Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:38:21.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Qualitative Comparative Analysis as a Tool for Concept Clarification, Typology Building, and Contextualized Comparisons in Gender and Feminist Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2016

Rossella Ciccia
Rossella Ciccia*
Affiliation:
Queen's University Belfast
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a method for the systematic analysis of cases. A holistic view of cases and an approach to causality emphasizing complexity are some of its core features. Over the last decades, QCA has found application in many fields of the social sciences. In spite of this, its use in feminist research has been slower, and only recently QCA has been applied to topics related to social care, the political representation of women, and reproductive politics. In spite of the comparative turn in feminist studies, researchers still privilege qualitative methods, in particular case studies, and are often skeptical of quantitative techniques (Spierings 2012). These studies show that the meaning and measurement of many gender concepts differ across countries and that the factors leading to feminist success and failure are context specific. However, case study analyses struggle to systematically account for the ways in which these forces operate in different locations.

Type
Online Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , E8
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2016 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

An, Mi Young, and Peng, Ito. 2015. “Diverging Paths? A Comparative Look at Childcare Policies in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.” Social Policy & Administration. First published online April 7, 2015. doi: 10.1111/spol.12128.Google Scholar
Borchorst, Anette, and Siim, Birte. 2008. “Woman-Friendly Policies and State Feminism Theorizing Scandinavian Gender Equality.” Feminist Theory 9 (2): 207–24.Google Scholar
Ciccia, Rossella, and Bleijenbergh, Inge. 2014. “After the Male Breadwinner Model? Childcare Services and the Division of Labor in European Countries.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 21 (1): 50–79.Google Scholar
Ciccia, Rossella, and Verloo, Mieke. 2012. “Parental Leave Regulations and the Persistence of the Male Breadwinner Model: Using Fuzzy-Set Ideal Type Analysis to Assess Gender Equality in an Enlarged Europe.” Journal of European Social Policy 22 (5): 507–28.Google Scholar
Da Roit, Barbara, and Weicht, Bernhard. 2013. “Migrant Care Work and Care, Migration and Employment Regimes: A Fuzzy-Set Analysis.” Journal of European Social Policy 23 (5): 469–86.Google Scholar
Engeli, Isabelle. 2012. “Policy Struggle on Reproduction Doctors, Women, and Christians.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 330–45.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1994. “After the Family Wage: Gender Equity and the Welfare State.” Political Theory 22 (4): 591–618.Google Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2013. “Empirical Intersectionality: A Tale of Two Approaches.” University of California Irvine Law Review 3: 259–96.Google Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena. 2010. “Women's Representation in Parliament: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Political Studies 58 (5): 886–908.Google Scholar
Lilliefeldt, Emilie. 2012. “Party and Gender in Western Europe Revisited: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Gender-Balanced Parliamentary Parties.” Party Politics 18 (2): 193–214.Google Scholar
McCall, L. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs 30 (3): 1771–1800.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Carsten Q., and Wagemann, Claudius. 2012. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spierings, Niels. 2012. “The Inclusion of Quantitative Techniques and Diversity in the Mainstream of Feminist Research.” European Journal of Women's Studies 19 (3): 331–47.Google Scholar
Szelewa, Dorota, and Polakowski, Michal P.. 2008. “Who Cares? Changing Patterns of Childcare in Central and Eastern Europe.” Journal of European Social Policy 18(2): 115–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar