The relationship between interpretivists and process tracers is one of mutual neglect, if not outright suspicion and even contempt. This is arguably puzzling given that on the face of it, these two groups of scholars would seem to have quite a few things in common. For instance, many process tracers and interpretivists share an inductive commitment to fine-grained case studies. They focus on processes and flows as opposed to static structures or entities (see also Checkel, this volume, Chapter 3). They are critical of explanations based on correlational logic, and generally skeptical of law-like statements. Process tracers and interpretivists like to narrate the unfolding of history and disaggregate it in smaller bits of time. They generally agree that despite the contingency and messiness of the social world, there exist scholarly standards thanks to which some analytical accounts fare better than others. Finally, both groups of scholars tend to espouse a humanistic bias in favor of agency and the micro-dynamics of social life. And yet, despite these many substantive commonalities, there is unfortunately little to no conversation, let alone cross-fertilization, currently occurring between process tracing and interpretivist bodies of literature.

This chapter seeks to chart a new path in order to tap into the many synergies between interpretive methodology and process tracing. What I call “practice tracing” is a hybrid methodological form that rests on two relatively simple tenets: social causality is to be established locally, but with an eye to producing analytically general insights. The first tenet, drawn primarily from interpretivism, posits the singularity of causal accounts: it is meaningful contexts that give practices their social effectiveness and generative power in and on the world. The second tenet, in tune with process analytics, holds that no social relationships and practices are so unique as to foreclose the possibility of theorization and categorization. Practice tracing seeks to occupy a methodological middle ground where patterns of meaningful action may be abstracted away from local contexts in the form of social mechanisms that can travel across cases. The added value of practice tracing, in terms of allowing for dialogue between process tracing and interpretivism, lies in simultaneously upholding singular causality and analytical generality.