Teaching Insight: Priors, Positionality, and the Limits of Our Certainty

By Ashley Simpson

We tend to think of causal inference as a set of technical tools: instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, and randomization. But sometimes the more difficult challenge is not methodological, but getting students to ask the uncomfortable question: am I reasoning toward a conclusion I already hold?

The Politics of Finance reflection assignment asks students to begin there. Before engaging with any evidence, they must state their prior: what do I believe, why do I believe it, and what would have to change for me to think differently? Public debates rarely begin from neutral ground, and acknowledging our personal biases is necessary for honest analysis. We all occupy a position that shapes how we interpret the world, and responsible analysis requires the ability to first acknowledge it and then articulate it.

The causal scrutiny section then asks students to turn that same critical eye onto the policy itself. Policymakers often make strong causal claims about their interventions, but the relationship between policy and outcome is rarely so straightforward. By identifying what could make a claimed relationship misleading — endogeneity, selection bias, or confounding variables — students become more critical consumers of policy arguments. Topics this semester ranged from corporate sustainability reporting directives and their effects on environmental performance and transparency, to inheritance and capital gains taxes to rent freezes, and proposed vacancy taxes on empty housing. That breadth reflects the assignment's core premise: these tools of critical reasoning apply wherever causal claims are made. Applying these tools to make sense of the world, ultimately, is the mission behind our teaching at the Institute for International Political Economy.

Sign up for our mailing list for regular updates from the Institute. You can find the Subscription form here: Subscribe to the newsletter.