Rigour versus the need for evidential diversity.

Area of Science:

• Causal inference
• Methodology in social sciences
• Philosophy of science

Background:

• Current research often prioritizes methodological rigor for causal claims.
• This emphasis may inadvertently limit the diversity of evidence considered.
• Singular causal claims, concerning specific events or settings, require a nuanced approach to evidence.

Purpose of the Study:

• To defend the necessity of evidential diversity and mixed methods for singular causal claims.
• To propose a template categorizing evidence types supporting causal processes.
• To critique the overemphasis on 'rigor' in evaluating causal evidence.

Main Methods:

• Developing a template to categorize evidential types for causal claims.
• Analyzing the requirements for causal processes from cause to effect.
• Examining the concept of 'rigor' in current evidential practices.
• Illustrating arguments using randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Main Results:

• A framework is offered to categorize necessary subsidiary evidential claims for overall causal assertions.
• The study argues that excessive focus on rigor can impede evidential diversity.
• Evidential diversity is shown to enhance the reliability of singular causal predictions and evaluations.
• Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while rigorous, have limitations in warranting singular causal claims.

Conclusions:

• Evidential diversity, achieved through mixed methods, is essential for robust singular causal claims.
• The pursuit of 'rigor' should not overshadow the need for a wide range of evidence.
• A balanced approach considering diverse evidence types improves the reliability of causal assessments in specific contexts.