Applying qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to large Ns relaxes researchers’ case-based knowledge. This is problematic because causality in QCA is inferred from a dialogue between empirical, theoretical, and case-based knowledge. The lack of case-based knowledge may be remedied by various robustness tests. However, being a case-based method, QCA is designed to be sensitive to such tests, meaning that also large-N QCA robustness tests must be evaluated against substantive knowledge. This article connects QCA’s substantive-interpretation approach of causality to critical realism. From that perspective, it identifies relevant robustness tests and applies them to a real-data large-N QCA study. Robustness test findings are visualized in a robustness table, and this article develops criteria to substantively interpret them. The robustness table is introduced as a tool to substantiate the validity of causal claims in large-N QCA studies.
AbbottA.1998. “The Causal Devolution.” Sociological Methods & Research27:148–81.
2.
Álvarez-CoqueJ.Mas-VerdúF.Roig-TiernoR.. 2017. “Technological Innovation versus Non-technological Innovation: Different Conditions in Different Regional Contexts?” Quality and Quantity51:1955–67.
3.
BaumgartnerM.2015. “Parsimony and Causality.” Quality & Quantity49:839–56.
4.
BaumgartnerM.ThiemA.. 2017. “Often Trusted but Never (Properly) Tested: Evaluating Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Sociological Methods & Research46:345–57.
5.
BeachD.PedersenR.. 2013. Process-tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6.
BeachD.PedersenR.. 2016. Causal Case Study Methods: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching and Tracing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
BennettA.CheckelJ.. 2015. “Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best Practices.” Pp. 41–73 in Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytical Tool, edited by BennettA.CheckelJ.. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BhaskarR.
[1975] 2008. A Realist Theory of Science. London, England: Verso.
9.
BraumoellerB.2015. “Guarding against Falls Positives in Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Political Analysis23:471–87.
10.
ByrneD.2009. “Complex Realist and Configurational Approaches to Cases: A Radical Synthesis.” Pp. 101–11 in The Sage Handbook of Case-based Methods, edited by ByrneD.RaginCh.. London, England: Sage.
11.
CollierA.1994. Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy. London, England: Verso.
12.
CooperB.GlaesserJ.. 2016. “Exploring the Robustness of Set Theoretic Findings from a Large n fsQCA: An Illustration from the Sociology of Education.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology19:445–59.
13.
DuboisD.2006. “Possibility Theory and Statistical Reasoning.” Contemporary Statistics & Data Analysis51:47–69.
14.
EbbinghausB.2005. “When Less Is More: Selection Problems in Large-N and Small-N Cross-national Comparisons.” International Sociology20:133–52.
15.
EmmeneggerP.SchraffD.WalterA.. 2014. “QCA, the Truth Table Analysis and Large-N Survey Data: The Benefits of Calibration and the Importance of Robustness Tests.” Compasss Working Paper 2014-79. Retrieved February 01, 2018 (www.compasss.org).
16.
GerritsL.VerweijS.. 2013. “Critical Realism as a Meta-framework for Understanding the Relationship between Complexity and Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Journal of Critical Realism12:166–82.
17.
GoertzG.2017. Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
GoertzG.MahoneyJ.. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
GreckhamerT.MisangyiV.FissP.. 2013. “The Two QCAs: From a Small-N to a Large-N Set-theoretic Approach.” Pp. 49–75 in Configurational Theory and Methods in Organizational Research, edited by FissP.CambréB.MarxA.. Binley, England: Emerald.
20.
HedströmP.SwedbergR.. 1998. “Social Mechanisms: An Introductory Essay.” Pp. 1–31 in Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach, edited by HedströmP.SwedbergR.. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HedströmP.YlikoskiP.. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology36:49–67.
22.
HugS.2013. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference.” Political Analysis21:252–65.
23.
KrogslundC.DonghyunD. C.PoertnerM.. 2015. “Fuzzy Sets on Shaky Grounds: Parameter Sensitivity and Confirmation Bias in QCA.” Political Analysis23:21–41.
24.
