Jump to content

Process tracing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thenightaway (talk | contribs) at 01:43, 11 March 2021 (study). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Process tracing is a method used to explain change and causation, and to evaluate and develop theories in the social sciences.[1] It is generally understood as a "within-case" method to draw inferences on the basis of causal mechanisms.[2][3] It has been used in psychology,[4] political science,[5] and usability studies.

Process Tracing in Political Science

Process-tracing can be used both for inductive (theory-generating) and deductive (theory-testing) purposes.[3]

In terms of theory-testing, the process-tracing method works by presenting the observable implications (hypotheses) of a theory, as well as alternative explanations that are inconsistent with the theory. Once these observable implications are presented, they are then tested empirically to see which of the observable implications can be observed and which cannot.[1][6] Process-tracing emphasizes the temporal sequence of events, and requires fine-grained case knowledge.[1]

Stephen Van Evera's influential typology of process-tracing tests distinguishes tests depending on how they adjudicate between theoretical expectations[3][7]:

  • Straw-in-the-wind tests: Failure or passage of this test neither lends strong support for or against the theory
  • Hoop tests: Failure to pass a hoop test can be disqualifying for a theory but passing the the hoop test does not necessarily lend strong support for the theory
  • Smoking gun tests: Passing a smoking gun test lends strong support for theory, whereas failure does not necessarily lend strong support against the theory
  • Double decisive tests: Passing a double decisive test lends strong support for the theory while also lending strong support against alternative theories

It is often used to complement comparative case study methods. By tracing the causal process from the independent variable of interest to the dependent variable, it may be possible to rule out potentially intervening variables in imperfectly matched cases. This can create a stronger basis for attributing causal significance to the remaining independent variables.[8]

A limitation to process-tracing is the problem of infinite regress.[9][10] While some influential works by methods scholars have argued that the ability of process-tracing to make causal claims is limited by low degrees of freedom,[11] methodologists widely reject that the "degrees of freedom" problem applies to research that uses process-tracing, given that qualitative research entails different logics than quantitative research (where scholars do need to wary of degrees of freedom).[9][3]

One advantage to process-tracing over quantitative methods is that process-tracing provides inferential leverage.[1] In addition to aiding uncovering and testing causal mechanisms, process-tracing also contributes descriptive richness.[1]

By assigning probabilities to outcomes under specific conditions, scholars can use Bayesian rules in their process tracing to draw robust conclusions about the causes of outcomes.[12][13][3] For example, if a scholar's theory assumes that a number of observable implications will happen under certain conditions, then the repeated occurrence of those outcomes under the theorized conditions lends strong support for the scholar's theory because the observed outcomes would be improbable to occur in the manner expected by the scholar if the theory were false.[12] By using Bayesian probability, it may be possible to makes strong causal inferences from a small sliver of data.[3] For example, a video recording of a person committing a bank robbery can be very strong evidence that a particular person committed the robbery while also ruling out that other potential suspects did it, even if it is only a single piece of evidence.[3]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Collier, David (2011). "Understanding Process Tracing". PS: Political Science & Politics. 44 (4): 823–830. doi:10.1017/s1049096511001429. ISSN 1049-0965.
  2. ^ Jacobs, Alan M.; Büthe, Tim; Arjona, Ana; Arriola, Leonardo R.; Bellin, Eva; Bennett, Andrew; Björkman, Lisa; Bleich, Erik; Elkins, Zachary; Fairfield, Tasha; Gaikwad, Nikhar (2021). "The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications". Perspectives on Politics. Supplementary materials, Pt 2: 1–38. doi:10.1017/S1537592720001164. ISSN 1537-5927.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Bennett, Andrew (2008). "Process Tracing: a Bayesian Perspective". The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199286546-e-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M.; Kühberger, A.; Ranyard, R., eds. (2011). A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research: A Critical Review and User's Guide. New York: Taylor & Francis.
  5. ^ Ford, J. Kevin; Schmitt, Neal; Schechtman, Susan L.; Hults, Brian M.; Doherty, Mary L. (1989). "Process Tracing Methods: Contributions, Problems, and Neglected Research Questions". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 43 (1): 75–117. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90059-9.
  6. ^ King, Gary; Keohane, Robert O.; Verba, Sidney. Designing Social Inquiry.
  7. ^ Van Evera, Stephen (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Cornell University Press. doi:10.7591/j.ctvrf8bm7. ISBN 978-0-8014-5444-8.
  8. ^ George, Alexander L.; Bennett, Andrew (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. London: MIT Press. pp. 214–15. ISBN 0-262-57222-2.
  9. ^ a b Bennett, Andrew (2010). "Process Tracing and Causal Inference" in Rethinking social inquiry diverse tools, shared standards. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-0343-3. OCLC 787870333.
  10. ^ Verghese, Ajay (2020-02-24). "Who's Afraid of Infinite Regress? A Process-Tracing Exercise". Rochester, NY. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  11. ^ King, Gary; Keohane, Robert O.; Verba, Sidney (1994). Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 86. doi:10.1515/9781400821211. ISBN 978-1-4008-2121-1.
  12. ^ a b Humphreys, Macartan; Jacobs, Alan M. (2015). "Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach". American Political Science Review. 109 (4): 654. doi:10.1017/s0003055415000453. ISSN 0003-0554.
  13. ^ Fairfield, Tasha; Charman, Andrew E. (2017). "Explicit Bayesian Analysis for Process Tracing: Guidelines, Opportunities, and Caveats". Political Analysis. 25 (3): 363–380. doi:10.1017/pan.2017.14. ISSN 1047-1987.

Further reading

  • Bennett, A. and A.L. George (2001). "Case Studies and Process Tracing in History and Political Science: Similar Strokes for Different Foci" in C. Elman and M.F. Elman (eds.) Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press pp. 137–166.
  • Checkel. J. T. (2006) "Tracing Causal Mechanisms." The International Studies Review, Vol. 8: 362-370.
  • Checkel, J. T. (2008) "Process Tracing." in A. Klotz and D. Prakash (eds.) Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, Palgrave: Macmillan, pp. 114–129.
  • Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & Cognition, 17, 759-769. doi: 10.3758/BF03202637
  • Stieger, S., & Reips, U.-D. (2010). What are participants doing while filling in an online questionnaire: A paradata collection tool and an empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1488-1495.
  • Vennesson, P. and I. Wiesner (2014) "Process Tracing in Case Studies." in J. Soeters, P. Shields and S Reitjens (eds) Routledge Handbook ofj Research Methods in Military Studies New York: Routledge. pp. 92–103.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_tracing&oldid=1011467170"