Qualitative comparative analysis vis-à-vis regression

By Jason Seawright. 2005

140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Discussions of Charles C. Ragin’s Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) have not adequately considered the assumptions about causation on which this method depends. Yet in evaluating any method, it is important to ask the question: How many untestable, or hard-to-test, assumptions must be met for us to believe the findings it produces? Advocates of QCA claim that one of its major strengths is that it requires fewer restrictive assumptions than techniques such as regression analysis. Hence, close assessment of the assumptions that are entailed is particularly salient to evaluating QCA. This article addresses these issues by considering three of the most important kinds of assumptions discussed in the context of regression analysis: assumptions about the correct form of the relationship, missing variables, and inferring causation from association. For each assumption, the role of corresponding assumptions in QCA will be explored and illustrated through an analysis of leftparty electoral fortunes in Latin America. Regarding the correct form of causal relationships, QCA in effect builds highly demanding assumptions into measurement procedures. Concerning missing variables, whereas earlier versions of QCA require a strong assumption of no causally relevant missing variables, more recent procedures allow some kinds of missing variables, but build in mutually contradictory statistical assumptions about those variables. Resolving these contradictions essentially converts QCA into an application of regression analysis. Regarding the process of inferring causation from association, QCA makes causal inference on the basis of patterns of association purely by assumption. That is, association is assumed to have a one-to-one relationship with causation. For all three groups of assumptions, QCA is found to require assumptions that, are at least as restrictive as those employed in regression analysis.

Subfields: Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/32049a353f95c889e589101d0237278b6e33322f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Political Science and International Relations

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Multi-Method Research (2013, background): “Ragin (e.g. 2000:90; 2006b:309) emphasizes the general importance of case studies—mainly because QCA, much as regression analysis, infers causation from a cross-case association (Seawright 2005).”
The Neyman— Rubin Model of Causal Inference and Estimation Via Matching Methods (2008, background): “15 For details on the relationship between qualitative comparative analysis and standard regression see Seawright (2004).”
Fuzzy Sets on Shaky Ground: Parameter Sensitivity and Confirmation Bias in fsQCA (2015, methodology): “In particular, we build upon the efforts of Skaaning (2011), Hug (2013), and Lucas and Szatrowski (2014), who first raised concerns about the potential instability of QCA results.”
Crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA) and model specification: Benchmarks for future csQCA applications (2010, background): “For more on the issue of omitted variable bias in QCA see Seawright (2004, 2005).”
QCA, the Truth Table Analysis and Large-N Survey Data : The Benefits of Calibration and the Importance of Robustness Tests (2014, background): “ It has correctly been pointed out that the Truth Table Analysis is very sensitive to single cases and measurement error (Hug 2013; Seawright 2005).”