LucasS.SzatrowskiA.. 2014. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Critical Perspective.” Sociological Methodology44:1–79.
25.
MaggettiM.Levi-FaurD.. 2013. “Dealing with Errors in QCA.” Political Research Quarterly66:198–204.
26.
MahoneyJ.2001. “Beyond Correlational Analysis: Recent Innovations in Theory and Method.” Sociological Forum16:575–93.
27.
MahoneyJ.2008. “Toward a Unified Theory of Causality.” Comparative Political Studies41:412–36.
28.
MarxA.CambréB.RihouxB.. 2013. “Crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Organizational Studies.” Pp. 23–48 in Configurational Theory and Methods in Organizational Research, edited by FissP.CambréB.MarxA.. Binley, England: Emerald.
29.
OlsenW.2014. “Comment: The Usefulness of QCA under Realist Assumptions.” Sociological Methodology44:101–07.
30.
RaginC. C. 1992. “‘Casing’ and the Process of Social Inquiry.” Pp. 217–26 in What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, edited by RaginCh.BeckerH.. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
31.
RaginC. C. 2000. Fuzzy-set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
RaginC. C. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
RaginC. C.DaveyS.. 2017. “fs/QCA [Computer Programme].” Version 3.0. Irvine: University of California.
34.
RaginC. C.FissP.. 2008. “Net Effects versus Configurations: An Empirical Demonstration.” Pp. 190–212 in Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, edited by RaginC. C.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
RaginC. C.SonnettJ.. 2008. “Limited Diversity and Counterfactual Cases.” Pp. 147–59 in Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, edited by RaginC. C.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
RohlfingI.2016. “Why Simulations Are Appropriate for Evaluating Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Quality & Quantity50:2073–84.
37.
RohlfingI.2018. “Power and False Negatives in Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Foundation, Structure and Estimation for Empirical Studies.” Political Analysis26:72–89.
38.
RohlfingI.SchneiderC.. 2014. “Clarifying Misunderstandings, Moving Forward: Towards Standards and Tools for Set-theoretic Methods.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research12:27–34.
39.
RohlfingI.SchneiderC.. 2018. “A Unifying Framework for Causal Analysis in Set-theoretic Multimethod Research.” Sociological Methods & Research47:37–63.
40.
RubinsonC.GerritsL.RuttenR.GreckhamerTh.. 2019. Avoiding Common Errors in QCA: A Short Guide for New Practitioners. Retrieved July 02, 2019 (Compasss.org), pp. 1–6.
41.
RuttenR.2019. “Openness Values and Regional Innovation: A Set-analysis.” Journal of Economic Geography19:1211–32.
42.
SchneiderC.2018. “Realists and Idealists in QCA.” Political Analysis26:246–54.
43.
SchneiderC.WagemannC.. 2012. Set-theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
44.
SeawrightJ.2014. “Comment: Limited Diversity and the Unreliability of QCA.” Sociological Methodology44:118–21.
45.
SkaaningS.2011. “Assessing the Robustness of Crisp-set and Fuzzy-set QCA Results.” Sociological Methods & Research40:391–408.
46.
SmithsonM.VerkuilenJ.. 2006. Fuzzy Set Theory: Applications in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
47.
TaylorS.1978. “The Regularity of Randomness.” The Mathematical Gazette62:1–8.
48.
ThiemA.BaumgartnerM.BolD.. 2016. “Still Lost in Translation! A Correction of Three Misunderstandings between Configurational Comparativists and Regressional Analysts.” Comparative Political Studies49:742–74.
49.
ThiemA.SpöhelR.DuşaA.. 2016. “Enhancing Sensitivity Diagnostics for Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Combinatory Approach.” Political Analysis24:104–20.
50.
ThomannE.MaggettiM.. 2017. “Designing Research with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approaches, Challenges, and Tools.” Sociological Methods & Research:1–31.
51.
WagemannC.SchneiderC.. 2010. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy Sets: Agenda for a Research Approach and Data Analysis Technique.” Comparative Sociology9:376–96.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
