The Congruence Method and Process-Tracing

To test the derived hypotheses from each theory, this dissertation will carry out case studies resorting to the congruence method and process-tracing, which are taken as an alternative and supplement to comparative methods (George and Bennett 2005, 153).21 The congruence method is meant to test whether a theory is congruent or not congruent with the outcome in a case, while process-tracing aims at uncovering causal mechanisms posited by a theory coupling independent variables with dependent variables (George and Bennett 2005, 153). George and Bennett describe the congruence method as follows:

“The essential characteristic of the congruence method is that the investigator begins with a theory and then attempts to assess its ability to explain or predict the outcome in a particular case. The theory posits a relation between variance in the independent variable and variance in the dependent variable; it can be deductive or take the form of an empirical generalization. The analyst first ascertains the value of the independent variable in the case at hand and then asks what prediction or expectation about the outcome of the dependent variable should follow from the theory.

Haverland and Blatter (2012) and Blatter and Haverland (2012) argue that there are three different approaches to case study research: co-variational analysis, causal-process tracing and congruence analysis. The first one refers to cross-case comparisons, while the latter two — causal-process tracing and congruence analysis — are two variants of within-case analysis. Accordingly, this dissertation conducts within-case causal analysis to test the validity of EU integration theories.

41

If the outcome of the case is consistent with the theory’s prediction, the analyst can entertain the possibility that a causal relationship may exist.” (2005, 181)

Nevertheless, in order to have a high quality congruence test, “an investigator must establish the level of concreteness and differentiation with which variance in the dependent variable will be measured”, and “[h]ow well this task is performed may well determine whether one can find congruence between the independent variable in the theory and outcomes on the dependent variable” (George and Bennett 2005, 182). Therefore, whenever a theoretical model is discussed and hypotheses are derived, the independent variable and dependent variables must be stated clearly, and the methods or scales of measuring the variance of the dependent variable should also be clarified as much as possible.

A salient feature of the congruence method is that it “does not require a search for data that might establish a causal process from independent to dependent variables” (George and Bennett 2005, 182). Applying the congruence method, researchers do not need a great deal of data about the cases in study, because the congruence method “does not have to trace the causal process that leads from the independent variable to the case outcome” (George and Bennett 2005, 182), and therefore, it is necessary to combine the congruence method with process-tracing, as the latter “attempts to identify the intervening causal process — the causal chain and causal mechanism — between an independent variable (or variables) and the outcome of the dependent variable” (George and Bennett 2005, 206). Tracing the causal chains, on the one hand, helps narrow the list of potential spurious causes; on the other hand, it forces researchers to take equifinality (multiple causes) into account, that is, to consider possible alternative paths which also lead to the same outcome in a single case (George and Bennett 2005, 182; 207). In such a way, with more cases, a typological theory can be developed so long as the repertoire of causal paths that are consistent with a given outcome and the conditions under which they occur are clearly mapped out (George and Bennett 2005, 207). The usefulness of the process-tracing technique is further emphasized and explained by Panke (2012). Compared with correlation-based analyses which tell the ratio of corresponding variation between the independent and dependent variables, process-tracing, studying “the unfolding of an event over time” and examining “the chain of events”, gives explanations for the changes of the dependent variable(s)

42

caused by the independent variable(s) and specifies the causal chain(s) between the independent and dependent variables (Panke 2012, 129), answering both “why” and “how-come” questions (Panke 2012, 136). Deriving conclusions from large-n data for given topics is a distinct advantage of quantitative methods, while process-tracing offers complementary tools, notably in studies focused on a small number of cases. Moreover, Panke also suggests that qualitative researchers tend to overlook the in-case variation of independent and dependent variables, which actually is “a common feature of a case study” and “in effect increases the number of observations”, and the value of process-tracing is that, besides avoiding false conclusions based on spurious correlations, it “allows for definition of fine-grained observable implications of causal processes as well as outcomes, which enables qualitative researchers to test multiple hypotheses even in small-n settings and establish causality”, and with the process-tracing technique, “a single case study can be utilized to test multiple hypotheses” (Panke 2012, 126). Panke further sets up two requirements to utilize process-tracing: (1) “specify the causal mechanisms expected by each of the hypotheses”, and (2) “specify indicators for the mechanisms” (2012, 129). So basically, process-tracing adds one more step of causal explanations to the congruence test; accordingly, this dissertation will first clearly present the causal mechanisms linking the independent and dependent variables assumed by the derived hypotheses; second it will check whether these hypothesized mechanisms are present or absent in the selected cases, which will lead to the acceptance or rejection of the relevant hypotheses. The crucial factor that contributes to a credible hypothesis test is to have a clear prescription of the indicators and measurements for the causal chains, and one way to achieve this, as step (4) by Waltz (1979, 13) above suggests, is to “use the definitions offered by the tested theory”, so when narrating theories and formulating hypotheses, this dissertation will state indicators, measurements and term definitions as clearly as possible.

For each single case, there might be competitive explanations and predictions offered by the three distinctive theories on the causal processes thought to have taken place in the case (i.e. the hypothesized causal paths), which contain necessary steps of a particular order linking the posited independent and dependent variables. By applying congruence testing and process-tracing, this dissertation has the means to compare, confirm or reject the alternative hypotheses, to possibly discover new causal paths or to synthesize the multiple causal chains linking the independent and dependent variables in a single case. As the chapters of the literature review suggest, neither

43

neo-functionalism nor intergovernmentalism has ever been proved fully correct, while HI is only one of the three sub-categories of new institutionalism, and the other two schools of new institutionalism will explain the same case from different angles, so the aim of this dissertation is not going to prove one theory entirely correct or incorrect, but to test each theory’s propositions, and thus its relative explanatory and predictive power, against the same set of cases and to assess the relative importance of various factors in different cases. Therefore, besides possible rival propositions, other propositions stressing different factors from each theory may offer to-be-vindicated multi-causal mechanisms for case studies, and new causal chains or a synthesis of a typological theory is possible outside the already-existing causal explanations. If evidence in the cases consistently confirms the preeminence of certain factors, it is a conclusion rather than an assumption of the empirical analysis, which, of course, is subject to further empirical tests and possible theoretical revisions. All these hypothesis tests and theoretical constructions provide us effective epistemic tools to understand and grasp the EU today, and the case study results definitely offer answers to the MRQ and the SRQs of this dissertation.