Publikation: Approaches to Qualitative Comparative Analysis and good practices : A systematic review
Lade...
Dateien
Datum
2022
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Open Access Hybrid
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Swiss Political Science Review. Wiley. 2022, 28(3), pp. 557-580. ISSN 1424-7755. eISSN 1662-6370. Available under: doi: 10.1111/spsr.12503
Zusammenfassung
The Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) methodology has evolved remarkably in social science research. Simultaneously, the use of QCA too often lags behind methodological recommendations of good practice. Improper use is a serious obstacle for QCA to enrich the social science methodology toolkit. We explore whether the coherence of analytic approaches can help us understand good practices in applied QCA by performing a systematic review of 86 QCA studies. Although adherence to technical GPs has improved over time, we find a high prevalence of incoherent, “hybrid” approaches. As the hybridity of a study increases, its adherence to good practices decreases. The case-oriented, realist, exploratory QCA studies do not consistently follow recommendations of good practice. Instead, the only consistently good-practice approach is case-oriented, realist, but explicitly theory-evaluating. We conclude that consistently aligning methodological choice with the underlying analytic approach and the use of theory can help foster good practices in applied QCA.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
320 Politik
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
ISO 690
THOMANN, Eva, Jörn EGE, Ekaterina PAUSTYAN, 2022. Approaches to Qualitative Comparative Analysis and good practices : A systematic review. In: Swiss Political Science Review. Wiley. 2022, 28(3), pp. 557-580. ISSN 1424-7755. eISSN 1662-6370. Available under: doi: 10.1111/spsr.12503BibTex
@article{Thomann2022-09Appro-56678,
year={2022},
doi={10.1111/spsr.12503},
title={Approaches to Qualitative Comparative Analysis and good practices : A systematic review},
number={3},
volume={28},
issn={1424-7755},
journal={Swiss Political Science Review},
pages={557--580},
author={Thomann, Eva and Ege, Jörn and Paustyan, Ekaterina}
}RDF
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/56678">
<dc:creator>Thomann, Eva</dc:creator>
<dc:contributor>Ege, Jörn</dc:contributor>
<dc:creator>Ege, Jörn</dc:creator>
<dc:contributor>Paustyan, Ekaterina</dc:contributor>
<dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"/>
<void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
<bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/56678"/>
<dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/42"/>
<dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/56678/1/Thomann_2-uii5t744st0q1.pdf"/>
<dc:contributor>Thomann, Eva</dc:contributor>
<dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2022-02-24T12:45:48Z</dcterms:available>
<dc:creator>Paustyan, Ekaterina</dc:creator>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2022-02-24T12:45:48Z</dc:date>
<dc:rights>Attribution 4.0 International</dc:rights>
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/42"/>
<foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
<dcterms:title>Approaches to Qualitative Comparative Analysis and good practices : A systematic review</dcterms:title>
<dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/56678/1/Thomann_2-uii5t744st0q1.pdf"/>
<dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">The Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) methodology has evolved remarkably in social science research. Simultaneously, the use of QCA too often lags behind methodological recommendations of good practice. Improper use is a serious obstacle for QCA to enrich the social science methodology toolkit. We explore whether the coherence of analytic approaches can help us understand good practices in applied QCA by performing a systematic review of 86 QCA studies. Although adherence to technical GPs has improved over time, we find a high prevalence of incoherent, “hybrid” approaches. As the hybridity of a study increases, its adherence to good practices decreases. The case-oriented, realist, exploratory QCA studies do not consistently follow recommendations of good practice. Instead, the only consistently good-practice approach is case-oriented, realist, but explicitly theory-evaluating. We conclude that consistently aligning methodological choice with the underlying analytic approach and the use of theory can help foster good practices in applied QCA.</dcterms:abstract>
<dcterms:issued>2022-09</dcterms:issued>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Ja
