Configurational research has great promise in entrepreneurship. There are few universal laws or relationships that hold under all circumstances. More often, optimal entrepreneurial outcomes are contingent on many factors. Consequently, configurational analysis using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) has become increasingly popular. However, methodological research in sociology and political science has raised concerns about possible false positive findings produced by this method. In this editorial, we explore the potential and the common pitfalls of QCA in entrepreneurship research, as well as guidelines for its use.
Álamos-ConchaP.PattynV.RihouxB.SchalembierB.BeachD.CambréB. (2022). Conservative solutions for progress: on solution types when combining QCA with in-depth process-tracing. Quality & Quantity, 56(4), 1965–1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01191-x
2.
AllisonP. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. SAGE Publications, Inc.
3.
AndersonB. S.WennbergK.McMullenJ. S. (2019). Editorial: Enhancing quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(5), 105928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.02.001
4.
AntonakisJ.BendahanS.JacquartP.LaliveR. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
5.
Arel-BundockV. (2022). The double bind of qualitative comparative analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(3), 963–982. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119882460
BaumgartnerM.AmbühlM. (2020). Causal modeling with multi-value and fuzzy-set coincidence analysis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(3), 526–542. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.45
8.
BaumgartnerM.AmbühlM. (2023). Optimizing consistency and coverage in configurational causal modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 52(3), 1288–1320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995554
9.
BaumgartnerM.FalkC. (2024). Quantifying the quality of configurational causal models. Journal of Causal Inference, 12(1), 20230032. https://doi.org/10.1515/jci-2023-0032
10.
BaumgartnerM.ThiemA. (2020). Often trusted but never (properly) tested: Evaluating qualitative comparative analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(2), 279–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117701487
11.
BeachD. (2018). Achieving methodological alignment when combining QCA and process tracing in practice. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 64–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117701475
12.
BeachD. (2020). Process tracing methods. In GoerresA.WagemannC.SiewertM. B. (Eds.), Handbuch methoden der politikwissenschaft (pp. 699–719). Springer VS Wiesbaden.
13.
BeachD.PedersenR. B. (2013). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. University of Michigan Press.
14.
BeachD.RohlfingI. (2018). Integrating cross-case analyses and process tracing in set-theoretic research: Strategies and parameters of debate. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115613780
15.
BraumoellerB. F. (2015). Guarding against false positives in qualitative comparative analysis. Political Analysis, 23(4), 471–487.
16.
BraumoellerB. F. (2017). Aggregation bias and the analysis of necessary and sufficient conditions in fsQCA. Sociological Methods & Research, 46(2), 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124116672701
17.
CalicG.NevilleF.FurnariS.ChanC. S. R. (2024). Seeing the whole: Configurational cognition and new venture resource mobilization. Strategic Management Journal, 46(2), 309–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3654
18.
CampbellJ. T.SirmonD. G.SchijvenM. (2016). Fuzzy logic and the market: A configurational approach to investor perceptions of acquisition announcements. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0663
19.
ClarkeK. A. (2020). Logical constraints: The limitations of QCA in social science research. Political Analysis, 28(4), 552–568. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2020.7
20.
CrillyD.ZolloM.HansenM. T. (2012). Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1429–1448. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0697
21.
DavidssonP.SteffensP.FitzsimmonsJ. (2009). Growing profitable or growing from profits: Putting the horse in front of the cart?Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.003
22.
De MeurG.RihouxB.YamasakiS. (2009). Addressing the critiques of QCA. In De MeurG.RihouxB.YamasakiS. (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 147–166). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226569.n7
23.
DeckerS.EstrinS.MickiewiczT. (2020). The tangled historical roots of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), 616–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1348
24.
DouglasE. J.ShepherdD. A.PrenticeC. (2020). Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis for a finer-grained understanding of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(1), 105970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.105970
25.
DuY.LiuQ.KimP. H.LiJ. (2024). Riding the waves of change: Using qualitative comparative analysis to analyze complex growth patterns in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 49(1), 312–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587241249330
26.
DusaA. (2019). QCA with R. A comprehensive resource. Springer International Publishing.
EggersA. C.TuñónG.DafoeA. (2024). Placebo tests for causal inference. American Journal of Political Science, 68(3), 1106–1121. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12818
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
32.
EmmeneggerP.SchraffD.WalterA. (2014). QCA, the truth table analysis and large-N survey data: The benefits of calibration and the importance of robustness tests (2014–79). Compass Working Paper, Issue. https://www.compasss.org/wpseries/EmmeneggerSchraffWalter2014.pdf
33.
FinnV. (2022). A qualitative assessment of QCA: Method stretching in large-N studies and temporality. Quality & Quantity, 56(5), 3815–3830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01278-5
34.
FissP. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586092
35.
FurnariS.CrillyD.MisangyiV. F.GreckhamerT.FissP. C.AguileraR. V. (2021). Capturing causal complexity: Heuristics for configurational theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 778–799. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0298
36.
GibsonC. B.VannB.Jr. (2016). The bootstrapped robustness assessment for qualitative comparative analysis. arXiv, arXiv:1606.05000.
37.
GreckhamerT.FurnariS.FissP. C.AguileraR. V. (2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 16(4), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018786487
38.
GreckhamerT.MisangyiV. F.FissP. C. (2013). The two QCAs: From a small-N to a large-N set theoretic approach. In FissP. C.CambréB.MarxA. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 38, pp. 49–75). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
39.
HaesebrouckT. (2023). Relevant, irrelevant, or ambiguous? Toward a new interpretation of QCA’s solution types. Sociological Methods & Research, 52(4), 1737–1764. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241211036153
40.
HaesebrouckT.ThomannE. (2022). Introduction: Causation, inferences, and solution types in configurational comparative methods. Quality & Quantity, 56(4), 1867–1888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01209-4
41.
HsiehY.-Y.VergneJ.-P. (2023). The future of the web? The coordination and early-stage growth of decentralized platforms. Strategic Management Journal, 44(3), 829–857. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3455
42.
HünermundP.LouwB.RönkköM. (2024). The choice of control variables: How causal graphs can inform the decision. Leadership Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101845
43.
KrogslundC.ChoiD. D.PoertnerM. (2015). Fuzzy sets on shaky ground: Parameter sensitivity and confirmation bias in fsQCA. Political Analysis, 23(1), 21–41.
44.
LangleyA.AbdallahC. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management. In BerghD. D.KetchenD. J. (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 6, pp. 201–235). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
45.
LeppänenP. T.McKennyA. F.ShortJ. C. (2019). Qualitative comparative analysis in entrepreneurship: Exploring the approach and noting opportunities for the future. In Standing on the shoulders of giants (Vol. 11, pp. 155–177). Emerald Publishing Limited.
46.
LucasS. R. (2014). Rejoinder: Taking heat and giving light—reflections on the early reception of “qualitative comparative analysis in critical perspective.”Sociological Methodology, 44(1), 127–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175014544105
MillerD. (2018). Challenging trends in configuration research: Where are the configurations?Strategic Organization, 16(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017729315
53.
MisangyiV. F.GreckhamerT.FurnariS.FissP. C.CrillyD.AguileraR. (2017). Embracing causal complexity the emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1), 255–282.
54.
MorganS. L.WinshipC. (2014). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
55.
NeumayerE.PlümperT. (2017). Robustness tests for quantitative research. Cambridge University Press.
56.
OanaI.-E.SchneiderC. (2018). SetMethods: An add-on r package for advanced QCA. The R Journal, 10(1), 507–533.
57.
OanaI.-E.SchneiderC. Q. (2024). A robustness test protocol for applied QCA: Theory and R software application. Sociological Methods & Research, 53(1), 57–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241211036158
58.
PappasI. O.WoodsideA. G. (2021). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310
59.
RaginC. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.
60.
RaginC. C. (1994). Constructing social research: The unity and diversity of method. Pine Forge Press.
61.
RaginC. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science (Nachdr. ed.). University of Chicago Press.
62.
RaginC. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
63.
RaginC. C. (2014). The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies: With a new introduction. University of California Press.
64.
RaginC. C. (2023). Analytic induction for social research. University of California Press.
65.
RihouxB.RaginC. C.YamasakiS.BolD. (2009). Conclusions—the way(s) ahead. In De MeurG.RihouxB.YamasakiS. (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 167–178). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226569.n7
66.
RohlfingI.KönigshofenL.KrenzerS.SchwalbachJ., & R, A. B. (2021). A reproduction analysis of 106 articles using qualitative comparative analysis, 2016–2018. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(2), 292–296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520001717
67.
RohlfingI.SchneiderC. Q. (2018). A unifying framework for causal analysis in set-theoretic multimethod research. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 37–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115626170
68.
RuttenR. (2022). Applying and assessing large-N QCA: Causality and robustness from a critical realist perspective. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(3), 1211–1243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120914955
SaylorsR.LahiriA.WarnickB.BaidC. (2023). Looking back to venture forward: exploring idea and identity work in public failure narratives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(2), 398–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211057027
SchneiderC. Q. (2024). Set-theoretic multi-method research: A guide to combining QCA and ccase studies. Cambridge University Press.
75.
SchneiderC. Q.RohlfingI. (2013). Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(4), 559–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113481341
76.
SchneiderC. Q.WagemannC. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913210X12493538729793
77.
SchneiderC. Q.WagemannC. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press.
78.
SchneiderC. Q.WagemannC. (2013). Doing justice to logical remainders in QCA: Moving beyond the standard analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 211–220.
79.
SchoonE.MelamedD.BreigerR. (2024). Regression inside out. Cambridge University Press.
80.
SchückesM.UngerB.GutmannT.FelsG. (2025). Innovation at the interface: A configurational approach to corporate venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 40(1), 106438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2024.106438
81.
SeawrightJ. (2005). Qualitative comparative analysis vis-à-vis regression. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686284
82.
ThiemA. (2022). Beyond the facts: Limited empirical diversity and causal inference in qualitative comparative analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(2), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119882463
83.
ThiemA.BaumgartnerM.BolD. (2016). Still lost in translation! A correction of three misunderstandings between configurational comparativists and regressional analysts. Comparative Political Studies, 49(6), 742–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014565892
84.
ThiemA.MkrtchyanL.SebechlebskaZ. (2022). A Phantom Menace: Why researchers should stop worrying about logical remainders in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Available atSSRN 4194667.
85.
ThomannE.EgeJ.PaustyanE. (2022). Approaches to qualitative comparative analysis and good practices: A systematic review. Swiss Political Science Review, 28(3), 557–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12503
86.
ThomannE.MaggettiM. (2020). Designing research with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Approaches, challenges, and tools. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(2), 356–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729700
87.
Van BurgE.CornelissenJ.StamW.JackS. (2022). Advancing qualitative entrepreneurship research: Leveraging methodological plurality for achieving scholarly impact. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720943051
88.
WaldkirchM.KammerlanderN.WiedelerC. (2021). Configurations for corporate venture innovation: Investigating the role of the dominant coalition. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(5), 106137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106137
89.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2013). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (5th ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.
