Search results

Building on a Lakatosian approach that sees Social Science as an endeavour that confronts rival theories with systematic empirical observations, this article responds to probing questions that have been raised about the appropriate ways in which to conduct systematic process analysis and comparative enquiry. It explores varieties of process tracing, the role of interpretation in case studies, and the relationship between process tracing and comparative historical analysis. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractProcess tracing is a fundamental tool of qualitative analysis. This method is often invoked by scholars who carry out within-case analysis based on qualitative data, yet frequently it is neither adequately understood nor rigorously applied. This deficit motivates this article, which offers a new framework for carrying out process tracing. The reformulation integrates discussions of process tracing and causal-process observations, gives greater attention to description as a key contribution, and emphasizes the causal sequence in which process-tracing observations can be situated. In the current period of major innovation inquantitativetools for causal inference, this reformulation is part of a wider, parallel effort to achieve greater systematization ofqualitativemethods. A key point here is that these methods can add inferential leverage that is often lacking in quantitative analysis. This article is accompanied by online teaching exercises, focused on four examples from American politics, two from comparative politics, three from international relations, and one from public health/epidemiology.

This contribution develops process tracing (PT) as a method for Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). It explains what it takes to conduct PT, trace a mechanism, and draw conclusions on that basis. Importantly, I lay out an analyticist approach to PT that is amendable to more actor-centered and interpretivist studies. This approach treats mechanisms as akin to Weberian ideal types: abstract constructs that are adduced from multiple concrete, contextually embedded, and largely idiosyncratic instantiations. This creates space for agency and contingency and allows us to a) study how a mechanism or concatenation of mechanisms led to a particular outcome; b) assess how the mechanism(s) functioned in a given context; and c) abstract from the specific instantiation(s) more general propositions about foreign policy making. In an empirical example of state employment of Private Military and Security Contractors, drawing on interpretivist and narrative-based understandings of FPA, I illustrate what this means in practice.

Wir möchten mit diesem Artikel zur methodologischen Diskussion über die Eignung qualitativer Methoden für spezifische Zwecke beitragen, indem wir die Rolle der extrahierenden qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse in der Entdeckung kausaler Mechanismen diskutieren. Die empirische Identifizierung kausaler Mechanismen wird in der methodologischen Literatur als Process Tracing bezeichnet. Allerdings wird die Literatur durch die Idee dominiert, Process Tracing würde das Vorhandensein eines hypothetischen Mechanismus testen. Wir betonen dagegen die Entdeckung kausaler Mechanismen auf der Basis einer kausalen Rekonstruktion, wie sie von MAYNTZ (2009 [2002], 2016) vorgeschlagen wurde. Wir identifizieren die extrahierende qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als eine distinkte qualitative Methode und spezifizieren ihr Ergebnis als eine strukturierte Informationsbasis, die für die Rekonstruktion sozialer Situationen und Prozesse genutzt werden kann. Eine solche Informationsbasis ist ein wichtiger Ausgangspunkt für die Kausalanalyse. Wir demonstrieren die Rolle der extrahierenden qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse an einer empirischen Studie von LAUDEL und BIELICK (2018), in der die Mechanismen identifiziert wurden, die zur Entstehung individueller Forschungsprogramme von Nachwuchswissenschaftler_innen führen.