Chris and John,

Thanks for your note, which gives an eloquent summary of the intellectual 
depth and breadth of the subject of causal inference.  The Program 
Committee, as you suggest, plans to interpret this theme broadly to 
include a range of topics that have historically been central at PolMeth 
meetings: identification, estimation, research design, data collection, 
and interpretation.  We welcome papers that present formal analyses and/or 
empirical applications.  Without prejudging which topics authors care to 
address, examples might include matching, meta analysis, randomization 
inference, instrumental variables, panel analysis, experimental design, 
replication, mediation, sampling, to name a few.

We also welcome submissions on topics unrelated to causal inference.  We 
promise to do all we can to fit every strong proposal into the conference 
schedule.

Don


On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Christopher H. Achen wrote:

> Inferring causality is an old and standard topic in methodology, taking 
> a number of different forms depending on context.  In 1953, Hood and 
> Koopmans published a social science classic, Studies in Econometric 
> Method.  The book's central focus was on ways to estimate the magnitude 
> of causal relationships from observational studies, relying on both 
> theoretical models and a variety of regression based methods.  These 
> chapters and the discussions they stimulated were deeply and 
> sophisticatedly concerned with causality:  for example, chapter 2 was 
> Herbert Simon's "Causal Ordering and Identifiability."  That book laid 
> the foundations for the econometric revolution of the Sixties and 
> Seventies.  This, in turn, formed the intellectual beginning of the 
> Society for Political Methodology.
>
> Political methodology has evolved dramatically since the Society's 
> beginning in the early 1980's.  Causal thinking continues to be at the 
> core of this evolution, which has added important new ways to think 
> about causality, new statistical methods, and new types of data.  A 
> natural part of this evolution is an increased awareness of the 
> limitations of the earlier work, just as future scholarship will add 
> perspective to current topics.  Thus in our view, no one school of 
> social science methodology has a monopoly on the term "causal 
> inference."  Lab and field experiments, natural experiments, and 
> observational studies all have strengths and weaknesses, present 
> different challenges and opportunities, and are a vital part of our 
> methodological tool kit used to study a wide range of political 
> phenomena.
>
> For next summer's Polmeth meetings, we are sure that Don and the 
> selection committee will take a capacious view of how quantitative 
> methods can help us understand and estimate cause and effect in 
> political science, as the Society has always striven to do in setting up 
> those meetings.
>
> John Jackson, Political Science, Michigan
> Chris Achen, Politics, Princeton
>

**********************************************************
             Political Methodology E-Mail List
   Editors: Melanie Goodrich, <[log in to unmask]>
            Delia Bailey, <[log in to unmask]>
**********************************************************
        Send messages to [log in to unmask]
  To join the list, cancel your subscription, or modify
           your subscription settings visit:

          http://polmeth.wustl.edu/polmeth.php

**********************************************************