Chapter 8: Scoping the Issue
When you are done with this section, you’ll be able to...
Explain the difference between correlation and causation.
Use causal thinking to analyze a social issue and avoid false assumptions when designing an intervention.
Scope a social issue by identifying its contributing factors and negative consequences.
INTRODUCTION
Now that you’ve identified the one and constructed an issue triangle, you can scope your social issue. As you scope, keep in mind that the information gathered during the secondary research stage will better inform your efforts. This chapter will clarify causation from correlation, explain causal thinking, and equip you to identify contributing factors and negative consequences. Each of these elements acts as a tool to increase the productivity of your issue scoping and prepare you to conduct quality research.
WHAT IS SCOPING A SOCIAL ISSUE?
Scoping is a tool for defining the boundaries and specifics of the issue at hand by identifying contributing factors, negative consequences, and additional context related to an issue. This process centers around the specified population, geography, and issue identified in your issue triangle, and is meant to catalog what outside sources are affecting the chosen problem and how the problem is manifesting in that particular community. Gathering this information allows you to “scope” the issue and clarify objectives, ensuring those involved have a clear and consistent understanding of what the work entails. Properly scoping the issue provides crucial context for how future interventions should be implemented and what influences might alter their effectiveness.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CORRELATION AND CAUSATION?
A key part of scoping a social issue is correctly identifying its causes and effects, or causation. Causation is often mistaken for correlation, though the two are quite different. Correlation means that two variables move together and have a loose connection, whereas causation means that one variable is directly producing a change in another. Looking for causation when solving social issues can help you identify variables with a direct cause-and-effect relationship to the problem.
To establish causation, you need all of the following:
- Correlation Between the Variables: The variables must be moving together, implying a relationship.
- Temporal Order: The cause must precede the effect.
- Elimination of Alternatives: Confounders must be ruled out (if other correlated factors are present, that means causation cannot be identified).
- A Plausible Mechanism: A logical reason why one affects the other.
To illustrate the difference between correlation and causation, think of the amusing correlation between shark attacks and ice cream consumption. Although shark attacks and ice cream consumption both occur during the summertime, ice cream consumption has nothing to do with shark attacks.1 Both variables are moving together, proving correlation, but not necessarily causation. In other words, eating ice cream on the beach will not increase your likelihood of being attacked by a shark.
In the same way, not everything happening in the same population or geography of your social issue has a cause-and-effect relationship with your social issue. Some factors may be correlated, but do not necessarily cause the issue.2 Referring to the list of requirements for causation, the factor of ice cream consumption is correlated with shark attacks (the first requirement), but there is no temporal order, elimination of alternatives, or plausible mechanism. As a result, ice cream consumption cannot be proven as a cause of shark attacks.
Mistaking correlation for causation can cause problematic misunderstandings about social issues. In the analogy of shark attacks and ice cream, imagine a social entrepreneur wanting to prevent shark attacks. If this social entrepreneur mistook correlation for causation, he might create an intervention to discourage ice cream consumption. Rather than preventing shark attacks, the social entrepreneur has just created some unhappy beachgoers. Mistaking what is correlated with a social issue for what is causing it can derail an attempt to make a positive impact.
By understanding the clear distinction between correlation and causation, you are able to begin appropriately scoping a social issue and searching for its root causes. Complete this lesson from Khan Academy to learn more about the difference between correlation and causation.3
WHAT IS CAUSAL THINKING IN SOCIAL IMPACT?
Causal thinking refers to the process of identifying and understanding the cause-and-effect relationships within a system.4 Driven by causation, not correlation, this kind of thinking analyzes how certain actions or events (causes) might lead to specific outcomes (effects). Honing this skill enables individuals to better discern which underlying factors, if altered, could drive positive change. The practice of causal thinking can also help those engaged in social impact work anticipate the consequences of different interventions, both positive and negative, thereby facilitating productive brainstorming and meaningful reflection regarding potential solutions.
Causal thinking can act as a vital tool in social impact work when used correctly. By applying causal thinking, practitioners can:
- Identify Root Causes: Determine the fundamental issues driving a social problem and how they interact with their environment, rather than merely recognizing the symptoms.
- Design Effective Interventions: Develop targeted strategies that address an issue’s root causes, leading to more sustainable and impactful solutions.
- Allocate Resources Efficiently: Ensure resources are used effectively by focusing on interventions that address the root cause of a problem.
- Predict Outcomes: Anticipate the potential effects of various interventions, enabling better planning and resource allocation.
- Measure Impact: Evaluate the effectiveness of interventions by linking outcomes to specific actions or policies.
