reading 6 - interpretivist process tracing Flashcards
Process Tracing: An Analyst Approach
intro
Hilde van Meegdenburg
Process tracing (PT) with space for agency and contingency
= diff from dominant understanding: finds generalizability assumption to rigid
mechanisms as: abstract constructs that are abducted from multiple concrete, contextually embedded and largely idiosyncratic instantiations
*is akin to Weberian ideal types
mechanisms as social constructs -> allows to:
- study how a mechanism led to a particular outcome
- assess how mechanism(s) functioned in a given context
- abstract from the specific instantiation(s) more general propositions about foreign policy making
article:
- PT as method (no particular philosophical ontology)
- analystic approach to PT as method to study idiosyncratic cases by treating causal mechanisms as analytical constructs or ideal types
- example: foreign policy narratives + use of Private Military and Security Contractors (PMSCs) by Denmark
- conclusion: benefits and challenges of following an analyticist approach to PT
Process Tracing: An Analyst Approach
regularity understanding of PT
PT = a method: systematic mode of inquiry that allows a researcher to draw inferences and further knowledge of the world
!PT not concerned with definition of knowledge and overall goal of empirical research (ontology)
PT = understanding of how outcomes come about (through processes and driven by mechanisms)
!what a mechanism is and how it should be studied is not given
Regularity understanding PT (largely positivist) = PT to test hypotheses against more or less objective empirical reality + to come to generalizations = nomothetic research: aimed at uncovering mechanism (causal pathway) that underlies regular association (mechanism M that relates a trigger X to an outcome Y)
- overall assumption that mechanisms sustain regularities across cases (with certain scope conditions: context) = given X and the trigger an equivalent mechanism should lead to a similar outcome in a defined set of similar cases
Meegdenburg: this approach to restrictive for much of FPA (foreign policy analysis): too deterministic (we assume actors under a given set of conditions will act in similar ways and bring about similar outcomes) -> doesn’t work for intepretivist and actor-centered research
- multifinality: same mechanism can produce diff outcomes even under the same structural conditions
Process Tracing: An Analyst Approach
an analyticist approach
Treats mechanisms as analytical constructs that defines how a given set-up or entity transfers motion in identical or closely similar ways over a variety of situations
- Mechanism proper = mechanism as abstract ideal type - Concrete instantiations: exemplify the mechanism proper
Is interested in:
1. Studying how a mechanism or concentration of mechanisms led to a particular outcome 2. Assessing how the mechanism(s) functioned in a given context 3. Abstracting from the specific instantiation(s) more general propositions about foreign policy making
An analyticist approach
- Mechanisms
Mechanism = analytical constructs : abstraction that captures the essence of a social phenomenon (Weberian ideal type)
Focus on usefulness for our understanding rather than establishing truth value or accuracy
1. Distinct from the process: not one mechanism defines the whole process (process has multiple mechanisms with own logic and contribution) 2. Mechanisms are constructs: they are drawn from concrete, diverse instantiations (abstract images derived from the study of the instantiations) They are deduced from reality, not a depiction of reality Are always under construction: understanding of mechanisms always questioned, challenged etc. We can discuss their strengths/weaknesses -> proves they are merely discursive constructs 3. Mechanisms = conceptual tools, heuristic and analytical devices: we use them to grasp/study reality + summarize and communicate reality
What does a mechanism consist of?
