Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-9z9qw Total loading time: 0.291 Render date: 2021-08-01T15:58:28.746Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Explicit Bayesian Analysis for Process Tracing: Guidelines, Opportunities, and Caveats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2017

Tasha Fairfield
Affiliation:
Department of International Development, London School of Economics, WC2A 2AE, UK. Email: T.A.Fairfield@lse.ac.uk
Andrew E. Charman
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, 94720, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Bayesian probability holds the potential to serve as an important bridge between qualitative and quantitative methodology. Yet whereas Bayesian statistical techniques have been successfully elaborated for quantitative research, applying Bayesian probability to qualitative research remains an open frontier. This paper advances the burgeoning literature on Bayesian process tracing by drawing on expositions of Bayesian “probability as extended logic” from the physical sciences, where probabilities represent rational degrees of belief in propositions given the inevitably limited information we possess. We provide step-by-step guidelines for explicit Bayesian process tracing, calling attention to technical points that have been overlooked or inadequately addressed, and we illustrate how to apply this approach with the first systematic application to a case study that draws on multiple pieces of detailed evidence. While we caution that efforts to explicitly apply Bayesian learning in qualitative social science will inevitably run up against the difficulty that probabilities cannot be unambiguously specified, we nevertheless envision important roles for explicit Bayesian analysis in pinpointing the locus of contention when scholars disagree on inferences, and in training intuition to follow Bayesian probability more systematically.

Type
Articles
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

Authors’ note: The authors thank Andrew Bennett, David Collier, Macartan Humphreys, Alan Jacobs, and James Mahoney, as well as four anonymous reviewers and Editor Jonathan Katz, for valuable detailed comments on previous versions of this paper. We are also grateful to Devin Caughey, Gustavo Flores-Macías, Peter Kingstone, Richard Nielsen, Tom Pepinsky, Kenneth Roberts, Andrew Schrank, Ken Shadlen, and participants at the 2015 and 2016 APSA Annual Meetings, LSE’s ID and CP/CPE seminars, MIT’s Political Methodology Research Series, and the 2016 Southwest Mixed-Methods Research Workshop. We dedicate this paper to the memory of Kenneth Fairfield.

Contributing Editor: Jonathan Katz

References

Abell, Peter. 2009. A case for cases: Comparative narratives in sociological research. Sociological Methods and Research 38:3870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrenechea, Rodrigo, and Mahoney, James. 2016. A set-theoretic approach to Bayesian process tracing. Syracuse Institute for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research.Google Scholar
Beach, Derek, and Pedersen, Rasmus. 2013. Process-tracing methods . University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2008. Process tracing: A Bayesian perspective. In The Oxford handbook of political methodology , ed. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Brady, Henry, and Collier, David. Oxford University Press, pp. 702–721.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2015. Disciplining our conjectures: Systematizing process tracing with Bayesian analysis. In Process tracing in the social sciences: From metaphor to analytic tool , ed. Bennett, Andrew and Checkel, Jeffrey. Cambridge University Press, pp. 276298.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Checkel, Jeffrey, eds. 2015. Process tracing in the social sciences: From metaphor to analytic tool , Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Büthe, Tim, and Jacobs Alan. eds. 2015. Symposium: Transparency in Qualitative and Multi-Method Research. Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 13 (1).Google Scholar
Collier, David. 2011. Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science and Politics 44(4):823830.Google Scholar
Cox, Richard. 1961. The algebra of probable inference . Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fairfield, Tasha. 2013. Going where the money is: Strategies for taxing economic elites in unequal democracies. World Development 47:4257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairfield, Tasha. 2015. Private wealth and public revenue in Latin America: Business power and tax politics . Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John, Stern, Hal, Dunson, David, Vehtari, Aki, and Rubin, Donald. 2013. Bayesian data analysis , 3rd edn. CRC Press.Google Scholar
Gill, Jeff. 2008. Bayesian methods: A social and behavioral sciences approach . Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. 1985. Weight of evidence: A brief survey. In Bayesian statistics 2 , ed. Bernardo, J. M., de Groot, M. H., Lindley, D. V., and Smith, A. F. M.. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gregory, Phil. 2005. Bayesian logical data analysis for the physical sciences . Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, Colin, and Urbach, Peter. 2006. Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach . Caris Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, and Jacobs, Alan. 2015. Mixing methods: A Bayesian approach. American Political Science Review 109(4):653673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, Douglas. 1984. Political/military applications of Bayesian analysis . Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Iversen, Gudmund. 1984. Bayesian statistical inference . Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. 2003. Probability theory: The logic of science . Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Simon. 2009. Bayesian analysis for the social sciences . Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard. 1983. The logic of decision . University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Elman, Colin. 2014. Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency. PS: Political Science and Politics 47(1):1942.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2012. The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences. Sociological Methods and Research 41:570597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeown, Timothy. 1999. Case studies and the statistical worldview. International Organization 53(1):161190.Google Scholar
Rohlfing, Ingo. 2013. Case studies and causal inference . Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Savage, Leonard. 2003. The foundations of statistics . New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sivia, D. S. 2006. Data analysis—A dialogue with the data. In Advanced mathematical and computational tools in metrology VII , ed. Ciarlini, P., Filipe, E., Forbes, A. B., Pavese, F., Perruchet, C., and Siebert, B.. World Scientific Publishing Co., pp. 108118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 2001. Mandates and democracy: Neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America . Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 2007. The nuclear taboo . Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to methods for students of political science . Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Fairfield and Charman supplementary material

Appendices A and B

Download Fairfield and Charman supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 15 MB
45
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Explicit Bayesian Analysis for Process Tracing: Guidelines, Opportunities, and Caveats
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Explicit Bayesian Analysis for Process Tracing: Guidelines, Opportunities, and Caveats
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Explicit Bayesian Analysis for Process Tracing: Guidelines, Opportunities, and Caveats
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *