Process tracing is a fundamental tool of qualitative analysis. often invoked by scholars who carr... more Process tracing is a fundamental tool of qualitative analysis. often invoked by scholars who carry out within-case analysis based frequently it is neither adequately understood nor rigorously applied. vates this article, which offers a new framework for carrying out process mulation integrates discussions of process tracing and causal-process greater attention to description as a key contribution, and emphasizes in which process-tracing observations can be situated. In the current vation in quantitative tools for causal inference, this reformulation allel effort to achieve greater systematization of qualitative methods. that these methods can add inferential leverage that is often lacking ysis. This article is accompanied by online teaching exercises, focused from American politics, two from comparative politics, three from and one from public health/epidemiology.
American Political Science Association Organized Section in Comparative Politics, 1998
Following the intellechral success in the 1960s and 1970s of an earlier generation of comparative... more Following the intellechral success in the 1960s and 1970s of an earlier generation of comparative-historical analysis, led by scholars such as Crerschenkron, Moore, Bendix, Lipset and Rokkan, Tilly, and Skocpol, this approach has been extended and consolidated by a series of valuable studies published in the 1980s and 1990s. This new work includes ongoing contributions by Tilly and Skocpol, as well as books by Luebbert ,Linzand Stepan, Pierson, and many other authors notedbelow.t In its e.arlier iteration, this literature played acentral role in advancingthe ideathatcounfiies mayfollowdifferentpaths ofnationalpolitical develop rnent, and thatpolitical and social conflict are often crucial features of these alternative paths, tn both the earlier and more recent iterations, these studies have offered new explanations foroutcomes of greatpolitical and norrnative importance: contrastinBtlrpesofnational states andofspecifrc state irutihrtions, national political regimes (e.g., authoritarian ordemocratic), the stnrcture of national political economies, revolutions and rebellions,political parties and rypes of party systems, and majorpublic policies, including thecreation and retrenchment of the welfare state.
This article presents a framework for studying critical junctures, understood as major episodes o... more This article presents a framework for studying critical junctures, understood as major episodes of institutional innovation that generate an enduring legacy. Scholars routinely focus on episodes of innovation that occur in contrasting ways across cases, which in turn yields distinct trajectories of change and produces different legacies. These contrasts readily lend themselves to analysis based on the comparative method, generally combined with process tracing. For the analysis of single cases, comparison is typically focused on explicit or implicit counterfactual alternatives that might have produced different trajectories of change. The critical juncture framework is seen as offering a set of hypotheses that may or may not fit a given historical situation, and whose actual fit must be demonstrated with great care.
This framework builds on Lipset and Rokkan’s (1967) classic study of cleavage structures and party systems, as well as Collier and Collier’s (1991) Shaping the Political Arena. It goes beyond these two studies by probing further the analytic dilemmas that arise at each step, as well as reviewing scholarly debates over how to study critical junctures. The discussion centers on three building blocks: the critical juncture itself, the antecedent conditions and cleavage or shock that precede it, and the legacy of the critical juncture. For each step, attention focuses on analytic pitfalls that may be encountered, as well as scholarly debates on how the successive steps should be evaluated. Throughout, the overall concern is with methodological challenges in assessing critical juncture hypotheses. Key points are illustrated by examples from Collier and Collier (1991), as well as from nine essays in the “Symposium on Critical Junctures and Historical Legacies” (Collier and Munck, eds., Qualitative and Multi- Method Research 15, no 1, 2017, pp. 1-47), for which this article serves as the introduction.
This symposium brings together ten essays that explore hypotheses about critical junctures, under... more This symposium brings together ten essays that explore hypotheses about critical junctures, understood as major episodes of institutional innovation that generate an enduring legacy. Scholars routinely focus on episodes of innovation that occur in contrasting ways across cases, which in turn yields distinct trajectories of change and produces different legacies. These contrasts readily lend themselves to analysis based on the comparative method, generally combined with process tracing. For the analysis of single cases, the comparison is typically focused on explicit or implicit counterfactual alternatives that might have produced different trajectories of change. The critical juncture framework is seen as offering a set of hypotheses that may or may not fit a given historical situation, and whose actual fit must be demonstrated with great care.
The symposium builds on Lipset and Rokkan’s (1967) classic study of cleavage structures and party systems, as well as Collier and Collier’s (1991) Shaping the Political Arena. The introduction by the coeditors provides an overall framework for studying critical junctures and the essays apply this framework, while at same time moving the discussion in new directions. The substantive domains explored include state-formation, party systems, neoliberal transformation, religion, law, economic growth, and colonial rebellion. Most essays focus on Latin America, while two discuss Europe and the United States; some analyze developments since the 1980s, whereas others reach back to the 19th century. Given that a critical juncture hypothesis inherently focuses on trajectories of change that extend over a substantial period of time, a key issue debated in the symposium is the amount of historical perspective required to establish that a critical juncture has in fact occurred. Contributors to the symposium, in addition to the coeditors, are Sidney Tarrow, Kenneth M. Roberts, Robert R. Kaufman, Taylor C. Boas, Timothy R. Scully, Jorge I. Dominguez, Sebastian L. Mazzuca, Andrew C. Gould, and Thad Dunning.
Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) 1 has received substantial attention from qualitative scho... more Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) 1 has received substantial attention from qualitative scholars seeking to systematize their research. QCA has valuable methodological goals: understanding context, interactions, and causal complexity, including asymmetric causation. These goals are pursued with central attention to case knowledge.
Social security is one of the most important means by which modern nations protect the welfare of... more Social security is one of the most important means by which modern nations protect the welfare of their citizens. Through programs that deal with the hardships of workers' injury, illness, old age, unemployment, and low income, social security attempts to set a minimum standard of living for the sectors of society covered by the programs. In countries with fully developed programs, social security now protects nearly all members of society.
Given our concern with the role of typologies in conceptualization and measurement, the discussio... more Given our concern with the role of typologies in conceptualization and measurement, the discussion here necessarily focuses on "descriptive" typologies. In such typologies, the cells correspond to specific types or instances of a broader concept. These can be contrasted with "explanatory" typologies, 1 in which the rows and columns are explanatory variables, and the cells contain hypothesized outcomes. Both descriptive and explanatory typologies can, in addition, be used to classify cases.
For scholars concerned with causal inference, how should cases be selected? The statistician Davi... more For scholars concerned with causal inference, how should cases be selected? The statistician David Freedman evaluates case selection strategies proposed by political scientists. He dissents from Fearon and Laitin, who suggest that when case studies are used to deepen findings derived from regression analysis, cases should be selected at random. Freedman also urges caution regarding Gerring’s approach, as he claims Gerring inappropriately proposes to identify cases as typical, diverse, extreme, etc. on the basis of criteria associated with large-N and experimental methods. Freedman likewise disagrees with Goertz’s recommendation about case-selection within the 2 x 2 matrix formed by dichotomous independent and dependent variables. Goertz suggests that analysts should ignore the 'null cell,' in which both the purported cause and the effect are absent, but Freedman argues against this practice, contending that all cells in the matrix can potentially be important. Through this discussion, these authors come to agree on the importance of grasping the strengths and limitations of alternative case-selection strategies.
Analysts who developed the set-theoretic comparative method (STCM) have formulated admirable goal... more Analysts who developed the set-theoretic comparative method (STCM) have formulated admirable goals for researchers who work in the qualitative and multi-method tradition. STCM includes above all Charles Ragin’s innovative approach of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). However, the analytic tools employed by STCM have in many ways become an obstacle to achieving these goals. For example, the system of fuzzy-set scoring appears to be problematic, poorly matched to a standard under-standing of conceptual structure, and perhaps unnecessary in its present form. Computer simulations suggest that findings suffer from serious problems of stability and validity; and while the choice of simulations that appropriately evaluate the method is a matter of some controversy, the cumulative weight of simulation results raises major concerns about STCM’s algorithms—i.e., its basic, formalized analytic procedures. Questions also arise about the cumbersome formulation of findings in what is often a remarkably large number of causal paths. Relatedly, some scholars question the STCM’s rejection of the parsimonious findings, in the form of “net effects,” routinely reported in other methodological traditions. Regarding applications, readily available software has encouraged publication of dozens of articles that appear to abandon key foundations of the method and rely far too heavily on these algorithms. Finally, STCM appears inattentive to the major, recent rethinking of standards and procedures for causal inference from observational data. These problems raise the concern that the set-theoretic comparative method, as applied and practiced, has become disconnected from the underlying analytic goals that motivated Charles Ragin to create it.
The challenge of finding appropriate tools for measurement validation is an abiding concern in po... more The challenge of finding appropriate tools for measurement validation is an abiding concern in political science. This article considers four traditions of validation, using examples from cross-national research on democracy: the levels-of-measurement approach, structural-equation modeling with latent variables, the pragmatic tradition, and the case-based method. Methodologists have sharply disputed the merits of alternative traditions. We encourage scholars—and certainly analysts of democracy—to pay more attention to these disputes and to consider strengths and weaknesses in the validation tools they adopt. An online appendix summarizes the evaluation of six democracy data sets from the perspective of alternative approaches to validation. The overall goal is to open a new discussion of alternative validation strategies.
Typologies are a well-established analytic tool in the social sciences. Working with typologies c... more Typologies are a well-established analytic tool in the social sciences. Working with typologies contributes decisively to forming concepts, exploring dimensionality, establishing measurement categories, and grouping cases. Yet some critics – basing their arguments on what they believe to be relevant norms of quantitative measurement – consider typologies to be an old-fashioned and unsophisticated mode of analysis. We show that this critique is methodologically unsound. The use of typologies can and should proceed according to high standards of rigor. We offer a basic template for constructing typologies and show how they can be “put to work” in refining concepts and measurement, examining underlying dimensions, and organizing explanatory claims and causal inference. The conclusion presents guidelines for careful work with typologies.
Process tracing is a fundamental tool of qualitative analysis. This method is often invoked by sc... more Process tracing is a fundamental tool of qualitative analysis. This method is often invoked by scholars who carry out within-case analysis based on qualitative data, yet frequently it is neither adequately understood nor rigorously applied. This deficit motivates this article, which offers a new framework for carrying out process tracing. The refor-mulation integrates discussions of process tracing and causal-process observations, gives greater attention to description as a key contribution, and emphasizes the causal sequence in which process-tracing observations can be situated. In the current period of major innovation in quantitative tools for causal inference, this reformulation is part of a wider, parallel effort to achieve greater systematization of qualitative methods. A key point here is that these methods can add inferential leverage that is often lacking in quantitative analysis. This article is accompanied by online teaching exercises, focused on four examples from American politics, two from comparative politics, three from international relations, and one from public health/epidemiology.
Learning and teaching process tracing is an important goal, both for qualitative researchers and ... more Learning and teaching process tracing is an important goal, both for qualitative researchers and for scholars who wish to supplement other methodologies with insights from within-case analysis. The examples and exercises presented here are intended to accompany “Understanding Process Tracing” (Collier 2011) and are cross-referenced to that article. The examples span the fields of American politics, international relations, comparative politics, and public health, as well as detective fiction: a Sherlock Holmes mystery story. In the framework of the Collier article, good description and careful causal inference are both central to process tracing. The examples address both of these challenges, and the exercises are grouped according to whether they focus on description or causal assessment.
Shifting debates on what constitutes " science " reveal competing claims about methodology. 2 Of ... more Shifting debates on what constitutes " science " reveal competing claims about methodology. 2 Of course, in its origin the term " science " means " knowledge, " and researchers obviously hold a wide spectrum of positions on how to produce viable knowledge. Within this spectrum, we compare two alternative meanings of science, advanced by scholars who seek to legitimate sharply contrasting views of qualitative methods. This comparison points to a sea change in political science methodology. 3 1 This article draws on the Introductions to Parts I and II of Brady and Collier, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edn. (Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010). 2 Morgan (1996) provides a broad overview of rival views of science, encompassing the natural, biological, and social sciences. 3 For our own work, we share David Freedman's (2010a) view of plurality in scientific methods, and we also recognize social versus natural science as partially different enterprises. Yet the two can and should strive for careful formulation of hypotheses, intersubjective agreement on the facts being analyzed, precise use of data, and good
Uploads
Papers by David Collier
This framework builds on Lipset and Rokkan’s (1967) classic study of cleavage structures and party systems, as well as Collier and Collier’s (1991) Shaping the Political Arena. It goes beyond these two studies by probing further the analytic dilemmas that arise at each step, as well as reviewing scholarly debates over how to study critical junctures. The discussion centers on three building blocks: the critical juncture itself, the antecedent conditions and cleavage or shock that precede it, and the legacy of the critical juncture. For each step, attention focuses on analytic pitfalls that may be encountered, as well as scholarly debates on how the successive steps should be evaluated. Throughout, the overall concern is with methodological challenges in assessing critical juncture hypotheses. Key points are illustrated by examples from Collier and Collier (1991), as well as from nine essays in the “Symposium on Critical Junctures and Historical Legacies” (Collier and Munck, eds., Qualitative and Multi- Method Research 15, no 1, 2017, pp. 1-47), for which this article serves as the introduction.
The symposium builds on Lipset and Rokkan’s (1967) classic study of cleavage structures and party systems, as well as Collier and Collier’s (1991) Shaping the Political Arena. The introduction by the coeditors provides an overall framework for studying critical junctures and the essays apply this framework, while at same time moving the discussion in new directions. The substantive domains explored include state-formation, party systems, neoliberal transformation, religion, law, economic growth, and colonial rebellion. Most essays focus on Latin America, while two discuss Europe and the United States; some analyze developments since the 1980s, whereas others reach back to the 19th century. Given that a critical juncture hypothesis inherently focuses on trajectories of change that extend over a substantial period of time, a key issue debated in the symposium is the amount of historical perspective required to establish that a critical juncture has in fact occurred. Contributors to the symposium, in addition to the coeditors, are Sidney Tarrow, Kenneth M. Roberts, Robert R. Kaufman, Taylor C. Boas, Timothy R. Scully, Jorge I. Dominguez, Sebastian L. Mazzuca, Andrew C. Gould, and Thad Dunning.