Case-to-factor Ratios and Model Specification in Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2407696 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Alrik Thiem (0000-0002-4769-2185, University of Lucerne, corresponding author), Lusine Mkrtchyan (0000-0003-3931-7462, University of Lucerne) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 52-68 |
| Publication date | 2024-02-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | CAM (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1087-8513 • E-ISSN: 1552-3969 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1525822x231159458 |
| PMID | 38126026 |
| OpenAlex | W4327978322 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 36 |
Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is an empirical research method that has gained some popularity in the social sciences. At the same time, the literature has long been convinced that QCA is prone to committing causal fallacies when confronted with non-causal data. More specifically, beyond a certain case-to-factor ratio, the method is believed to fail in recognizing real data. To reduce that risk, some authors have proposed benchmark tables that put a limit on the number of exogenous factors given a certain number of cases. Many applied researchers looking for methodological guidance have since adhered to these tables. We argue that fears of inferential breakdown in QCA due to an "unfavorable" case-to-factor ratio are without foundation. What is more, we demonstrate that these benchmarks induce more fallacious inferences than they prevent. For valid causal inference, researchers are better off relying on the current state of knowledge in their respective fields
Benchmark (surveying · Causal analysis · Causal inference · Causal model · Data science · Econometrics · Factor (programming language · Inference · Limit (mathematics · Machine learning · Popularity · Qualitative comparative analysis · Statistics · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Mathematics · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies · Psychology · Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research · Social Psychology
Parsimony and Causality
Qualitative Comparative Analysis and robust sufficiency
Handbook of Research Methods in International Relations
Social democratic parties and the rise of ecologism
Lessons from the Mena region
Multiple Paths to Effective National Evaluation Societies
Boolean Minimization in Social Science Research
Enhancing the Minimization of Boolean and Multivalue Output Functions With e QMC
Crisp-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA), Contradictions and Consistency Benchmarks for Model Specification
When Are Concerted Reforms Feasible? Explaining the Emergence of Social Pacts in Western Europe
QCA, 25 Years after “The Comparative Method
Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Enhancing Sensitivity Diagnostics for Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Guarding Against False Positives in Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Power and False Negatives in Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Claims to legitimacy count
Still Lost in Translation! A Correction of Three Misunderstandings Between Configurational Comparativists and Regressional Analysts
Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Critical Perspective
Modeling Causal Irrelevance in Evaluations of Configurational Comparative Methods
Does environmental peacemaking between states work? Insights on cooperative environmental agreements and reconciliation in international rivalries
The routineness of tasks, gender and culture in entrepreneurship
Payments and Penalties for Democracy
Beyond the Facts
Often Trusted but Never (Properly) Tested
Model Ambiguities in Configurational Comparative Research
Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis for Identifying Causal Chains in Configurational Data
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,5 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2025 (2) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |