IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v21y2013i02p252-265_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference

Author

Listed:
  • Hug, Simon

Abstract

An increasing number of analyses in various subfields of political science employ Boolean algebra as proposed by Ragin's qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). This type of analysis is perfectly justifiable if the goal is to test deterministic hypotheses under the assumption of error-free measures of the employed variables. My contention is, however, that only in a very few research areas are our theories sufficiently advanced to yield deterministic hypotheses. Also, given the nature of our objects of study, error-free measures are largely an illusion. Hence, it is unsurprising that many studies employ QCA inductively and gloss over possible measurement errors. In this article, I address these issues and demonstrate the consequences of these problems with simple empirical examples. In an analysis similar to Monte Carlo simulation, I show that using Boolean algebra in an exploratory fashion without considering possible measurement errors may lead to dramatically misleading inferences. I then suggest remedies that help researchers to circumvent some of these pitfalls.

Suggested Citation

  • Hug, Simon, 2013. "Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 252-265, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:21:y:2013:i:02:p:252-265_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700013383/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eva Thomann & Martino Maggetti, 2020. "Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approaches, Challenges, and Tools," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(2), pages 356-386, May.
    2. Martyna Daria Swiatczak, 2022. "Different algorithms, different models," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1913-1937, August.
    3. Alrik Thiem, 2022. "Beyond the Facts: Limited Empirical Diversity and Causal Inference in Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(2), pages 527-540, May.
    4. Wagemann, Claudius & Buche, Jonas & Siewert, Markus B., 2016. "QCA and business research: Work in progress or a consolidated agenda?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2531-2540.
    5. Victoria Finn, 2022. "A qualitative assessment of QCA: method stretching in large-N studies and temporality," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 3815-3830, October.
    6. Yonghua Zhang & Xue Wang & Shenwei Wan & Hongge Zhu, 2023. "Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Factors Affecting Satisfaction with the Policy of Ecological Forest Rangers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Adrian Dușa, 2022. "Critical Tension: Sufficiency and Parsimony in QCA," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(2), pages 541-565, May.
    8. Blair, Graeme & Cooper, Jasper & Coppock, Alexander & Humphreys, Macartan, 2019. "Declaring and Diagnosing Research Designs," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 113(3), pages 838-859.
    9. Bear F. Braumoeller, 2017. "Aggregation Bias and the Analysis of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions in fsQCA," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(2), pages 242-251, March.
    10. Philip Kretsedemas, 2024. "Explaining Asylum Law Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Laws, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, August.
    11. Barbara Vis & Jan Dul, 2018. "Analyzing Relationships of Necessity Not Just in Kind But Also in Degree," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 47(4), pages 872-899, November.
    12. Wise, Ramsey, 2015. "Does market-oriented education systems improve performance or increase inequality: A configurational comparative method for understanding (un)intended educational outcomes," TranState Working Papers 189, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    13. Michael Baumgartner & Alrik Thiem, 2020. "Often Trusted but Never (Properly) Tested: Evaluating Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(2), pages 279-311, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:21:y:2013:i:02:p:252-265_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.