Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) : Approaches, Challenges, and Tools
Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) : Approaches, Challenges, and Tools
Lade...
Datum
2020
Autor:innen
Maggetti, Martino
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
eISSN
item.preview.dc.identifier.isbn
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
EU-Projektnummer
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Sociological Methods & Research ; 49 (2020), 2. - S. 356-386. - Sage Publications. - ISSN 0049-1241. - eISSN 1552-8294
Zusammenfassung
Recent years have witnessed a host of innovations for conducting research with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Concurrently, important issues surrounding its uses have been highlighted. In this article, we seek to help users design QCA studies. We argue that establishing inference with QCA involves three intertwined design components: first, clarifying the question of external validity; second, ensuring internal validity; and third, explicitly adopting a specific mode of reasoning. We identify several emerging approaches to QCA rather than just one. Some approaches emphasize case knowledge, while others are condition oriented. Approaches emphasize either substantively interpretable or redundancy-free explanations, and some designs apply an inductive/explorative mode of reasoning, while others integrate deductive elements. Based on extant literature, we discuss issues surrounding inference with QCA and the tools available under different approaches to address these issues. We specify trade-offs and the importance of doing justice to the nature and goals of QCA in a specific research context.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
320 Politik
Schlagwörter
inference, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), research design, set-theoretic methods, validity
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined. - (undefined; undefined)
Zitieren
ISO 690
THOMANN, Eva, Martino MAGGETTI, 2020. Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) : Approaches, Challenges, and Tools. In: Sociological Methods & Research. Sage Publications. 49(2), pp. 356-386. ISSN 0049-1241. eISSN 1552-8294. Available under: doi: 10.1177/0049124117729700BibTex
@article{Thomann2020Desig-52364, year={2020}, doi={10.1177/0049124117729700}, title={Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) : Approaches, Challenges, and Tools}, number={2}, volume={49}, issn={0049-1241}, journal={Sociological Methods & Research}, pages={356--386}, author={Thomann, Eva and Maggetti, Martino} }
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/123456789/52364"> <dcterms:title>Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) : Approaches, Challenges, and Tools</dcterms:title> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/42"/> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/42"/> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-01-12T14:09:14Z</dc:date> <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights> <dcterms:issued>2020</dcterms:issued> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-01-12T14:09:14Z</dcterms:available> <dc:creator>Maggetti, Martino</dc:creator> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/52364/1/Thomann_2-phj46f1i389f2.pdf"/> <dc:creator>Thomann, Eva</dc:creator> <dc:contributor>Thomann, Eva</dc:contributor> <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/52364/1/Thomann_2-phj46f1i389f2.pdf"/> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/52364"/> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Recent years have witnessed a host of innovations for conducting research with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Concurrently, important issues surrounding its uses have been highlighted. In this article, we seek to help users design QCA studies. We argue that establishing inference with QCA involves three intertwined design components: first, clarifying the question of external validity; second, ensuring internal validity; and third, explicitly adopting a specific mode of reasoning. We identify several emerging approaches to QCA rather than just one. Some approaches emphasize case knowledge, while others are condition oriented. Approaches emphasize either substantively interpretable or redundancy-free explanations, and some designs apply an inductive/explorative mode of reasoning, while others integrate deductive elements. Based on extant literature, we discuss issues surrounding inference with QCA and the tools available under different approaches to address these issues. We specify trade-offs and the importance of doing justice to the nature and goals of QCA in a specific research context.</dcterms:abstract> <dc:contributor>Maggetti, Martino</dc:contributor> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/> </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
Nein
Begutachtet
Ja