chp8 -reasoning and causality

8.
Reasoning and causality
Chapter Outline
1. Inductive and deductive reasoning (15 minute read)

2. Nomothetic causal relationships (17 minute read)
3. Idiographic causal relationships (12 minute read)
4. Mixed methods research (8 minute read)
Content warning: examples in this chapter include references to sexual harassment, domestic violence, gender-based
violence, the child welfare system, substance use disorders, neonatal abstinence syndrome, child abuse, racism, and
sexism.
8.1 Inductive and deductive reasoning
Learning Objectives
Learners will be able to…
• Describe inductive and deductive reasoning and provide examples of each

• Identify how inductive and deductive reasoning are complementary
Congratulations! You survived the chapter on theories and paradigms. My experience has been that
many students have a difficult time thinking about theories and paradigms because they perceive them
as “intangible” and thereby hard to connect to social work research. I even had one student who said
she got frustrated just reading the word “philosophy.”
Rest assured, you do not need to become a theorist or philosopher to be an effective social worker
or researcher. However, you should have a good sense of what theory or theories will be relevant to
your project, as well as how this theory, along with your working question, fit within the three broad
research paradigms we reviewed. If you don’t have a good idea about those at this point, it may be a
good opportunity to pause and read more about the theories related to your topic area.
Theories structure and inform social work research. The converse is also true: research can structure
8. Reasoning and causality | 250

and inform theory. The reciprocal relationship between theory and research often becomes evident to
students when they consider the relationships between theory and research in inductive and deductive
approaches to research. In both cases, theory is crucial. But the relationship between theory and
research differs for each approach.
While inductive and deductive approaches to research are quite different, they can also be
complementary. Let’s start by looking at each one and how they differ from one another. Then we’ll
move on to thinking about how they complement one another.
Inductive reasoning
A researcher using inductive reasoning begins by collecting data that is relevant to their topic of
interest. Once a substantial amount of data have been collected, the researcher will then step back from
data collection to get a bird’s eye view of their data. At this stage, the researcher looks for patterns in
the data, working to develop a theory that could explain those patterns. Thus, when researchers take
an inductive approach, they start with a particular set of observations and move to a more general set
of propositions about those experiences. In other words, they move from data to theory, or from the
specific to the general. Figure 8.1 outlines the steps involved with an inductive approach to research.
Figure 8.1 Inductive reasoning
There are many good examples of inductive research, but we’ll look at just a few here. One fascinating
study in which the researchers took an inductive approach is Katherine Allen, Christine Kaestle, and
Abbie Goldberg’s (2011)1 study of how boys and young men learn about menstruation. To understand
this process, Allen and her colleagues analyzed the written narratives of 23 young cisgender men in
which the men described how they learned about menstruation, what they thought of it when they
first learned about it, and what they think of it now. By looking for patterns across all 23 cisgender
men’s narratives, the researchers were able to develop a general theory of how boys and young men
learn about this aspect of girls’ and women’s biology. They conclude that sisters play an important role
251 | 8. Reasoning and causality

in boys’ early understanding of menstruation, that menstruation makes boys feel somewhat separated
from girls, and that as they enter young adulthood and form romantic relationships, young men develop
more mature attitudes about menstruation. Note how this study began with the data—men’s narratives
of learning about menstruation—and worked to develop a theory.
In another inductive study, Kristin Ferguson and colleagues (Ferguson, Kim, & McCoy, 2011)2 analyzed
empirical data to better understand how to meet the needs of young people who are homeless. The
authors analyzed focus group data from 20 youth at a homeless shelter. From these data they developed
a set of recommendations for those interested in applied interventions that serve homeless youth. The
researchers also developed hypotheses for others who might wish to conduct further investigation of
the topic. Though Ferguson and her colleagues did not test their hypotheses, their study ends where
most deductive investigations begin: with a theory and a hypothesis derived from that theory. Section
8.4 discusses the use of mixed methods research as a way for researchers to test hypotheses created in
a previous component of the same research project.
You will notice from both of these examples that inductive reasoning is most commonly found in studies
using qualitative methods, such as focus groups and interviews. Because inductive reasoning involves
the creation of a new theory, researchers need very nuanced data on how the key concepts in their
working question operate in the real world. Qualitative data is often drawn from lengthy interactions
and observations with the individuals and phenomena under examination. For this reason, inductive
reasoning is most often associated with qualitative methods, though it is used in both quantitative and
qualitative research.
Deductive reasoning
If inductive reasoning is about creating theories from raw data, deductive reasoning is about testing
theories using data. Researchers using deductive reasoning take the steps described earlier for
inductive research and reverse their order. They start with a compelling social theory, create a
hypothesis about how the world should work, collect raw data, and analyze whether their hypothesis
was confirmed or not. That is, deductive approaches move from a more general level (theory) to a more
specific (data); whereas inductive approaches move from the specific (data) to general (theory).
A deductive approach to research is the one that people typically associate with scientific investigation.
Students in English-dominant countries that may be confused by inductive vs. deductive research can
rest part of the blame on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of the Sherlock Holmes character. As Craig
Vasey points out in his breezy introduction to logic book chapter, Sherlock Holmes more often used
inductive rather than deductive reasoning (despite claiming to use the powers of deduction to solve
crimes). By noticing subtle details in how people act, behave, and dress, Holmes finds patterns that
others miss. Using those patterns, he creates a theory of how the crime occurred, dramatically revealed
to the authorities just in time to arrest the suspect. Indeed, it is these flashes of insight into the patterns
of data that make Holmes such a keen inductive reasoner. In social work practice, rather than detective
work, inductive reasoning is supported by the intuitions and practice wisdom of social workers, just as
Holmes’ reasoning is sharpened by his experience as a detective.
So, if deductive reasoning isn’t Sherlock Holmes’ observation and pattern-finding, how does it work? It
starts with what you have already done in Chapters 3 and 4, reading and evaluating what others have
done to study your topic. It continued with Chapter 5, discovering what theories already try to explain
how the concepts in your working question operate in the real world. Tapping into this foundation
of knowledge on their topic, the researcher studies what others have done, reads existing theories of
whatever phenomenon they are studying, and then tests hypotheses that emerge from those theories.
Figure 8.2 outlines the steps involved with a deductive approach to research.
Figure 8.2 Deductive reasoning
While not all researchers follow a deductive approach, many do. We’ll now take a look at a couple
excellentrecent examples of deductive research.
In a study of US law enforcement responses to hate crimes, Ryan King and colleagues (King, Messner,
& Baller, 2009)3 hypothesized that law enforcement’s response would be less vigorous in areas of the
country that had a stronger history of racial violence. The authors developed their hypothesis from
prior research and theories on the topic. They tested the hypothesis by analyzing data on states’
lynching histories and hate crime responses. Overall, the authors found support for their hypothesis
and illustrated an important application of critical race theory.
In another recent deductive study, Melissa Milkie and Catharine Warner (2011)4 studied the effects of
different classroom environments on first graders’ mental health. Based on prior research and theory,
Milkie and Warner hypothesized that negative classroom features, such as a lack of basic supplies and
heat, would be associated with emotional and behavioral problems in children. One might associate this
research with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs or systems theory. The researchers found support for their
hypothesis, demonstrating that policymakers should be paying more attention to the mental health
outcomes of children’s school experiences, just as they track academic outcomes (American Sociological
Association, 2011).5

