offered several defenses, but, in the end, BCS can be seen as recommending good, but hopefully standard, research design practices that are normally thought of as central in the quantitative arena. It is good that BCS remind us that no amount of fancy statistics can save a bad research design.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , Autumn 2010, pp. 499 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

References

Abadie, Alberto, Diamond, Alexis, and Hainmueller, Jens. 2010. Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California's Tobacco Control Program. Journal of the American Statistical Association 105: 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., and Pischke, Jörn-Steffen. 2009. Mostly harmless econometrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 1987. Elections and the fed: Is there a political monetary cycle? American Journal of Political Science 31: 194–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 2006. Is causal-process observation an oxymoron? Political Analysis 14: 347–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David C., eds. 2004. Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., Collier, David, and Seawright, Jason. 2006. Toward a pluralistic vision of methodology. Political Analysis 14: 353–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, David A. 1991. Statistical models and shoe leather. Sociological Methods 21: 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Sandra. 2006. Medical detective: John Snow and the mystery of cholera. London: Granta.Google Scholar
Jackson, John. 1983. Election night reporting and voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science 27: 615–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2003. Race and regionalism in the politics of taxation in Brazil and South Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, John R. 1964. Strong inference. Science 146: 347–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, Susan Carol 2001. Mandates and democracy: Neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America. New York: Cambride University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 1999. The nuclear taboo: The United States and the normative basis of nuclear non-use. International Organization 53: 433–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar