Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prozessanalyse

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbuch Policy-Forschung

Zusammenfassung

Prozessanalyse (engl. process tracing) ist eine Untersuchungsmethode zur kausalen Erklärung, bei der vielfältige empirische Beobachtungen innerhalb eines oder mehrerer Fälle als potenzielle Implikationen theoretischer Kausalmechanismen verstanden werden. Die möglichst vollständige empirische Rekonstruktion kausaler Prozesse durch Fallstudien erlaubt Schlussfolgerungen über (alternative) theoretische Erklärungen. Der Beitrag stellt die wichtigsten Merkmale der Methode, Beispiele aus der Policy-Forschung, Stärken, Schwächen sowie methodische Gütekriterien vor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Abbott, H. Porter. 2008. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson und James A. Robinson. 2003. An African Success Story. Botswana. In In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth, Hrsg. Dani Rodrik, 80–119. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, Maya. 1980. The Base-Rate Fallacy in Probability Judgments. Acta Psychologica 44 (3): 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, Robert, Avner Greif, Margaret Levi., Jean-Laurent Rosenthal und Barry Weingast Hrsg. 1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, Derek und Rasmus B. Pedersen. 2012. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Friedrich und Eckart Henning. Hrsg. 2012. Die archivalischen Quellen. Mit einer Einführung in die Historischen Hilfswissenschaften. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, Bo und Nils Hertting. 2014. Generalization by Mechanism: Thin Rationality and Ideal-type Analysis in Case Study Research. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (6): 707–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Andrew. 2008a. Building communities, bridging gaps: Alexander George’s contributions to research methods. Political Psychology 29 (4): 489–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Andrew. 2008b. Process Tracing: A Bayesian Perspective. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Hrsg. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady und David Collier, 702–721. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Andrew und Jeffrey T. Checkel. 2014. Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best Practices. In Process Tracing in the Social Sciences: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, Hrsg. Andrew Bennett und Jeffrey T. Checkel, 3–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blatter, Joachim und Till Blume. 2008. In Search of Co-variance, Causal Mechanisms or Congruence ? Towards a Plural Understanding of Case Studies. Swiss Political Science Review 14 (2): 315–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogner, Alexander, Beate Littig und Wolfgang Menz. Hrsg. 2002. Das Experteninterview: Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Leske + Budrich/Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner-Wilczek, Sabine, Gertrude Cepl-Kaufmann und Max Plassmann. 2006. Einführung in die moderne Archivarbeit. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büthe, Tim. 2002. Taking Temporality Seriously: Modeling History and the Use of Narratives as Evidence. American Political Science Review 96 (3): 481–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Donald T. 1975. „Degrees of Freedom“ and the Case Study. Comparative Political Studies 8 (2): 178–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, Nancy. 1989. Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2006. Tracing Causal Mechanisms. International Studies Review 8 (2): 362–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, Kevin A. und David M. Primo. 2012. A model discipline: Political science and the logic of representations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, David. 2011. Understanding Process Tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (4): 823–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, David, Henry E. Brady und Jason Seawright. 2010. Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology. In Rethinking Social Inquiry, Second Edition, Hrsg. Henry E. Brady und David Collier, 161–199. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter, Lewis Anthony. 2006 [1970]. Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, Miriam und Benjamin Ziemann. Hrsg. 2009. Reading Primary Sources: The Interpretation of Texts from Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century History. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In Handbook of Political Science, Hrsg. Fred Greenstein und Nelson Polsby, 79–137. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, Hillel J., Don N. Kleinmuntz und Benjamin Kleinmuntz. 1979. Linear regression and process-tracing models of judgment. Psychological Review 86 (5): 465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elman, Colin und Miriam Fendius Elman. Hrsg. 2001. Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford J. Kevin Neal Schmitt Susan L. Schechtman Brian M. Hults und Mary L. Doherty. 1989. Process Tracing Methods – Contributions, Problems, and Neglected Research Questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43 (1): 75–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichs, Jörg und Friedrich Kratochwil. 2009. On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology. International Organization 63 (4): 701–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, Scott A., Douglas B. Harris, Sean Q. Kelly und David C. W. Parker. 2012. Doing Archival Research in Political Science. New York, NY: Cambria Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, Barbara. 1990. How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics. Political Analysis 2 (1): 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, Alexander L. 1979. Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison. In Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy, Hrsg. Paul G. Lauren, 43–68. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, Alexander L. und Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, Alexander L. und Timothy J. McKeown. 