This article explores the practical challenges one faces when combining qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and process tracing (PT) in a manner that is consistent with their underlying assumptions about the nature of causal relationships. While PT builds on a mechanism-based understanding of causation, QCA as a comparative method makes claims about counterfactual causal relationships. Given the need to ensure alignment between the ontological understandings of causation that underlie a method and methodological practice, the different ontological foundations result in methodological guidelines that contradict each other, forcing the analyst to choose whether to be more in alignment with one or the other method. This article explores the implications of contrasting guidelines in a practical case study, where a QCA for sufficiency is followed by two PT case studies of positive cases.
BaumgartenFrank R.JonesBryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BeachDerekRohlfingIngo. 2018. “Integrating Cross-case Analyses and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Research: Strategies and Parameters of Debate.” Sociological Methods and Research47:3–36.
3.
BeachDerekPedersenRasmus Brun. 2013. Process-tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4.
BeachDerekPedersenRasmus Brun. 2016a. Causal Case Studies: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching and Tracing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
BeachDerekPedersenRasmus Brun. 2016b. “Selecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms.” Sociological Methods and Research, first published on January 13, 2016. doi:10.1177/0049124115622510.
6.
BennettAndrew. 2014. “Appendix: Disciplining Our Conjectures: Systematizing Process Tracing with Bayesian Analysis.” Pp. 276–98 in Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, edited by BennettAndrewCheckelJeffrey. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BlaisAndréBodetMarc André. 2006. “Does Proportional Representation Foster Closer Congruence Between Citizens and Policy Makers?” Comparative Political Studies39:1243–62.
8.
BradyHenry. 2008. “Causation and Explanation in Social Science.” Pp. 217–270. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.BradyHenry E.CollierDavid. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
BursteinPaul. 2003. “The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly56:29–40.
10.
CarrubaClifford J.2001. “The Electoral Connection in European Union Politics.” The Journal of Politics63:141–58.
11.
ChristinThomasHugSimon. 2002. Referendums and Citizen Support for European Integration.”Comparative Political Studies35:586–617.
12.
ClosaCarlos. 2007. “Why Convene Referendums? Explaining Choices in EU Constitutional Politics.” Journal of European Public Policy14:1311–33.
13.
COSAC. 2005. “Third bi-annual Report: Developments in European Union Procedures and Practices Relevant to Parliamentary Scrutiny.” May 2005, Luxembourg, COSAC Secretariat.
14.
de Vries, CatherineE. 2007. “Sleeping Giant: Fact or Fairytale? How European Integration Affects National Elections.” European Union Politics8:363–85.
15.
ElsterJon. 1998. “A Plea for Mechanisms.” Pp. 45–73 in Social Mechanisms, edited by HedströmP.SwedbergR.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
European Commission. 1996. Eurobarometer 45, December 1996. Brussels: Directorate-General Press and Communication.
17.
European Commission. 2002. Eurobarometer 57, Spring 2002. Brussels: Directorate-General Press and Communication.
18.
FalletiTulia G.LynchJulia F.. 2009. “Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis.” Comparative Political Studies42:1143–66.
Fine Gael. 2002. Election Manifesto—2002. Dublin: Fine Gael.
21.
FinkeDaniel. 2009. “Domestic Politics and European Treaty Reform: Understanding the Dynamics of Governmental Position Taking.” European Union Politics10:482–506.
22.
GarryJohn. 2004. “The general election in Ireland, May 2002.” Electoral Studies23:155–60.
23.
GarryJohnMarshMichaelSinnottRichard. 2005. “‘Second-order’ versus ‘Issue-Voting’ Effects in EU Referendums: Evidence from the Irish Nice Treaty Referendums.” European Union Politics6:201–21.
24.
GerringJohnSeawrightJason. 2007. Techniques for Choosing Cases. Pp. 86–150 in Case Study Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
GillandKarin. 2002. “Ireland’s (First) Referendum on the Treaty of Nice.” Journal of Common Market Studies40:527–35.
GoertzGaryLevyJack S., eds. 2007. Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals. London, England: Routledge.
28.
GolderMattStramskiJacek. 2010. “Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science54:90–106.
29.
GoldeyD. B.1997. “The Portuguese General Election of October 1995 and Presidential Election of January 1996.” Electoral Studies16:245–54.
30.
HallPeter A.2003. Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Politics. Pp. 373–404 in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by MahoneyJ.RueschemeyerD.. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
HoboltSara. 2009. Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
HoogheLiesbet. 2003. “Europe Divided?: Elites vs. Public Opinion on European Integration.” European Union Politics4:281–304.
33.
HoogheLiesbetMarksGary. 2009. “A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus.” British Journal of Political Science39:1–23.
34.
HuberJohn D.PowellBingham G.. 1994. “Congruence Between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy.” World Politics46:291–326.
35.
HugSimonKönigThomas. 2002. “In View of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference.” International Organization56:447–76.
36.
HugSimonSchultzThomas. 2005. “Using Mass Survey to Infer Political Positions.” European Union Politics6:339–52.
37.
HugSimonSchultzThomas. 2007. “Referendums in the EU’s Constitution Building Process.” Review of International Organizations2:177–218.
38.
IllariPhyllis McKay. 2011. “Mechanistic Evidence: Disambiguating the Russo- Williamson Thesis.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science25:139–57.
39.
KassimHusseinGuy PetersB.EdsVincent Wright.. 2000. The National Co-ordination of EU Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
KriesiHanspeter. 2007. “The Role of European Integration in National Election Campaigns.” European Union Politics8:83–108.
41.
LaffanBrigidO’MahonyJane. 2008. Ireland and the European Union. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
MachamerPeter. 2004. “Activities and Causation: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Mechanisms.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science18:27–39.
43.
MachamerPeterDardenLindleyCraverCarl F.. 2000. “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science67:1–25.
44.
MarinhoM.2002. “Portugal.” Pp. 291–310 in The Amsterdam Treaty, edited by OdenseFinn Laursen.. Denmark: Odense University Press.
45.
McDonaldMichael D.MendesSilvia M.BudgeIan. 2004. “What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate.” British Journal of Political Science34:1–26.
46.
MüllerWolfgang C.StrømKaare Eds. 2000. Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
PowellBingham G.. 2009. “The Ideological Congruence Controversy: The Impact of Alternative Measures, Data, and Time Periods on the Effects of Election Rules.” Comparative Political Studies42:1475–97.
48.
RaginCharles C.2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49.
RaginCharles C.2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry. Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
RayLeonard. 1999. “Measuring Party Positions on European Integration: Results from an Expert Survey.” European Journal of Political Research36:283–306.
51.
RayLeonard. 2003. “When Parties Matter: The Conditional Influence of Party Positions on Voter Opinion about European Integration.” Journal of Politics65:978–94.
52.
RohlfingIngo. 2014. “Comparative Hypothesis Testing Via Process Tracing.” Sociological Methods and Research43:606–42.
53.
RohrschneiderRobert. 2002. “The Democracy Deficit and Mass Support for an EU-wide Government.” American Journal of Political Science46:463–75.
54.
RussoFedericaWilliamsonJon. 2007. “Interpreting Causality in the Health Science.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science21:157–70.
55.
SaalfeldThomas. 2000. “Members of Parliament and Government in Western Europe: Agency Relations and Problems of Oversight.” European Journal of Political Research37:353–76.
56.
SamfordSteven. 2010. “Averting disruption and reversal: Reassessing the logic of rapid trade reform in Latin America.” Politics and Society38:373–407.
57.
SchmittHermannThomassenJacques J. A.. 2000. “Dynamic Representation: The Case of European Integration.” European Union Politics1:318–39.
58.
SchneiderCarstenRohlfingIngo. 2013. “Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretical Multi-Method Research.” Sociological Methods and Research42:559–97.
59.
SchneiderCarstenRohlfingIngo. 2014. “Case Studies Nested in Fuzzy-set QCA on Sufficiency: Formalizing Case Selection and Causal Inference.” Sociological Methods and Research45:526–68.
60.
SkaaningSvend-Erik. 2011. “Assessing the Robustness of Crisp-set and Fuzzy-set QCA Results.” Sociological Methods and Research40:391–408.
61.
SteenbergenMarco R.EdwardsErica E.VriesCatherine E. de. 2007. “Who’s Cuing Whom?: Masse-Elite Linkages and the Future of European Integration.” European Union Politics8:13–35.
62.
SteenbergenMarco R.MarksGary. 2007. “Evaluating Expert Surveys.” European Journal of Political Research46:347–66.
63.
SteenbergenMarco R.ScottDavid J.. 2004. “Contesting Europe? The Salience of European Integration as a Party Issue.” Pp. 165–94 in European Integration and Political Conflict, edited by MarksGarySteenbergenMarco. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
StrømKaare. 2000. “Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research37:261–89.
65.
Van der EijkCeesFranklinMarkSchönbachKlausSchmittHermannSemetkoHolli. 1999. European Elections Study: Design, Data Description and Documentation. NIWI/Steinmetz—Zentral Archiv.
66.
Van der EijkCleesFranklinMark. 2004. “Potential for Contestations on European Matters at National Elections in Europe.” Pp. 32–50 in European Integration and Political Conflict, edited by MarksGarySteenbergenM. R.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67.
Vergés BausiliAnna.2004. “The Constitutional Convention and Ireland.” In Ireland and the European Union: Nice, Enlargement and the Future of Europe, edited by HolmesMichaelThiemannAnia. Manchester University Press. Accessed March 25, 2017. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=506622.
68.
VerkuilenJay. 2005. “Assigning Membership in a Fuzzy Set Analysis.” Sociological Methods and Research33:462–96.
69.
WaskanJonathan. 2011. “Mechanistic Explanation at the Limit.” Synthese183:389–408.
70.
WesselsBernhard. 2001. “System Characteristics Matter: Empirical Evidence From Ten Representation Studies.” Pp. 137–61 in Policy Representation in Western Democracies, edited by MillerWarren E.. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
71.
WlezienChristopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science39:981–1000.
72.
WoodwardJames. 2003. Making Things Happen: A theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