Entities that engage in activities (e.g. Politician may vie for votes)
!can also be collective actors and macro-level processes rather than individual-level
An analyticist approach
- Concrete instantiations
Instantiation = a mechanism’s occurrence or manifestation in empirical reality = always contextually embedded
!major diff with regularity understanding = bc mechanisms interact with the context in which they operate -> outcomes of the process can’t be determined a priori by knowing the type of mechanism at work
Mechanisms are multifinal = same mechanism can bring about different outcomes
- E.g. Rational decisionmaking can in one context lead to ordering dinner, in another can lead to abstaining to vote on resolution in the UNSC
Concrete instantiations are the empirical objects of study
To learn about a mechanism, we study its instantiations
Focuses of an empirical study:
1. Expose what the particular instantiation looked like (how did characteristics manifest and how if at all did the mechanisms motion push the process forward?) = more than thick description: focus on mechanism and causal relevance 2. Study functioning of the mechanism in its specific context as part of a specific process (how did structure change or limit its typical motion?) 3. Compare and contrast the instantiation to the ideal type and see if broader lessons about the mechanism and its functioning can be learned
Try to study common properties of mechanism across historically and culturally distinct settings (Study and contrast diverse instantiations to refine our understanding of the mechanism and learn about its (dis) functioning in distinct contexts)
OR start with an empirical case and try to figure out why the outcome occured -> look at diff mechanisms -> thic holistic explanation of the case, in which mechanisms guide the research
An analyticist approach
Portability
Mechanism = analytical construct that defines, in abstract terms, how a given set-up or entity transfers motion in identical or closely similar ways over a variety of situations
Over a variety of situations = understanding mechanisms as supporting regular associations is too deterministic for Foreign Policy Analysis: minimizes agency
As analytical constructs mechanisms can travel as “portable constructs”, portability lies in abstraction
Abstract level of mechanisms = general features, characteristic similarities, typical motions can be discerned, contrasted and analyzed -> mechanisms travel
Concrete level of instantiations: mechanisms manifest differently, explicitly expected not to be the same
-> mechanisms are portable (expect them to occur more frequently in reality) but also indeterminal (causally diff outcomes occur)
-> allows us to look at idiosyncrasy, agency and contingency
Biggest diff analyticist approach from the regularity understanding =
Analyticist =
Outcome mechanisms produced cannot be determined a priori, much depends on creativity and agency of the actors involved + socio-institutional context + presence of other mechanisms that support/allow/conteract a mechanism’s typical motion
- Knowledge about typical motions of a mechanism, but can't know in advance if these typical motions will manifest in a given case (instantiation)
Regularity-oriented =
Strong expectations about outcomes based on established/hypothesized scope conditions
-> analyticist PT = captures idiosyncratic nature of cases + encourages in-depth investigation + refines conceptual tools through which we understand the world (bc abstracts from concrete instantiations more general lessons about the mechanism(s) proper)
Example - Denmark and the decision not to employ private military and security contractors (PMSCs)
- Mechanism proper
Mechanism = of justification -> two outcomes: policy outcome and identity outcome
Argument: foreign policy making is based in narratives (total collection of stories that we tell and that are told about us), actors use narratives to give meanings to events, actors and objects
- Mechanism = narrative constitution of identity and foreign policy
This case = how, by positioning (narrating) the self in relation to PMSCs, a state’s collective identity and plausible courses of action, and thus foreign policy, are simultaneously defined and plotted
Example - Denmark and the decision not to employ private military and security contractors (PMSCs)
Concrete instantiation
Denmark 2001-2013, use of PMSCs controversial
Danish Defense approached PMSCs with constraint, outsourcing remained limit4ed
This also affected the Danish Defense
Why? Taken for granted negativity towards PMSCs (as if it is obvious they should not be employed)
Narrators (politicians, civil servants, journalists, ministries, NGOs) as entities, their activity is uttering of a discursive intervention
Outcome = parallel constitution of state identity and foreign policy
E.g. 2005 debate about giving the UN the right to employ PMSCs in extreme cases
-> narrators position Denmark in relation to PMSCs -> politicians calls them mercenaries (negative connotation) + defensive language and stressing common values and controversiality of the proposal
How does the mechanism work?
1. PMSCs as mercenaries -> implicit sense of illegitimacy -> makes clear Denmark's opinion + demarcates a policy space 2. Denmark narrated as a country that holds to the primacy of states, where PMSCs are controversial, and employing them is a rhetorical contradiction
What other processes where present?
- Public narrative (newspaper articles), which may influence parliamentary debates and vice versa - Foreign policy as an ongoing process around continuous collective narratives that are temporarily fixed/stabilized in action, in policy outcomes
Example - Denmark and the decision not to employ private military and security contractors (PMSCs)
- Mechanism portability
Diff instantiations of this mechanism can be found throughout the FPA literature, which suggests that in and through narrative state’s collective identity is defined and course of action are plotted
Wildly diff outcomes: USA as innocent and provoked to self-defense by SU, Serbia historically victimized and incomplete without Kosovo
Underlying mechanismsthe same: justifying policies, positions, and interpretations -> actors produce a state’s identity and delimit space for action
conclusion
Variation in outcomes does not prove a mechanism wrong, it simply shows that mechanisms can manifest differently in different contexts.
Distinction between concrete and contextualized instantiations vs conceptual, theoretical and ideal-typical mechanism -> dissolves trade-off between inclusive and parsimonious accounts seen in generalizations PT understanding
Challenge = differences analyticist and regularity understanding are subtle -> recommend to use diff language with analyticist approach (e.g. Not scope but conditions, no causal mechanism but abstract mechanism), otherwise misunderstanding
