This article provides a systematic and pluralistic theory of causation that fits the kind of reasoning commonly found in mixed methods research. It encompasses a variety of causal concepts, notions, approaches, and methods. Each instantiation of the theory is like a mosaic, where the image appears when the tiles are appropriately displayed. This means that researchers should carefully construct a causal mosaic for each research study, articulating what is causally relevant given their particular research questions, purposes, contexts, methods, methodologies, paradigms, and resources. Our theory includes 11 propositions that can guide researchers addressing causation.
BeachD.PedersenR. B. (2013). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
5.
BechtelW.AbrahamsenA. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421-441. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.010
6.
BennettA.CheckelJ. T. (Eds.). (2014). Process tracing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BlatterJ.HaverlandM. (2012). Designing case studies: Explanatory approaches in small-N research. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
ClarkeB.GilliesD.IllariP.RussoF.WilliamsonJ. (2014). Mechanisms and the evidence hierarchy. Topoi, 33, 339-360. doi: 10.1007/s11245-013-9220-9
10.
CollierD. (2011). Understanding process tracing. Political Science & Politics, 44, 823-830. doi:10.1017/S1049096511001429
11.
CollingwoodR. G. (1938). On the so-called idea of causation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 38, 82-112. doi:10.1093/aristotelian/38.1.85
12.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
15.
DollR. (1992). Sir Austin Bradford Hill and the progress of medical science. British Medical Journal, 305, 1521-1526. doi:10.1136/bmj.305.6868.1521
16.
Elder-VassD. (2010). The causal power of social structures: Emergence, structure and agency. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17.
GaskingD. (1955). Causation and recipes. Mind, 64, 479-487. doi:10.1093/mind/lxiv.256.479
18.
GlasziouP.ChalmersL.RawlinsM.McCullochP. (2007). When are randomized trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. British Medical Journal, 334, 349-351. doi:10.1136/bmj.39070.527986.68
19.
GlennanS. S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69, 342-353. doi:10.1086/341857
20.
GlewweP.KremerM.MoulinS. (2009). Many children left behind? Textbooks and test scores in Kenya. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(1), 112-135. doi:10.1257/app.1.1.112
21.
HillB. A. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation?Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295-300. doi:10.1177/0141076814562718
22.
HollandP. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945-960. doi:10.2307/2289064
23.
HumeD. (1993). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (Original work published 1777)
24.
IllariP.RussoF. (2014). Causality: Philosophical theory meets scientific practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
25.
IllariP. M.WilliamsonJ. (2012). What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2, 119-135. doi:10.1007/s13194-011-0038-2
26.
JohnsonR. B. (2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Educational Researcher, 30, 3-13. doi:10.3102/0013189X030002003
27.
JohnsonR. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156-173. doi:10.1177/1558689815607692
28.
JohnsonR. B.ChristensenL. B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
29.
JohnsonR. B.GrayR. (2010). A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 69-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
JohnsonR. B.SchoonenboomJ. (2016). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health intervention studies: Interacting with differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 587-602. doi:10.1177/1049732315617479
31.
JohnsonR. B.StefurakT. (2013). Considering the evidence-and-credibility discussion in evaluation through the lens of dialectical pluralism. In MertensD.Hesse-BiberS. (Eds.), Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation (Vol.138, pp. 103-109). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
32.
KincaidH. (1996). Philosophical foundations of the social sciences: Analyzing controversies in social research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33.
KincaidH. (2014). Dead ends and live issues in the individualism-holism debate. In ZahleJ.CollinF. (Eds.), Rethinking the individualism-holism debate: Essays in the philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 139-152). New York, NY: Springer.
LangleyA. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 891-710. doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248
36.
LewisD. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556-567. doi:10.2307/2025310
37.
LittleD. (2011). Causal mechanisms in the social realm. In IllariP. M.RussoF.WilliamsonJ. (Eds.), Causality in the sciences (pp. 273-295). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
38.
MachamerP.DardenL.CarverC. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 60, 1-25. doi:10.1086/392759
39.
MackieJ. L. (1974). The cement of the universe: A study on causation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
40.
MahoneyJ. (2012). The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences. Sociological Methods & Research, 41, 570-597. doi:10.1177/0049124112437709
41.
MaxwellJ. A. (2004a). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-11. doi:10.3102/0013189X033002003
42.
MaxwellJ. A. (2004b). Using qualitative methods for causal explanation. Field Methods, 16, 243-264. doi:10.1177/1525822X04266831
43.
MaxwellJ. A. (2012a). A realist approach for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
MaxwellJ. A. (2012b). The importance of qualitative research for causal explanation in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 18, 655-661. doi:10.1177/1077800412452856
45.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
MohrL. B. (1995). Impact analysis for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
PetrosinoA.Turpin-PetrosinoC.Hollis-PeelM. E.LavenbergJ. G. (2013). “Scared straight” and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002796.pub2
50.
PickeringA. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
51.
PsillosS. (2004). A glimpse of the secret connexion: Harmonizing mechanisms with counterfactuals. Perspectives on Science, 12, 288-319. doi:10.1162/1063614042795426
52.
RaginC. C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
53.
RobinsonO. C. (2011). The idiographic/nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing historical origins of contemporary confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology, 13, 32-39.
54.
RubinD. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688-701. doi:10.1037/h0037350
55.
RubinD. B. (1986). Which ifs have causal answers?Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 961-962. doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478355
56.
RussoF. (2009). Causality and causal modelling in the social sciences: Measuring variations. New York, NY: Springer.
57.
RussoF. (2011). Correlational data, causal hypotheses, and validity. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 42, 85-107. doi:10.1007/s10838-011-9157-x
58.
RussoF. (2014). What invariance is and how to test for it. International Studies in Philosophy of Science, 28, 157-183. doi:10.1080/02698595.2014.932528
59.
RussoF.WilliamsonJ. (2007). Interpreting causality in the health sciences. International Studies in Philosophy of Science, 21(2), 157-170
60.
RychetnikL.HaweP.WaltersE.BarrattA.FrommerM. (2004). A glossary for evidence based public health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 538-545. doi:10.1136/jech.2003.011585
61.
ScrivenM. (1994). The fine line between evaluation and explanation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 75-77. doi:10.1016/0886-1633(94)90062-0
62.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
63.
StakeR. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
64.
SusserM. (1977). Judgement and causal inference: Criteria in epidemiologic studies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 105, 1-15.
65.
von WrightG. (1975). Causality and determinism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
66.
ZahleJ.CollinF. (Eds.). (2014). Rethinking the individualism-holism debate: Essays in the philosophy of the social sciences. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
