Evidential pluralism has been used to justify mixed-method research in political science. The combination of methodologies within (qualitative) case study analysis, however, has not received as much attention. This article applies the theory of evidential pluralism to causal inference in the case study method process tracing. I argue that different methodologies for process tracing commit to distinct fundamental theories of causation. I show that, problematically, one methodology may not recognize as genuine knowledge the fundamental claims of the other. By evaluating the epistemic reliability of these fundamental claims, we can find a way out of such conflicts and rescue pluralism.

证据多元论已被用来为政治学中的混合方法研究辩护。方法的组合中（定性）案例研究分析，但是，并没有受到如此之多的关注。本文在案例研究方法的过程追踪中，将证据多元化理论应用于因果推理。我认为，用于过程跟踪的不同方法会导致不同的因果关系基本理论。我表明，有问题的是，一种方法论可能不会将另一种方法论的基本主张视为真正的知识。通过评估这些基本主张的认知可靠性，我们可以找到摆脱此类冲突的途径并挽救多元化。