Critical realism and analytic sociology support what can be called explanation by mechanism (EbM). EbM consists of three distinct theses. The elaboration thesis says that mere observation of interdependencies cannot be considered a full explanation because it does not give a description of how the proposed causal connection comes about. The mechanism thesis claims that elaboration must contain an account of the generative/causal mechanism at work. The actionalism thesis cannot be placed within all versions of EbM because it states that an account of a mechanism should describe (1) the situation of the agents and (2) the actions the agents undertake on the basis of their situation. The paper argues that both the elaboration thesis and the actionalism thesis are of crucial importance. However, elaboration should not be equated only with an account of mechanism(s) because a ‘theory’ of the agent (agent-image) and an account of the relevant context(s) are needed.
BengtssonB (1998) ‘Tenants’ dilemma-on collective action in housing’, Housing Studies Vol. 13, Issue 1 pp. 99–120. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673039883515]
3.
BengtssonB (2001) ‘Solving the Tenants’ Dilemma: Collective Action and Norms of Co-operation in Housing’, Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 17, Issue 4 pp. 175–187.
4.
BhaskarR (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton: The Harvester Press.
5.
BhaskarR (1986) Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: Verso.
6.
BrownR H (1977) A Poetic for Sociology. Toward a Logic of Discovery for the Human Sciences.Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
BrusteinW (1996) The Logic of Evil. The Social Origins of the Nazi Party 1925-1933.New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
8.
CohenG A (1980) Functional Explanation: Reply to Elster. Political Studies Vol. XXVIII, Issue 1, pp. 129–135. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1980.tb01240.x]
9.
ElsterJ (1989a) The Cement of Society. A Study of Social Order.Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press.
10.
ElsterJ (1989b) Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences.Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press.
11.
ElsterJ (1993) Political Psychology.Cambridge, New York, Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ElsterJ (1998) ‘A plea for mechanisms’ in HedströmP and SwedbergR (eds.) Social Mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663901.003]
13.
FalletiT G and LynchJ F (2009) ‘Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis’, Comparative Political Studies Vol. 42, Issue 9 pp. 1143–1166. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414009331724]
14.
GambettaD (1998) ‘Concatenations of mechanisms’ in HedströmP and SwedbergR (eds.) Social Mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663901.005]
15.
GorskiP (2009) ‘Social “Mechanisms” and Comparative-Historical Sociology’ in HedströmP and WittrockB (eds.) Frontiers of Sociology.Leiden and Boston: Brill. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004165694.i-450.48]
16.
GrossN (2009) ‘A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms’, American Sociological Review Vol. 74, Issue 3 pp. 358–379. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400302]
17.
GusfieldJ R (1986) Symbolic Crusade. Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Second Edition. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
18.
HarréR (1970) The Principles of Scientific Thinking.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
HarréR (1988) ‘Modes of Explanation’, in HiltonD J (ed.) Contemporary Science and Natural Explanation.Brighton: The Harvester Press.
20.
HarréR, ClarkeD and De CarloN (1985) Motives and Mechanisms. An introduction to the psychology of action.London and New York: Methuen.
21.
HedströmP (2005) Dissecting the Social. On the Principles of Analytic Sociology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HedströmP and BearmanP (2009) ‘What is Analytical Sociology All About? An Introductory Essay’ in HedströmP and BearmanP (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
HedströmP and SwedbergR (eds.) (1998) Social Mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
HedströmP and SwedbergR (1998) ‘Social Mechanisms: An introductory essay’ in HedströmP and SwedbergR (eds.) (1998).
25.
HedströmP and YlikoskiP (2010) ‘Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences’, Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 36 pp. 49–67.
26.
HernesG (1998) ‘Real virtuality’, in HedströmP. & SwedbergR. (eds.) Social Mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663901.004]
27.
HuntA (1999) ‘Anxiety and social explanation: some anxieties about anxiety’, Journalof Social History Vol. 32, Issue 3 pp. 509–528. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jsh/32.3.509]
28.
KeatR and UrryJ (1982) Social theory as science. 2nd edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
29.
KiserE and HechterM (1991) ‘The Role of General Theory in Comparative-Historical Sociology’, American Journal of Sociology Vol. 97, Issue 1 pp. 1–30. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229738]
30.
LloydC (1986) Explanation in Social History. Oxford: Blackwell.
31.
MahoneyJ (2001) ‘Beyond Correlational Analysis: Recent Innovations in Theory and Method’, Sociological Forum Vol. 16, Issue 3 pp. 575–593. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011912816997]
32.
ManicasP (2006) A Realist Philosophy of Social Science. Explanation and Understanding.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607035]
33.
ManzoG (2010) ‘Analytical Sociology and Its Critics’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie Vol. LI, Issue 1 pp. 129–170.
34.
MertonR K (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. 1968 Enlargened Edition. New York: The Free Press.
QuadagnoJ and KnappS (1992) ‘Have Historical Sociologists Forsaken Theory? Thoughts on History/Theory Relationship’, Sociological Methods and Research Vol. 20, Issue 4 pp. 481–507. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124192020004004]
40.
RuncimanW G (2000) The Social Animal.Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
41.
RäsänenP (2003) In the Twilight of Social Structures. A mechanism-based study of contemporary consumer behaviour. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis B 263. Turku: University of Turku.
42.
SayerA (1984) Method in Social Science: A realist approach. 2nd edition. London: Hutchinson. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203310762]
43.
SchellingT (1971) ‘Dynamic Models of Segregation’, Journal of Mathematical Sociology Vol. 1, Issue 2 pp. 143–186. [doi:://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989794]
44.
SenA (2006) Identity and Violence. The illusion of destiny.New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
45.
SomervilleP and BengtssonB (2002) ‘Constructionism, Realism and Housing Theory’, Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 19, Issues 3-4 pp. 121–136.
46.
Van ParijsP (1981) Evolutionary Explanation in the Social Sciences. An emerging paradigm. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield.
47.
WallisR and BruceS (1986) Sociological Theory, Religion and Collective Action.Belfast: The Queen's University.
48.
WallisR (1979) Salvation and Protest. Studies of Social and Religious Movements.New York: St. Martin's Press.
