The Logic of Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Social Forces, 1983

We examine the comparative strategies of Durkheim and Weber and link them to specific presuppositions. While both are compatible with goals of explanation and generalization in sociological analysis, they use different types of explanation and different degrees of generalization to produce variable-based (Durkheimian) and case-based (Weberian) studies. Several authors (e.g., Kapsis; Smelser, b) suggest that these two strategies converge. We show that these strategies are neither congruent nor convergent in their (1) units of analysis, (2) conception of causality, (3) conception of adequate explanation, or (4) logic of analysis. We examine contemporary comparative studies and trace lines of filiation between them and the strategies of Durkheim and Weber. Finally, we suggest how these strategies can be combined in complementary ways to take advantage of the unique strengths of each. One of the few priorities Durkheim and Weber shared was to establish a balance between competing claims of complexity and generality in sociological analysis. They both saw comparative research as the means to do this because such research avoided problems associated with older styles of inquiry. Comparative analysis separated sociology from traditional historical research with its atheoretical attention to detail; it also separated sociology from social philosophy and the philosophy of history with their emphasis on sweeping generalizations (see Zaret, a). These concerns shape Weber's conception of sociology as a science of historical reality. According to Weber, sociology uses ideal types to enable limited generalization about historical divergence (see Zaret, b). Limited

Quality & Quantity, 2022

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) includes two main components: QCA "as a research approach" and QCA "as a method". In this study, we focus on the former and, by means of the "interpretive spiral", we critically look at the research process of QCA. We show how QCA as a research approach is composed of (1) an "analytical move", where cases, conditions and outcome(s) are conceptualised in terms of sets, and (2) a "membership move", where set membership values are qualitatively assigned by the researcher (i.e. calibration). Moreover, we show that QCA scholars have not sufficiently acknowledged the data generation process as a constituent research phase (or "move") for the performance of QCA. This is particularly relevant when qualitative data-e.g. interviews, focus groups, documents-are used for subsequent analysis and calibration (i.e. analytical and membership moves). We call the qualitative data collection process "relational move" because, for data gathering, researchers establish the social relation "interview" with the study participants. By using examples from our own research, we show how a dialogical interviewing style can help researchers gain the in-depth knowledge necessary to meaningfully represent qualitative data into set membership values for QCA, hence improving our ability to account for the "qualitative" in QCA.

Papers Revista De Sociologia, 2006

International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005

Qualitative and quantitative research are often presented as two fundamentally different paradigms through which we study the social world. These paradigms act as lightning conductors to which sets of epistemological assumptions, theoretical approaches and methods are attracted. Each is seen to be incompatible with the other. These paradigmatic claims have a tendency to resurface from time to time, manifesting themselves in the effects of different cultural traditions upon intellectual styles of research. There are pressures to view research in terms of this divide but perhaps more pressures to ignore such a divide. In this paper I examine how qualitative and quantitative approaches are in practice woven into the research process. In doing so I discuss the phasing of the research process and the different considerations which apply in different phases. A distinction is made between the context of enquiry or research design phase and the context of justification where data are analysed and interpreted. Part of the research process that is also considered here and is often ignored in the literature concerns contextualization, an important phase particularly in cross-national research. The Case for Separation and the Case for Convergence The case for separate paradigms is that qualitative and quantitative researchers hold different epistemological assumptions, belong to different research cultures and have different researcher biographies that work against convergence (Brannen, 1992). Indeed qualitative researchers are embracing even greater reflexivity, for example

2015

Acronyms and key definitions ADB Asian Development Bank BAP Bagmati Action Plan BRBIP Bagmati River Basin Improvement Project Calibration process of setting rules to convert case-based information on conditions into numeric or logical values (for example, 0 or 1) CF community forestry CFUG community forest user group CIDBC Committee for Integrated Development of the Bagmati Civilization Conditions characteristics of the cases that are selected for analysis Configuration combination of conditions or 'pathways' leading to the outcome Danida Danish International Development Agency DFID Department for International Development (UK) DoTM Department of Transport Management DPC Development Policy Credit DUDBC Department of Urban Development and Building Construction DUI driving while under the influence EPI Economic Policy Incubator

Qualitative researchers utilize comparative and case-based methods to develop theory through elaboration or abduction. They pursue research in intermediate fields where some but not all relevant constructs are known (Edmonson & McManus, 2007). When cases and comparisons move beyond a few, it threatens researchers with information overload. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a novel method of analysis that is appropriate for larger case or comparative studies and provides a flexible tool for theory elaboration and abduction. Building on recently published exemplars from organizational research, we illuminate three key benefits of QCA: (1) allows researchers to examine cases as wholes, effectively addressing the complexity of action embedded in organizational phenomena; (2) provides indicators of whether results are reliable and valid so qualitative researchers, and others, can assess their findings within a study and across studies; and (3) explores potentially overlooked connections between qualitative and quantitative research.

International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2010

Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, 2004

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (or QCA; Ragin 1987; Ragin and Drass 1994) and its successor, Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA; Ragin 2000; Ragin, Drass, and Davey 2004; Ragin 2004a), were both developed for the analysis of small-and intermediate-N data sets, typical of those used by researchers in comparative politics and related disciplines. These techniques are designed to unravel causal complexity by applying set-theoretic methods to cross-case evidence. Their central goal is to mimic some of the basic analytic procedures that comparative researchers use routinely when making sense of their cases. The key difference between QCA and traditional case-oriented methods is that with QCA it is possible to extend these basic analytic procedures to the examination of more than a handful of cases, for example, to more than 10.2 In fact, there is no procedural limit on the number of cases that can be studied using QCA.

International Review of Social History, 1989

European Journal of Political Research, 2006