ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription to the ECPR Methods School offers and updates newsletter has been successful.

Discover ECPR's Latest Methods Course Offerings

We use Brevo as our email marketing platform. By clicking below to submit this form, you acknowledge that the information you provided will be transferred to Brevo for processing in accordance with their terms of use.

Process Tracing Methodology in Practice

Course Dates and Times

Monday 5 Friday 9 August
Morning session 9:00–12:30
Afternoon session 14:00–16:30
(ending slightly earlier on Friday)

 

Derek Beach

derek@ps.au.dk

Aarhus Universitet

This hands-on Workshop Course provides you with the methodological tools to refine your use of process-tracing methods in your own substantive research, while enabling you to embed process-tracing case studies in mixed-methods research design. The course requires very active participation.

I will assume that you have taken previous courses on process tracing and/or in-depth case study methods.

In advance of the Workshop, I will ask you submit a theorised causal mechanism and at least one proposition about an observable that a part of the mechanism might leave in a case.

Morning sessions will be devoted to lectures and discussions about key methodological issues; during afternoon sessions we will discuss particular aspects of participants' projects.

ECTS Credits for this course


Instructor Bio

Derek Beach is a professor of Political Science at Aarhus University.

He has authored articles, chapters, and books on case study research methodology, international negotiations, referendums, and European integration, and co-authored Process-tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines (University of Michigan Press).

Derek has taught qualitative case study methods at ECPR, IPSA and ICPSR summer and winter schools, and numerous workshops and seminars on qualitative methods throughout the world. He is an academic co-convenor of the ECPR Methods School.

  @beach_methodman

This hands-on Workshop Course provides you with the methodological tools to refine your use of process-tracing methods in your own substantive research, while enabling you to embed process-tracing case studies in mixed-methods research design. The course requires very active participation.

Morning sessions will be devoted to lectures and discussions about key methodological issues; during afternoon sessions we will discuss particular aspects of participants’ projects, including theories of causal mechanisms and how we can develop testable predictions about evidence that the activities associated with parts of mechanisms might leave in a given case.

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 a cause (or set of causes) and an outcome, allowing us to open up the ‘black box’ of causality itself.

By unpacking causal mechanisms into their constituent parts, composed of entities engaging in activities, and then tracing the empirical manifestations these activities leave in actual cases, we are able to collect what has been termed mechanistic evidence upon which we can make causal inferences about how causal mechanisms actually work (Craver and Darden, 2013; Machamer, Darden and Craver, 2000; Machamer, 2004).

Strong causal inferences about the effect a cause has on an outcome are naturally only possible when we use evidence of difference-making that is produced through experimental manipulation across cases (Woodward, 2003).

However, when we use mechanistic evidence to make causal inferences, we are using observational, within-case evidence to make causal inferences about the actual operation of mechanisms in real world cases (Russo and Williamson, 2007; Illari, 2011; Waskan, 2011).

In other words, instead of studying causal effects we are studying how things work.

In the first morning session, we discuss how to differentiate process tracing from other methods; including large-n quantitative 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 within single cases in ways that enable within-case causal inferences to be made.

We discuss the four variants of process tracing: theory testing, theory building, theoretical revision, and explaining outcome process tracing. This is followed by an in-depth look at the ontological underpinnings of process tracing in the second session of Day 1, and the full session of Day 2, focusing on how to understand causal mechanisms and how they differ from other types of causal theorisation.

In the Day 3 morning session, we discuss how inferences can be made using mechanistic evidence, focusing on how to operationalise theories of mechanisms using informal Bayesian logic. On Day 4, in a joint session with the Historical Methods course, we discuss challenges relating to the evaluation of evidence. On Day 5 we turn to questions of case selection and mixed/multi-methods.

The afternoon sessions on Days 1 and 2 will be devoted to presentation and discussion of participants’ theories of causal mechanisms. During the afternoon sessions on Days 3 and 4, participants will present and discuss observable manifestations of the activities of parts of mechanisms. On the afternoon of Day 5, we will discuss why participants chose particular cases.

 

 

You must already be using in-depth case study methods in your current research project (PhD, postdoc or other), and advanced enough in your research to have clear theoretical conjectures about processes, and ideas about potential empirical observations, that can be worked with during the course.

You must be familiar with the recent (post-2010) literature on case study methods, and with basic concepts related to process-tracing methods. In particular, you should have basic knowledge of debates about causal mechanisms and empirical tests, and how they are used in case studies. If you don't yet have this knowledge, take Introduction to Process Tracing Methodology.

I require submission before the course of a theorised causal mechanism and empirical proposition. I will provide information about this well in advance of the course.

