Navigating the Complexities of Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Alrik Thiem

Evaluation Review, 2014, vol. 38, issue 6, 487-513

Abstract: Background: In recent years, the method of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) has been enjoying increasing levels of popularity in evaluation and directly neighboring fields. Its holistic approach to causal data analysis resonates with researchers whose theories posit complex conjunctions of conditions and events. However, due to QCA’s relative immaturity, some of its technicalities and objectives have not yet been well understood. Objectives: In this article, I seek to raise awareness of six pitfalls of employing QCA with regard to the following three central aspects: case numbers, necessity relations, and model ambiguities. Most importantly, I argue that case numbers are irrelevant to the methodological choice of QCA or any of its variants, that necessity is not as simple a concept as it has been suggested by many methodologists, and that doubt must be cast on the determinacy of virtually all results presented in past QCA research. Method: By means of empirical examples from published articles, I explain the background of these pitfalls and introduce appropriate procedures, partly with reference to current software, that help avoid them. Conclusion: QCA carries great potential for scholars in evaluation and directly neighboring areas interested in the analysis of complex dependencies in configurational data. If users beware of the pitfalls introduced in this article, and if they avoid mechanistic adherence to doubtful “standards of good practice†at this stage of development, then research with QCA will gain in quality, as a result of which a more solid foundation for cumulative knowledge generation and well-informed policy decisions will also be created.

Keywords: configurational comparative methods; csQCA; fsQCA; mvQCA; QCA; Qualitative Comparative Analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X14550863 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:38:y:2014:i:6:p:487-513

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X14550863

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().