Complementary approaches
While inductive and deductive approaches to research seem quite different, they can actually be rather
complementary. In some cases, researchers will plan for their study to include multiple components,
one inductive and the other deductive. In other cases, a researcher might begin a study with the plan
to conduct either inductive or deductive research, but then discovers along the way that the other
approach is needed to help illuminate findings. Here is an example of each such case.
Dr. Amy Blackstone (n.d.), author of Principles of sociological inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative
methods, relates a story about her mixed methods research on sexual harassment.
We began the study knowing that we would like to take both a deductive and an inductive
approach in our work. We therefore administered a quantitative survey, the responses to which
we could analyze in order to test hypotheses, and also conducted qualitative interviews with a
number of the survey participants. The survey data were well suited to a deductive approach;
we could analyze those data to test hypotheses that were generated based on theories of
harassment. The interview data were well suited to an inductive approach; we looked for
patterns across the interviews and then tried to make sense of those patterns by theorizing
about them.
For one paper (Uggen & Blackstone, 2004)6, we began with a prominent feminist theory of
the sexual harassment of adult women and developed a set of hypotheses outlining how we
expected the theory to apply in the case of younger women’s and men’s harassment experiences.
We then tested our hypotheses by analyzing the survey data. In general, we found support for
the theory that posited that the current gender system, in which heteronormative men wield
the most power in the workplace, explained workplace sexual harassment—not just of adult
women but of younger women and men as well. In a more recent paper (Blackstone, Houle,
& Uggen, 2006),7 we did not hypothesize about what we might find but instead inductively
analyzed interview data, looking for patterns that might tell us something about how or whether
workers’ perceptions of harassment change as they age and gain workplace experience. From
this analysis, we determined that workers’ perceptions of harassment did indeed shift as they
gained experience and that their later definitions of harassment were more stringent than those
they held during adolescence. Overall, our desire to understand young workers’ harassment
experiences fully—in terms of their objective workplace experiences, their perceptions of those
experiences, and their stories of their experiences—led us to adopt both deductive and inductive
approaches in the work. (Blackstone, n.d., p. 21)8
Researchers may not always set out to employ both approaches in their work but sometimes find
that their use of one approach leads them to the other. One such example is described eloquently in
Russell Schutt’s Investigating the Social World (2006).9 As Schutt describes, researchers Sherman and
Berk (1984)10 conducted an experiment to test two competing theories of the effects of punishment

on deterring deviance (in this case, domestic violence).Specifically, Sherman and Berk hypothesized
that deterrence theory (see Williams, 200511 for more information on that theory) would provide a
better explanation of the effects of arresting accused batterers than labeling theory. Deterrence theory
predicts that arresting an accused spouse batterer will reduce future incidents of violence. Conversely,
labeling theory predicts that arresting accused spouse batterers will increase future incidents (see
Policastro & Payne, 201312 for more information on that theory). Figure 8.3 summarizes the two
competing theories and the hypotheses Sherman and Berk set out to test.

Figure 8.3 Predicting the effects of arrest on future spouse battery: Two different theories
Sherman and Berk found, after conducting an experiment with the help of local police in one city, that
arrest did in fact deter future incidents of violence, thus supporting their hypothesis that deterrence
theory would better predict the effect of arrest. After conducting this research, they and other
researchers went on to conduct similar experiments in six additional cities (Berk, Campbell, Klap, &
Western, 1992; Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Sherman & Smith, 1992).13hat the original Sherman and Berk
study, along with the follow-up studies, show us is that we might start with a deductive approach to
research, but then, if confronted by new data we must make sense of, we may move to an inductive
approach. We will expand on these possibilities in section 8.4 when we discuss mixed methods
research.
Research from these follow-up studies were mixed. In some cases, arrest deterred future incidents
of violence. In other cases, it did not. This left the researchers with new data that they needed to
explain. The researchers therefore took an inductive approach in an effort to make sense of their latest
empirical observations. The new studies revealed that arrest seemed to have a deterrent effect for those
who were married and employed, but that it led to increased offenses for those who were unmarried
and unemployed. Researchers thus turned to control theory, which posits that having some stake in
conformity through the social ties provided by marriage and employment, as the better explanation (see
Davis et al., 200014 for more information on this theory).

Figure 8.4 Predicting the effects of arrest on future spouse battery: A third theory
What the original Sherman and Berk study, along with the follow-up studies, show us is that we might
start with a deductive approach to research, but then, if confronted by new data we must make sense
of, we may move to an inductive approach. We will expand on these possibilities in section 8.4 when
we discuss mixed methods research.
Ethical and critical considerations
Deductive and inductive reasoning, just like other components of the research process comes with
ethical and cultural considerations for researchers. Specifically, deductive research is limited by
existing theory. Because scientific inquiry has been shaped by oppressive forces such as sexism,
racism, and colonialism, what is considered theory is largely based in Western, white-male-dominant
culture. Thus, researchers doing deductive research may artificially limit themselves to ideas that were
derived from this context. Non-Western researchers, international social workers, and practitioners
working with non-dominant groups may find deductive reasoning of limited help if theories do not
adequately describe other cultures.
While these flaws in deductive research may make inductive reasoning seem more appealing, on closer
inspection you’ll find similar issues apply. A researcher using inductive reasoning applies their intuition
and lived experience when analyzing participant data. They will take note of particular themes,
conceptualize their definition, and frame the project using their unique psychology. Since everyone’s
internal world is shaped by their cultural and environmental context, inductive reasoning conducted
by Western researchers may unintentionally reinforcing lines of inquiry that derive from cultural
oppression.
Inductive reasoning is also shaped by those invited to provide the data to be analyzed. For example, I
recently worked with a student who wanted to understand the impact of child welfare supervision on
children born dependent on opiates and methamphetamine. Due to the potential harm that could
come from interviewing families and children who are in foster care or under child welfare
supervision, the researcher decided to use inductive reasoning and to only interview child welfare
workers.
Talking to practitioners is a good idea for feasibility, as they are less vulnerable than clients. However,
any theory that emerges out of these observations will be substantially limited, as it would be devoid of
the perspectives of parents, children, and other community members who could provide a more
comprehensive picture of the impact of child welfare involvement on children. Notice that each of
these groups has less power than child welfare workers in the service relationship. Attending to which
groups were used to inform the creation of a theory and the power of those groups is an important
critical consideration for social work researchers.
As you can see, when researchers apply theory to research they must wrestle with the history and
hierarchy around knowledge creation in that area. In deductive studies, the researcher is positioned as
the expert, similar to the positivist paradigm presented in Chapter 5. We’ve discussed a few of the
limitations on the knowledge of researchers in this subsection, but the position of the “researcher as
expert” is inherently problematic. However, it should also not be taken to an extreme. A researcher
who approaches inductive inquiry as a naïve learner is also inherently problematic. Just as competence
in social work practice requires a baseline of knowledge prior to entering practice, so does
competence in social work research. Because a truly naïve intellectual position is impossible—we all
have preexisting ways we view the world and are not fully aware of how they may impact our
thoughts—researchers should be well-read in the topic area of their research study but humble enough
to know that there is always much more to learn.
Key Takeaways
• Inductive reasoning begins with a set of empirical observations, seeking patterns in those observations, and
then theorizing about those patterns.
• Deductive reasoning begins with a theory, developing hypotheses from that theory, and then collecting and
analyzing data to test the truth of those hypotheses.
• Inductive and deductive reasoning can be employed together for a more complete understanding of the

