King, Keohane and Verba (KKV) argue that the aim of our research should be description or explanation. But why we can’t use both? I would argue that in our research we should combine both descriptive and causal inference (if it is possible). But then another question rises - how much of our research should be devoted to descriptive and how much to causal inference? However, on the same page they argue that causal inference is impossible without good descriptive inference, and also descriptive inference alone is unsatisfying and incomplete. But than I have another question – can we use causal inference in all kind of studies? Authors point to the fundamental problem that despite how brilliant our research is we will never know a causal inference for certain. But nevertheless I think we may argue that the causal inference is “present”.…
