Benoît Rihoux

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods : Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research

During the past two decades, a set of systematic comparative case analysis techniques has been developing at a steady pace. During the last few years especially, the main initial technique, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), has been complemented by other related methods and techniques. The purpose of this article is to critically assess some main recent developments in this field. QCA and connected methods can be considered at two levels: as a research strategy and as a set of concrete techniques. The author first argues that such a strategy displays some decisive advantages in social science research, especially in small-and intermediate-N research designs. Second, QCA as well as three other related techniques, namely multi-value QCA (MVQCA), fuzzy sets and MSDO/MDSO, are presented in brief, and some current debates with regard to these techniques are also summarized. In the third section, the article surveys recent contributions and ongoing efforts that have provided some advances in the application of these techniques, around five key issues: case selection and model specification; measurement, dichotomization and linkage with theory; contradictions and non-observed cases; the time and process dimension; and the confrontation or combination with other methods. Finally, the article discuss the potential for further development of these methods in social science research broadly defined.

Bridging the Gap Between the qualitative and quantitative Worlds ? A Retrospective and prospective View on Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is both an approach and a technique launched in the late 1980s by Charles C. Ragin as a “middle road” between quantitative and qualitative strategies. This review article is an invitation to take a serious look at QCA while also attempting to correctly assess its potential and limits. First, the article presents QCA as an approach and as a specific technique (and software). Second, it offers a selective overview of QCA applications produced so far, along with an evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses. The main critiques of QCA are discussed as well as some answers to these critiques. Finally, it presents the prospects of what constitutes a very promising tool in various disciplines.

From Niche to Mainstream Method? A comprehensive mapping of QCA application in journal articles from 1984 to 2011

This article provides a first systematic mapping of QCA applications, building upon a database of 313 peer-reviewed journal articles. We find out that the number of QCA applications has dramatically increased during the past few years. The mapping also reveals that csQCA remains the most frequently used technique, that political science, sociology, and management are the core disciplines of application, that macrolevel analyses, medium-N designs, and a monomethod use of QCA remain predominant. A particular focus is also laid on the ratio between the number of cases and number of conditions and the compliance to benchmarks in this respect.This paper introduces the mini-symposium on Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and set-theoretic methods, both crisp sets and fuzzy sets, and situates the different contributions in a wider methodological debate concerning cross-case analysis. The paper argues that QCA is not just a set of techniques, but a distinctive research approach, with its own goals and set of assumptions. Concerning the wide methodological debate, special attention is paid to the added value of QCA and specific innovations introduced in the mini-symposium.

The Origins, Development and Applications of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) : The First 25 Years

A quarter century ago, in 1987, Charles C. Ragin published The Comparative Method, introducing a new method to the social sciences called Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). QCA is a comparative case-oriented research approach and collection of techniques based on set theory and Boolean algebra, which aims to combine some of the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Since its launch in 1987, QCA has been applied extensively in the social sciences. This review essay first sketches the origins of the ideas behind QCA. Next, the main features of the method, as presented in The Comparative Method, are introduced. A third part focuses on the early applications. A fourth part presents early criticisms and subsequent innovations. A fifth part then focuses on an era of further expansion in political science and presents some of the main applications in the discipline. In doing so, this paper seeks to provide insights and references into the origin and development of QCA, a non-technical introduction to its main features, the path travelled so far, and the diversification of applications.

QCA, 25 Years after “The Comparative Method”: Mapping, Challenges, and Innovations—Mini-Symposium

This article provides a first systematic mapping of QCA applications, building upon a database of 313 peer-reviewed journal articles. We find out that the number of QCA applications has dramatically increased during the past few years. The mapping also reveals that csQCA remains the most frequently used technique, that political science, sociology, and management are the core disciplines of application, that macrolevel analyses, medium-N designs, and a monomethod use of QCA remain predominant. A particular focus is also laid on the ratio between the number of cases and number of conditions and the compliance to benchmarks in this respect.This paper introduces the mini-symposium on Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and set-theoretic methods, both crisp sets and fuzzy sets, and situates the different contributions in a wider methodological debate concerning cross-case analysis. The paper argues that QCA is not just a set of techniques, but a distinctive research approach, with its own goals and set of assumptions. Concerning the wide methodological debate, special attention is paid to the added value of QCA and specific innovations introduced in the mini-symposium.

