Cited by 316Qualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchPolitical Science Research and EducationPhilosophy and History of Science

Between Complexity and Parsimony: Limited Diversity, Counterfactual Cases, and Comparative Analysis

Open access
Ragin, Charles C., Sonnett, John·2005·Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft

Abstract

Counterfactual analysis has a long and distinguished history in comparative research. To some, counterfactual analysis is central to comparative inquiry because such research typically embraces only a handful of empirical cases (Fearon 1991). If there are only a few instances (e.g., of revolution), then researchers, of necessity, must compare empirical cases to hypothetical cases. The affinity between counterfactual analysis and comparative research, however, derives not from its focus on small Ns, but from its configurational nature. Case-oriented explanations of outcomes are often combinatorial in nature, stressing specific configurations of causal conditions. Rather than focus on the net effects of causal conditions, case-oriented explanations emphasize their combined effects.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-322-80441-9_9

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Elster, Jon. (1978). /RJLF 6RFLHW\ &RQWUDGLFWLRQV DQG 3RVVLEOH :RUOGV. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  2. Hawthorn, Geoffrey. (1991). 3ODXVLEOH :RUOGV 3RVVLELOLW\ DQG XQGHUVWDQGLQJ LQ KLVWRU\ DQG WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFHV. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Merton, Robert K. (1973). 7KH 6RFLRORJ\ RI 6FLHQFH 7KHRUHWLFDO DQG (PSLULFDO ,QYHVWLJDWLRQV Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  4. Mill, John Stuart. ([1843]/1967). $ 6\VWHP RI /RJLF 5DWLRFLQDWLYH DQG ,QGXFWLYH. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  5. Ragin, Charles C. (1987). 7KH &RPSDUDWLYH 0HWKRG. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  6. Ragin, Charles C. (2000). )X]]\6HW 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  7. Weber, Max. ([1905]/1949). "Objective possibility and adequate causation in historical explanation." Pp. 164-188 in Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch (eds), 7KH 0HWKRGRORJ\ RI WKH 6RFLDO 6FLHQFHV. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ragin, C. C., & Sonnett, J.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Venue
Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft
Published
2005
Pages
180-197
OpenAlex
W1601526904
Cited by
316
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 10
FWCI
36.76
Type
book chapter
Language
de
Open access
Locations
  • VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
counterfactual analysis, comparative analysis, configurational analysis, causal conditions, parsimony

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review