Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Causality in Epidemiology01:21

Causality in Epidemiology

377
Causality or causation is a fundamental concept in epidemiology, vital for understanding the relationships between various factors and health outcomes. Despite its importance, there's no single, universally accepted definition of causality within the discipline. Drawing from a systematic review, causality in epidemiology encompasses several definitions, including production, necessary and sufficient, sufficient-component, counterfactual, and probabilistic models. Each has its strengths and...
377
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II01:28

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

277
The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts:
277
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I01:30

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

255
The Bradford Hill criteria are a group of principles that provide a framework to determine a causal relationship between a specific factor and a disease. There are nine criteria that are pivotal in assessing causality in epidemiological studies. Here's a closer look at Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality criteria with definitions and examples:
255
Inductive Reasoning00:59

Inductive Reasoning

60.3K
Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. It is uncertain and operates in degrees to which the conclusions are credible. As such, inductive arguments can be weak or strong, rather than valid or invalid, and conclusions can be used to formulate testable, falsifiable hypotheses.
Inductive reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist makes observations and records them. This data can be qualitative or...
60.3K
Reasoning01:30

Reasoning

73
Reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. It is integral to problem-solving, decision-making, and critical thinking. Reasoning can be inductive or deductive. Reasoning involves transforming information into conclusions, which is essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and critical thinking.
Inductive reasoning involves deriving generalizations from specific observations. This type of reasoning helps form beliefs about the world. For example,...
73
Deductive Reasoning01:16

Deductive Reasoning

55.2K
Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is the type of logic used in hypothesis-based science. In deductive reasoning, the pattern of thinking moves in the opposite direction as compared to inductive reasoning, which means that it uses a general principle or law to predict specific results. From those general principles, a scientist can deduce and predict the specific results that would be valid as long as the general principles are valid.
For example, a researcher can deduce specific predictions...
55.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Ten simple rules for making the supplement increase your paper's impact.

PLoS computational biology·2026
Same author

Crop booms as regime shifts.

Royal Society open science·2024
Same author

It's about time: Feeding competition costs of sociality are affected more by temporal characteristics than spatial distribution.

Ecology and evolution·2024
Same author

Unraveling complex causal processes that affect sustainability requires more integration between empirical and modeling approaches.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2023
Same author

Simulation of Varroa mite control in honey bee colonies without synthetic acaricides: Demonstration of Good Beekeeping Practice for Germany in the BEEHAVE model.

Ecology and evolution·2022
Same author

Untangling social-ecological interactions: A methods portfolio approach to tackling contemporary sustainability challenges in fisheries.

Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England)·2022
Same journal

Greening the military: A systematic review of sustainability implementation and strategic implications.

Ambio·2026
Same journal

Stratigraphic evidence of organic carbon depletion in an intensely trawled muddy seabed.

Ambio·2026
Same journal

Subjective energy poverty and attitudes on climate change mitigation measures: Empirical and ethical considerations.

Ambio·2026
Same journal

Publisher Correction: Key underwater habitat types of the northern Baltic Sea: An assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem functions.

Ambio·2026
Same journal

Systematic review of ecological and environmental citizen science in India.

Ambio·2026
Same journal

The changing landscape of Newfoundland fisheries after the cod collapse.

Ambio·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 20, 2025

Watershed Planning within a Quantitative Scenario Analysis Framework
12:44

Watershed Planning within a Quantitative Scenario Analysis Framework

Published on: July 24, 2016

8.0K

Navigating causal reasoning in sustainability science.

Maja Schlüter1, Tilman Hertz2, María Mancilla García2

  • 1Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Albanovägen 28, 114 19, Stockholm, Sweden. maja.schlueter@su.se.

Ambio
|July 17, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Sustainability scientists often overlook disciplinary assumptions in causal reasoning. This study clarifies how researchers use causal reasoning to improve collaboration and problem-solving in sustainability science.

Keywords:
Accounts of causationCausal analysisCausal inquiryInterdisciplinaritySocial–ecological systems

More Related Videos

The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients
05:48

The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients

Published on: June 12, 2020

5.7K
Measuring Light-Switching Behavior Using an Occupancy and Light Data Logger
05:50

Measuring Light-Switching Behavior Using an Occupancy and Light Data Logger

Published on: January 16, 2020

5.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 20, 2025

Watershed Planning within a Quantitative Scenario Analysis Framework
12:44

Watershed Planning within a Quantitative Scenario Analysis Framework

Published on: July 24, 2016

8.0K
The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients
05:48

The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients

Published on: June 12, 2020

5.7K
Measuring Light-Switching Behavior Using an Occupancy and Light Data Logger
05:50

Measuring Light-Switching Behavior Using an Occupancy and Light Data Logger

Published on: January 16, 2020

5.8K

Area of Science:

  • Sustainability Science
  • Environmental Studies
  • Social Sciences

Background:

  • Sustainability scientists use disciplinary cause-effect assumptions, which are often implicit.
  • Unacknowledged differences in causal reasoning hinder complex sustainability problem-solving.
  • Explicitly understanding causal reasoning is crucial for interdisciplinary collaboration.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To articulate when and how researchers engage in causal reasoning within the research process.
  • To discuss common ideas about causation that guide sustainability research.
  • To provide guidance for making causal assumptions transparent and interpreting diverse approaches.

Main Methods:

  • Qualitative analysis of causal reasoning in sustainability science.
  • Identification and categorization of common causal assumptions.
  • Framework development for understanding and navigating diverse causal reasoning.

Main Results:

  • Researchers engage in causal reasoning throughout the research process, influenced by disciplinary paradigms.
  • Four prevalent conceptualizations of causation shape sustainability research.
  • Lack of transparency in causal assumptions limits interdisciplinary understanding.

Conclusions:

  • Making causal reasoning explicit enhances transparency and facilitates cross-disciplinary collaboration.
  • Understanding diverse causal approaches is essential for evaluating sustainability claims and solutions.
  • This work supports more effective and integrated approaches to sustainability challenges.