In the last weeks I worked quite intensively on qualitative research methods and in particular on process tracing (PT). The latter is a powerful instrument of within-case study analysis. Social scientists can use it to formulate hypothesis , to develop a theory or to test an hypothesis.
Borrowing from Aidan Regan’s blog on social research, a good approach to process-tracing should go along the following steps
- Step 1: the investigator begins by formulating a set of theories that identify the principal causal variables that are said to conduce a specific type of outcome to be explained. The object is to test one theory against another. It is a three-cornered fight among a theory, a rival theory, and a set of empirical investigations.
- Step 2: for each of the theories to be considered the investigator then derives a set of predictions about the patterns that will appear if the theory is valid or false. This is a process of deriving predictions that are consistent with one theory but not another. In the course of the research these predictions will be often specified as hypotheses to be examined.
- Step 3: observations relevant to these predictions are then made. An observation consists of a piece of data drawn from, or observed, in the case, using whatever technology is appropriate: documentary research, field work, interviews or computation. The observations are designed to assess whether the process is present in the cases being investigated. Observations are ‘clues’ about events expected to occur if the theory is valid; the sequence of those events; the specific type of actions taken by various actors; and statements by those actors about why they took those actions.
- Step 4: observations are drawn from the cases to compare predictions from theories, to reach a judgement about the relative merits of each theory. It is about comparing the plausibility of the theory with the validity of the observations. Effective theory building is as important as gathering empirical data.
Even before its recent formalization, process tracing was used implicitly by many scholars (Theda Skocpol being the most famous example). When it is coupled with rational choice theory & methodological individualism, then it is not really my cup of tea.
However, it can be applied with success also to macro-cases. Here are a couple of examples:
- Stefano Sacchi in his article “Conditionality by other means: EU involvement in Italy’s structural reforms in the sovereign debt crisis” uses process-tracing to disclose that even Italy – which never entered in financial help programmes such as Greece or Ireland – enacted significant pensions and labour markets reform during the crisis under the implicit conditionality that the ECB could stop the purchase of its sovereign bonds.
- Caroline de La Porte and David Natali in their paper “Altered Europeanisation of Pension Reform in the Context of the Great Recession: Denmark and Italy Compared” also make use of process-tracing to show the EU’s role in pension reform implemented during the crisis through a “two-level game” bargaining process with national actors.
This is the spirit with which I will try to use process-tracing to analyze labour market reforms in Italy and Ireland. Combining process-tracing with comparative analysis might be a win-win strategy. Indeed, this seems to be the road suggested by Peter Hall: If process tracing reveals important causal mechanisms within the cases, for instance, we should be using comparison across the cases, not only to look for covariance in dependent and explanatory variables, but to look also for cross-case variation in how those mechanisms work. Findings from the comparative enquiry could then be used to assess some key components of the causal theory and, where discrepancies across cases are found, the adequacy of the theory and of the process analysis conducted in specific cases scrutinised.
,