IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v28y2020i4p552-568_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Logical Constraints: The Limitations of QCA in Social Science Research

Author

Listed:
  • Clarke, Kevin A.

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Clarke, Kevin A., 2020. "Logical Constraints: The Limitations of QCA in Social Science Research," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 552-568, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:28:y:2020:i:4:p:552-568_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198720000078/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Malte L. Peters & Stephan Zelewski, 2021. "Upper and lower satisficing levels in efficiency analysis: a corporate social responsibility perspective," NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum | Sustainability Management Forum, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 187-195, December.
    2. Lei Wang & Weijia You & Yingying Zhou & Fei Meng, 2022. "How Does Green Supply Chain Management Promote the Success of Crowdfunding Projects? Empirical Research Based on the QCA Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-21, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:28:y:2020:i:4:p:552-568_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.