COMParative methods for the Advancement of Systematic cross-case analysis and Small-n Studies

International ressource site

Welcome

Who are we?

COMPASSS activities

NEWS: training, meetings, publications

Bibliographical database

Software

Didactics: Boolean algebra and QCA logic

Working papers

SmallN people

Useful links

CCM Textbook

Meetings

Workshop, June 6th, 2008
"Systematic Mixed Methods Research Workshop"
University of Manchester, UK

This is a one day workshop organised by the Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research (CCSR) of the University of Manchester.
The workshop is designed to introduce researchers, academicians and students to systematic mixed methods research, explain how mixed methods work, and describe three specific methods in detail. These are qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), fuzzy set causal analysis using QCA with calibration, and the use of NVIVO to organise mixed-methods and case-study data.

The workshop venue is the University of Manchester, Cathie Marsh Centre for Census & Survey Research, Humanities Bridgeford Street, Manchester, M13 9PL and starting from 10am to 4pm.

Speakers:
• Benoit Rihoux (Catholic University of Louvain)
• Wendy Olsen (University of Manchester)
• Andrew Mearman (University of West England)
• Ray Kent (University of Stirling)
• Gemma Catney (University of Manchester)
• Anna Zimdars (University of Manchester)
• Martin Prowse (ODI); and many others.

The workshop will also include a MASTERCLASS where participants will be able to discuss their work.

See www.ccsr.ac.uk/events/mixedmethods
for further details, write to the organiser, Dr. Wendy Olsen, Email: wendy.olsen@manchester.ac.uk

24th EGOS Colloquium, July 10-12, 2008
"Comparing Organizations: New Approaches to Using Case Study, Small-N, and Set-Theoretical Methods"
Vrije University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Convenors:
Gregory Jackson
King's College London (UK)
gregory.2.jackson@kcl.ac.uk

Ruth V. Aguilera
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (USA)
ruth-agu@uiuc.edu

Peer C. Fiss
Marshall School of Business of the University
of Southern California (USA)
fiss@marshall.usc.edu

Workshop, August 10, 2008
"Qualitative Comparative Analysis Professional Development Workshop"
Academy of Management in Anaheim, California, USA

Agenda: Building on last year's highly successful PDW with about 70 attendants, this workshop again introduces participants to Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), a cutting edge set-theoretic methodology that is increasingly winning attention in management research. The workshop brings together a variety of scholars who have extensive experience with this method. We demonstrate QCA proceeds for novices and offer practical advice for those already working with QCA. The PDW also brings together a community of researchers doing qualitative comparative analysis across organizations and strategy research.

Audience: This workshop is for any faculty researchers and doctoral students interested in applying QCA. This includes individuals across a divisions including Business Policy and Strategy, Entrepreneurship, Human Resources, International Management, Operations Management, Organizational Development and Change, Organizations and Management Theory, Organizations and the Natural Environment, and Research Methods. The workshop can accommodate a maximum of 50 attendees.

Co-organizers (in alphabetical order):
Ruth V. Aguilera, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Peer Fiss, University of Southern California
Thomas Greckhamer, Louisiana State University
Rodney Lacey, University of California, Davis
Vilmos Misangyi, Pennsylvania State University

Date and Venue:
August 10, 2008, 8:00am - 12:00pm at Hilton Anaheim in Laguna A.

Preregistration is strongly encouraged to get materials in advance and to reserve one of the limited spaces available. To register, please send an email to fiss@marshall.usc.edu.

7th International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Sept.1-5, 2008
"Data for Historical Sociology and for Analyzing Long-Term Social Processes" Session
Monte Sant'Angelo Campus, Naples, Italy

Organised by ISA RC 33 (Research Committee on Logic and Methodology).