Causal Thinking in Practice:
In approaching the topic of food-related health issues in urban areas like Chicago, causal thinking focuses on how specific conditions directly produce poor health and food access outcomes.5 For example, rather than simply noting that areas with more fast food have higher obesity rates, causal thinking examines how the lack of nearby grocery stores (cause) forces reliance on fast food (effect), contributing to diet-related illness. It also shows how transportation barriers (cause) limit access to healthy options (effect), and how economic instability (cause) reduces individuals’ ability to afford nutritious food (effect).
By understanding these root causes, city planners and community organizations can design targeted interventions like mobile food markets, better public transportation routes to grocery stores, or local urban farming initiatives to improve healthy food access in a sustainable format. This example shows how causal thinking encourages you to consider the cause-and-effect relationships between a problem and the surrounding infrastructure so you can create more promising solutions.
A local government notices that neighborhoods with higher youth crime have fewer after-school programs. They respond by funding new after-school programs, assuming this will reduce crime. Why is it important to confirm causation before they invest? What problems can arise if decisions rely only on correlation?
WHAT ARE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS?
Social issues typically arise from a complex interplay of contributing factors, including economic disparities, institutional barriers, cultural norms, and environmental conditions. Contributing factors are the various elements that play a role in increasing the prevalence or severity of a social problem. Some of these factors may be causal, while many are simply correlational.
As explained earlier in the chapter, it is critical to clarify which factors are merely correlated with an issue and which are directly causing it. Though correlated factors may increase the intensity and complexity of a social issue, they do not necessarily cause it. Causation identifies which contributing factors, if addressed, will directly impact the issue itself: If we can solve these factors, the social issue will be improved. Identifying these factors helps changemakers concentrate their efforts on the root causes.
SPSOs often start by identifying numerous contributing factors for a given issue. Out of the many contributing factors, an SPSO might pick the top three to understand deeply. For example, addressing healthcare disparities may involve prioritizing factors such as inadequate funding for healthcare infrastructure, lack of health education programs, and regulatory barriers to healthcare access. By focusing first on some of the more critical factors, SPSOs can maximize their impact and allocate resources toward interventions with the greatest potential for positive change. Over time, an SPSO might add a wider variety of contributing factors to its focus.
What are some potential contributing factors to childhood obesity in the United States?
After coming up with a few ideas, check out this Ballard Brief: Childhood Obesity in the United States to compare your answers.6
WHAT ARE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES?
Negative consequences are the adverse conditions that affect individuals, families, or communities because of a social issue. These consequences can manifest through economic, social, psychological, and health-related circumstances. In theory, if the social issue were to be solved, all the negative consequences would be taken care of as well. Understanding the negative consequences of an issue is key when gauging the urgency and scale of the problem, as well as informing stakeholders why they should take action.
Before moving forward, you should identify the negative consequences related to your social issue. Looking at the population and geography, specified in your issue triangle, is the best place to start. Why is this issue bad for the community? What is happening as a result of this particular issue? Be careful not to oversimplify negative consequences into general terms that fail to convey the specific impact on individuals. A broad term like “poverty” can be specified even further. What happens because this individual is experiencing poverty? What occurs in the community because of these circumstances? Answering these questions can help you identify some of the unique negative consequences related to your social issue. Being aware of the variety and severity of your issue’s negative consequences can help guide your research and direct your problem-solving efforts.
What are some potential negative consequences of childhood obesity in the United States? After coming up with a few ideas, go back to the Ballard Brief given on the previous page to compare your answers.
SUMMARY
Scoping a social issue involves analyzing the cause-and-effect relationships that shape it. Causal thinking is central to this process because it clarifies the difference between correlation and causation. This ensures that interventions focus on the factors that drive the problem, rather than those that simply surround it. Scoping also requires the identification of both key contributing factors and the issue’s resulting negative consequences. With these insights, organizations can prioritize the more significant factors, enabling them to allocate resources more strategically and increase their overall impact. In this way, effective scoping establishes a strong foundation for meaningful and sustainable social change.
ENDNOTES
1 - Vigen, T. (2015). Spurious correlations. Hachette Books.
2 - Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
3 - Khan Academy. (n.d.). Correlation and causation. Statistics and probability module.
4 - Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225.
5 - Gallagher, M. (2006). Examining the impact of food deserts on public health in Chicago. Mari Gallagher Research & Consulting Group.
6 - Ballard Brief. (n.d.). Childhood obesity in the United States. Brigham Young University, Ballard Center for Social Impact.