Pathways to high performance: a Qualitative Comparative Analysis of sport governing bodies

Nonprofit organizations are facing increasing pressure to become more performance oriented. Most research in this area has focused on the effects of a variety of independent variables on performance with little research focusing on combinations of factors that impact on performance. This article focuses on sport governing bodies from Belgium and measures and assesses their strategic goals and potential determinants of performance. Due to the small N-sample and the causal complexity inherent in this research, a crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA) was carried out which highlighted three pathways associated with high performance. High performance could be delivered by sport governing bodies that develop innovative activities for their members and are proactive in elite sport services; or that develop innovative activities and involve paid staff in decision-making processes; or that involve committed volunteers in decision-making processes and delegate activities they are not able to deliver themselves.

Combinations of key determinants of performance in sport governing bodies.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on possible combinations of the key determinants of high performance in sport governing bodies (SGBs) which go well beyond the net effects of independent variables.Design/methodology/approach – The research focused on 18 sport governing bodies from the French‐speaking community of Belgium (CSGBs). Their strategic goals are emphasized and their potential determinants of performance are measured and assessed. Due to the small n‐sample and the causal complexity inherent in this research, a crisp‐set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA) was performed.Findings – Three generic combinations of the key determinants linked with high performance were highlighted. The first was high‐performing CSGBs that provide innovative activities for their membership and are proactive in elite sport services. The second was other high‐performing CSGBs of large size that involve paid staff in decision‐making processes and also develop innovative activities. The third was small‐s...

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques: recent advances and challenges

Following a seminal volume by (1987), a set of systematic comparative case analysis techniques has been developing at a steady pace. During the last few years especially, the main initial technique, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), has been complemented by other related techniques. The purpose of this contribution is to critically assess some main recent developments in this field.

Chapter 2 Crisp-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Organizational Studies

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), initiated by Charles C. Ragin, is a research strategy with distinctive added value for organization studies. QCA constitutes in essence two configurational approaches, each grounded in set theory. One approach uses crisp-sets (dichotomous variables) to analyze cases. The other approach uses fuzzy-sets. While the use of fuzzy-sets has been increasing over the last few years, the crisp-set (csQCA) approach is still used in a majority of empirical applications. This chapter discusses in-depth the application of csQCA in organization studies. This chapter starts with a stylized presentation of two dominant research strategies, case-based research and variable-based research, and how csQCA relates to them. Subsequently, csQCA is further introduced and the different applications in organization studies are discussed. This section ends with a brief step-wise “how to” presentation. The chapter then turns to a presentation of the main distinctive strengths of the approach. In the final part, the chapter discusses extensively the main criticisms which have been raised with regard to (cs)QCA and draws out some of the main implications of this discussion.

Comment: getting QCA right

In recent years, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) has gained in popularity and has spread beyond its home base of comparative sociology and political science, fields that have traditionally been marked by a strong tradition of case-oriented analysis. With growing popularity and profile comes also greater critical attention, and thus it is not surprising and indeed welcome to have researchers unfamiliar with QCA engage with a set-theoretic approach and probe its soundness, such as the recent work of Mendel and Korjani (2013). As QCA users (along with other methodologies), we are enthusiastic about this kind of attention to QCA, a research approach that should see continued innovation going forward. In contrast, the article by Lucas and Szatrowski (this volume, pp. 1–79; hereafter L&S), although purporting to provide a balanced critique and sound assessment of QCA, in fact provides neither. L&S argue that their use of simulated data sets shows how “QCA finds the correct causal story only 3 times across 70 different solutions” (p. 1) and that even these successes in fact reveal additional fundamental problems. In this short response, we show that their tests are often neither valid assessments nor correct analyses and that their portrayal of QCA is conceptually incorrect on core points. Indeed, when performed correctly (which is not difficult given the relatively simple data sets), QCA in fact finds the “correct causal story.”