History (as a science) and sociology have always been closely intertwined: Many of the classical social scientists were both sociologists and historians (e.g. Karl Marx, Max Weber, Norbert Elias), and although historical sociology has been long neglected, there have always been historically oriented social scientists such as Michael Mann, Charles Tilly, Randall Collins and Michael Foucault. Currently, historical sociology is reorganizing itself (as can be seen, for example from the ISA TG02). At the same time, many theoretical debates within sociology address long-term social processes. Examples are the debates on welfare regimes, on gender regimes, on varieties of capitalism, on institution building, on World Systems, on modernization, on democratization and on globalization. Questions might be both why certain phenomena are so stable over very long time periods and why and how they change (e. g. path-dependently). If these questions are to be addressed empirically, researchers need data covering time-spans of sometimes 50 years, 100 years or maybe even several centuries, or they need to go back in time as many years. Meanwhile, most empirical (especially quantitative) research covers only the most recent past (i. e. the last 5 to 20 years). Thus, if longitudinal research is to be taken seriously, methodological problems arising when studying the longue durée have to be addressed. One of the most urgent questions is, which kind of data can be used for historical sociology and/or for analyzing longterm social processes. Papers for this session should address one ore more of the following questions:

• Is it possible to learn about the distant past from “classical” sociological data types (i. e. surveys, interviews or observation)? How can these data be used and where are their limits?
• What alternative data types do exist that can be used for analyzing long-term social processes (e. g. documents, literature, diaries, paintings, films, mechanical drawings, maps, landscapes, buildings, objects)? What are there similarities and differences, and how do they differ from surveys, interviews and observation? Do historians and social scientists differ in interpreting these data types, or do they just differ in experience with handling specific data types? How can validity of data be assessed?
• What specific data problems do arise, if researchers want to analyze social process of the longue durée? Which data are suitable for which kind of questions?
• For each specific data type, it is important to ask about their specific characteristics and how this effects interpretation. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this data type? For which kind of theoretical and thematical research question are these data suitable? Where and how can these data be sampled and collected? Are these data limited to a specific geographical area and historical period?

Papers debating general methodological questions and papers discussing specific problems using a concrete data type in a specific research project are both equally welcome.

Selected Papers from this session will be published in a special issue of the journal HSR (Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung).

Deadlines:
Submission of Full Paper for HSR September 30 , 2008

Further Information
On the Conference: http://www.rc332008.unina.it/
On RC 33: http://www.isa-sociology.org/rc33.htm
On ISA: http://www.isa-sociology.org/

7th International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Sept.1-5, 2008
"Process Generated Data" Session
Monte Sant'Angelo Campus, Naples, Italy

Organised by ISA RC 33 (Research Committee on Logic and Methodology).

Process-generated data have several advantages in comparison to data “classically” used in social research, i. e. surveys, interviews and observation: Process-generated data are non-reactive. They can be used, if other means of data collection are not applicable, for example, if infrastructure for large-scale surveys does not exist (which is the case in many countries of transition), if response-rates in surveys are expected to be to low, if researchers might not get access to interview partners or if the social phenomenon of interest is not observable (e.g. when analysing past events or hidden populations). At the same time, discussion on how to methodologically handle these process-generated data has been long neglected.

The session aims at comparing a wide range of process-generated data and discussing how they can be used for social research. Examples for standardised data are customer data bases, web logs, administrational forms and GIS data. Examples for less structured data are documents, novels, diaries, letters, websites, paintings, films, photos, maps, mechanical drawings, construction plans, landscapes, buildings, monuments and objects.

Papers should discuss a specific type of process-generated data, addressing the following questions:

• What are the specific characteristics of this data type? How does this effects data analysis and interpretation?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of this data type? How does this data type differ from other forms of process-generated data, and how does it differ from surveys, interviews and observation?
• For which kind of theoretical and thematical research question are these data suitable?
• Where and how can these data be sampled and collected? Are these data limited to a specific geographical area and historical period? Are data of the same data type collected in different periods or geographical areas comparable?
• How valid are results drawn from these data?

Papers debating general methodological questions in handling a specific data type and papers discussing specific methodological problems in a specific research project are both equally welcome. In order to gain a common ground of discussion, authors should also state their disciplinary and theoretical background and – in case of presenting a thematic case study – shortly present the thematic background of the study.

Selected Papers from this session will be published in a special issue of the journal HSR Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung).

