Journal
COMPARATIVE POLITICAL STUDIES
Volume 49, Issue 6, Pages 742-774Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0010414014565892
Keywords
qualitative methods; quantitative methods; Boolean algebra; linear algebra; qualitative comparative analysis
Categories
Funding
- Swiss National Science Foundation [PP00P1_144736/1]
- Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PP00P1_144736] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Even after a quarter-century of debate in political science and sociology, representatives of configurational comparative methods (CCMs) and those of regressional analytic methods (RAMs) continue talking at cross purposes. In this article, we clear up three fundamental misunderstandings that have been widespread within and between the two communities, namely that (a) CCMs and RAMs use the same logic of inference, (b) the same hypotheses can be associated with one or the other set of methods, and (c) multiplicative RAM interactions and CCM conjunctions constitute the same concept of causal complexity. In providing the first systematic correction of these persistent misapprehensions, we seek to clarify formal differences between CCMs and RAMs. Our objective is to contribute to a more informed debate than has been the case so far, which should eventually lead to progress in dialogue and more accurate appraisals of the possibilities and limits of each set of methods.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available