Process Tracing and International Political Economy

Jeffrey T. Checkel
{"title":"Process Tracing and International Political Economy","authors":"Jeffrey T. Checkel","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.47","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As a methodological choice, process tracing and qualitative International Political Economy (IPE) would seem a natural fit. These scholars employ case study research designs and theorize in terms of processes and mechanisms—a combination that leads to process tracing as a key method. Yet, in qualitative IPE, one sees little process tracing; or better said, it is there, but only partly operationalized or used implicitly. Surveying the contemporary qualitative IPE literature, this chapter advances two arguments. First, these scholars utilize a narrative style that hides their methods, including process tracing. The result is an empirics–method disconnect, where readers are unsure how data for the narrative was gathered and causal inferences or interpretive understandings gleaned from it. Second, qualitative IPE scholars should do their process tracing better. However, in making this methodological move they should resist the temptation to pull process tracing “off the shelf” and use it. Rather, they should address three cutting-edge issues for process tracers: transparency and formalization; within process-tracing methods; and developing a robust interpretive variant.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"189 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.47","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

As a methodological choice, process tracing and qualitative International Political Economy (IPE) would seem a natural fit. These scholars employ case study research designs and theorize in terms of processes and mechanisms—a combination that leads to process tracing as a key method. Yet, in qualitative IPE, one sees little process tracing; or better said, it is there, but only partly operationalized or used implicitly. Surveying the contemporary qualitative IPE literature, this chapter advances two arguments. First, these scholars utilize a narrative style that hides their methods, including process tracing. The result is an empirics–method disconnect, where readers are unsure how data for the narrative was gathered and causal inferences or interpretive understandings gleaned from it. Second, qualitative IPE scholars should do their process tracing better. However, in making this methodological move they should resist the temptation to pull process tracing “off the shelf” and use it. Rather, they should address three cutting-edge issues for process tracers: transparency and formalization; within process-tracing methods; and developing a robust interpretive variant.
过程追踪与国际政治经济学
作为一种方法论选择,过程追踪和质性国际政治经济学(IPE)似乎是一种天然的契合。这些学者采用案例研究的研究设计,并在过程和机制方面进行理论化——这一结合导致了过程追踪作为一种关键方法。然而,在定性的IPE中,人们很少看到过程追踪;或者更确切地说,它是存在的,但只是部分地被操作或隐式地使用。本章考察了当代定性IPE文献,提出了两个论点。首先,这些学者使用一种叙事风格来隐藏他们的方法,包括过程追踪。结果是经验主义和方法的脱节,读者不确定叙述的数据是如何收集的,以及因果推理或解释理解是如何从中收集的。第二,质性国际政治经济学学者应该更好地进行过程追溯。然而,在进行这种方法论移动时,他们应该抵制将过程跟踪“从货架上”拉下来并使用它的诱惑。相反,它们应该解决过程跟踪程序的三个前沿问题:透明度和形式化;在过程跟踪方法中;并发展出一种强大的解释性变体。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信