1985. Case studies and theories of organizational decision-making. Advances in Information Processing in Organizations 2: 21–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, John. 2006a. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, John. 2007a. Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method ? Comparative Political Studies 40 (3): 231–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, John. 2007b. The Mechanismic Worldview: Thinking Inside the Box. British Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 161–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen und Grit Laudel. 2010. Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. 4. Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen und Grit Laudel. 2013. Life With and Without Coding: Two Methods for Early- Stage Data Analysis in Qualitative Research Aiming at Causal Explanations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qualitative Social Research 14 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, L. J. 1993. Narrative, Event-Structure Analysis, and Causal Interpretation in Historical Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 98 (5): 1094–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzymala-Busse, Anna. 2011. Time Will Tell ? Temporality and the Analysis of Causal Mechanisms and Processes. Comparative Political Studies 44 (9): 1267–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Peter A. 2006. Systematic Process Analysis: When and How to Use It. European Management Review 3 (1): 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, William S. 2011. Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research 11 (4): 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedström, Peter und Petri Ylikoski. 2010. Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 49–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, Carl Gustav und Paul Oppenheim. 1948. Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science 15 (2): 135–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M. 1974. Process Tracing in Clinical Judgment. Behavioral Science 19 (5): 298–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane und Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühberger, Anton, Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck und Rob Ranyard. 2011. Introduction: Windows for Understanding the Mind. In A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research: A Critical Review and User’s Guide, Hrsg. Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Anton Kühberger und Rob Ranyard, 1–18. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, Richard N. 2010. Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, Beth L. 2002. Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews. PS: Political Science & Politics 35 (4): 665–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, David. 2006. Varieties of Regulatory Capitalism: Getting the Most Out of the Comparative Method. Governance 19 (3): 367–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, Margaret . 2002. Modeling Complex Historical Processes with Analytic Narratives. In Akteure – Mechanismen – Modelle. Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen, Hrsg. Renate Mayntz, 108–127. Frankfurt a. M., New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, Evan S., Marc Morje Howard und Julia Lynch. 2004. Symposium: Field Research. Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods 2 (1): 2–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberson, Stanley. 1991. Small N’s and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases. Social Forces 70 (2): 307–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lustick, Ian S. 1996. History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias. American Political Science Review 90 (3): 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, Julia F. 2013. Aligning sampling strategies with analytic goals. In Interview Research in Political Science, Hrsg. Layna Mosley, 31–44. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, Peter, Lindley Darden und Carl F. Craver. 2000. Thinking about Mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 67 (1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James. 2003. Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Hrsg. James Mahoney und Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 337–372. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James. 2012. The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences. Sociological Methods & Research 41 (4): 570–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James und Gary Goertz. 2004. The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research. American Political Science Review 98 (4): 653–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James und Celso M. Villegas. 2007. Historical Enquiry and Comparative Politics. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, Hrsg. Charles Boix und Susan Stokes, 73–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, Joseph A. 2010. Using Numbers in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry 16 (6): 475–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, Renate. 2002. Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen. In Akteure – Mechanismen – Modelle. Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen, Hrsg. Renate Mayntz, 7–43. Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, Renate. 2004. Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34 (2): 237–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart. 1968 [1872]. System der deduktiven und induktiven Logik: Eine Darlegung der Grundsätze der Beweislehre und der Methoden wissenschaftlicher Forschung, Gesammelte Werke, übers. und hrsg. von Theodor Gomperz, Bd. 1. Aalen: Scientia-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Sandra D. 2002. Contingent Generalizations: Lessons From Biology. In Akteure – Mechanismen – Modelle: Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen, Hrsg. Renate Mayntz, 179–195. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mos, Martijn. 2014. Of Gay Rights and Christmas Ornaments: The Political History of Sexual Orientation Non-discrimination in the Treaty of Amsterdam. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (3): 632–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosley, Layna. Hrsg. 2013. Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Harald. 2002. Antinomien des demokratischen Friedens. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 43 (1): 46–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orloff, Ann Shola und Theda Skocpol. 1984. Why Not Equal Protection ? Explaining the Politics of Public Social Spending in Britain, 1900–1911, and the United States, 1880s – 1920. American Sociological Review 49 (6): 726–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panke, Diana. 2012. Process Tracing: Testing Multiple Hypotheses with a Small Number of Cases. In Research Design in European Studies: Establishing Causality in Europeanization, Hrsg. Theofanis Exadaktylos und Claudio M. Radaelli, 125–140. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State ? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, Adam und Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, Charles C. 1992. „Casing“ and the process of social inquiry. In What Is a Case ? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, Hrsg. Charles C. Ragin und Howard S. Becker, 217–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rathbun, Brian C. 2008. Interviewing and Qualitative Field Methods: Pragmatism and Practicalities. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Hrsg. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady und David Collier, 685–701. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichertz, Jo. 2013. Die Abduktion in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Über die Entdeckung des Neuen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlfing, Ingo. 2012. Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlfing, Ingo und Peter Starke. 2013. Building on Solid Ground: Robust Case Selection in Multi-Method Research. Swiss Political Science Review 19 (4): 492–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruback, Timothy J. 2010. ‚Let me tell the story straight on:‘ Middlemarch, Process-Tracing Methods, and the Politics of Narrative. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 12 (4): 477–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Herbert J. und Irene S. Rubin. 2011. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. London, New York: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueschemeyer, Dietrich und John D. Stephens. 1997. Comparing Historical Sequences – A Powerful Tool for Causal Analysis. Comparative Social Research 16 (1): 55–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, Bruce. 1994. Grasping the democratic peace: Principles for a post-Cold War world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sagan, Scott. 1995. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, Wesley C. 1984. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, Samuel. 2013. Observation and Theory-Ladenness. In Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences, Hrsg. Byron Kaldis, 695–698. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 2006. Judging Quality: Evaluative Criteria and Epistemic Communities. In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, Hrsg. Dwora Yanow und Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, 89–113. Armonk, NY, London: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seawright, Jason und John Gerring. 2008. Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, Theda. 1984. Emerging Agendas and Recurrent Strategies in Historical Sociology. In Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, Hrsg. Theda Skocpol, 356–391. Cambridge: Cambidge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmo, Sven. 1989. Political Institutions and Tax Policy in the United States, Sweden, and Britain. World Politics 41 (4): 500–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, Richard. 2012. Theorizing in sociology and social science: turning to the context of discovery. Theory and Society 41 (1): 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansey, Oisín. 2007. Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-probability Sampling. PS: Political Science & Politics 40 (4): 765–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thies, Cameron. 2002. A Pragmatic Guide to Qualitative Historical Analysis in the Study of International Relations. International Studies Perspectives 3 (3): 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, Charles. 1999. The Trouble with Stories. In The Social Worlds of Higher Education. Handbook for Teaching in a New Century, Hrsg. Ronald Aminzade und Bernice Pescosolido, 256–270. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trampusch, Christine. 2006. Sequenzorientierte Policy-Analyse. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 16 (1): 55–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, Diane. 2009. The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, Dwora. 2006. Introduction. In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, Hrsg. Dwora Yanow und Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, xi – xxvi. Armonk, NY, London: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziblatt, Daniel. 2004. Rethinking the Origins of Federalism. Puzzle, Theory, and Evidence from Nineteenth-Century Europe. World Politics 57 (1): 70–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Centre for Welfare State Research, Department of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, Odense M, 5230, Denmark

    Dr. Peter Starke

Authors
  1. Dr. Peter Starke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Starke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kaiserslautern, Germany

    Georg Wenzelburger

  2. Heidelberg, Germany

    Reimut Zohlnhöfer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Starke, P. (2015). Prozessanalyse. In: Wenzelburger, G., Zohlnhöfer, R. (eds) Handbuch Policy-Forschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01968-6_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01968-6_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-01967-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-01968-6

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation