We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Durham Research Online
You are in:

Where is the rigor when you need it?

Cartwright, N. (2016) 'Where is the rigor when you need it?', Foundations and trends® in accounting., 10 (2-4). pp. 106-124.


When it comes to causal conclusions, rigor matters. To this end we impose high standards for how studies from which we draw causal conclusions are conducted. For instance, we are widely urged to prefer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or instrumental variable (IV) models to observational studies relying just on correlations, and we have explicit criteria for what counts as a good RCT or a good IV model. But we tend to be shockingly sloppy when it comes to making explicit just what the causal conclusions we draw mean, why the methods we employ are good for establishing conclusions with just that meaning, and what can defensibly be taken to follow from these claims. With respect to what can be inferred from the limited causal conclusions our studies support, we are far too prone to over reach, to ‘generalize’ that what holds in a study or handful of studies holds widely. But, I shall argue, we do not get arrant for general claims by generalizing. Rather it takes a great tangle of scientific work to support a general claim, including a great deal of conceptual development, theory and the confirmation of a variety of different kinds of effects that the general claim implies.

Item Type:Article
Additional Information:Special Issue on Causal Inferences in Capital Markets Research
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
Publisher Web site:
Date accepted:15 September 2015
Date deposited:13 July 2017
Date of first online publication:17 August 2016
Date first made open access:No date available

Save or Share this output

Look up in GoogleScholar