IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v57y2023i1d10.1007_s11135-022-01349-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Embracing complexity in social science research

Author

Listed:
  • Rafael Quintana

    (University of Kansas)

Abstract

Social and behavioral phenomena are fundamentally complex in the sense that they are shaped by many interdependent causes. Researchers that adopt a complex systems perspective have argued that, rather than focusing on a single causal relationship at a time, we need to investigate how the interaction or combination of different factors generate specific outcomes. The main objective of this article is to review three methodological frameworks that have been used to investigate the interdependencies between causal factors, which is often referred to as the study of causal complexity. The three frameworks are: interaction analysis, which investigates effect heterogeneity; structural analysis, which investigates causal mechanisms; and configurational analysis, which investigates sufficient and necessary conditions. I summarize the goals and recent developments of these techniques, as well as two theoretical frameworks—intersectionality theory and the so-called “heterogeneity revolution”—that stress the importance of investigating causal complexity in social science research.

Suggested Citation

  • Rafael Quintana, 2023. "Embracing complexity in social science research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 15-38, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01349-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01349-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-022-01349-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-022-01349-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alrik Thiem & Lusine Mkrtchyan & Tim Haesebrouck & David Sanchez, 2020. "Algorithmic bias in social research: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Michael C Knaus & Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2021. "Machine learning estimation of heterogeneous causal effects: Empirical Monte Carlo evidence," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(1), pages 134-161.
    3. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    4. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    5. Christopher J. Bryan & Elizabeth Tipton & David S. Yeager, 2021. "Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(8), pages 980-989, August.
    6. Rothman, K.J. & Greenland, S., 2005. "Causation and causal inference in epidemiology," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(S1), pages 144-150.
    7. Sendhil Mullainathan & Jann Spiess, 2017. "Machine Learning: An Applied Econometric Approach," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 87-106, Spring.
    8. Baumgartner, Michael & Ambühl, Mathias, 2020. "Causal modeling with multi-value and fuzzy-set Coincidence Analysis," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 526-542, July.
    9. Braumoeller, Bear F., 2003. "Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 209-233, July.
    10. Michael J. Weiss & Howard S. Bloom & Thomas Brock, 2014. "A Conceptual Framework For Studying The Sources Of Variation In Program Effects," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(3), pages 778-808, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ogundari, Kolawole, 2021. "A systematic review of statistical methods for estimating an education production function," MPRA Paper 105283, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Michael Lechner, 2023. "Causal Machine Learning and its use for public policy," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 159(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Denis Fougère & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2020. "Policy Evaluation Using Causal Inference Methods," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03455978, HAL.
    4. Daniel Jacob, 2021. "CATE meets ML -- The Conditional Average Treatment Effect and Machine Learning," Papers 2104.09935, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    5. Jeffrey Smith, 2022. "Treatment Effect Heterogeneity," Evaluation Review, , vol. 46(5), pages 652-677, October.
    6. Athey, Susan & Imbens, Guido W. & Metzger, Jonas & Munro, Evan, 2024. "Using Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Networks for the design of Monte Carlo simulations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 240(2).
    7. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2019. "Synthetic learner: model-free inference on treatments over time," Papers 1904.01490, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    8. Naguib, Costanza, 2019. "Estimating the Heterogeneous Impact of the Free Movement of Persons on Relative Wage Mobility," Economics Working Paper Series 1903, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    9. Piasenti, Stefano & Valente, Marica & Van Veldhuizen, Roel & Pfeifer, Gregor, 2023. "Does Unfairness Hurt Women? The Effects of Losing Unfair Competitions," Working Papers 2023:7, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Combes, Pierre-Philippe & Gobillon, Laurent & Zylberberg, Yanos, 2022. "Urban economics in a historical perspective: Recovering data with machine learning," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    11. Pons Rotger, Gabriel & Rosholm, Michael, 2020. "The Role of Beliefs in Long Sickness Absence: Experimental Evidence from a Psychological Intervention," IZA Discussion Papers 13582, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Daniel Goller, 2023. "Analysing a built-in advantage in asymmetric darts contests using causal machine learning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(1), pages 649-679, June.
    13. Yiyi Huo & Yingying Fan & Fang Han, 2023. "On the adaptation of causal forests to manifold data," Papers 2311.16486, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    14. Michael C Knaus, 2022. "Double machine learning-based programme evaluation under unconfoundedness [Econometric methods for program evaluation]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 25(3), pages 602-627.
    15. Cockx, Bart & Lechner, Michael & Bollens, Joost, 2023. "Priority to unemployed immigrants? A causal machine learning evaluation of training in Belgium," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    16. Daniel Boller & Michael Lechner & Gabriel Okasa, 2021. "The Effect of Sport in Online Dating: Evidence from Causal Machine Learning," Papers 2104.04601, arXiv.org.
    17. Guido W. Imbens, 2020. "Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1129-1179, December.
    18. Phillip Heiler & Michael C. Knaus, 2021. "Effect or Treatment Heterogeneity? Policy Evaluation with Aggregated and Disaggregated Treatments," Papers 2110.01427, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    19. Goller, Daniel & Lechner, Michael & Moczall, Andreas & Wolff, Joachim, 2020. "Does the estimation of the propensity score by machine learning improve matching estimation? The case of Germany's programmes for long term unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    20. Falco J. Bargagli Stoffi & Kenneth De Beckker & Joana E. Maldonado & Kristof De Witte, 2021. "Assessing Sensitivity of Machine Learning Predictions.A Novel Toolbox with an Application to Financial Literacy," Papers 2102.04382, arXiv.org.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01349-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.