Process Tracing Methodology
Responsible: Derek Beach is an Associate Professor at the University of Aarhus. His substantive research has focused upon EU integration, on which he has published one book, an edited volume, and numerous articles and chapters. He has co- authored a book on Process Tracing methodology that will be published in 2012 (University of Michigan Press), and has published several book chapters on Process Tracing.
From: 2012/07/30 to: 2012/08/03
Subscription Deadline: 2012/07/01
Place: University of Aarhus, Denmark
Short description: This course is an introduction to Process Tracing methodology, giving participants a set of practical methodological
tools to utilise the method in their own research. The relative strength of Process Tracing methods is that they enable
us to study causal mechanisms in single case studies. Causal mechanisms are theories that detail how an outcome is
produced.
The course will first introduce the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of the method, followed by a
practical introduction to topics such as how we should conceptualise causal mechanisms in a manner that can be
studied empirically, gathering and evaluating evidence, and case selection strategies. The conclusions will debate the
strengths and limitations of Process Tracing, showing when it can be used, when not, and how it can be combined
with other methods.
The course requires active participation. Most benefit is to be expected if participants are able to use parts of their own
research in the exercises during the course.
This introductory course to Process Tracing aims to give the participant an understanding of the ontological and
epistemological foundations of Process Tracing methods, but most importantly, the aim is to enable the participant to
utilize Process Tracing methods in their own research by providing a set of practical research tools.
In comparison to other research methods such as large-N correlation-based analysis and comparative methods,
process-tracing as a distinct method involves research where, ‘The cause-effect link that connects independent
variable and outcome is unwrapped and divided into smaller steps; then the investigator looks for observable evidence
of each step.’ (Van Evera 1997:64).
The promise of process-tracing as a methodological tool is that it enables the researcher to study more-or-less
directly the causal mechanism(s) linking an independent variable (or set of variables) and an outcome, allowing us to
open up the ‘black box’ of causality itself. A classic example from medical science is scholarship on the association
between smoking and cancer. While a strong empirical correlation had been well established for many years, it was
only recently that medical scientists using techniques analogous to Process Tracing have provided strong proof that a
biological mechanism actually exists that causally links smoking and cancer (Bunge 1997). Within political science
methodology, Process Tracing is arguably the only method that allows us to study causal mechanisms, allowing us to
understand how an X (or set of X’s) produces Y instead of simply studying correlations and associations, and therefore
is an ‘...invaluable method that should be included in every researcher’s repertoire.’ (George and Bennett 2005:224).
The course starts by differentiating Process Tracing from other methods; including both large-n quantitative,
frequentist methods, but also other small-n methods such as analytical narratives, comparative case studies etc. Here
we define Process Tracing by the interest in studying causal mechanisms in single case studies. We discuss the three
overall variants of Process Tracing: theory-testing, theory-builiding, and explaining outcome PT.
This is followed by a session that discusses the ontological and epistemological debates about the nature of
causal mechanisms. Topics include how we should understand causal mechanisms (as intervening variables or
systems) in Process Tracing research, and whether we can directly observe causal mechanisms. Participants will be
asked to discuss the understanding of causality that they adopt in their own research.
Day 2 starts with a session that introduces the Bayesian logic of inference that underpins Process Tracing,
contrasting it with both the frequentist/statistical and comparative logics of inference. Drawing on day 1, we will also
discuss the broader logic of single case research designs, and what types of inferences can be drawn based upon them.
The workshop then turns to the more practical, how-to aspects of Process Tracing, where we will work on translating
an abstract theorized causal mechanism into a set of observable implications that can be empirically assessed. The
second session of Day 2 deals with the theoretical conceptualisation phase, where a theory is developed into a
theorized causal mechanism that can explain how X produces Y. Participants will be asked to translate a theory from
their own research into a theorised causal mechanism.
Day 3 discusses how to operationalised causal mechanisms, in other words, how causal mechanisms can be
studied empirically. Themes that will be introduced include techniques for assessing the strength of the test of the
presence/absence of a particular part of a mechanism, and logics of confirmation and falsification. Participants will be
asked to develop ‘tests’ of the observable implications of the existence of theorized causal mechanism from their own
research. The second session discusses challenges of gathering and working with different types of evidence in
Process Tracing scholarship. We focus upon archival material, elite interviews, and secondary historical sources. This
includes questions such as how should we evaluate bias, what is a ‘good’ source, and how we deal with bias in
secondary historical work.
The first session of Day 4 turns to questions of case selection, and in particular how the strategies differ from
broader case selection research strategies in qualitative methodology. Participants will be asked to discuss the cases
they select in their own research, and why these cases have been chosen. The second session of Day 4 will involve a
workshop where you attempt to apply the guidelines for PT for the different steps of the research process on your own
PhD project.
