Metaphysics has undergone two major innovations in recent decades. First, naturalistic metaphysicians have argued that our best science provides an important source of evidence for metaphysical theories. Second, social metaphysicians have begun to explore the nature of social entities such as groups, institutions, and social categories. Surprisingly, these projects have largely kept their distance from one another. Katherine Hawley has recently argued that, unlike the natural sciences, the social sciences are not sufficiently successful to provide evidence about the metaphysical nature (...) of social entities. By contrast, I defend an optimistic view of naturalistic social metaphysics. Drawing on a case study of research into contextual effects in social epidemiology, I show that social science can provide a valuable evidence for social metaphysicians. (shrink)

The past two decades have witnessed an increase in interest in social mechanisms and mechanistic explanations of social macro-phenomena. This paper addresses the question of what the components of social mechanisms in mechanistic explanations of social macro-phenomena must be. Analytical sociology’s initial position and the main new proposals by analytical sociologists are discussed. It is argued that all of them are faced with outstanding difficulties. Subsequently, a minimal requirement regarding the components of social mechanisms is introduced. It is held that (...) a component of a social mechanism in a mechanistic explanation of a social macro-phenomenon must not have the explanandum phenomenon as a part of it. (shrink)

In this article, I will discuss two prominent views on the relevance and irrelevance of ontological investigations for the social sciences, namely, ontological foundationalism and anti-ontological pragmatism. I will argue that both views are unsatisfactory. The subsequent part of the article will introduce an alternative role for ontological projects in the philosophy of the social sciences that fares better in this respect by paying attention to the ontological assumptions of actual social scientific theories, models, and related explanatory practices. I will (...) illustrate and support this alternative through discussion of three concrete cases. (shrink)

Agent-based models are increasingly important in social science research. They have two obvious apparent virtues: they can model complex macrosociological phenomena without strong assumptions about agents and without analytic solutions for models, and they seem to instantiate the methodological individualist program in a concrete way. We argue that the latter claim is false. After providing schematic accounts of ABM models and a first introduction to ways in which to characterize individualist explanations, we work through six conceptions of individualist explanations that (...) are decreasingly "less individualist" and argue that ABM-based explanations in the social sciences are not inevitably individualist in any of these senses. ABMs allow for explanatory relations among social entities and properties in the model environment and they are silent on what basic agents are, allowing social entities and properties to play basic explanatory roles. (shrink)

How are middle-range theories about causal mechanisms built from case studies in the social sciences? My aim is to answer this question by analyzing and improving Derek Beach and Rasmus Brun Pedersen’s account of the method of theory-building process-tracing. After having introduced the basic issues and concepts, I move on to analyze their descriptions of theory-building process-tracing. I identify some ambiguities and problems in their notions of middle-range theory and causal mechanism. In the constructive part of the paper, I provide (...) accounts of causal mechanisms and middle-range theories that aim to resolve the problems and ambiguities in Beach and Pedersen’s views. I close the paper by showing how the method of theory-building process-tracing can be improved by utilizing these views. (shrink)

The notion of social mechanisms has experienced an increasing use in the social sciences as an alternative explanatory framework to the logic of co-variation present in multivariate analyses, emphasizing the causal explanation of social phenomena over their mere description. This paper seeks two goals. In the one hand, summarise recent literature on social mechanisms in order to clarify their meanings, different modes of use and their contribution to empirical research. In the other hand, we will shed some light onto the (...) relation between social mechanisms and the micro-macro problem in social sciences. We argue that the search for social mechanisms and reductionism in social sciences correspond to two interrelated but analytically distinguishable questions: while the first one seeks to define intermediary processes and causal connections between causes and effects, the second question asks for the different levels of reality in which the relation between initial conditions and effects shall be understood. Following Daniel Little´s methodological localism, we will suggest that social mechanisms can well take place at the supra-individual level, and that the reduction of social phenomena to their micro-foundations is not a methodological prescription, but rather depends on the state of art of specific fields of inquiry. La noción de mecanismos sociales ha experimentado un uso creciente en ciencias sociales. Estos se han consolidado como un marco explicativo alternativo a la lógica de co-variación propia del análisis multivariado, enfatizando además la explicación causal de los fenómenos sociales por sobre su mera descripción. Este artículo tiene dos objetivos. Primero, sistematizar la reciente literatura sobre mecanismos sociales, con el fin de clarificar sus significados, modos de uso y aporte a la investigación empírica. Y segundo, entregaremos luces a la relación entre mecanismos sociales y el problema de la relación macro-micro en ciencias sociales. Sostendremos la idea de que la búsqueda de mecanismos sociales y el reduccionismo en ciencias sociales corresponden a dos preguntas relacionadas pero analíticamente distinguibles: mientras la primera busca definir procesos intermedios y conexiones causales entre condiciones iniciales y efectos, la segunda se pregunta por los distintos niveles de la realidad en los cuales la relación entre condiciones iniciales y efectos deben ser entendidos. Siguiendo el localismo metodológico de Daniel Little, sugeriremos que los mecanismos sociales pueden bien operar a niveles supra-individuales, y que la reducción de fenómenos sociales a interacciones individuales no es una prescripción metodológica, sino que se desprende del estado del arte de campos de investigación específicos. (shrink)