Abstract (may include machine translation)
The so-called two-step QCA approach as formulated by Schneider and Wagemann (Eur J Polit Res 45(5):751–786, 2006) proposes a separation of conditions into two distinct groups—remote and proximate—and to analyze the impact of these conditions on the outcome in a stepwise manner. While the general logic of the two-step protocol seems to resonate with a broad range of scholars, it, so far, has been only rarely (successfully) applied. This paper argues that this discrepancy between theory and practice is due to the ill-defined nature of the first step. Schneider and Wagemann propose step 1 to be an analysis of inconsistent sufficiency. This has always stood on shaky set-relational grounds. I therefore argue that the first of the two steps in the protocol should be redefined as an analysis of necessity and only step 2 understood as an analysis of sufficiency. While already implicit in its original formulation, this crucial feature of the two-step QCA approach has largely been overlooked. This paper proposes an updated two-step QCA approach that rests on recent innovations in set methods and spells out the advantages of this new protocol.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1109-1126 |
Number of pages | 18 |
Journal | Quality and Quantity |
Volume | 53 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 15 May 2019 |
Keywords
- Enhanced standard analysis (ESA)
- Necessary conditions
- Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)
- SUIN conditions
- Set methods
- Two-step QCA
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Two-step QCA revisited: the necessity of context conditions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Datasets
-
Replication Material for Carsten Q. Schneider (2018): "Two-Step QCA Revisited"
Schneider, C. Q. (Creator), Harvard Dataverse, 7 Sep 2018
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/glfp8l
Dataset