Day Topic Details
1 Morning: what is process tracing? Afternoon: presentations of mechanisms

Morning session 9:00 – 12:30
Afternoon session 14:00 – 16:30

2 Morning: what are causal mechanisms? Afternoon: presentations of mechanisms

Morning session 9:00 – 12:30
Afternoon session 14:00 – 16:30

3 Morning: operationalisation Afternoon: presentation of empirical tests

Morning session 9:00 – 12:30
Afternoon session 14:00 – 16:30

4 Morning: evaluating evidence Afternoon: presentation of empirical tests

Morning session 9:00 – 12:30
Afternoon session 14:00 – 16:30

5 Morning: case selection Afternoon: presentation of case selection

Morning session 9:00 – 12:30
Afternoon session 14:00 – 16:00

Day Readings
1

Morning session, 9.00–12.30 – Introduction

  • Beach and Pedersen (2019) Process-tracing methods. 2nd Edition, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 1 on causation, Chapters 8-10 on process-tracing.
  • Clarke, B., D. Gillies, Phyllis Illari, Federica Russo, Jon Williamson. 2014. Mechanisms and the Evidence Hierarchy. Topoi, 33(2): 339-360.
  • Russo, F. and Williamson. 2011. Generic versus single-case causality: the case of autopsy. European Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 1(1): 47-69.
2
 

Morning session, 9.00–12.30 – Conceptualising causal mechanisms

  • Beach and Pedersen (2019) Process-tracing methods. 2nd Edition, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapters 2 and 3.
  • Machamer, Peter. 2004. Activities and Causation: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Mechanisms. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18(1): 27-39.
  • Illari, Phyllis and Jon Williamson. 2013. In Defense of Activities. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 44 (1): 69-83.
3

Morning session, 9.00–12.30 – Operationalisation – basic principles

Beach and Pedersen (2019) Process-tracing methods. 2nd Edition, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 5.

4

Morning session, 9.00–12.30 – Evaluating evidence

  • Beach and Pedersen (2019) Process-tracing methods. 2nd Edition, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapters 6, 7.
  • Course packet on Cuban Missile Crisis (to be provided)
5

Morning session, 9.00–12.30 – Mixed methods?

Literature

See daily schedule.

Supplemental

Brady, Henry E. and David Collier (eds), 2010
Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools Shared Standards
2nd Edition. Lanham MD: Rowman Littlefield

Bunge, Mario, 2004
How Does It Work? The Search for Explanatory Mechanisms
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34(2): 182–210

Cartwright, Nancy, 2007
Hunting Causes and Using Them: Approaches in Philosophy and Economics
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Central Intelligence Agency, 1968
Intelligence Report – Bayes’ Theorem in the Korean War
July 1968, No. 0605/68. (approved for release date April 2005)

Craver and Darden, 2013
In Search of Mechanisms
Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Doyle, A. Conan, 1975
The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes
London: George Newnes

Fairfield, Tasha and Andrew E. Charman, 2017
Explicit Bayesian Analysis for Process Tracing: Guidelines, Opportunities, and Caveats
Political Analysis, 25: 363–380

Gerring, John, 2006
Single-Outcome Studies: A Methodological Primer
International Sociology Vol. 21(5): 707–734

Gerring, 2007
Case Study Research
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Glennan, Stuart S, 2002
Rethinking mechanistic explanation
Philosophy of Science 69: 342–353

Groff, Ruth, 2011
Getting past Hume in the philosophy of social science
In Causality in the Sciences, edited by Phyllis McKay Illari, Federica Russo and Jon Williamson
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 296–316

Gross, Neil, 2009
A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms
American Sociological Review 74 (3): 358–79

Grzymala-Busse, Anna, 2011
Time Will Tell? Temporality and the Analysis of Causal Mechanisms and Processes
Comparative Political Studies 44 (9): 1267–97

Hedström, Peter and Richard, Swedberg (ed), 1998
Social Mechanisms an Analytical Approach to Social Theory
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Illari, Phyllis and Federica Russo, 2014
Causality: Philosophical Theory meets Scientific Practice
Oxford: Oxford University Press

King, Keohane and Verba, 1994
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
Princeton: Princeton University Press

Mayntz, Renate, 2004
Mechanisms in the Analysis of Social Macro-Phenomena
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34(2): 237–259

Pierson, Paul, 2003
Big, Slow-Moving, and…Invisible: Macrosocial Processes in the Study of Comparative Politics
In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Ed. Mahoney, James and D. Rueschemayer, 177–207
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Roberts, Clayton, 1996
The Logic of Historical Explanation
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press

Rueschmeyer, Dietrich, 2003
Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?
In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Ed. Mahoney, James and D. Rueschemayer, 305–337
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Recommended Courses to Cover Before this One

Summer School

Introduction to Process Tracing

Case Study Research: Method and Practice

Introduction to Historical Methods

 

Winter School

Introduction to Process Tracing

Comparative Research Designs

 

 

 

Recommended Courses to Cover After this One

Summer School

Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Fuzzy Sets

Introduction to Historical Methods