Comment to: “Case-to-Factor Ratios and Model Specification in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)”

IF 1.1 3区社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY

Field Methods Pub Date : 2023-03-16 DOI:10.1177/1525822x231159462

A. Dușa, A. Marx

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article by Thiem and Mkrtchyan appears in a context of rising interest about the number of cases needed to perform a QCA analysis. They question the benchmark tables proposed by Marx and Dușa (2011) and conclude the ratios from those tables are “misplaced.” We believe this conclusion deviates from the scientific method and focus on two essential aspects: (1) their approach to the case to factor ratios and (2) omitted variable bias. We conclude our tables hold until a better alternative is proposed and encourage QCA researchers to continue using them.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评论:“定性比较分析(QCA)中的个案因子比和模型规范”

Thiem和Mkrtchyan的这篇文章出现在人们对进行QCA分析所需的案例数量越来越感兴趣的背景下。他们质疑马克思和Dușa(2011)提出的基准表，并得出结论，这些表中的比率是“错位的”。我们认为这一结论偏离了科学方法，并集中在两个重要方面:(1)他们对因素比率的案例处理方法;(2)忽略了变量偏差。我们的结论是，我们的表格保持不变，直到提出更好的替代方案，并鼓励QCA研究人员继续使用它们。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Field Methods Multiple-

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

5.90%

发文量

期刊介绍： Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is devoted to articles about the methods used by field wzorkers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for the collection, management, and analysis data about human thought and/or human behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on the reporting of research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. High-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods-- from scientific or interpretative traditions-- dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions are all welcome in the pages of the journal.