On February 21, in the 2024 iteration of the annual Center for Historical Enquiry & the Social Sciences (CHESS) lecture, the Macmillan Center hosted Professor James Mahoney for a discussion on Causal Analysis in Historical Thinking. Gordon Fulcher Professor in Decision-Making, Professor of Sociology and Professor of Political Science are among the many roles he operates in at Northwestern University. Julia Adams, co-director of CHESS, remarked on his ability to nonetheless inspire and mentor students during her introduction.
Among the three types of Comparative-Historical Analysis (also known as CHA) developed by Skocpol and Somers in the 1980’s, Mahoney centers his lecture around Macrocausal Analysis. It is different insofar as it concerns itself with what he defines as actual causes, meaning the past events/processes that produced specific outcomes of interest in particular cases. When applying that to CHA research, it is about identifying actual causes of specific historical outcomes in particular cases. Mahoney emphasizes the fact that the wealth of this research lies in the particularity and specificity of the data it draws out. He differentiates between a case specific cause, where claims are distinctive to one case, and a general actual cause, where they can apply to multiple.
He continues on by discussing the Modes of Causal Research, presenting a spectrum of kinds of research that fall somewhere between or at the extremes of Case-oriented and Population-oriented research. CHA, falls much closer to Case-oriented research because of the fact that Case-oriented research is focused on the properties of specific cases. Population-oriented research, on the other hand, seeks to explore properties of collectivities. In that way, the research itself can also tend to differ based on whether it is outcome-centered or cause-centered. Cause-centered aims to develop causal models, meaning the extent at which certain causes contribute towards an outcome. Outcome-centered research specifies the set of causes jointly sufficient for an outcome.
Following the lecture, participants inquired on subjects such as the sufficiency vs. necessity question and carrying these practices into other disciplines. In answering one of the questions, Mahoney also reflects on one of the major points of discussion within his subject matter, that being assertions and counterfactuals. “The question is: how well does that statement encapture actual statements in the world?” Mahoney asks. This question is one that we can ask ourselves and truly allow ourselves the opportunity to understand the field of CHA and how its implications spread far beyond ourselves.
Watch the entire lecture below: