Approaches to Qualitative Comparative Analysis and good practices : A systematic review

Thomann, Eva; Ege, Jörn; Paustyan, Ekaterina

Approaches to Qualitative Comparative Analysis and good practices : A systematic review

Dateien

Thomann_2-uii5t744st0q1.pdfGröße: 1.29 MBDownloads: 358

Datum

2022

Autor:innen

Thomann, Eva

Ege, Jörn

Paustyan, Ekaterina

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Open Access Hybrid

Sammlungen

Politik- und Verwaltungswissenschaft

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.

Fachgebiet (DDC)

320 Politik

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.12503

BibTex

@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>

Universitätsbibliographie

Ja

Begutachtet

Ja