Samenvatting
Summary Beach and Pedersen
Summary of the compulsory chapters (1-2-3-4-5-6-7) of the book Process-Tracing Methods by D. Beach and R.B. Pedersen (2016) for the course PSRM I.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 17 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 17 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Process-Training Methods – Foundations and GuidelinesD. Beach & R.B. Pedersen (2013)
1 Process-Tracing in the Social Sciences
Causal mechanism: “a complex system, which produces an outcome by the interaction of a number
of parts (p.1)
Process-tracing: “attempts to identify the intervening causal process- the causal chain and causal
mechanism- between an independent variable (or variables) and the outcome of the dependent
variable” (p.1)
Defining process-tracing
• Tools to study causal mechanisms in a single-case research design
• 3 variants
o Theory-testing process-tracing → deduces a theory from the existing literature and
then tests whether evidence shows that each part of a hypothesized causal
mechanism is present in a given case, enabling within-case inferences about whether
the mechanism functioned as expected in the case and whether the mechanism as a
whole was present
o Theory-building process-tracing → seeks to build a generalizable theoretical
explanation from empirical evidence, inferring that a more general causal
mechanism exists from the facts of a particular case
o Explaining-outcome process-tracing → attempts to craft a minimally sufficient
explanation of a puzzling outcome in a specific historical case
▪ The aim is not to build or test more general theories, but to craft a
(minimally) sufficient explanation of a puzzling outcome of the case where
the ambitions are more case-centric than theory-oriented
How process-tracing differs from other case study methods
• It can be distinguished from most other small-n case study methods by the types of
inferences being made
o Within-case inferences about the presence/absence of causal mechanisms in single
case studies, instead of cross-case inferences about causal relationships for other
small-n methods
• Few case study methods enable within-case inference; most prominent alternative to
process-tracing is conference method
o Based on the value of the independent variable (x), researchers test whether the
prediction about the outcome that should follow from the theory is congruent with
what is found in the case, investigated either temporally or other across aspects of
the outcome(s)
o Difference between congruence method and process-tracing methods: explicit focus
on investigating causal mechanisms
▪ Congruence method → investigates correlations between X and Y
▪ Process-tracing → investigates the workings of the mechanism(s) that
contribute to producing an outcome
1
,Theme of the book: how does the ontological and epistemological foundations of process-tracing
differ from those of other case study methods
• Ontology → our understanding of the nature of the social world, specifically in this book, the
nature of causality
• Epistemology → arguments regarding how we should best study causal relationships in het
social world
2 The three different variants of process-tracing and their uses
The three different uses of process-tracing methods
• Research purposes process-tracing methods (see overview p.12)
o Theory-testing process-tracing → causal mechanism is hypothesized to be present in
a population of cases of a phenomenon
▪ Goals is to evaluate whether evidence shows that the hypothesized causal
mechanism linking X and Y was present and that it functioned as theorized
o Theory-building process-tracing → building a theory about a causal mechanism
between X and Y that can be generalized to a population of a given phenomenon,
starting from a situation where we are in the dark regarding the mechanism
o Situation where you want to explain a particularly historical outcome
▪ Aim is to craft a sufficient explanation of the outcome → instead of studying
mechanisms that cause war (Y), you focus on explaining a particular outcome
such as World War I
• These divisions between case- and theory-centric variants of process-tracing capture a core
ontological and epistemological divide within social sciences
o Theory-centric side → neopositivist and critical realist positions: understanding that
the social world can be split into manageable parts that can be studied empirically
▪ Aim: build generalizable theories, irrespective of whether we have the more
narrow ambition of working midrange theories that are bound within specific
contexts of the (perhaps unattainable) ambition to find law-like
generalizations
o Case-centric → different ontological understanding of the world
▪ Difference between a dualistic ontology of mind-world relations where the
world exists independent of its human observers and a monist ontology
where the objects of scientific investigation are not inert and meaningless
entities that impress themselves on our (natural or augmented) senses or on
our theory-informed awareness (Jackson)
▪ The social world is complex, so producing theories that can be generalized
across many cases is difficult / impossible → instead: ambition to account for
particularly puzzling outcomes
▪ Theories are used in a more pragmatic fashion: as heuristic instruments that
have analytical utility in providing the best possible explanation of a given
phenomenon
▪ Theories are much more eclectic, often including conglomerates of different
mechanisms along with more case-specific mechanisms
• Ambition: prove that a theory has utility in providing the best
possible explanation
2
, The three variants of process-tracing
• Shared elements of the 3 variants
o Goal is studying causal mechanisms
o Ontological assumptions about the nature of causal relationships → use of
deterministic theorization and a mechanismic understanding of causation (focus on
process whereby causal forces are transmitted through a series of interlocking parts
of a mechanism to produce an outcome)
o Theoretical understanding of mechanisms as invariant: present or not
o Draw on a Bayesian logic of inference to make within-case inferences about the
presence / absence of causal mechanisms
• Differences
o Whether theory-centric of case-centric
o Aim to test or build theorized causal mechanisms
o Understanding of the generality of causal mechanisms
o Types of inferences being made
▪ Theory-testing or -building mechanisms → presence/absence of a
mechanism
▪ Explaining-outcome → inferences about the sufficiency of the explanation
being made
Theory-testing process-tracing
• You know both X and Y and you either have existing conjectures about a plausible
mechanism or you are able to use logical reasoning to formulate a causal mechanism from
existing theorization
• See illustration example theory-testing case study p.15
• Different steps
1. Testing whether a hypothesized causal mechanism was present in the case to
conceptualize a causal mechanism between X and Y based on existing theorization
along with making explicit the context within which it functions
2. Operationalisation of the theorized causal mechanism
3. Collecting empirical evidence that can be used to make causal inferences
a. Different steps testing whether evidence indicates that each part of the
mechanism was present
• Theory-testing process-tracing enables inferences to be made about whether a mechanism
functioned as expected, but does not enable us to test the relative explanatory power of
competing mechanisms against each other and no claims about the necessity of the
mechanism can be logically made (cross-case analysis necessary)
Theory-building process-tracing
• Starts with empirical material and uses a structured analysis of this material to detect a
plausible hypothetical causal mechanism whereby X is linked with Y
• Used in 2 different research situations
o When we know that a correlation exists between X and Y but we are unknown about
potential mechanisms linking the 2 (X-Y-centric theory building), no theory exists
o When we know an outcome (Y) but are unsure about the causes (Y-centric theory
building)
3
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper LS23. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 75323 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen