Comparative Methods and Process Tracing

Andrew Bennett, Tasha Fairfield, H. Soifer
{"title":"Comparative Methods and Process Tracing","authors":"Andrew Bennett, Tasha Fairfield, H. Soifer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3333405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Process tracing is a within-case method of drawing inferences from evidence in a case to theories about hypothesized causal mechanisms that might explain the outcome of that case. The comparative methods in this report include comparisons among small numbers of case studies that use process tracing. The report discusses four approaches to process tracing: traditional narrative-based analysis, Van Evera's (1997) analytic tests, Bayesian process tracing, and process tracing that aspires to the relatively complete elucidation of causal mechanisms. This report focuses on analytic transparency, leaving transparency in generating and sharing evidence to other QTD reports. As recent methodological advances in process tracing have been rapid and are the subject of ongoing debates, the report differentiates between core recommended practices and emerging practices that might be considered, depending on the costs entailed, by authors, reviewers, and readers. For each research practice, the report provides exemplars.","PeriodicalId":189708,"journal":{"name":"Metaphysics eJournal","volume":"167 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metaphysics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3333405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Process tracing is a within-case method of drawing inferences from evidence in a case to theories about hypothesized causal mechanisms that might explain the outcome of that case. The comparative methods in this report include comparisons among small numbers of case studies that use process tracing. The report discusses four approaches to process tracing: traditional narrative-based analysis, Van Evera's (1997) analytic tests, Bayesian process tracing, and process tracing that aspires to the relatively complete elucidation of causal mechanisms. This report focuses on analytic transparency, leaving transparency in generating and sharing evidence to other QTD reports. As recent methodological advances in process tracing have been rapid and are the subject of ongoing debates, the report differentiates between core recommended practices and emerging practices that might be considered, depending on the costs entailed, by authors, reviewers, and readers. For each research practice, the report provides exemplars.
比较方法和过程追溯
过程追踪是一种案例内部方法,从案例中的证据推断出可能解释该案例结果的假设因果机制的理论。本报告中的比较方法包括使用过程跟踪的少数案例研究之间的比较。该报告讨论了过程追踪的四种方法:传统的基于叙述的分析、Van Evera(1997)的分析测试、贝叶斯过程追踪和旨在相对完整地阐明因果机制的过程追踪。该报告侧重于分析透明度,为其他QTD报告提供生成和共享证据的透明度。由于最近在过程跟踪方面的方法进展迅速,并且是正在进行的辩论的主题,报告区分了核心推荐的实践和可能被考虑的新兴实践,这取决于作者、审稿人和读者所需要的成本。对于每一个研究实践,报告都提供了范例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信