The article asks whether constructivist qualitative researchers have anything to offer policymakers who expect researchers to tell them what works. The first part of the article addresses philosophical objections to characterizing the social world in cause/effect terms. Specifically, it considers whether it is legitimate for qualitative researchers who claim to be employing a constructivist research paradigm to even attempt to provide the sort of simplified causal explanations that policy makers normally expect. The second part of the article takes a more empirical tack by focusing on three recent evaluation studies in which funders wanted to learn what types of programs they should support to produce desired results. The underlying question in this part of the article is pragmatic: Even if there is no paradigmatic prohibition against attempting to answer policymakers' what-works question, are constructivist qualitative researchers able to answer policymakers' bottom-line question in a defensible way? (Contains 2 notes.)