Between complexity and generalization: Addressing evaluation challenges with QCA
Abstract
This article argues that Qualitative Comparative Analysis can be a useful method in case-based evaluations for two reasons: a) it is aimed at causal inference and explanation, leading to theory development; b) it is strong on external validity and generalization, allowing for theory testing and refinement. After a brief introduction to QCA, the specific type of causality handled by QCA is discussed. QCA is shown to offer improvements over Mill’s methods by handling asymmetric and multiple-conjunctural causality in addition to counterfactual reasoning. It thereby allows the explicitly separate analysis of necessity and sufficiency, recognizing the relevance of causal packages as well as single causes and of multiple causal paths leading to the same outcome (equifinality). It is argued that QCA can generalize findings to a small, medium and large number of cases.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
QCA can examine complex combinations of explanatory factors across differing contexts and produce externally valid results even among a smaller sample.
“QCA can examine complex combinations of explanatory factors (or pathways) across differing contexts and produce externally valid results even among a smaller sample [39–41].”
Cites
Case Study Research: Design and Methods
Chaiklin, H. (1991) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 · Cited by 39,631 · see citing works
(2005) · Cited by 9,479 · see citing works
American Philosophical Quarterly
(2023) · American Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.5406/21521123.60.4.09 · Cited by 3,244 · see citing works
Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques
Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. (2009) · SAGE Publications · doi:10.4135/9781452226569 · Cited by 3,089 · see citing works
Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139004244 · Cited by 2,862 · see citing works
The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies
Ragin, C. C. (2014) · doi:10.1525/9780520957350 · Cited by 2,130 · see citing works
Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences
Elster, J. (1989) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511812255 · Cited by 2,026 · see citing works
Pawson, R. (2006) · doi:10.4135/9781849209120 · Cited by 1,791 · see citing works
Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012) · Cited by 1,345 · see citing works
Timberlake, M., & Ragin, C. C. (1989) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2579563 · Cited by 1,313 · see citing works
Mill, J. S. (1843) · Cited by 1,235 · see citing works
(1965) · American Philosophical Quarterly · Cited by 1,164 · see citing works
Elster, J. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806421 · Cited by 853 · see citing works
Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology
Hedstrom, P. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511488801 · Cited by 816 · see citing works
(2005) · Cited by 772 · see citing works
The cement of the universe, a study of causation
Rota, G. (1978) · Advances in Mathematics · doi:10.1016/0001-8708(78)90103-2 · Cited by 698 · see citing works
Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012) · doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199841608.001.0001 · Cited by 672 · see citing works
The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation.
Berofsky, B., & Mackie, J. L. (1977) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2025574 · Cited by 637 · see citing works
Theory‐based evaluation: Past, present, and future
Weiss, C. H. (1997) · New Directions for Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.1086 · Cited by 634 · see citing works
Elster, J. (1998) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511663901.003 · Cited by 546 · see citing works
The Comparative Advantages of fsQCA and Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses
Vis, B. (2012) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124112442142 · Cited by 483 · see citing works
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2006) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00635.x · Cited by 276 · see citing works
The limitations of randomized controlled trials in predicting effectiveness
Cartwright, N. D., & Munro, E. (2010) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01382.x · Cited by 189 · see citing works
TQCA: A Technique for Adding Temporality to Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Caren, N., & Panofsky, A. (2005) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124105277197 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Sherman, H. J., Meeropol, M. A., & Sherman, P. D. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781351232111 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in Public Policy Analysis : An Extensive Review
Rihoux, B., Bol, D., & Rezsöhazy, I. (2011) · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Exploring the Necessary Conditions for Evaluation Use in Program Change
Ledermann, S. (2011) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214011411573 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Befani, B., Ledermann, S., & Sager, F. (2007) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389007075222 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Self-citationDealing With Complex Causality in Realist Synthesis
Sager, F., & Andereggen, C. (2011) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214011411574 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Policy coordination in the European metropolis: A meta-analysis
Sager, F. (2006) · West European Politics · doi:10.1080/01402380600619744 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Befani, B., & Mayne, J. (2014) · IDS Bulletin · doi:10.1111/1759-5436.12110 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
“This is not the place for a detailed discussion of contributory causes which are neither necessary nor sufficient to bring about an outcome (see Befani 2013 and Mackie 1974 for a discussion of INUS (Insufficient but Necessary part of an Befani and Mayne Process Tracing and Contribution Analysis:…”
Self-citationGerrits, L., & Pagliarin, S. (2021) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2020.1799636 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Cooper, B. R., Hill, L. G., Parker, L., Jenkins, G. J., Shrestha, G., & Funaiole, A. (2022) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-022-00303-4 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Befani, B.
- Affiliations
- Institute of Development Studies (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Befani, Barbara
- ORCID
- Befani, Barbara
- Venue
- Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 269-283
- ISSN
- 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7153
- OpenAlex
- W2335650201
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 15.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evaluation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- qualitative comparative analysis, causal inference, generalizability, generalization, Mill's methods, counterfactual reasoning, necessity and sufficiency, equifinality, theory development, theory testing
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
