Real Differences and Overlooked Similarities: Set-Methods in Comparative Perspective

Carsten Q. Schneider*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract (may include machine translation)

Jack Paine (JP) and Alrik Thiem, Michael Baumgartner, and Damien Bol (TBB) provide diametrically opposed answers to the hotly debated question as to whether set-theory-based methods constitute a family of methods sui generis or whether not only set methods can be subsumed under the existing statistical framework, but also, if so, should be abandoned. I find TBB’s argument convincing that due to their different mathematical foundations, these two families of methods cannot be directly translated, let alone unified into one. Notwithstanding this, it seems clear to me that work must continue on identifying conceptual similarities and differences, and to elaborate on each method’s respective strengths and weaknesses. Because I mostly agree with TBB, I only briefly comment on some of their claims and then dedicate the rest of the text to JP.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)781-792
Number of pages12
JournalComparative Political Studies
Volume49
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2016

Keywords

  • QCA
  • methodology
  • set-theoretic methods

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Real Differences and Overlooked Similarities: Set-Methods in Comparative Perspective'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this