I generally agree and wholeheartedly emphasize with this critique. The assumptions underpinning a “selection on observables” identification strategy (if you can even call it an id strategy) are very strong,
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Unfortunately, this point cannot be addressed easily. While it would be easy to dismiss all cross-sectional research like this paper, I will hereafter offer my perspective of why this research approach, and thus the present paper, is worthwhile nonetheless.
First, the decision to use causal language despite the weak id strategy is conscious. I think it is the most honest approach to make explicit causal claims in the theory because the theory is causal.
Many authors simply avoid using causal language and depict their research as „descriptive“ to avoid this line of critique. But, if you carefully read their theories, they remain causal (as most theories on the relationship between concepts are).
Substituting “drives” for “associates with”, etc., strikes me as obfuscation. This is why I decidedly use causal language – it is not because I fully believe in the validity of causal id assumptions underpinning the design.
However, I fully agree that causal language should be avoided in the presentation of the empirical results, and I edited the manuscript accordingly (precisely because of the weak identification).
Comments