Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:34:21.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Logical Constraints: The Limitations of QCA in Social Science Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2020

Kevin A. Clarke Open the ORCID record for Kevin A. Clarke [Opens in a new window]
Kevin A. Clarke*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0146, USA. Email: kevin.clarke@rochester.edu
*
*Email: kevin.clarke@rochester.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Researchers employing qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and its variants use two-element Boolean algebra to compare cases and identify putative causal conditions. I show that the two-element Boolean algebra constrains research in three important ways: it restricts what we can say about sets and the interactions between sets, it embodies a logical language that is too weak to capture modern social science theories, and it restricts our analysis of causation to necessity and sufficiency accounts and does not allow for counterfactuals. Modern quantitative analysis suffers none of these restrictions and provides a much richer way to understand the social world.

Keywords

QCAprobabilitylogic
Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 552 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Contributing Editor: Jeff Gill

References

Achen, C. H. 2005. “Two Cheers for Charles Ragin.” Studies in Comparative International Development 40(1):27–32.10.1007/BF02686285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aho, A. V., and Ullman, J. D.. 1994. Foundations of Computer Science . 3rd edn. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Amemiya, T. 1994. Introduction to Statistics and Econometrics . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values . 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bierens, H. J. 2005. Introduction to the Mathematical and Statistical Foundations of Econometrics . New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. 1982. Mathematical Analysis: A Straightforward Approach . 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, G., Cooper, J., Coppock, A., and Humphreys, M.. 2019. “Declaring and Diagnosing Research Designs.” American Political Science Review 113(3):838–859.10.1017/S0003055419000194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brady, H. E. 2013. “Do Two Research Cultures Imply Two Scientific Paradigms?” Comparative Political Studies 46(2):252–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, H. E. 2018. “Causation and Explanation in Social Science.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science , edited by Goodin, R. E.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braumoeller, B. F. 2015. “Guarding Against False Positives in Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Political Analysis 23(4):471–487.10.1093/pan/mpv017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casella, G., and Berger, R. L.. 2002. Statistical Inference . 2nd edn. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
DeGroot, M. H., and Schervish, M. J.. 2010. Probability and Statistics . 4th edn. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Dunning, T. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based approach . New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, M. 2014. “A Straightforward Proof of Arrow’s Theorem.” Economics Bulletin 34(3):1792–1979.Google Scholar
Geanakoplos, J. 2005. “Three Brief Proofs of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem.” Economic Theory 26(1):211–215.10.1007/s00199-004-0556-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genesereth, M., and Kao, E. J.. 2017. Introduction to Logic . 3rd edn. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.Google Scholar
Goertz, G., and Mahoney, J.. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grandi, U., and Endriss, U.. 2009. “First-Order Logic Formalisation of Arrow’s Theorem.” In Logic, Rationality, and Interation , edited by He, X., Horty, J., and Pacuit, E., 133–146. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W. H. 2011. Econometric Analysis . 7th edn. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Gujarati, D. N., and Porter, D. C.. 2008. Basic Econometrics . 5th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hug, S. 2013. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference.” Political Analysis 21(2):252–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hürlimann, T.2019. “Logical and Integer Modelling.” Technical Report, University of Fribourg, Department of Informatics.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. 1991. Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits , 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kim, J. 1971. “Causes and Events: Mackie on Causation.” Journal of Philosophy 68(14):426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinberg, S.2010. “An Algorithmic Enquiry Concerning Causality.” PhD Thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
Krogslund, C., Choi, D. D., and Poertner, M.. 2015. “Fuzzy Sets on Shaky Grounds: Parameter Sensitivity and Confirmation Bias in fsQCA.” Political Analysis 23(1):12–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemmon, E. 1992. Beginning Logic . Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 2001. Counterfactuals . 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lieberson, S. 2001. “Review Essay on Fuzzy Set Social Science, by Charles Ragin.” Contemporary Sociology 30(4):331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberson, S. 2004. “Comments on the Use and Utility of QCA.” Qualitative Methods 2(2):13–14.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. 1965. “Causes and Conditions.” American Philosophical Quarterly 2(4):245–264.Google Scholar
