The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Disciplining our conjectures: Systematizing process tracing with Bayesian analysis
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Additionally, while one piece of evidence might not be very unique, when independent pieces are combined, they can together become quite unique (Bennett, 2014).”
From Selecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms (2018) · cites this paper as Bennett, 2014
Citations
Cited by
Selecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms
Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2018) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124115622510 · Cited by 198
Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach
HUMPHREYS, M., & JACOBS, A. M. (2015) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055415000453 · Cited by 198
Explicit Bayesian Analysis for Process Tracing: Guidelines, Opportunities, and Caveats
Fairfield, T., & Charman, A. E. (2017) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2017.14 · Cited by 193
Achieving Methodological Alignment When Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Practice
Beach, D. (2018) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124117701475 · Cited by 90
“For each empirical manifestation of parts of a mechanism, we need to evaluate whether they are unique and/or certain, which determines the types of inferences we can make when we find them/do not find them (Bennett 2014; Beach and Pedersen 2013).”
BackgroundFairfield, T., & Charman, A. (2019) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592718002177 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- Bennett, A.
- Venue
- Process Tracing
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- 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.