Day 5 first details the debate about how we can engage in mixed-method research, and in particular how we can
combine the insights gained from a Process Tracing case study with research undertaken using other methods. The
final session will bring together the key themes, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of Process Tracing. In what
research situations can Process Tracing methods be fruitfully employed? When it is inappropriate to use Process
Tracing? How can Process Tracing studies be combined in mixed-methods research designs?
The readings for the course include a forthcoming book authored by Beach and Pedersen, along with central
articles and chapters. It is expected that participants bring draft material from their own research, including a theory
that can be translated into a causal mechanism, along with reflections upon their case selection strategy (which cases
are to be selected?).
Day-to-day schedule
- Week 1
Topic(s) Details [NB : incl. timing of lecture v/s lab or fieldwork etc. hours]
Day 1 Monday Mix (90 min general introduction to the topic)
Introduction to Process Tracing (what it is and what it is not)
What are causal mechanisms? (2nd morning session)
Causal inference and Process Tracing (1st morning session)
Day 2 Working with theories (2nd morning session)
Developing empirical tests (1st morning session)
Day 3 Gathering and working with evidence (2nd morning session)
Case selection and Process Tracing (1st morning session)
Day 4 Process Tracing project (developing a research design)
Combining Process Tracing with other methods (1st morning)
Day 5 Combining Process Tracing with other methods (1st morning)
Using Process Tracing methods in practice (2nd morning)
Day-to-day reading list
- Week 1
Readings (please read at least the compulsory reading for the scheduled day)
Day 1 Monday Morning „Mix“ (introduction)
King, Keohane and Verba (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference
in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 208-230.
Bennett (2008) ‘Process-Tracing: A Bayesian Perspective.’, in Janet M. Box-
Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady and David Collier (eds.) The Oxford Handbook
of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 702-721.
Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapters 1 and 2.
Blatter and Blume (2008) ‘In Search of Co-variance, Causal Mechanisms or
Congruence? Towards a Plural Understanding of Case Studies.’, Swiss Political
Science Review, 14(2): 315-356.
2nd Morning (causal mechanisms)
Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 3.
Gerring (2010) ‘Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But...’, Comparative Political Studies,
43(11): 1499-1526.
Hedström and Ylikoski (2010) ‘Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences.’,
Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 49-67.
Day 2, 1st Morning (causal inference)
King, Keohane and Verba (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference
in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 75-99.
Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 5.
Howson and Urbach (2006) Scientific Reasoning: the Bayesian Approach.
Third Edition. La Salle, Il: Open Court. Chapter 4.
2nd Morning (working with theories)
Adcock and Collier (2001) ‘Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for
Qualitative and Quantitative Research.’, American Political Science Review,
Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 529–546.
Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 4.
Owen (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.’, International
Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 1994) pp. 87-125).
Day 3, 1st Morning (empirical tests)
Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 6.
Tannenwald (1999) ‘The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the
Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use’, International Organization, 53(3): 433-
468.
2nd Morning (gathering and working with evidence)
Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 7.
Lustick (1996) ’History, Historiography and Political Science.’, APSR, 90(3),
pp. 605-618.
Trachtenberg (2006) The Craft of International History. Princeton: Princeton
University Press. Chapter 5.
Tonsey (2007) ‘Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-
probability Sampling.’, PS, 40(4): 765-772.
Day 4, 1st Morning (case selection)
Gerring (2007) Case Study Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 86-150.
Lieberman (2005) ‘Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for
Comparative Research.’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No. 3, pp.
435-451.
Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 8.
2nd Morning (work on research project) – no readings
Day 5, 1st Morning (combining methods)
Rohlfing, Ingo (2008) ‘What You See and What You Get: Pitfalls and Principles
of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research.’, Comparative Political Studies,
41(11): 1492-1514.
Khong (1992) Analogies at War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.
47-68, 97-147 (skim the later selection).
2nd Morning (using PT in practice) – no readings
Requested prior knowledge
Some background knowledge of qualitative case study methods will be helpful, in particular the debate between
scholars who argue that there is only one logic of scientific inquiry (e.g. King, Keohane and Verba, 1994) and
qualitative scholars who contend that there are important differences between quantitative and qualitative methods
(e.g. George and Bennett, 2005; Brady and Collier, 2010; Mahoney, 2008). If you are unfamiliar with these debates, I
would suggest skimming the chapters in the Brady and Collier edited volume (in particular chapters 1, 2, 9).
Software used
None
Literature
Beyond the above course literature, the following are cited above.
Brady, Henry E. & David Collier (eds.) (2010) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Second
Edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield.
George, Alexander L. & Bennett, Andrew (2005) Case studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences
Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press.
Mahoney, James (2008) ‘Toward a Unified Theory of Causality.’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4/5,
pp. 412-436.
Lecture room requirement
A seminar room that is conducive to extensive discussions with participants is preferred over a traditional
lecture room. A blackboard or whiteboard along with Powerpoint is mandatory.