Establishing causal claims is one of the primary endeavors in sociological
research. Statistical causal inference is a promising way to achieve this
through the potential outcome framework or structural causal models, which are
based on a set of identification assumptions. However, identification
assumptions are often not fully discussed in practice, which harms the validity
of causal claims. In this article, we focus on the unmeasurededness assumption
that assumes no unmeasured confounders in models, which is often violated in
practice. This article reviews a set of papers in two leading sociological
journals to check the practice of causal inference and relevant identification
assumptions, indicating the lack of discussion on sensitivity analysis methods
on unconfoundedness in practice. And then, a blueprint of how to conduct
sensitivity analysis methods on unconfoundedness is built, including six steps
of proper choices on practices of sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impacts
of unmeasured confounders