Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Process Tracing Methods

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Methoden der Politikwissenschaft

Part of the book series: Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften ((SRS))

Abstract

Process tracing is a method that aims to trace causal mechanisms as they play out in real-world cases using in-depth case studies. The analytical focus is on understanding the processes whereby causes contribute to produce outcomes, opening up what is going on in the causal arrow in-between. Process tracing can be used to build or test theories of causal mechanisms. Used to test theories, engaging in process tracing first requires theorizing the causal process to some degree, either in more minimalist terms or unpacking the process into parts composed of entities engaging in activities, followed by the operationalization of expected observable manifestations of the operation of the mechanism in a case. Theory building involves a bottom-up search in the empirical record, using existing theories and case knowledge as inspiration, for systematic patterns in the empirical record that can be evidence of an underlying causal mechanism in operation. In order to generalize from the findings of single process tracing case studies, comparative methods are required.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adcock, Robert. 2007. Who’s afraid of determinism? The ambivalence of macro-historical inquiry. Journal of the Philosophy of History 1: 346–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, Holly. 2012. The case for regularity in mechanistic causal explanation. Synthese 2012(189): 415–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2013. Process tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2016a. Causal case studies: Comparing, matching and tracing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2016b. Case selection techniques when studying causal mechanisms as systems. Sociological Methods and Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115622510.

  • Beach, Derek, and Ingo Rohlfing. 2016. Integrating cross-case analyses and process tracing in set-theoretic research: Strategies and parameters of debate. Sociological Methods and Research 47(1): 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2018. Process-tracing methods, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Andrew. 2008. Process tracing: A bayesian perspective. In The oxford handbook of political methodology, ed. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, 702–721. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Andrew. 2014. Appendix. In Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool, ed. Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey Checkel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Andrew, and Jeffrey Checkel. 2014. Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, Roy. 1978. A realist theory of science. Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, Mario. 1997. Mechanism and explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 27(4): 410–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, Mario. 2004. How does it work? the search for explanatory mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34(2): 182–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, David, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright. 2010. Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools shared standards, 2nd ed., ed. Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 161–200. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowe, Phil. The causal-process-model theory of mechanisms. In Causality in the sciences, ed. Phyllis McKay Illari, Federica Russo, and Jon Williamson, 865–879. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, Jon. 1998. A plea for mechanisms. In Social mechanisms, ed. Peter Hedström and Richard Swedberg, 45–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairfield, Tasha, and Andrew E. Charman. 2017. Explicit Bayesian analysis for process tracing: Guidelines, opportunities, and caveats. Political Analysis 25(3), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2017.14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falleti, Tulia G., and Julia F. Lynch. 2009. Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies 42: 1143–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frieden, Richard D. 1986. A diagrammatic approach to evidence. Boston University Law Review 66(4): 571–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, Alexander L., and Bennett Andrew. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, John. 2007. Case study research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, John. 2010. Causal mechanisms: Yes but. Comparative Political Studies 43(11): 1499–1526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, John, and Jason Seawright. 2007. Techniques for choosing cases. In Case study research, ed. John Gerring, 86–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glennan, Stuart S. 1996. Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis 44(1): 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, Gary. 2012. Case studies, causal mechanisms, and selecting cases. Unpublished manuscript. Version 5, August 18, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2004. The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review 98(4): 653–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney 2012. A tale of two cultures – qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Good, Irving J. 1991. Weight of evidence and the bayesian likelihood ratio. In The use of statistics in forensic science, eds. Colin G. Aitken and David A. Stoney, 85–106. London: CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howson, Colin, and Peter Urbach. 2006. Scientific reasoning: The bayesian approach. 3rd ed. La Salle: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, Macartan, and Alan Jacobs. 2015. Mixing methods: A Bayesian approach. American Political Science Review 109(04): 653–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illari, Phyllis Mc Kay. 2011. Mechanistic evidence: Disambiguating the Russo-Williamson thesis. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25(2): 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, R.R. and P.T. Jackson. 2007. Twisting tongues and twisting arms: The power of political rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations 13(1): 35–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurki, Milja. 2008. Causation in international relations: Reclaiming causal analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review 99(3): 435–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, Peter. 2004. Activities and causation: The metaphysics and epistemology of mechanisms. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18(1): 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James. 2008. Toward a unified theory of causality. Comparative Political Studies 41(4/5): 412–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James. 2015. Process tracing and historical explanation. Security Studies 24(2): 200–218.

    Article  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 

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1955. Philosophical writings of peirce. Ed. Justus Buchler. New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, Charles C. 2008. Redesigning social inquiryfuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlfing, Ingo. 2012. Case studies and causal inference. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlfing, Ingo. 2014. Comparative hypothesis testing via process tracing. Sociological Methods and Research 43(4): 606–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runhardt, Rosa W. 2015. Evidence for causal mechanisms in social science: Recommendations from woodward’s manipulability theory of causation. Philosophy of Science 82(5): 1296–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, Federica, and Jon Williamson. 2007. Interpreting causality in the health science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21(2): 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, Federica, and Jon Williamson. 2011. Generic versus single-case causality: The case of autopsy. European Journal of the Philosophy of Science 1(1): 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, F. 2003. The EU, NATO and the integration of Europe. Rules and rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Carsten Q, and Ingo Rohlfing. 2013. Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretical multi-method research. Sociological Methods and Research 42(4): 559–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Carsten Q, and Ingo Rohlfing. 2016. Case studies nested in fuzzy-set QCA on sufficiency: Formalizing case selection and causal inference. Sociological Methods & Research 45(3): 526–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114532446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein. 2010. Beyond paradigms: Analytical eclecticism in the study of world politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannenwald, Nina. 1999. The nuclear taboo: The united states and the normative basis of nuclear non-use. International Organization 53(3): 433–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannenwald, Nina. 2007. The nuclear taboo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, Stefan, and Iddo Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30(3): 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to methods for students of political science. Ithica: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldner, David. 2012. Process tracing and causal mechanisms. In Oxford handbook of the philosophy of social science, ed. Harold Kincaid, 65–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, Nicholas, and Jeb Barnes. 2015. Finding pathways: Mixed-method research for studying causal mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, James. 2003. Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Derek Beach

Authors
  1. Derek Beach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derek Beach .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Methodenzentrum Sozialwissenschaft, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Methodenzentrum Sozialwissenschaft, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Claudius Wagemann

  2. Institute for Political Sciences, University of Duisburg-Essen Institute for Political Sciences, Duisburg, Germany

    Achim Goerres

  3. Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Markus Siewert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Beach, D. (2018). Process Tracing Methods. In: Wagemann, C., Goerres, A., Siewert, M. (eds) Handbuch Methoden der Politikwissenschaft. Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16937-4_43-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16937-4_43-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-16937-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-16937-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften und Recht

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation