SAGE SAGE Research Methods Cases

2015 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Process-tracing is typically used in single case studies, which lend themselves more readily to the need
for extensive data collection required to achieve a deep familiarity with even seemingly minor details of the
process under study. Indeed, some would argue that it is precisely the focus on how causality plays out – as
opposed to suggesting causality through consistent correlation across a variety of cases – that distinguishes
the theoretical contribution process-tracing can make in comparison with more variable-driven approaches.
Adding additional cases thus becomes obsolete, because it is the mechanisms linking different steps in the
process that are potentially generalisable, rather than the process as such.

Despite this reluctance in the process-tracing mainstream to address more than one case, I nonetheless
wanted to look at three different countries in order to bolster my argument. Being able to show that processes
of differential empowerment are different , rather than being linear and foreseeable, in my eyes shows all the
more convincingly that the empowerment of CSOs is not merely the consequence of EU support, but depends
crucially on domestic agency. My research into the Montenegrin case, for instance, has shown that unlike in
Croatia and Serbia, CSOs are formal members of the government negotiation groups for each chapter. This
set-up allows for a very privileged access and thus lends credibility to my guiding hypothesis that openness
at the national level tends to reduce the reliance upon EU actors that I found in both of the other cases.

The fact that I formulated my theorised process in more general terms obviously helps in making it applicable
across several cases. Thus, once CSOs are aware of EU- level opportunities, usages might take very different
forms depending on the domestic context. Similarly, reactions by EU and state-level actors as determinants
of eventual civil society empowerment can be largely divergent. Given the different forms of differential
empowerment that exist, it seems plausible that their precise form depends more on local circumstances
and agency than on a one-size-fits-all EU approach and that the traditional top-down approach prevalent
in the Europeanisation literature is usefully complemented by insights drawn from other bodies of literature.
Comparative process-tracing thus requires an all the more fine-tuned calibration between precision and
flexibility, so as not to limit the insights a researcher can glean through an overly rigid theoretical framework.

Conclusion: Benefits and Pitfalls of Process-Tracing

Process-tracing is an innovative method, in that it allows the researcher to move beyond the mere
establishment of correlation or covariation in order to address how certain initial conditions may result
in a particular outcome. The method thus addresses the complexity of causality head-on, allowing for a
detailed discussion of the causal links between different steps in a theorised process and a fuller rendition
of the empirical reality. At the same time, process-tracing is more than thick description in that it combines
deductive theorisation with inductive empirical testing of a theorised process. To be deployed effectively,
process-tracing requires a deep familiarity with the case(s) under study and thus most likely an extended
period of fieldwork. Moreover, the combination of different methods of data collection, potentially even across
the qualitative–quantitative gap, strengthens the validity and reliability of the collected data and the overall
confidence with which the researcher can assert to have demonstrated a particular process playing out.

Tracing Processes of Empowerment: Civil Society in European Union

Page 9 of 11
Accession