JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for QUAL-COMPARE Archives


QUAL-COMPARE Archives

QUAL-COMPARE Archives


QUAL-COMPARE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

QUAL-COMPARE Home

QUAL-COMPARE Home

QUAL-COMPARE  June 2012

QUAL-COMPARE June 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: QCA consistency and beyond

From:

Federico Iannacci <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Related Methodology Debates <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:34:17 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (188 lines)

Hello everyone

Thanks for the fascinating thread of thought! It seems to me that the issues being raised go well beyond coverage vs. consistency as we are now moving towards scientific vs. statistical inference. To me this suggests that there is some ambiguity with regard to the objectives of fsQCA. What is the overall goal? Is it to transcend the qualitative-quantitative divide or to complement either approach? I have been thinking about this question long and hard over the last few years and I reached the following (preliminary) conclusion. If the objective is the former, one needs to be clear that the ontology/epistemology fsQCA is based upon is neither postitivism nor relativism but critical realism. If the objective is to complement existing approaches, then fsQCA could be used, for instance, alongside conventional approaches (e.g., surveys). I have found few studies that follow the former path as the vast majority of studies have taken the default option to consider fsQCA as a technique that is complementary (or even superior) to standard regression analysis. In my work, I am trying to show how fsQCA can fit critical realism underlying ontology and epistemology with its conception of multiple, conjunctural causation. But this requires more intensive studies and more in-depth knowledge of the cases at hand (and as a consequence, modest generalisations that, at best, apply to the small number of cases under investigation). I would be very grateful if anyone could point me towards more qualitative uses of fsQCA (perhaps falling within the critical realist paradigm). Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Federico


________________________________

From: Paolo Dardanelli [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Fri 08/06/2012 15:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: QCA consistency



Ok, Wendy. I've looked at Ragin (2008) and seen the rationale for using consistency scores. 

Thanks a lot,

 

Paolo

 

From: Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Related Methodology Debates [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wendy Olsen
Sent: 08 June 2012 15:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: QCA consistency

 

Hello

Re Necessary cause.

 

I have not used the alpha or p value tests found in the 2nd half of the fuzzy set social  science book 2000 because I was uncomfortable with the logic used there.  Notably there is not random sampling, nor indeed any sampling, in the cases in that book.  They are countries. Case selection was somewhat arbitrary. To me the logic to use in such situations is not inference from sample to population.

 

I have suggested ways to use the more recent book dated 2008 to clarify the methods to be used.  

 

If you really need a p value then you will need to think beyond the Qualitative Comparative Method a bit. You would certainly want to be very aware of your sampling scheme. You might think of weighting the data by changing frequencies to adapt it to make it more representative.  You also would want to think about the differences between a scientific statement, such as a modal generalisation, versus a statistical inference.  For a 'scientific inference' we need more than a p value or alpha level... we need clarity about ontology, concepts, relationships, structure, and causal mechanisms.  Good luck

 

Wendy Olsen

 

 

... ...   email from ... Wendy Olsen

Senior Lecturer in Socio-Economic Research

Social Statistics

School of Social Sciences

University of Manchester

Manchester

M13 9PL

 

From: Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Related Methodology Debates [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paolo Dardanelli
Sent: 08 June 2012 14:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: slides about QCA including consistency formulas

 

Dear Wendy - as well as Carsten and Pablo,

 

Many thanks indeed for your help, much appreciated. I've run the formula with my data and it does indeed give the same result as the software. I'm still a bit puzzled, though, regarding application and interpretation. Ragin (2003: 192-4) discusses the test of necessity applied to his data on IMF protests in terms of the proportion of cases where Xi?Yi, not in terms of the consistency results given by the formula.  The table on p. 194 (table 8.3) headed 'Results of Fuzzy-Set Analysis of Necessity' reports proportion results. His table in Ragin (2000: 114) also seems to suggest using proportions. 

 

My key question is thus: when assessing necessity, should we look at the proportion or at consistency?  In relation to my own data, the choice between the two leads to rather different substantive claims:

 

a) looking at consistency (0.932) I understand I'd be able to claim that the condition is 'almost always necessary' for the outcome as the figure is above the commonly accepted threshold of .80

 

b) looking at the proportion (21/24 or .875) and using Ragin's (2000: 114) table, though, I'd only be able to claim that it is 'usually necessary' as it only passes the .65 at ?=.05 test...

 

Which of the two would be the correct interpretation? 

 

Many thanks once again!

 

Have a good weekend,

 

Paolo

 

Ragin, C. (2003), 'Fuzzy-Set Analysis of Necessary Conditions', in G. Goertz and H. Starr (eds), Necessary Conditions - Theory, Methodology, and Applications. Lanham, Md, USA: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 179-96.  

Ragin, C. (2000), Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, Il, USA: University of Chicago Press

 

From: Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Related Methodology Debates [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wendy Olsen
Sent: 08 June 2012 12:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: slides about QCA including consistency formulas

 

Dear all,

Re PAOLO's enquiry about N-consistency.

 

Charles Ragin has published the formulas for Consistency of sufficiency in several places including his book Redesigning Social Enquiry.  I enclose my own slides which present these formula in the context of a lengthy training session (taking up around half a day) where we also did practical exercises.

 

The 'N-consistency' or Consistency for necessity is on the Annex comprising the last 2 slides. Answering Paolo's question explicitly, this reads:

*          Consistency (Xi ? Yi) = ?(min(Xi,Yi)) / ?(Yi). 

 

You have to take the minimum of the fuzzy sets to get their intersection first, then sum across the rows, giving you the Numerator.

 

The denominator is easier; it is the sum of the fuzzy sets in the rows of the column you mean as Outcome, i.e. Y.

Thanks to Charles for his great clarity about this matter which is not covered explicitly in the Sage volume on Fuzzy Sets by Smithson & Verkuilen.  They on the on the other hand mention the 'inclusion ratio' and this lacks the denominator.  Thus in Smithson and Verkuilen's book one does not find any distinction of sufficiency from necessary cause.  This is confusing because Sage offer their series of books as landmarks.  In the Longest & Vaisey STATA journal discussion, Consistency of Sufficiency is called S-Consistency and this is the following ratio:

*          Consistency (Xi less than or equal Yi) = ?(min(Xi,Yi)) / ?(Xi). 

 

Best wishes I hope this clarifies yesterday's emails which, on reflection, I thought had too many acronyms.

 

Yours warmly

Wendy Olsen

 

... ...   email from ... Wendy Olsen

Senior Lecturer in Socio-Economic Research

Social Statistics

School of Social Sciences

University of Manchester

Manchester

M13 9PL

 



*---*

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
August 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
September 2010
August 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
October 2009
September 2009
February 2009
October 2008
September 2008
June 2008
May 2008
March 2008
August 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
April 2006
February 2006
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager