Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:46:49.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationships Among Rivals (RAR): A Framework for Analyzing Contending Hypotheses in Process Tracing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2017

Sherry Zaks
Sherry Zaks*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley, Political Science, 210 Barrows Hall #1950, Berkeley, CA 94720-1950, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Methodologists and substantive scholars alike agree that one of process tracing’s foremost contributions to qualitative research is its capacity to adjudicate among competing explanations of a phenomenon. Existing approaches, however, only provide explicit guidance on dealing with mutually exclusive explanations, which are exceedingly rare in social science research. I develop a tripartite solution to this problem. The Relationships among Rivals (RAR) framework (1) introduces a typology of relationships between alternative hypotheses, (2) develops specific guidelines for identifying which relationship is present between two hypotheses, and (3) maps out the varied implications for evidence collection and inference. I then integrate the RAR framework into each of the main process-tracing approaches and demonstrate how it affects the inferential process. Finally, I illustrate the purchase of the RAR framework by reanalyzing a seminal example of process-tracing research: Schultz’s (2001) analysis of the Fashoda Crisis. I show that the same evidence can yield new and sometimes contradictory inferences once scholars approach comparative hypothesis testing with this more nuanced framework.

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 344 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Author’s note: I am beyond grateful to the colleagues, friends, and two anonymous reviewers who have read and commented on earlier drafts of this article. Sarah E. Parkinson, David Walder, Jack Paine, and Evan Roxanna Ramzipoor have provided invaluable feedback across many iterations of the manuscript—always pushing me to think more clearly and more boldly about the logic of process tracing. Finally, this manuscript would never have taken shape were it not for many conversations with David Collier.

Contributing Editor: Jonathan N. Katz

References

Beach, Derek, and Pedersen, Rasmus Brun. 2012. Process-tracing methods: foundations and guidelines . Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2009. Process tracing: a Bayesian perspective. In The Oxford handbook of political methodology , ed. Box-Stefensmeier, Janet, Brady, Henry, and Collier, David. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 702–722.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2010. Process tracing and causal inference. In Rethinking social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards , Second edn,ed. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2014. Process tracing with bayes: moving beyond the criteria of necessity and sufficiency. Qualitative and Multimethod Research 12(1):46–51.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2015. Systematizing process tracing with Bayesian analysis. In Process tracing: from metaphor to analytic tool . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Checkel, Jeffrey T., eds. 2015. Process tracing: from metaphor to analytic tool . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blatter, Joachim, and Haverland, Markus. 2012. Designing case studies: explanatory approaches in small-N research . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 2006. Toward a pluralistic vision of methodology. Political Analysis 14(3):353–368.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 2010. Data-set observations versus causal-process observations: the 2000 U.S. Presidential election. In Rethinking social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards , Second edn, ed. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Collier, David. 2011. Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science and Politics 44(4):823–830.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Brady, Henry E., and Seawright, Jason. 2010. Introduction to the second edition. In Rethinking social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards, Second edn, ed. Henry E. Brady and David Collier. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Collier, Paul, and Hoeffler, Anke. 2004. Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers 56(4):563–595.Google Scholar
Fairfield, Tasha, and Charman, Andrew. 2015. Bayesian probability: the logic of (political) science . (University of California, Berkeley. Prepared for the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association: San Francisco, CA) .Google Scholar
Freedman, David A. 2010. On types of scientific inquiry: the role of qualitative reasoning. In Rethinking social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards , Second edn, ed. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 1–21.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 , ed. Lauren, Paul Gordon. The Free Press, pp. 43–68.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. In BCSIA studies in international security . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and McKeown, Timothy J.. 1985. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Mahoney, James. 2012. A tale of two cultures: qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2006. Systematic process analysis: when and how to use it. European Management Review 3(1):24–31.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, and Jacobs, Alan. 2015. Mixing methods: a Bayesian approach. American Political Science Review 109(4):653–673.Google Scholar
Kay, Adrian, and Baker, Phillip. 2015. What can causal process tracing offer to policy studies? A review of the literature. Policy Studies Journal 43(1):1–21.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2008. The logic of historical explanation in the social sciences. Comparative Political Studies 42(1):114–146.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2012. The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences. Sociological Methods and Research 41(4):570–597.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Goertz, Gary. 2006. A tale of two cultures: contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis 14(3):227–249.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Russett, Bruce. 1993. Normative and structural causes of democratic peace. American Political Science Review 87(3):624–638.Google Scholar
Platt, John R. 1964. Strong inference. Science 146(3642):347–353.Google Scholar
Rohlfing, Ingo. 2012. Case studies and causal inference: an integrative framework . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rohlfing, Ingo. 2014. Comparative hypothesis testing via process tracing. Sociological Methods and Research 43(4):602–642.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth. 2001. Democracy and coercive diplomacy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to methods for students of political science . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Waldner, David. 2015. What makes process tracing good? Causal mechanisms, causal inference, and the completeness standard in comparative politics. In Process tracing: from metaphor to analytic tool , ed. Bennett, Andrew and Checkel, Jeffrey T.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaks, Sherry. 2012. Relationships among rivals: contending hypotheses and the logic of process tracing. In Paper prepared for the annual conference of the American political science association New Orleans, LA .Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Zaks supplementary material

Appendix

Download Zaks supplementary material(File)
File 120 KB