Enhancing Sensitivity Diagnostics for Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Combinatorial Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alrik Thiem ◽  
Reto Spöhel ◽  
Adrian Duşa

Sensitivity diagnostics has recently been put high on the agenda of methodological research into Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Existing studies in this area rely on the technique of exhaustive enumeration, and the majority of works examine the reactivity of QCA either only to alterations in discretionary parameter values or only to data quality. In this article, we introduce the technique of combinatorial computation for evaluating the interaction effects between two problems afflicting data quality and two discretionary parameters on the stability of QCA reference solutions. In this connection, we challenge a hitherto unstated assumption intrinsic to exhaustive enumeration, show that combinatorial computation permits the formulation of general laws of sensitivity in QCA, and demonstrate that our technique is most efficient.

Author(s):  
Claudius Wagemann

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a method, developed by the American social scientist Charles C. Ragin since the 1980s, which has had since then great and ever-increasing success in research applications in various political science subdisciplines and teaching programs. It counts as a broadly recognized addition to the methodological spectrum of political science. QCA is based on set theory. Set theory models “if … then” hypotheses in a way that they can be interpreted as sufficient or necessary conditions. QCA differentiates between crisp sets in which cases can only be full members or not, while fuzzy sets allow for degrees of membership. With fuzzy sets it is, for example, possible to distinguish highly developed democracies from less developed democracies that, nevertheless, are rather democracies than not. This means that fuzzy sets account for differences in degree without giving up the differences in kind. In the end, QCA produces configurational statements that acknowledge that conditions usually appear in conjunction and that there can be more than one conjunction that implies an outcome (equifinality). There is a strong emphasis on a case-oriented perspective. QCA is usually (but not exclusively) applied in y-centered research designs. A standardized algorithm has been developed and implemented in various software packages that takes into account the complexity of the social world surrounding us, also acknowledging the fact that not every theoretically possible variation of explanatory factors also exists empirically. Parameters of fit, such as consistency and coverage, help to evaluate how well the chosen explanatory factors account for the outcome to be explained. There is also a range of graphical tools that help to illustrate the results of a QCA. Set theory goes well beyond an application in QCA, but QCA is certainly its most prominent variant. There is a very lively QCA community that currently deals with the following aspects: the establishment of a code of standards for QCA applications; QCA as part of mixed-methods designs, such as combinations of QCA and statistical analyses, or a sequence of QCA and (comparative) case studies (via, e.g., process tracing); the inclusion of time aspects into QCA; Coincidence Analysis (CNA, where an a priori decision on which is the explanatory factor and which the condition is not taken) as an alternative to the use of the Quine-McCluskey algorithm; the stability of results; the software development; and the more general question whether QCA development activities should rather target research design or technical issues. From this, a methodological agenda can be derived that asks for the relationship between QCA and quantitative techniques, case study methods, and interpretive methods, but also for increased efforts in reaching a shared understanding of the mission of QCA.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Vladimir M. Moskovkin ◽  
He Zhang ◽  
Marina V. Sadovski ◽  
Olesya V. Serkina

The article examines the global university reputation race, launched in 2003. Between 2003 and 2010, there appeared a cluster of publications on the qualitative comparative analysis of their methodologies, and since 2010, a cluster of publications on the quantitative comparative analysis of university rankings has started to form. The review made it possible to identify a number of unsolved problems concerning the stability of university rankings, aggregation of the number of universities and their Overall Scores (Total Scores) by country in various rankings. Our study aimed at solving these tasks was carried out for TOP-100s of ARWU, QS, and THE rankings. When calculating the fluctuation range of the university rankings, the top twenty of the most stable and most unstable university rankings were identified in the rankings under study. The best values of the aggregated indicators by the number of universities and the Overall Scores were identified for the USA and the UK.


2019 ◽  
pp. 004912411988246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alrik Thiem

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a relatively young method of causal inference that continues to diffuse across the social sciences. However, recent methodological research has found the conservative (QCA-CS) and the intermediate solution type (QCA-IS) of QCA to fail fundamental tests of correctness. Even under conditions otherwise ideal for causal discovery, both solution types frequently committed causal fallacies by presenting inferences that were in direct disagreement with the underlying data-generating structure to be discovered by QCA. None of these problems affected the parsimonious solution type (QCA-PS). These findings conflict with conventional wisdom in the QCA literature, which has it that QCA-CS uses empirical information only and that QCA-IS is preferable to both QCA-CS and QCA-PS. The present article resolves these contradictions. It shows that QCA-CS and QCA-IS systematically supplement empirical data with matching artificial data. These artificial data, however, regularly induce causal fallacies of severe magnitude. Researchers who employ QCA-CS or QCA-IS in empirical analyses thus always risk moving further away from the truth rather than closer to it.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johann Johann And Devika

BACKGROUND Since November 2019, Covid - 19 has spread across the globe costing people their lives and countries their economic stability. The world has become more interconnected over the past few decades owing to globalisation and such pandemics as the Covid -19 are cons of that. This paper attempts to gain deeper understanding into the correlation between globalisation and pandemics. It is a descriptive analysis on how one of the factors that was responsible for the spread of this virus on a global scale is globalisation. OBJECTIVE - To understand the close relationship that globalisation and pandemics share. - To understand the scale of the spread of viruses on a global scale though a comparison between SARS and Covid -19. - To understand the sale of globalisation present during SARS and Covid - 19. METHODS A descriptive qualitative comparative analysis was used throughout this research. RESULTS Globalisation does play a significant role in the spread of pandemics on a global level. CONCLUSIONS - SARS and Covid - 19 were varied in terms of severity and spread. - The scale of globalisation was different during the time of SARS and Covid - 19. - Globalisation can be the reason for the faster spread in Pandemics.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Matias López ◽  
Juan Pablo Luna

ABSTRACT By replying to Kurt Weyland’s (2020) comparative study of populism, we revisit optimistic perspectives on the health of American democracy in light of existing evidence. Relying on a set-theoretical approach, Weyland concludes that populists succeed in subverting democracy only when institutional weakness and conjunctural misfortune are observed jointly in a polity, thereby conferring on the United States immunity to democratic reversal. We challenge this conclusion on two grounds. First, we argue that the focus on institutional dynamics neglects the impact of the structural conditions in which institutions are embedded, such as inequality, racial cleavages, and changing political attitudes among the public. Second, we claim that endogeneity, coding errors, and the (mis)use of Boolean algebra raise questions about the accuracy of the analysis and its conclusions. Although we are skeptical of crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis as an adequate modeling choice, we replicate the original analysis and find that the paths toward democratic backsliding and continuity are both potentially compatible with the United States.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document