An integrative paradigm for building causal knowledge

IF 7.1 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
James B. Grace
{"title":"An integrative paradigm for building causal knowledge","authors":"James B. Grace","doi":"10.1002/ecm.1628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A core aspiration of the ecological sciences is to determine how systems work, which implies the challenge of developing a causal understanding. Causal inference has long been approached from a statistical perspective, which can be limited and restrictive for a variety of reasons. Ecologists and other natural scientists have historically pursued mechanistic knowledge as an alternative approach to causal understanding, though without explicit reference to the requirements of causal statistics. In this paper, I describe the premises of an expanded paradigm for causal studies, the Integrative Causal Investigation Paradigm, that subsumes causal statistics and mechanistic investigation into a multi-evidence approach. This paradigm is distinct from the one articulated by causal statistics in that it (1) focuses its attention on the long-term goal of building causal knowledge across multiple studies and (2) recognizes the essential role of mechanistic investigations in establishing a causal understanding. The Integrative Paradigm, consequentially, proposes that there are multiple methodological routes to building causal knowledge and thus represents a pluralistic perspective. This paper begins by describing the crux of the problem faced by causal statistics. To understand this problem, it should be recognized that the word <i>causal</i> has multiple meanings and a variety of evidential standards. An expanded vocabulary is developed so as to reduce ambiguities and clarify critical issues. I further show by example that there is an important ingredient typically omitted from consideration in causal statistics, which is the known information related to the mechanisms underlying relationships being evaluated. To address this issue, I describe a procedure, Causal Knowledge Analysis, that involves an evaluation and compilation of existing evidence indicative of causal content and the features of mechanisms. Causal Knowledge Analysis is applied to three example situations to illustrate the process and its potential for contributing to the development of causal knowledge. The implications of adopting the proposed paradigm and associated procedures are discussed and include the potential for advancing ecology, the potential for clarifying causal methodology, and the potential for contributing to predictive forecasting.</p>","PeriodicalId":11505,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Monographs","volume":"94 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecm.1628","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecm.1628","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A core aspiration of the ecological sciences is to determine how systems work, which implies the challenge of developing a causal understanding. Causal inference has long been approached from a statistical perspective, which can be limited and restrictive for a variety of reasons. Ecologists and other natural scientists have historically pursued mechanistic knowledge as an alternative approach to causal understanding, though without explicit reference to the requirements of causal statistics. In this paper, I describe the premises of an expanded paradigm for causal studies, the Integrative Causal Investigation Paradigm, that subsumes causal statistics and mechanistic investigation into a multi-evidence approach. This paradigm is distinct from the one articulated by causal statistics in that it (1) focuses its attention on the long-term goal of building causal knowledge across multiple studies and (2) recognizes the essential role of mechanistic investigations in establishing a causal understanding. The Integrative Paradigm, consequentially, proposes that there are multiple methodological routes to building causal knowledge and thus represents a pluralistic perspective. This paper begins by describing the crux of the problem faced by causal statistics. To understand this problem, it should be recognized that the word causal has multiple meanings and a variety of evidential standards. An expanded vocabulary is developed so as to reduce ambiguities and clarify critical issues. I further show by example that there is an important ingredient typically omitted from consideration in causal statistics, which is the known information related to the mechanisms underlying relationships being evaluated. To address this issue, I describe a procedure, Causal Knowledge Analysis, that involves an evaluation and compilation of existing evidence indicative of causal content and the features of mechanisms. Causal Knowledge Analysis is applied to three example situations to illustrate the process and its potential for contributing to the development of causal knowledge. The implications of adopting the proposed paradigm and associated procedures are discussed and include the potential for advancing ecology, the potential for clarifying causal methodology, and the potential for contributing to predictive forecasting.

Abstract Image

构建因果知识的综合范式
生态科学的一个核心愿望是确定系统是如何运作的,这意味着对因果关系的理解是一个挑战。长期以来,因果推断一直是从统计角度出发的,但由于种种原因,这种方法可能具有局限性和限制性。生态学家和其他自然科学家历来追求机械论知识,将其作为因果理解的另一种方法,尽管没有明确提及因果统计的要求。在本文中,我描述了一种扩展的因果研究范式--"综合因果调查范式"--的前提条件,它将因果统计和机理调查归纳为一种多证据方法。该范式有别于因果统计所阐述的范式,因为它(1)将注意力集中在通过多项研究建立因果知识的长期目标上,(2)承认机理调查在建立因果理解中的重要作用。因此,"整合范式 "提出了建立因果知识的多种方法论途径,因而代表了一种多元化视角。本文首先描述了因果统计所面临问题的症结所在。要理解这个问题,就应认识到因果一词有多重含义和多种证据标准。为了减少歧义并澄清关键问题,我们需要扩充词汇。我进一步举例说明,在因果统计中通常会忽略一个重要因素,即与被评估关系的基础机制有关的已知信息。为了解决这个问题,我描述了一个程序--因果知识分析,其中包括对表明因果内容和机制特征的现有证据进行评估和汇编。因果知识分析法适用于三个示例情况,以说明该过程及其促进因果知识发展的潜力。讨论了采用拟议范式和相关程序的意义,包括推动生态学发展的潜力、澄清因果关系方法的潜力以及促进预测预报的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecological Monographs
Ecological Monographs 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The vision for Ecological Monographs is that it should be the place for publishing integrative, synthetic papers that elaborate new directions for the field of ecology. Original Research Papers published in Ecological Monographs will continue to document complex observational, experimental, or theoretical studies that by their very integrated nature defy dissolution into shorter publications focused on a single topic or message. Reviews will be comprehensive and synthetic papers that establish new benchmarks in the field, define directions for future research, contribute to fundamental understanding of ecological principles, and derive principles for ecological management in its broadest sense (including, but not limited to: conservation, mitigation, restoration, and pro-active protection of the environment). Reviews should reflect the full development of a topic and encompass relevant natural history, observational and experimental data, analyses, models, and theory. Reviews published in Ecological Monographs should further blur the boundaries between “basic” and “applied” ecology. Concepts and Synthesis papers will conceptually advance the field of ecology. These papers are expected to go well beyond works being reviewed and include discussion of new directions, new syntheses, and resolutions of old questions. In this world of rapid scientific advancement and never-ending environmental change, there needs to be room for the thoughtful integration of scientific ideas, data, and concepts that feeds the mind and guides the development of the maturing science of ecology. Ecological Monographs provides that room, with an expansive view to a sustainable future.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信