research topic.
• Though researchers don’t always set out to use both inductive and deductive reasoning in their work, they
sometimes find that new questions arise in the course of an investigation that can best be answered by
employing both approaches.
Exercises
• Identify one theory and how it helps you understand your topic and working question.
I encourage you to find a specific theory from your topic area, rather than relying only on the broad theoretical
perspectives like systems theory or the strengths perspective. Those broad theoretical perspectives are okay…but I
promise that searching for theories about your topic will help you conceptualize and design your research project.
• Using the theory you identified, describe what you expect the answer to be to your working question.
8.2 Nomothetic causal explanations
Learning Objectives
• Define and provide an example of idiographic causal relationships

• Describe the role of causality in quantitative research as compared to qualitative research
• Identify, define, and describe each of the main criteria for nomothetic causal relationships
• Describe the difference between and provide examples of independent, dependent, and control variables
• Define hypothesis, state a clear hypothesis, and discuss the respective roles of quantitative and qualitative
research when it comes to hypotheses
Causality refers to the idea that one event, behavior, or belief will result in the occurrence of another,
subsequent event, behavior, or belief. In other words, it is about cause and effect. It seems simple, but
you may be surprised to learn there is more than one way to explain how one thing causes another. How
can that be? How could there be many ways to understand causality?
Think back to our discussion in Section 5.3 on paradigms [insert chapter link plus link to section
1.2]. You’ll remember the positivist paradigm as the one that believes in objectivity. Positivists look for
causal explanations that are universally true for everyone, everywhere because they seek objective truth.
Interpretivists, on the other hand, look for causal explanations that are true for individuals or groups in
a specific time and place because they seek subjective truths. Remember that for interpretivists, there
is not one singular truth that is true for everyone, but many truths created and shared by others.
“Are you trying to generalize or nah?”
One of my favorite classroom moments occurred in the early days of my teaching career. Students were
providing peer feedback on their working questions. I overheard one group who was helping someone
rephrase their research question. A student asked, “Are you trying to generalize or nah?” Teaching
is full of fun moments like that one. Answering that one question can help you understand how to
conceptualize and design your research project.
Nomothetic causal explanations are incredibly powerful. They allow scientists to make predictions
about what will happen in the future, with a certain margin of error. Moreover, they allow scientists to
generalize—that is, make claims about a large population based on a smaller sample of people or items.
Generalizing is important. We clearly do not have time to ask everyone their opinion on a topic or test
a new intervention on every person. We need a type of causal explanation that helps us predict and
estimate truth in all situations.
Generally, nomothetic causal relationships work best for explanatory research projects [INSERT
SECTION LINK]. They also tend to use quantitative research: by boiling things down to numbers, one
can use the universal language of mathematics to use statistics to explore those relationships. On
the other hand, descriptive and exploratory projects often fit better with idiographic causality. These
projects do not usually try to generalize, but instead investigate what is true for individuals, small
groups, or communities at a specific point in time. You will learn about this type of causality in the next
section. Here, we will assume you have an explanatory working question. For example, you may want
to know about the risk and protective factors for a specific diagnosis or how a specific therapy impacts
client outcomes.
What do nomothetic causal explanations look like?
Nomothetic causal explanations express relationships between variables. The term variable has a
scientific definition. This one from Gillespie & Wagner (2018) “a logical grouping of attributes that can
be observed and measured and is expected to vary from person to person in a population” (p. 9).15 More
practically, variables are the key concepts in your working question. You know, the things you plan to
observe when you actually do your research project, conduct your surveys, complete your interviews,
etc. These things have two key properties. First, they vary, as in they do not remain constant. “Age”
varies by number. “Gender” varies by category. But they both vary. Second, they have attributes. So the
variable “health professions” has attributes or categories, such as social worker, nurse, counselor, etc.
It’s also worth reviewing what is not a variable. Well, things that don’t change (or vary) aren’t variables.
If you planned to do a study on how gender impacts earnings but your study only contained women,
that concept would not vary. Instead, it would be a constant. Another common mistake I see in students’
explanatory questions is mistaking an attribute for a variable. “Men” is not a variable. “Gender” is
a variable. “Virginia” is not a variable. The variable is the “state or territory” in which someone or
something is physically located.
When one variable causes another, we have what researchers call independent and dependent variables.
For example, in a study investigating the impact of spanking on aggressive behavior, spanking would
be the independent variable and aggressive behavior would be the dependent variable. An independent
variable is the cause, and a dependent variable is the effect. Why are they called that? Dependent
variables depend on independent variables. If all of that gets confusing, just remember the graphical
relationship in Figure 8.5.
Figure 8.5 Visual representation of a nomothetic causal relationship
Exercises
Write out your working question, as it exists now. As we said previously in the subsection, we assume you have an
explanatory research question for learning this section.
• Write out a diagram similar to Figure 8.5.

• Put your independent variable on the left and the dependent variable on the right.
Check:
• Can your variables vary?

• Do they have different attributes or categories that vary from person to person?

• How does the theory you identified in section 8.1 help you understand this causal relationship?
If the theory you’ve identified isn’t much help to you or seems unrelated, it’s a good indication that you need to read
more literature about the theories related to your topic.
For some students, your working question may not be specific enough to list an independent or dependent variable
clearly. You may have “risk factors” in place of an independent variable, for example. Or “effects” as a dependent
variable. If that applies to your research question, get specific for a minute even if you have to revise this later. Think
about which specific risk factors or effects you are interested in. Consider a few options for your independent and
dependent variable and create diagrams similar to Figure 8.5.
Finally, you are likely to revisit your working question so you may have to come back to this exercise to clarify the
causal relationship you want to investigate.
For a ten-cent word like “nomothetic,” these causal relationships should look pretty basic to you. They
should look like “x causes y.” Indeed, you may be looking at your causal explanation and thinking, “wow,
there are so many other things I’m missing in here.” In fact, maybe my dependent variable sometimes
causes changes in my independent variable! For example, a working question asking about poverty and
education might ask how poverty makes it more difficult to graduate college or how high college debt
impacts income inequality after graduation. Nomothetic causal relationships are slices of reality. They
boil things down to two (or often more) key variables and assert a one-way causal explanation between
them. This is by design, as they are trying to generalize across all people to all situations. The more
complicated, circular, and often contradictory causal explanations are idiographic, which we will cover
in the next section of this chapter.
Developing a hypothesis
A hypothesis is a statement describing a researcher’s expectation regarding what they anticipate

finding. Hypotheses in quantitative research are a nomothetic causal relationship that the researcher
expects to determine is true or false. A hypothesis is written to describe the expected relationship
between the independent and dependent variables. In other words, write the answer to your working
question using your variables. That’s your hypothesis! Make sure you haven’t introduced new variables
into your hypothesis that are not in your research question. If you have, write out your hypothesis as in
Figure 8.5.
A good hypothesis should be testable using social science research methods. That is, you can use a social
science research project (like a survey or experiment) to test whether it is true or not. A good hypothesis
is also specific about the relationship it explores. For example, a student project that hypothesizes,
“families involved with child welfare agencies will benefit from Early Intervention programs,” is not
specific about what benefits it plans to investigate. For this student, I advised her to take a look at
the empirical literature and theory about Early Intervention and see what outcomes are associated
with these programs. This way, she could more clearly state the dependent variable in her hypothesis,
perhaps looking at reunification, attachment, or developmental milestone achievement in children and
families under child welfare supervision.
Your hypothesis should be an informed prediction based on a theory or model of the social world. For
example, you may hypothesize that treating mental health clients with warmth and positive regard is
likely to help them achieve their therapeutic goals. That hypothesis would be based on the humanistic
practice models of Carl Rogers. Using previous theories to generate hypotheses is an example of
deductive research. If Rogers’ theory of unconditional positive regard is accurate, a study comparing
clinicians who used it versus those who did not would show more favorable treatment outcomes for
clients receiving unconditional positive regard.
Let’s consider a couple of examples. In research on sexual harassment (Uggen & Blackstone, 2004),16 one
might hypothesize, based on feminist theories of sexual harassment, that more females than males will
experience specific sexually harassing behaviors. What is the causal relationship being predicted here?
Which is the independent and which is the dependent variable? In this case, researchers hypothesized
that a person’s sex (independent variable) would predict their likelihood to experience sexual
harassment (dependent variable).
Figure 8.6 Hypothesis describing the expected relationship between sex and sexual harassment
Sometimes researchers will hypothesize that a relationship will take a specific direction. As a result, an
increase or decrease in one area might be said to cause an increase or decrease in another. For example,
you might choose to study the relationship between age and support for legalization of marijuana.
Perhaps you’ve taken a sociology class and, based on the theories you’ve read, you hypothesize that age
is negatively related to support for marijuana legalization.17 What have you just hypothesized?
You have hypothesized that as people get older, the likelihood of their supporting marijuana legalization
decreases. Thus, as age (your independent variable) moves in one direction (up), support for marijuana
legalization (your dependent variable) moves in another direction (down). So, a direct relationship (or
positive correlation) involve two variables going in the same direction and an inverse relationship
(or negative correlation) involve two variables going in opposite directions. If writing hypotheses feels

tricky, it is sometimes helpful to draw them out and depict each of the two hypotheses we have just
discussed.
Figure 8.7 Hypothesis describing the expected direction of relationship between age and support for marijuana
legalization
It’s important to note that once a study starts, it is unethical to change your hypothesis to match the
data you find. For example, what happens if you conduct a study to test the hypothesis from Figure
8.7 on support for marijuana legalization, but you find no relationship between age and support for
legalization? It means that your hypothesis was incorrect, but that’s still valuable information. It would
challenge what the existing literature says on your topic, demonstrating that more research needs to be
done to figure out the factors that impact support for marijuana legalization. Don’t be embarrassed by
negative results, and definitely don’t change your hypothesis to make it appear correct all along!
Criteria for establishing a nomothetic causal relationship
Let’s say you conduct your study and you find evidence that supports your hypothesis, as age increases,
support for marijuana legalization decreases. Success! Causal explanation complete, right? Not quite.
You’ve only established one of the criteria for causality. The criteria for causality must include all of the
following: covariation, plausibility, temporality, and nonspuriousness. In our example from Figure 8.7, we
have established only one criteria—covariation. When variables covary, they vary together. Both age and
support for marijuana legalization vary in our study. Our sample contains people of varying ages and
varying levels of support for marijuana legalization. If, for example, we only included 16-year-olds in our
study, age would be a constant, not a variable.
Just because there might be some correlation between two variables does not mean that a causal

relationship between the two is really plausible. Plausibility means that in order to make the claim that
one event, behavior, or belief causes another, the claim has to make sense. It makes sense that people
from previous generations would have different attitudes towards marijuana than younger generations.
People who grew up in the time of Reefer Madness or the hippies may hold different views than those
raised in an era of legalized medicinal and recreational use of marijuana. Plausibility is of course helped
by basing your causal explanation in existing theoretical and empirical findings.
Once we’ve established that there is a plausible relationship between the two variables, we also need to
establish whether the cause occurred before the effect, the criterion of temporality. A person’s age is a
quality that appears long before any opinions on drug policy, so temporally the cause comes before the
effect. It wouldn’t make any sense to say that support for marijuana legalization makes a person’s age
increase. Even if you could predict someone’s age based on their support for marijuana legalization, you
couldn’t say someone’s age was caused by their support for legalization of marijuana.
Finally, scientists must establish nonspuriousness. A spurious relationship is one in which an

association between two variables appears to be causal but can in fact be explained by some third
variable. This third variable is often called a confound or confounding variable because it clouds and
confuses the relationship between your independent and dependent variable, making it difficult to
discern the true causal relationship is.
Take a look at the causal explanation here. Does it meet all of the criteria for
nomothetic causality?
Continuing with our example, we could point to the fact that older adults are less likely to have used
marijuana recreationally. Maybe it is actually recreational use of marijuana that leads people to be
more open to legalization, not their age. In this case, our confounding variable would be recreational
marijuana use. Perhaps the relationship between age and attitudes towards legalization is a spurious
relationship that is accounted for by previous use. This is also referred to as the third variable problem,
where a seemingly true causal relationship is actually caused by a third variable not in the hypothesis.
In this example, the relationship between age and support for legalization could be more about having
tried marijuana than the age of the person.
Quantitative researchers are sensitive to the effects of potentially spurious relationships. As a result,
they will often measure these third variables in their study, so they can control for their effects in
their statistical analysis. These are called control variables, and they refer to potentially confounding
variables whose effects are controlled for mathematically in the data analysis process. Control variables
can be a bit confusing, and we will discuss them more in Chapter 10, but think about it as an argument
between you, the researcher, and a critic.
Researcher: “The older a person is, the less likely they are to support marijuana legalization.”
Critic: “Actually, it’s more about whether a person has used marijuana before. That is what truly
determines whether someone supports marijuana legalization.”
Researcher: “Well, I measured previous marijuana use in my study and mathematically

controlled for its effects in my analysis. Age explains most of the variation in attitudes towards
marijuana legalization.”
Let’s consider a few additional, real-world examples of spuriousness. Did you know, for example, that
high rates of ice cream sales have been shown to cause drowning? Of course, that’s not really true, but
there is a positive relationship between the two. In this case, the third variable that causes both high ice
cream sales and increased deaths by drowning is time of year, as the summer season sees increases in
both (Babbie, 2010).18
Here’s another good one: it is true that as the salaries of Presbyterian ministers in Massachusetts rise, so
too does the price of rum in Havana, Cuba. Well, duh, you might be saying to yourself. Everyone knows
how much ministers in Massachusetts love their rum, right? Not so fast. Both salaries and rum prices
have increased, true, but so has the price of just about everything else (Huff & Geis, 1993).19
Finally, research shows that the more firefighters present at a fire, the more damage is done at the
scene. What this statement leaves out, of course, is that as the size of a fire increases so too does the
amount of damage caused as does the number of firefighters called on to help (Frankfort-Nachmias
& Leon-Guerrero, 2011).20 In each of these examples, it is the presence of a confounding variable that
explains the apparent relationship between the two original variables.
In sum, the following criteria must be met for a nomothetic causal relationship:
• The two variables must vary together.

• The relationship must be plausible.
• The cause must precede the effect in time.
• The relationship must be nonspurious (not due to a confounding variable).

The hypothetico-dedutive method
The primary way that researchers in the positivist paradigm use theories is sometimes called the
hypothetico-deductive method (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers
of science than by scientists themselves). Researchers choose an existing theory. Then, they make
a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again,
this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researchers then conduct an empirical study to test the
hypothesis. Finally, they reevaluate the theory in light of the new results and revise it if necessary.
This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researchers can then derive a new
hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so
on. As Figure 8.8 shows, this approach meshes nicely with the process of conducting a research
project—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.
Together, they form a model of theoretically motivated research.

Figure 8.8 Hypothetico-deductive method combined with the process of conducting a research project
Keep in mind the hypothetico-deductive method is only one way of using social theory to inform social
science research. It starts with describing one or more existing theories, deriving a hypothesis from
one of those theories, testing your hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluating the theory based
on the results data analyses. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses
the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis
derived from a different theory.
But what if your research question is more interpretive? What if it is less about theory-testing and more
about theory-building? This is what our next chapter covers: the process of inductively deriving theory
from people’s stories and experiences. This process looks different than that depicted in Figure 8.8. It

still starts with your research question and answering that question by conducting a research study.
But instead of testing a hypothesis you created based on a theory, you will create a theory of your own
that explain the data you collected. This format works well for qualitative research questions and for
research questions that existing theories do not address.
Key Takeaways
• In positivist and quantitative studies, the goal is often to understand the more general causes of some
phenomenon rather than the idiosyncrasies of one particular instance, as in an idiographic causal relationship.
• Nomothetic causal explanations focus on objectivity, prediction, and generalization.
• Criteria for nomothetic causal relationships require the relationship be plausible and nonspurious; and that the
cause must precede the effect in time.
• In a nomothetic causal relationship, the independent variable causes changes in the dependent variable.
• Hypotheses are statements, drawn from theory, which describe a researcher’s expectation about a relationship
between two or more variables.
Exercises
• Write out your working question and hypothesis.

• Defend your hypothesis in a short paragraph, using arguments based on the theory you identified in section 8.1.
• Review the criteria for a nomothetic causal relationship. Critique your short paragraph about your hypothesis
using these criteria.
• Are there potentially confounding variables, issues with time order, or other problems you can identify in your
reasoning?
8.3 Idiographic causal relationships
Learning Objectives
• Define and provide an example of an idiographic causal explanation

• Differentiate between idiographic and nomothetic causal relationships
• Link idiographic and nomothetic causal relationships with the process of theory building and theory testing

• Describe how idiographic and nomothetic causal explanations can be complementary
We began the previous section with a definition of causality, or the idea that “one event, behavior, or
belief will result in the occurrence of another, subsequent event, behavior, or belief.” Then, we described
one kind of causality: a simple cause-and-effect relationship supported by existing theory and research
on the topic, also known as a nomothetic causal relationship. But what if there is not a lot of literature
on your topic? What if your question is more exploratory than explanatory? Then, you need a different
kind of causal explanation, one that accounts for the complexity of human interactions.
How can we build causal relationships if we are just describing or exploring a topic? Recall the
definitions of exploratory research, descriptive research, and explanatory research from Chapter 2.
Wouldn’t we need to do explanatory research to build any kind of causal explanation? Explanatory
research attempts to establish nomothetic causal relationships: an independent variable is
demonstrated to cause change in a dependent variable. Exploratory and descriptive qualitative research
contains some causal relationships, but they are actually descriptions of the causal relationships
established by the study participants.
What do idiographic causal explanations look like?
An idiographic causal relationship tries to identify the many, interrelated causes that account for the
phenomenon the researcher is investigating. So, if idiographic causal explanations do not look like
Figure 8.5, 8.6, or 8.7 what do they look like? Instead of saying “x causes y,” your participants will describe
their experiences with “x,” which they will tell you was caused and influenced by a variety of other
factors, as interpreted through their unique perspective, time, and environment. As we stated before,
idiographic causal explanations are messy. Your job as a social science researcher is to accurately
describe the patterns in what your participants tell you.
Let’s think about this using an example. If I asked you why you decided to become a social worker,
what might you say? For me, I would say that I wanted to be a mental health clinician since I was in
high school. I was interested in how people thought, and I was privileged enough to have psychology
courses at my local high school. I thought I wanted to be a psychologist, but at my second internship in
my undergraduate program, my supervisors advised me to become a social worker because the license
provided greater authority for independent practice and flexibility for career change. Once I found out
social workers were like psychologists who also raised trouble about social justice, I was hooked.
That’s not a simple explanation at all! But it’s definitely a causal explanation. It is my individual,
subjective truth of a complex process. If we were to ask multiple social workers the same question, we
might find out that many social workers begin their careers based on factors like personal experience
with a disability or social injustice, positive experiences with social workers, or a desire to help others.
No one factor is the “most important factor,” like with nomothetic causal relationships. Instead, a
complex web of factors, contingent on context, emerge when you interpret what people tell you about
their lives.
Understanding “why?”
In creating an idiographic explanation, you are still asking “why?” But the answer is going to be more
complex. Those complexities are described in Table 8.1 as well as this short video comparing nomothetic
and idiographic relationships.
Table 8.1: Comparing nomothetic and idiographic causal relationships
Nomothetic causal
Idiographic causal relationships
relationships
Paradigm Positivist Interpretivist
Prediction &
Purpose of research Understanding & particularity
generalization
Reasoning Deductive Inductive
Purpose of research Explanatory Exploratory or descriptive
Research methods Quantitative Qualitative
Complex: context-dependent, sometimes circular or

