ABSTRACT
Two general conceptions of causal explanation underpin social and educational research: the natural conception N-explanation and the intentional conception I-explanation. N-explanation incorporates an associated natural conception of causation that construes causal explanation as establishing and accounting for ordered patterns of human behavior on the model of the natural sciences. N-explanation is typically associated with experimental quantitative research methods. By contrast, I-explanation incorporates an associated intentional conception of causation that construes causal explanation as establishing and accounting for ordered patterns of human behavior in terms of norm-governed institutions and practices. I-causation is typically associated with interpretative qualitative research methods. At the level of epistemological paradigms, N-causation is often identified with positivism, which does embrace a particular version, namely, the regularity conception. Humans possess submerged psychological associations that unconsciously trigger responses to certain situations, which, although not natural processes in the way lead poisoning is, seem to better fit N-causation than I-causation.
