Abstract
In a recent contribution to Quality and Quantity, Carsten Schneider (Qual Quant 1–18, 2018b) presents an updated version of the two-step QCA approach. Although Schneider (2018b) raises a lot of relevant issues, his revised procedure has three important disadvantages. First of all, the procedure sets the bar higher for remote conditions to be considered causally relevant than for proximate conditions. Second, the procedure makes it very difficult to find combinations of remote conditions. Third, the first step of the revised procedure does not build on a truth table, which makes it difficult to redesign the research if no meaningful results are found. This article proposes an alternative revision to the two-step approach, which aims to combine the best aspects of the original two-step procedure with the strengths of the revised procedure. In line with the original two-step approach, the first step of the procedure builds on a truth table. A new measure is added to the truth table of the first step, which provides an important parameter for coding the outcome column: cumulative coverage. The proposed procedure uses the same criteria for assessing the causal relevance of remote and proximate conditions, allows to straightforwardly uncover combinations of relevant remote conditions and helps researchers go back and forth between cases and evidence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Rather than theoretical or ontological reasons, the most important motivation for remote conditions to be considered necessary is that they can disappear in the second step if they are not necessary or a part of a necessary disjunction. The procedure suggested in this article can also help researchers avoid that remote conditions disappear from the solution.
Schneider (2018b) presents the intermediate solution. However, this solution would never be found if proximate conditions would have to meet the same criteria as remote conditions, given that it would require finding the necessary disjunction “LP + ~PV + PV”, which suggests either the presence of a left parliament or the presence or absence of parliamentary veto (PV) is needed to produce the outcome.
Given that only the parsimonious solution can be causally interpreted according to regularity theories, logical remainders are included in the minimization process.
Cumulative coverage cannot be produced with the QCA 3.3 software. However, it can straightforwardly be found by looking at the coverage of the solutions that are produced when a row is included in the minimization process (cf. replication material to this article).
These values are substantially lower than the corresponding values when both solutions are studied In isolation, respectively 0.69 and 0.37.
References
Baumgartner, M.: Complex Causal Structures. Extensions of a Regularity Theory of Causation. University of Bern, Bern (2006)
Baumgartner, M.: Regularity theories reassessed. Philosophia 36(3), 327–354 (2008)
Baumgartner, M.: Inferring causal complexity. Soc. Methods Res. 38(1), 71–101 (2009)
Baumgartner, M.: Parsimony and causality. Qual. Quant. 49(2), 839–856 (2015)
Baumgartner, M., Ambühl, M.: Causal modeling with multi-value and fuzzy-set Coincidence Analysis. Polit. Sci. Res. Methods, 1–17 (Forthcoming). https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.45
Baumgartner, M., Thiem, A.: Model ambiguities in configurational comparative research. Sociol Methods Res 46(4), 954–987 (2017)
Duşa, A.: QCA with R: A Comprehensive Resource. Springer, Cham (2018)
Goertz, G.: Contexts of international politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)
Graßhoff, G., May, M.: Causal regularities. In: Spohn, W., Ledwig, M., Esfeld, M. (eds.) Current issues in causation, pp. 85–114. Mentis, Hardehausen (2001)
Haesebrouck, T.: Democratic contributions to UN peacekeeping operations: a two-step fuzzy Set QCA of unifil II. Roman. J. Polit. Sci. 15(1), 4–51 (2015a)
Haesebrouck, T.: Pitfalls in QCA’s consistency measure. J. Comp. Polit. 2, 65–80 (2015b)
Haesebrouck, T.: Relevant, irrelevant or ambiguous? Towards a correct interpretation of QCA’s solution types. Unpublished manuscript (2019)
Mackie, J.: Causes and conditions. Am. Philos. Q. 2(4), 245–264 (1965)
Mackie, J.: The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1974)
Oana, I.-E., Medzihorsky, J., Quaranta, M., Schneider, C.Q., Oana, M.I.-E.: Package ‘SetMethods’. (2018)
Ragin, C.: Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2009)
Rohlfing, I., Zuber, C.I.: Check Your Truth Conditions! Clarifying the Relationship between Theories of Causation and Social Science Methods for Causal Inference. Sociol Methods Res 1, 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119826156
Schneider, C.Q.: Realists and idealists in QCA. Polit. Anal. 26(2), 246–254 (2018)
Schneider, C.Q.: Two-step QCA revisited: the necessity of context conditions. Qual. Quant., 1–18 (2018b)
Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C.: Reducing complexity in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 45(5), 751–786 (2006)
Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C.: Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)
Thiem, A.: Standards of good practice and the methodology of necessary conditions in qualitative comparative analysis. Political analysis 24(4), 478–484 (2016)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haesebrouck, T. An alternative update of the two-step QCA procedure. Qual Quant 53, 2765–2780 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00893-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00893-7