Interviewing for Process Tracing

• In Event: Qualitative Field Research, Research Quality & Research Transparency

Abstract

In recent years we have witnessed the consolidation of standards of best practice when using “process tracing” methods to make descriptive and causal inferences about social and political phenomena based on within-case evidence (Beach and Pedersen 2013; Bennett and Checkel 2014). Process tracing entails the collection of a large amount of data about context, mechanisms, and sequences. It usually requires diving into a case to document the existence of an uninterrupted chain of events, actions and reactions, that together bring about an outcome of interest.

Among the various data gathering techniques available for this kind of outcome-oriented qualitative research, interviewing is one of the most widely used (e.g., Wood, 2003; Tannenwald, 2008; Fairfield, 2013). While there is a large and rich literature on interview research, little has been written about interviewing methods when the goal is to “process trace.” In this paper we contend that conducting process tracing bears implications for the way we think of, and practice, interviewing. To develop this argument, we focus on two central aspects of interview research – designing interview protocols and sampling/selecting respondents. The paper makes the case that we should approach both aspects of interview research in a way that aligns the data collection effort with the sequential logic that underpins process tracing. The sequential theories we develop to explain our outcome of interest, and that guide the application of process tracing methods, specify the main events and actions/reactions linking cause and effect, the actors that bring about these changes in states of affairs, and the mechanisms that explain the flow of causal energy along the sequence. We develop a series of recommendations so that each of these component parts of our models help guide: (a) who we choose to interview, (b) the questions we ask, and (c) the way we ask these questions.

We illustrate our guidelines with examples from research on the impact of international law on domestic judicial politics and civilian agency in the context of civil war. These very different topics reflect our own research interests, but more importantly, allow us to apply our recommendations to elite and non-elite interviewing.

We see this paper as part of a second-generation of essays on process tracing, which instead of discussing the epistemological foundations of the method, or developing general standards of best practice, seek to engage with “how to” questions. In addition, the paper speaks to current debates about data transparency. Being explicit about how the method of process tracing shapes the production and analysis of interview data constitutes yet another way to render qualitative and mixed-methods research more transparent to the reader.

Authors

• Juan Masullo, University of Oxford

• Ezequiel Alejo Gonzalez Ocantos, University of Oxford