Causal Claims in Contribution Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.75428Keywords:
Contribution Analysis, causality, causal claims, counterfactual causation, generative causation, INUS, probabilistic causation, John MayneAbstract
This article is a tribute to John Mayne’s work on Contribution Analysis. It focuses on the causal claims Contribution Analysis aims to address, and on how these have evolved since the approach was first published by John in 1999. It first sets out four types of causality with relevance for Contribution Analysis: counterfactual, generative, INUS, and probabilistic causation. It then describes how John integrated the INUS condition and probabilistic elements into the Contribution Analysis approach, followed by how John’s thinking evolved regarding the question of whether the approach could—and should—also address counterfactual questions. The article concludes with observations on how Contribution Analysis can flexibly integrate elements from different causality types.
References
Astbury, B., & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363–381.
Causality. (2022, March 19). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Department for International Development. Working Paper 38. Department for International Development.
Eureval-C3E. (2006). Study on the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in EC’s evaluations. Retrieved from https://vdocuments.net/download/study-on-the-use-of-cost-effectiveness-analysis-in-ecs-evaluations
Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (Eds.). (2007). Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hart, H. L. A., & Honoré, T. (2002). Causation in the law (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hitchcock, C. (2022, March 19). Probabilistic causation. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/
Illary, P., & Russo, F. (2014). Causality: Philosophical theory meets scientific practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kleinberg, S. (2013). Causality, probability, and time. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Leeuw, F. L. (2023). John Mayne and rules of thumb for contribution analysis: A comparison with two related approaches. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 37(3), 403–421.
Lemire, S., Kwako, A., Nielsen, S. B., Christie C. A., Donaldson, S. I., & Leeuw F. L. (2020). What is this thing called a mechanism? Findings from a review of realist evaluations. New Directions for Evaluation, 167, 73–86.
Lemire, S. T., Nielsen, S. B., Dybdal, L. (2012). Making contribution analysis work: A practical framework for handling influencing factors and alternative explanations. Evaluation, 18(3), 294–309.
Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(17), 556–567.
Lewis, D. (1986). Philosophical papers: Volume II. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2(4), 245–264.
Mackie, J. L. (1980). The cement of the universe: A study of causation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mahoney, J. (2008). Toward a unified theory of causality. Comparative Political Studies 41(4/5), 412–436.
Mayne, J. (1999). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly. Discussion paper. Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Retrieved from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/FA3-31-1999E.pdf
Mayne, J. (2001). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), 1–24.
Mayne, J. (2008). Contribution analysis: An approach to exploring cause and effect. ILAC Brief 16. The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
Mayne, J. (2011). Contribution analysis: Addressing cause and effect. In K. Forss, M. Marra, & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Evaluating the complex: Attribution, Contribution and beyond (pp. 53–96). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mayne, J. (2012a). Contribution analysis: Coming of age? Evaluation, 18(3), 270–280.
Mayne, J. (2012b). Making causal claims. ILAC Brief 26. The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
Mayne, J. (2019a). Assessing the relative importance of causal factors. CDI Practice Paper 21. Centre for Development Impact.
Mayne, J. (2019b). A brief on contribution analysis: Principles and concepts. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331159324_A_BRIEF_ON_CONTRIBUTION_ANALYSIS_PRINCIPLES_AND_CONCEPTS
Mayne, J. (2019c). Revisiting contribution analysis. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 34(2), 171–191.
Mayne, J. (2021a). Contribution analysis and the long-term perspective. Challenges and opportunities. In K. Forss, I. Lindkvist, & M. McGillivray (Eds.), Long term perspectives in evaluation: Increasing relevance and utility (pp. 46–68). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mayne, J. (2021b). Realistic commissioning of impact evaluations: Getting what you ask for? In M. Palenberg, & A. Paulson (Eds.), The realpolitik of evaluation: Why demand and supply rarely intersect (pp. 151–164). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mayne, J., & Stern, E. (2013). Impact evaluation of natural resource management research programs: a broader view. ACIAR Impact Assessment Series 84. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).
Moore, M. S. (2010). Causation and responsibility: An essay in law, morals and metaphysics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, S. L. (Ed.). (2014). Handbook of causal analysis for social research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Mumford, S., & Anjum, R. L. (2014). Causation: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, S. B., Lemire, S., & Montague, S. (2023). Remembering John Mayne—A practical thinker and a thinking practitioner. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 37(3), 297–305.
Palenberg, M. (2011). Tools and methods for evaluating the efficiency of development interventions. Evaluation Working Papers. Bonn, Germany: Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung.
Paul, L. A., & Hall, N. (2013). Causation: A user’s guide. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2012). A utilization-focused approach to contribution analysis. Evaluation, 18(3), 364–377.
Pawson, R. (2008). Causality for beginners. Retrieved from https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/245/1/Causality_for_Beginners_Dec_07.doc
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London, UK: SAGE.
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, J., Glymour, M., & Jewell, N. P. (2016). Causal inference in statistics: A primer. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. New York, NY: Basic Books, Hachette Book Group.
Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sandahl, R., & Petersson, G. J. (2016). Kausalitet i filosofi, politik och utvärdering. Lund, Sweden: Studenterlitteratur.
Schmitt, J. (2020). The causal mechanism claim in evaluation: Does the prophecy fulfill? In J. Schmitt (Ed.), Special Issue: Casual Mechanisms in Program Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, (167), 11–26.
Stern, E., Stame, N., Mayne, J., Forss, K., Davies, R., & Befani B. (2012). Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluation. Report of a study commissioned by the
Ton, G., Mayne, J., Delahais, T., Morell, J., Befani, B., Apgar, M., & O’Flynn, P. (2019). Contribution analysis and estimating the size of effects: Can we reconcile the possible with the impossible? CDI Practice Paper 20. Centre for Development Impact.
Waldmann, M. R. (Ed.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of causal reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Weller, N., & Barnes, J. (2014). Finding pathways: Mixed-method research for studying causal mechanisms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayne, J. (2021b). Realistic commissioning of impact evaluations: Getting what you ask for? In M. Palenberg, & A. Paulson (Eds.), The realpolitik of evaluation: Why demand and supply rarely intersect (pp. 151–164). New York, NY: Routledge.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Markus A. Palenberg
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 (CC-BY-NC) license. This licence allows this work to be copied, distributed, remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose provided that appropriate attribution is given, a link is provided to the license, and changes made were indicated.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
