Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 19

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Disciplining our conjectures: Systematizing process tracing with Bayesian analysis

Bennett, Andrew·2014·Process Tracing

Abstract

One of the attractions of process tracing is that it does not require technical training to be able to use the method. Just as one can be a decent cook with only a recipe and an intuitive understanding of chemistry, it is possible to do process tracing well by following the prescriptive advice in Chapter 1 and having an intuitive understanding of its logic. Yet, sometimes our intuitive understandings lead us astray. Just as a cook who understands chemistry will be better able to develop new recipes, adapt to different kitchens and ingredients, and teach cooking to others, researchers who understand the underlying logic of process tracing are likely to be better able to do it, teach it, and defend their applications of it. This appendix thus outlines the mathematical logic of process tracing. Although technical, it should be accessible to readers with modest exposure to algebra, probability theory, and formal logic. The Appendix focuses on Bayesian reasoning as one way of illuminating the logic that underlies deductive process tracing. An important caveat here is that although the logic of process tracing and that of Bayesianism have much in common, they are not entirely coterminous. In particular, the use of process tracing to generate theories by “soaking and poking” in the evidence does not (yet) have a place in Bayesian epistemology. Also, the logic underlying process tracing can be explicated in terms of set theory and directed acyclic graphs as well as Bayesianism. Yet,…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781139858472.015

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

See all 19

Metadata

Authors
Bennett, A.
Venue
Process Tracing
Published
2014-11-13
Pages
276-298
Cited by
19
References
0

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disciplining our conjectures: Systematizing process tracing with Bayesian analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9781139858472.015
The paper
Bennett, A. (2014). Disciplining our conjectures: Systematizing process tracing with Bayesian analysis. Process Tracing. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139858472.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.