Causality Simple: cause and effect
contradictory
Role of theory Theory testing Theory building
Remember our question from the last section, “Are you trying to generalize or nah?” If you answered
nah (or no, like a normal person), you are trying to establish an idiographic causal explanation. The
purpose of that explanation isn’t to predict the future or generalize to larger populations, but to
describe the here-and-now as it is experienced by individuals within small groups and communities.
Idiographic explanations are focused less on what is generally experienced by all people but more on
the particularities of what specific individuals in a unique time and place experience.
Researchers seeking idiographic causal relationships are not trying to generalize or predict, so they
have no need to reduce phenomena to mathematics. In fact, only examining things that can be counted
can rob a causal relationship of its meaning and context. Instead, the goal of idiographic causal
relationships is understanding, rather than prediction. Idiographic causal relationships are formed
by interpreting people’s stories and experiences. Usually, these are expressed through words. Not
all qualitative studies use word data, as some can use interpretations of visual or performance art.
However, the vast majority of qualitative studies do use word data, like the transcripts from interviews
and focus groups or documents like journal entries or meeting notes. Your participants are the experts
on their lives—much like in social work practice—and as in practice, people’s experiences are embedded
in their cultural, historical, and environmental context.
Idiographic causal explanations are powerful because they can describe the complicated and
interconnected nature of human life. Nomothetic causal explanations, by comparison, are simplistic.
Think about if someone asked you why you wanted to be a social worker. Your story might include a
couple of vignettes from your education and early employment. It might include personal experience
with the social welfare system or family traditions. Maybe you decided on a whim to enroll in a social
work course during your graduate program. The impact of each of these events on your career is unique
to you.
Idiographic causal explanations are concerned with individual stories, their idiosyncrasies, and the
patterns that emerge when you collect and analyze multiple people’s stories. This is the inductive
reasoning we discussed at the beginning of this chapter. Often, idiographic causal explanations begin
by collecting a lot of qualitative data, whether though interviews, focus groups, or looking at available
documents or cultural artifacts. Next, the researcher looks for patterns in the data and arrives at a
tentative theory for how the key ideas in people’s stories are causally related.
Unlike nomothetic causal relationships, there are no formal criteria (e.g., covariation) for establishing
causality in idiographic causal relationships. In fact, some criteria like temporality and nonspuriousness
may be violated. For example, if an adolescent client says, “It’s hard for me to tell whether my depression
began before my drinking, but both got worse when I was expelled from my first high school,” they are
recognizing that it may not so simple that one thing causes another. Sometimes, there is a reciprocal
relationship where one variable (depression) impacts another (alcohol abuse), which then feeds back
into the first variable (depression) and into other variables as well (school). Other criteria, such as
covariation and plausibility, still make sense, as the relationships you highlight as part of your
idiographic causal explanation should still be plausible and its elements should vary together.
Theory building and theory testing
As we learned in the previous section, nomothetic causal explanations are created by researchers
applying deductive reasoning to their topic and creating hypotheses using social science theories. Much
of what we think of as social science is based on this hypothetico-deductive method, but this leaves out
the other half of the equation. Where do theories come from? Are they all just revisions of one another?
How do any new ideas enter social science?
Through inductive reasoning and idiographic causal explanations!
Let’s consider a social work example. If you plan to study domestic and sexual violence, you will likely
encounter the Power and Control Wheel, also known as the Duluth Model (Figure 8.9). The wheel
is a model designed to depict the process of domestic violence. The wheel was developed based on
qualitative focus groups conducted by sexual and domestic violence advocates in Duluth, MN. This video
explains more about the Duluth Model of domestic abuse.
Figure 8.9 The Power and Control Wheel
The Power and Control Wheel is an example of what an idiographic causal relationship looks like. By
contrast, look back at the previous section’s Figure 8.5, 8.6, and 8.7 on nomothetic causal relationships
between independent and dependent variables. See how much more complex idiographic causal
explanations are?! They are complex, but not difficult to understand. At the center of domestic abuse
is power and control, and while not every abuser would say that is what they were doing, that is
the understanding of the survivors who informed this theoretical model. Their power and control
is maintained through a variety of abusive tactics from social isolation to use of privilege to avoid
consequences.
What about the role of hypotheses in idiographic causal explanations? In nomothetic causal
explanations, researchers create hypotheses using existing theory and then test them for accuracy.
Hypotheses in idiographic causality are much more tentative, and are probably best considered as
“hunches” about what they think might be true. Importantly, they might indicate the researcher’s prior
knowledge and biases before the project begins, but the goal of idiographic research is to let your
participants guide you rather than existing social work knowledge. Continuing with our Duluth Model
example, advocates likely had some tentative hypotheses about what was important in a relationship
with domestic violence. After all, they worked with this population for years prior to the creation of
the model. However, it was the stories of the participants in these focus groups that led the Power and
Control Wheel explanation for domestic abuse.
As qualitative inquiry unfolds, hypotheses and hunches are likely to emerge and shift as researchers
learn from what their participants share. Because the participants are the experts in idiographic causal
relationships, a researcher should be open to emerging topics and shift their research questions
and hypotheses accordingly. This is in contrast to hypotheses in quantitative research, which remain
constant throughout the study and are shown to be true or false.
Over time, as more qualitative studies are done and patterns emerge across different studies and
locations, more sophisticated theories emerge that explain phenomena across multiple contexts. Once
a theory is developed from qualitative studies, a quantitative researcher can seek to test that theory.
For example, a quantitative researcher may hypothesize that men who hold traditional gender roles
are more likely to engage in domestic violence. That would make sense based on the Power and
Control Wheel model, as the category of “using male privilege” speaks to this relationship. In this way,
qualitatively-derived theory can inspire a hypothesis for a quantitative research project, as we will
explore in the next section.
Complementary approaches
If idiographic and nomothetic still seem like obscure philosophy terms, let’s consider another example.
Imagine you are working for a community-based non-profit agency serving people with disabilities.
You are putting together a report to lobby the state government for additional funding for community
support programs. As part of that lobbying, you are likely to rely on both nomothetic and idiographic
causal relationships.
If you looked at nomothetic causal relationships, you might learn how previous studies have shown
that, in general, community-based programs like yours are linked with better health and employment
outcomes for people with disabilities. Nomothetic causal explanations seek to establish that
community-based programs are better for everyone with disabilities, including people in your
community.
If you looked at idiographic causal explanations, you would use stories and experiences of people in
community-based programs. These individual stories are full of detail about the lived experience of
being in a community-based program. You might use one story from a client in your lobbying campaign,

so policymakers can understand the lived experience of what it’s like to be a person with a disability in
this program. For example, a client who said “I feel at home when I’m at this agency because they treat
me like a family member,” or “this is the agency that helped me get my first paycheck,” can communicate
richer, more complex causal relationships.
Neither kind of causal explanation is better than the other. A decision to seek idiographic causal
explanations means that you will attempt to explain or describe your phenomenon exhaustively,
attending to cultural context and subjective interpretations. A decision to seek nomothetic causal
explanations, on the other hand, means that you will try to explain what is true for everyone and predict
what will be true in the future. In short, idiographic explanations have greater depth, and nomothetic
explanations have greater breadth.
Most importantly, social workers understand the value of both approaches to understanding the social
world. A social worker helping a client with substance abuse issues seeks idiographic explanations when
they ask about that client’s life story, investigate their unique physical environment, or probe how their
family relationships. At the same time, a social worker also uses nomothetic explanations to guide their
interventions. Nomothetic explanations may help guide them to minimize risk factors and maximize
protective factors or use an evidence-based therapy, relying on knowledge about what in general helps
people with substance abuse issues.
So, which approach speaks to you? Are you interested in learning about (a) a few people’s experiences
in a great deal of depth, or (b) a lot of people’s experiences more superficially, while also hoping your
findings can be generalized to a greater number of people? The answer to this question will drive your
research question and project. These approaches provide different types of information and both types
are valuable.
Key Takeaways
• Idiographic causal explanations focus on subjectivity, context, and meaning.