Maddala, G., and Lahiri, K.. 2010. Introduction to Econometrics . 4th edn. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Munck, G. L. 2016. “Assessing Set-Theoretic Comparative Methods: A Tool for Qualitative Comparativists?” Comparative Political Studies 49(6):775–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nipkow, T. 2009. “Social Choice Theory in Hol: Arrow and Gibbard–Satterthwaite.” Journal of Automated Reasoning 43(3):289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paine, J. 2016a. “Set-Theoretic Comparative Methods: Less Distinctive Than Claimed.” Comparative Political Studies 49(6):703–741.10.1177/0010414014564851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paine, J. 2016b. “Still Searching for the Value-Added: Persistent Concerns about Set-Theoretic Comparative Methods.” Comparative Political Studies 49(6):793–800.10.1177/0010414015626456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, J. 2009. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference . 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poirier, D. J. 1995. Intermediate Statistics and Econometrics: A Comparative Approach . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Primas, H. 1999. “Basic Elements and Problems of Probability Theory.” Journal of Scientific Exploration 13(4):579–613.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science . Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. 2005. “Core Versus Tangential Assumptions in Comparative Research.” Studies in Comparative International Development 40(1):33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond . Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlfing, I. 2016. “Why Simulations are Appropriate for Evaluating Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Quality and Quantity 50(5):2073–2084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohlfing, I. 2018. “Power and False Negatives in Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Foundations, Simulation and Estimation for Empirical Studies.” Political Analysis 26(1):72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, K. J. 1976. “Causes.” American Journal of Epidemiology 104(6):587–592.10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruczinski, I., Kooperberg, C., and LeBlanc, M.. 2003. “Logic Regression.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 12(3):475–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheines, R. 2002. “Computation and Causation.” Metaphilosophy 33(1/2):158–180.10.1111/1467-9973.00223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C. Q. 2018. “Realists and Idealists in QCA.” Political Analysis 26(2):246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C. Q., and Wagemann, C.. 2012. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seawright, J. 2005a. “Assumptions, Causal Inference, and the Goals of QCA.” Studies in Comparative International Development 40(1):39–42.10.1007/BF02686287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seawright, J. 2005b. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis vis-a-vis Regression.” Studies in Comparative International Development 40(1):3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spanos, A. 1999. Probability Theory and Statistical Inference: Econometric Modeling with Observational Data . New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, Y.-H. 1997. “Is Default Logic a Reinvention of Inductive-Statistical Reasoning?” Synthese 110(13):357–379.10.1023/A:1004999920152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiem, A. 2016. “Standards of Good Practice and The Methodology of Necessary Conditions in Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Political Analysis 24(4):478–484.10.1093/pan/mpw024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiem, A., Baumgartner, M., and Bol, D.. 2016. “Still Lost in Translation! A Correction of Three Misunderstandings between Configurational Comparativists and Regressional Analysts.” Comparative Political Studies 49(6):742–774.10.1177/0010414014565892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiem, A., Spöhel, R., and Duşa, A.. 2016. “Enhancing Sensitivity Diagnostics for Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Combinatorial Approach.” Political Analysis 24(1):104–120.10.1093/pan/mpv028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J., van Ditmarsch, H., van Eijck, J., and Jaspars, J.. 2016. Logic in Action . Available at www.logicinaction.org/docs/lia.pdf.Google Scholar
VanderWeele, T. J., and Robins, J. M.. 2009. “Minimal Sufficient Causation and Directed Acyclic Graphs.” The Annals of Statistics 37(1):1437–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedijk, F. 2007. “Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem.” Formalized Mathematics 15(4):171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, S. 1989. Philosophical Logic . New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J. M. 2012. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach . 5th edn. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.Google Scholar
Yaglom, A., and Yaglom, I.. 1973. Probability and Information . Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar