Cited by 1,473Qualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsPolitical Science Research and Education

Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets

Schneider, Carsten Q., Wagemann, Claudius·2010·Comparative Sociology

Abstract

As a relatively new methodological tool, QCA is still a work in progress. Standards of good practice are needed in order to enhance the quality of its applications. We present a list from A to Z of twenty-six proposals regarding what a “good” QCA-based research entails, both with regard to QCA as a research approach and as an analytical technique. Our suggestions are subdivided into three categories: criteria referring to the research stages before, during, and after the analytical moment of data analysis. This listing can be read as a guideline for authors, reviewers, and readers of QCA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/156913210x12493538729793

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C.
Affiliations
  • Central European University (AT)
  • 2Istituto italiano di scienze umane Palazzo Strozzi, Piazza degli Strozzi, 50123 Florence, Italy, Email: claudius.wagemann@sumitalia.it
Venue
Comparative Sociology
Published
2010
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
397-418
ISSN
  • 1569-1322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1569-1330
OpenAlex
W2119092313
Cited by
1,473
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 112 · 2025: 155 · 2024: 155 · 2023: 139 · 2022: 135 · 2021: 144 · 2020: 108 · 2019: 118 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 74 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 25
FWCI
89.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Comparative Sociology (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research (Auckland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
Keywords
qualitative comparative analysis, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, methodological recommendations, research methodology, data analysis

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