• Idiographic causal explanations are best suited to exploratory research questions and qualitative methods.
• Idiographic causal explanations are used to create new theories in social science.
Exercises
• Explore the literature on the theory you identified in section 8.1.

• Read about the origins of your theory. Who developed it and from what data?
• See if you can find a figure like Figure 8.9 in an article or book chapter that depicts the key concepts in your
theory and how those concepts are related to one another causally. Write out a short statement on the causal

relationships contained in the figure.
8.4 Mixed methods research
Learning Objectives
• Define sequence and emphasis and describe how they work in qualitative research
• List five reasons why researchers use mixed methods
As we discussed in the previous sections, while we contrast idiographic vs. nomothetic causality or
inductive vs. deductive reasoning, the truth is that researchers combine both of these approaches when
they conduct research. While these processes can occur in any kind of study, mixed methods research
is an excellent example of how researchers use both approaches to logic and reasoning to improve
understanding of a given topic.
So far in this textbook, we have talked about quantitative and qualitative methods as an either/or
choice—you can choose quantitative methods or qualitative methods. However, researchers often use
both quantitative methods inside of their research projects. This is called mixed methods research.
For example, I recently completed a study with administrators of state-level services for people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities. They implemented a program called self-direction, which
allows people with disabilities greater self-determination over their supports. In this study, my research
partners and I used a mixed methods approach to describe the implementation of self-direction across
the United States. We distributed a short, electronic questionnaire and conducted phone interviews
with program administrators. While we could have just sent out a questionnaire that asked states
to provide basic information on their program (size, qualifications, services offered, etc.), that would
not provide us much information about some of the issues administrators faced during program
implementation. Similarly, we could have interviewed program administrators without the
questionnaire, but then we wouldn’t know enough about the programs to ask good questions. Instead,
we chose to use both qualitative and quantitative methods to provide a more comprehensive picture of
program implementation.

Sequence and emphasis
There are many different mixed methods designs, each with their own strengths and limitations (see
Creswell & Clarke, 201721 for a more thorough introduction). However, a more simplified synthesis
of mixed methods approaches is provided by Engel and Schutt (2016)22 using two key terms.
Sequence refers to the order that each method is used. Researchers can use both methods at the same
time or concurrently. Or, they can use one and then the other, or sequentially.
For our study of self-direction, we used a sequential design by sending out a questionnaire first,
conducting some analysis, and then conducting the interview. We used the quantitative questionnaire
to gather basic information about the programs before we began the interviews, so our questions were
specific to the features of each program. If we wanted to use a concurrent design for some reason, we
could have asked quantitative questions during the interview. However, we felt this would waste the
administrators’ time looking up information and would break up rhythm of the interviews.
The other key term in mixed methods research is emphasis. In our mixed methods study, the qualitative
data was the most important data. The quantitative data was mainly used to provide background
information for the qualitative interviews, and our study write up focused mostly on the qualitative
information. Thus, qualitative methods were prioritized in our study. Of course, many other studies
emphasize quantitative methods over qualitative methods. In these studies, qualitative data is used
mainly to provide context for the quantitative findings.
For example, demonstrating quantitatively that a particular therapy works is important. By adding a
qualitative component, researchers could find out how the participants experienced the intervention,
how clients understood the therapy’s effects, and the meaning the therapy had on their lives. This
data would add depth and context to the findings and allow researchers to improve the therapeutic
technique in the future.
A similar practice is when researchers use qualitative methods to solicit feedback on a quantitative
scale or measure. The experiences of individuals allow researchers to refine the measure before they
conduct the quantitative component of their study. Finally, it is possible that researchers are equally
interested in qualitative and quantitative information. In studies of equal emphasis, researchers consider
both methods as the focus of the research project.
Why researchers use mixed methods
Mixed methods research is more than just sticking an open-ended question at the end of a quantitative
survey. Mixed methods researchers use mixed methods for both pragmatic and synergistic reasons.
That is, they use both methods because it makes sense with their research questions and because they
will get the answers they want by combining the two approaches.
Mixed methods also allow you to use both inductive and deductive reasoning. As we’ve discussed,
qualitative research follows inductive logic, moving from data to empirical generalizations or theory. In
a mixed methods study, a researcher could use the results from a qualitative component to create a
theory that could be tested in a subsequent quantitative component. The quantitative component would
use deductive logic, using the theory derived from qualitative data to create and test a hypothesis. In
this way, mixed methods use the strengths of both inductive and deductive reasoning. Quantitative
allows the researcher to test existing ideas. Qualitative allows the researcher to create new ideas.
With these two concepts in mind, we can start to see why researchers use mixed methods in the real
world. I mentioned previously that our research project used a sequential design because we wanted
to use our quantitative data to shape what qualitative questions we asked our participants. Mixed
methods are often used this way, to initiate ideas with one method to study with another. For example,
researchers could begin a mixed methods project by using qualitative methods to interview or conduct a
focus group with participants. Based on their responses, the researchers could then formulate a survey
to give out to a larger group of people to see how common the themes from the focus groups were. This
is the inverse of what we did in our project, which was to use a quantitative survey to inform a more
detailed qualitative interview.
In addition to providing information for subsequent investigation, using both quantitative and
qualitative information provides additional context for the data. For example, in our questionnaire for
the study on self-direction, we asked participants to list what services people could purchase. The
qualitative data followed up on that answer by asking whether the administrators had added or taken
away any services, how they decided that these services would be covered and not others, and what
problems that arose around providing these services. With that information, we could analyze what
services were offered, why they were offered, and how administrators made those decisions. In this way,
we learned the lived experience of program administrators, not just the basic information about their
programs.
Finally, another purpose of mixed methods research is to corroborate data from both quantitative and
qualitative sources. Ideally, your qualitative and quantitative results should support each other. For
example, if interviews with participants showed a relationship between two concepts, that relationship
should also be present in the qualitative data you collected. Differences between quantitative and
qualitative data require an explanation. Perhaps there are outliers or extreme cases that pushed your
data in one direction, for example.
In summary, these are a few of the many reasons researchers use mixed methods. They are summarized
below:
1. Triangulation, or convergence on the same phenomenon to improve validity

2. Complementarity, which aims to get at related but different facets of a phenomenon
3. Development, or the use of results from one phase or a study to develop another phase
4. Initiation, or the intentional analysis of inconsistent qualitative and quantitative findings to derive

new insights
5. Expansion, or using multiple components to extend the scope of a study (Burnett, 2012, p. 77).23
A word of caution
The use of mixed methods has many advantages. However, undergraduate researchers should approach
mixed methods with caution. Conducting a mixed methods study may mean doubling or even tripling
your work. You must conceptualize a component using quantitative methods, another using qualitative
methods, and think about how they fit together. This may mean creating a questionnaire, then writing
an interview guide, and thinking through how the data on each measure relate to one another—more
work than using one quantitative or qualitative method alone. Similarly, in sequential studies, the
researcher must collect and analyze data from one component and then conceptualize and conduct
the second component. This may also impact how long a project may take. Before beginning a mixed
methods project, you should have a clear vision for what the project will entail and how each
methodology will contribute to that vision. Always remember that you should make your project feasible
enough for you to conduct with the time, money, and other resources you have at your disposal right
now.
Key Takeaways
• Mixed methods studies vary in sequence and emphasis.

• Mixed methods allow the research to corroborate findings, provide context, follow up on ideas, and use the
strengths of each method.
Exercises
• Look at the literature on your topic, and see if you can find a study that uses mixed methods.
• Describe the sequence and importance that the researchers places on the quantitative and qualitative
components.
• Identify why the researchers used mixed methods and how the project would have been different had
researchers used only one (qualitative or quantitative) component.

Media Attributions
• Inductive reasoning © Blackstone, A. is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution

NonCommercial ShareAlike) license
• Figure 6.2: Deductive reasoning © Blackstone, A. is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution
NonCommercial ShareAlike) license
• 40 © Blackstone, A. is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike)
license
• 46 © DeCarlo, M. is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike)
license
• correlation © Munroe, R. is licensed under a CC BY-NC (Attribution NonCommercial) license
• 4.4 © Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a
CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike) license
• Power_and_control_wheel © Carole Henson is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution
ShareAlike) license
Notes
1. Allen, K. R., Kaestle, C. E., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). More than just a punctuation mark: How boys and young men
learn about menstruation. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 129–156.
2. Ferguson, K. M., Kim, M. A., & McCoy, S. (2011). Enhancing empowerment and leadership among homeless youth
in agency and community settings: A grounded theory approach. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28,
1–22
3. King, R. D., Messner, S. F., & Baller, R. D. (2009). Contemporary hate crimes, law enforcement, and the legacy of
racial violence. American Sociological Review, 74, 291–315.
4. Milkie, M. A., & Warner, C. H. (2011). Classroom learning environments and the mental health of first grade
children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 4–22.
5. The American Sociological Association wrote a press release on Milkie and Warner’s findings: American
Sociological Association. (2011). Study: Negative classroom environment adversely affects children’s mental
health. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110309073717.htm
6. Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological
Review, 69, 64–92.
7. Blackstone, A., Houle, J., & Uggen, C. “At the time I thought it was great”: Age, experience, and workers’
perceptions of sexual harassment. Presented at the 2006 meetings of the American Sociological Association.
8. Blackstone, A. (2012). Inductive or deductive? Two different approaches. Principles of sociological inquiry:
Qualitative and quantitative methods. Saylor Foundation.
9. Schutt, R. K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
10. Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American
Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.
11. Williams, K. R. (2005). Arrest and intimate partner violence: Toward a more complete application of deterrence
theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 660-679.

12. Policastro, C., & Payne, B. K. (2013). The blameworthy victim: Domestic violence myths and the criminalization of
victimhood. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22(4), 329-347.
13. Berk, R., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic
violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57, 698–708; Pate, A., &
Hamilton, E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade county spouse assault
experiment. American Sociological Review, 57, 691–697; Sherman, L., & Smith, D. (1992). Crime, punishment, and
stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57, 680–690.
14. Taylor, B. G., Davis, R. C., & Maxwell, C. D. (2001). The effects of a group batterer treatment program: A
randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Justice Quarterly, 18(1), 171-201.
15. Wagner III, W. E., & Gillespie, B. J. (2018). Using and interpreting statistics in the social, behavioral, and health
sciences. SAGE Publications.
16. Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological
Review, 69, 64–92.
17. In fact, there are empirical data that support this hypothesis. Gallup has conducted research on this very
question since the 1960s. For more on their findings, see Carroll, J. (2005). Who supports marijuana legalization?
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx
18. Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
19. Huff, D. & Geis, I. (1993). How to lie with statistics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
20. Frankfort-Nachmias, C. & Leon-Guerrero, A. (2011). Social statistics for a diverse society. Washington, DC: Pine
Forge Press.
21. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
22. Engel, R. J. & Schutt, R. K. (2016). The practice of research in social work (4th ed.). Washington, DC: SAGE
Publishing.
23. Burnett, D. (2012). Inscribing knowledge: Writing research in social work. In W. Green & B. L. Simon (Eds.), The
Columbia guide to social work writing (pp. 65-82). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

chp8 -reasoning and causality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

chp8 -reasoning and causality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

chp8 -reasoning and causality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8.

Reasoning and causality

1. Inductive and deductive reasoning (15 minute read)

8.1 Inductive and deductive reasoning

Learners will be able to…

• Describe inductive and deductive reasoning and provide examples of each

8. Reasoning and causality | 250

Figure 8.1 Inductive reasoning

251 | 8. Reasoning and causality

Figure 8.2 Deductive reasoning

253 | 8. Reasoning and causality

8. Reasoning and causality | 254

255 | 8. Reasoning and causality

8. Reasoning and causality | 256

Ethical and critical considerations

8. Reasoning and causality | 258

8.2 Nomothetic causal explanations

Learners will be able to…

• Define and provide an example of idiographic causal relationships

“Are you trying to generalize or nah?”

What do nomothetic causal explanations look like?

Figure 8.5 Visual representation of a nomothetic causal relationship

• Write out a diagram similar to Figure 8.5.

• Can your variables vary?

261 | 8. Reasoning and causality

A hypothesis is a statement describing a researcher’s expectation regarding what they anticipate

263 | 8. Reasoning and causality

Criteria for establishing a nomothetic causal relationship

8. Reasoning and causality | 264

Finally, scientists must establish nonspuriousness. A spurious relationship is one in which an

Researcher: “Well, I measured previous marijuana use in my study and mathematically

• The two variables must vary together.

8. Reasoning and causality | 266

267 | 8. Reasoning and causality

8. Reasoning and causality | 268

• Write out your working question and hypothesis.

8.3 Idiographic causal relationships

Learners will be able to…

• Define and provide an example of an idiographic causal explanation

269 | 8. Reasoning and causality

What do idiographic causal explanations look like?

Table 8.1: Comparing nomothetic and idiographic causal relationships

Paradigm Positivist Interpretivist

Reasoning Deductive Inductive

Purpose of research Explanatory Exploratory or descriptive

Research methods Quantitative Qualitative

Complex: context-dependent, sometimes circular or

Role of theory Theory testing Theory building

Theory building and theory testing

Through inductive reasoning and idiographic causal explanations!

Figure 8.9 The Power and Control Wheel

8. Reasoning and causality | 274

• Idiographic causal explanations focus on subjectivity, context, and meaning.

• Explore the literature on the theory you identified in section 8.1.

275 | 8. Reasoning and causality

8.4 Mixed methods research

Learners will be able to…

8. Reasoning and causality | 276

Why researchers use mixed methods

1. Triangulation, or convergence on the same phenomenon to improve validity