IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v47y2018i4p837-871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Derek Beach
  • Rasmus Brun Pedersen

Abstract

The last decade has witnessed resurgence in the interest in studying the causal mechanisms linking causes and effects. This article games through the methodological consequences that adopting a systems understanding of mechanisms has for what types of cases we should select when using in-depth case study methods like process tracing. The article proceeds in three steps. We first expose the assumptions that underpin the study of causal mechanisms as systems that have methodological implications for case selection. In particular, we take as our point of departure the case-based position, where: causation is viewed in deterministic and asymmetric terms, the focus is ensuring causal homogeneity in case-based research to enable cross-case inferences to be made, and finally where mechanisms are understood as more than just intervening variables but instead a system of interacting parts that transfers causal forces from causes to outcomes. We then develop a set of case selection guidelines that are in methodological alignment with these underlying assumptions. We then develop guidelines for research where the mechanism is the primary focus, contending that only typical cases where both X, Y, and the requisite contextual conditions are present should be selected. We compare our guidelines with the existing, finding that practices like selecting most/least-likely cases are not compatible with the underlying assumptions of tracing mechanisms. We then present guidelines for deviant cases, focusing on tracing mechanisms until they breakdown as a tool to shed light on omitted contextual and/or causal conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Derek Beach & Rasmus Brun Pedersen, 2018. "Selecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 47(4), pages 837-871, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:47:y:2018:i:4:p:837-871
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124115622510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124115622510
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124115622510?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226702773, April.
    2. Seawright, Jason, 2002. "Testing for Necessary and/or Sufficient Causation: Which Cases Are Relevant?," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 178-193, April.
    3. Ziblatt, Daniel, 2009. "Shaping Democratic Practice and the Causes of Electoral Fraud: The Case of Nineteenth-Century Germany," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(1), pages 1-21, February.
    4. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226702766 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aaron Katz & Matthias vom Hau & James Mahoney, 2005. "Explaining the Great Reversal in Spanish America," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 33(4), pages 539-573, May.
    2. Eva Thomann & Martino Maggetti, 2020. "Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approaches, Challenges, and Tools," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(2), pages 356-386, May.
    3. Jack S. Levy, 2008. "Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(1), pages 1-18, February.
    4. De Souter Luna, 2024. "Evaluating Boolean relationships in Configurational Comparative Methods," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, January.
    5. Cheng, Cheng-Feng & Chang, Man-Ling & Li, Chu-Shiu, 2013. "Configural paths to successful product innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2561-2573.
    6. Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, 2004. "On the Measurement of Human Well-being: Fuzzy Set Theory and Sen's Capability Approach," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-16, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    7. Arts, Bas & de Koning, Jessica, 2017. "Community Forest Management: An Assessment and Explanation of its Performance Through QCA," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 315-325.
    8. Grohs, Reinhard & Raies, Karine & Koll, Oliver & Mühlbacher, Hans, 2016. "One pie, many recipes: Alternative paths to high brand strength," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 2244-2251.
    9. Jantunen, Ari & Tarkiainen, Anssi & Chari, Simos & Oghazi, Pejvak, 2018. "Dynamic capabilities, operational changes, and performance outcomes in the media industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 251-257.
    10. Barry Cooper & Judith Glaesser, 2016. "Analysing necessity and sufficiency with Qualitative Comparative Analysis: how do results vary as case weights change?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 327-346, January.
    11. Gonçalves, Helena Martins & Lourenço, Tiago Ferreira & Silva, Graça Miranda, 2016. "Green buying behavior and the theory of consumption values: A fuzzy-set approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1484-1491.
    12. Russo, Ivan & Confente, Ilenia & Gligor, David M. & Autry, Chad W., 2016. "To be or not to be (loyal): Is there a recipe for customer loyalty in the B2B context?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 888-896.
    13. Bank, André & Richter, Thomas & Sunik, Anna, 2013. "Long-Term Monarchical Survival in the Middle East: A Configurational Comparison, 1945-2012," GIGA Working Papers 215, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    14. Federica Nieri & Luciano Ciravegna & Ruth V. Aguilera & Elisa Giuliani, 2019. "Larger, more internationalized, better behaved? A configurational study of em erging market multinational enterprises' involvement in corporate wrongdoing," Discussion Papers 2019/255, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    15. Maja Adena & Ruben Enikolopov & Maria Petrova & Veronica Santarosa & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2015. "Radio and the Rise of The Nazis in Prewar Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(4), pages 1885-1939.
    16. Ilenia Confente & Ivan Russo, 2018. "Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): A useful methodological tool for research in the social sciences. An example from the online word-of-mouth context," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(4), pages 87-108.
    17. Ayala, Luis & Bárcena-Martín, Elena & Cantó, Olga & Navarro, Carolina, 2022. "COVID-19 lockdown and housing deprivation across European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    18. Glückstad, Fumiko Kano & Schmidt, Mikkel N. & Mørup, Morten, 2020. "Testing a model of destination image formation: Application of Bayesian relational modelling and fsQCA," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 351-363.
    19. Chollet, Barthélemy & Géraudel, Mickaël & Khedhaouria, Anis & Mothe, Caroline, 2016. "Market knowledge as a function of CEOs' personality: A fuzzy set approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2567-2573.
    20. Ferguson, Graham & Megehee, Carol M. & Woodside, Arch G., 2017. "Culture, religiosity, and economic configural models explaining tipping-behavior prevalence across nations," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 218-233.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:47:y:2018:i:4:p:837-871. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.