Return to the Scene of the Crime: Revisiting Process Tracing, Bayesianism, and Murder

IF 4.7 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Analysis Pub Date : 2021-07-23 DOI:10.1017/pan.2021.24
Sherry Zaks
{"title":"Return to the Scene of the Crime: Revisiting Process Tracing, Bayesianism, and Murder","authors":"Sherry Zaks","doi":"10.1017/pan.2021.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In a recent article, I argued that the Bayesian process tracing literature exhibits a persistent disconnect between principle and practice. In their response, Bennett, Fairfield, and Charman raise important points and interesting questions about the method and its merits. This letter breaks from the ongoing point-by-point format of the debate by asking one question: In the most straightforward case, does the literature equip a reasonable scholar with the tools to conduct a rigorous analysis? I answer this question by walking through a qualitative Bayesian analysis of the simplest example: analyzing evidence of a murder. Along the way, I catalogue every question, complication, and pitfall I run into. Notwithstanding some important clarifications, I demonstrate that aspiring practitioners are still facing a method without guidelines or guardrails.","PeriodicalId":48270,"journal":{"name":"Political Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/pan.2021.24","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2021.24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In a recent article, I argued that the Bayesian process tracing literature exhibits a persistent disconnect between principle and practice. In their response, Bennett, Fairfield, and Charman raise important points and interesting questions about the method and its merits. This letter breaks from the ongoing point-by-point format of the debate by asking one question: In the most straightforward case, does the literature equip a reasonable scholar with the tools to conduct a rigorous analysis? I answer this question by walking through a qualitative Bayesian analysis of the simplest example: analyzing evidence of a murder. Along the way, I catalogue every question, complication, and pitfall I run into. Notwithstanding some important clarifications, I demonstrate that aspiring practitioners are still facing a method without guidelines or guardrails.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
回到犯罪现场:重新审视过程追踪、贝叶斯主义和谋杀
摘要在最近的一篇文章中,我认为贝叶斯过程跟踪文献在原理和实践之间表现出持续的脱节。Bennett、Fairfield和Charman在回应中提出了关于该方法及其优点的重要观点和有趣问题。这封信打破了正在进行的逐点辩论的形式,提出了一个问题:在最直接的情况下,文献是否为一个理性的学者提供了进行严格分析的工具?我通过对最简单的例子进行定性贝叶斯分析来回答这个问题:分析谋杀的证据。一路上,我把遇到的每一个问题、复杂情况和陷阱都一一列举出来。尽管有一些重要的澄清,但我证明,有抱负的从业者仍然面临着一种没有指导方针或护栏的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Analysis
Political Analysis POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Political Analysis chronicles these exciting developments by publishing the most sophisticated scholarship in the field. It is the place to learn new methods, to find some of the best empirical scholarship, and to publish your best research.
期刊最新文献
Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models NonRandom Tweet Mortality and Data Access Restrictions: Compromising the Replication of Sensitive Twitter Studies Generalizing toward Nonrespondents: Effect Estimates in Survey Experiments Are Broadly Similar for Eager and Reluctant Participants Estimators for Topic-Sampling Designs Flexible Estimation of Policy Preferences for Witnesses in Committee Hearings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1