Quality & Quantity

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 3475–3487

Contextual analyses with QCA-methods

Article

Abstract

Contextual analyses are essential in comparative research, as they investigate the importance of contextual conditions for causal relationships. During the last decades, an increasing number of comparative studies have also focused on how contextual conditions affect causal relationships. At the same time, new comparative methods have been developed based on set-theoretical logics. Two of the most prominent methods are csQCA and fsQCA, which are used in comparative studies with increasing frequency. However, the conventional design for contextual analysis is still based on quantitative methods and the use of interaction-factors. This article discusses why the use of interaction-factors is not suitable together with QCA-methods. Instead of the conventional design, the article presents an alternative design for contextual analyses with QCA-methods grounded on subgroup-design. Based on one recently-developed methodology comparative multilevel analysis (CMA), some guidelines for performing contextual analyses with two set-theoretical methods (csQCA and fsQCA) are presented. As illustrated with examples, the combination of CMA and QCA provides opportunities to use QCA for contextual analysis.

Keywords

Contextual analysis QCA Comparative multilevel analysis Fuzzy-set Interaction 

References

  1. Aneshensel, C.S.: Theory-Based Data Analysis for the Social Sciences. Pine Forge, Thousand Oaks (2013)Google Scholar
  2. Boix, C.: Democracy, development, and the international system. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105, 809–828 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. Brambor, T., Clark, W., Golder, M.: Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses. Political Anal. 14, 63–82 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bunge, M.: Finding Philosophy in Social Science. Yale University Press, New Haven (1996)Google Scholar
  5. Coleman, J.S.: Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  6. Denk, T.: Comparative multilevel analysis: proposal for methodology. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 13, 29–39 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falleti, T.G., Lynch, J.F.: Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comp. Political Stud. 42, 1143–1166 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franzese, R.J.: Multicausality, context-conditionality, and endogeneity. In: Boix, C., Stokes, S.C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, pp. 27–72. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  9. Franzese, R.J., Hays, J.C.: Interdependence in comparative politics: substance, theory, empirics, substance. Comp. Political Stud. 4(5), 742–780 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galton, F.: On a method of investigating the development if institutions applied to the laws of marriage and decent. J. Roy. Anthropol. Inst. 18, 272 (1889)Google Scholar
  11. Goertz, G.: Contexts in International Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goertz, G., Mahoney, J.: A Table of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Science. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2012)Google Scholar
  13. Goldstein, H.: Multilevel Statistical Models. Arnold, London (2003)Google Scholar
  14. Grofman, B., Schneider, C.Q.: An introduction to crip-set QCA with a comparison to binary logistic regression. Political Res. Q. 62, 662–672 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iversen, G.R.: Contextual Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jahn, D.: Globalization as ‘Galton’s problem’: the missing link in the analysis of diffusion patterns in welfare state development. Int. Organ. 60, 401–431 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kam, C.D., Franzese, R.J.: Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (2007)Google Scholar
  18. Mackie, J.: Causes and conditions. Am. Philos. Q. 2, 254–264 (1965)Google Scholar
  19. Naroll, R.: Two solutions to Galton’s problem. Philos. Sci. 28, 15–39 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Naroll, R.: Galton’s problem: the logic of cross-cultural analysis. Soc. Res. 32, 428–451 (1965)Google Scholar
  21. Przeworski, A., Teune, H.: The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. Wiley, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  22. Ragin, C.C.: The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press, Berkeley (1987)Google Scholar
  23. Ragin, C.C.: Fuzzy-Set Social Science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2000)Google Scholar
  24. Ragin, C.C.: Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Anal. 14, 291–310 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ragin, C.C.: Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ragin, C.C.: Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In: Rihoux, B., Ragin, C.C. (eds.) Configurative Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, pp. 87–121. Sage Publications, London (2009)Google Scholar
  27. Rihoux, B., Ragin, C.C. (eds.): Configurative Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Sage, London (2008)Google Scholar
  28. Rohlfing, I.: Analyzing multilevel data with QCA: a straightforward procedure. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 15, 497–506 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C.: Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Science: A Gudie to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Snijers, T., Bosker, R.: Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage, London (1999)Google Scholar
  31. Tilly, C., Goodin, R.E.: It depends. In: Goodin, R.E., Tilly, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, pp. 3–32. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  32. Wellhofer, S.E.: The comparative method and the study of development, diffusion and social change. Comp. Political Stud. 22, 315–342 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceÅbo Akademi UniversityÅboFinland

Personalised recommendations