Deadlines:
Submission of Full Paper for HSR September 30 , 2008

Further Information
On the Conference: http://www.rc332008.unina.it/
On RC 33: http://www.isa-sociology.org/rc33.htm
On ISA: http://www.isa-sociology.org/

Past meetings:

8th September 2007, Pisa, Italy
ECPR General Conference, Panel "Comparative research design and Configurational Methods"

6th August 2007, Philadelphia, USA
Academy of Management Meetings
"QCA and Set-theoretic Methods: New Perspectives for Management and Strategy Research QCA and Set-Theoretic Methods"

4th August 2007, Philadelphia, USA
Academy of Management Meetings
"Professional Development Workshop: Qualitative Comparative Analysis"

15-16 July 2006, Tokyo (Japan)
International Conference on Comparative Social Sciences
Sophia University

18-19 May 2006, The Hague, The Netherlands
"Methodology matters" Workshop at the Dutch/Flemish Politicogenetmaal

18-19 Nov. 2005, Lausanne (Switzerland)
Congrès commun Association Suisse de Science Politique (ASSP), Association Française de Science Politique (AFSP), Société Québécoise de Science Politique (SQSP), Association Belge de Science Politique - Communauté française (ABSP-CF)
"La comparaison aux échelons local, régional et supranational: quelles plus-values et limites théoriques et pratiques, quels défis méthodologiques?"
(more info below)

22-23 Sept. 2005, Brighton, UK
ESRC & NCRM national Research Methods symposium on
"Small and Large-N Comparative Solutions"

8-10 Sept. 2005, Budapest, Hungary
ECPR 3rd General Conference
Section on "Methodological Innovations and Dilemmas in Political Research"

8 Aug. 2005, Honolulu, Hawaii
Academy of Management 2005 Annual Meeting
Symposium on "Set-theoretic Methods in Management and Strategy Research"

May 25 2005, Fontainebleau (France)
Lecture at INSEAD (Fontainebleau, France) on Counterfactual Cases and Comparative Analysis

May 24 2005, Paris (France)
Journée d'études (Sciences Po Paris, CEVIPOF, CSO, OSC, Association française de sciences politiques - Groupe «politique publique») :
"L’évaluation des politiques publiques: entre enjeu politique et enjeu de méthode"

April 29-30 2005, Liège (Beligum)
3rd Belgian Political Science Association (ABSP-CF) Congress
Workshop on the respective merits and limitations of case-oriented, comparative and quantitative methods

Sept. 25-28th 2004, Erfurt (Germany)
ESF (European Science Foundation) Exploratory Workshop on
"Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis. An interdisciplinary European endeavour for methodological advances and improved policy analysis/evaluation"

Sept. 2-5th 2004: APSA annual meeting, Chicago
Panel on "QCA/Fuzzy Sets : the state of the art and future prospects"

Aug. 16-20th 2004: RC33 Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Amsterdam
Recent Developments and Applications in Social Research Methodology

June 5th 2004: International Symposium in Honour of Paul Lazarsfeld Session on "Triangulation, Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods", Brussels

May 17th 2004: Séminaire-discussion sur l'AQQC/QCA et les Fuzzy Sets, Paris

Sept. 2003: ECPR General Conference, Marburg

Sept. 2003: COMPASSS launching conference, Belgium

8th September 2007
ECPR General Conference, "Political Methodology" section
Comparative research design and Configurational Methods
Pisa, Italy

Convenor : Airo HINO, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan.

Topic : The group of methods and techniques which are now brought under the heading of “Configurational Comparative Methods” (CCM) – namely crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA), multi-value QCA (mvQCA), fuzzy-set QCA (fsQCA) and Fuzzy Sets – is witnessing quite a few new developments. What are the most promising efforts to further develop/consolidate these methods? How can these methods cross-fertilize with other methods? This panel also discusses overarching issues of comparative research design.

Papers presented by Svend-Erik Skaaning, Charles Ragin, Carsten Schneider & Bernard Grofman, Mona Lena Krook, Maria Ackrén.

Download HERE (WORD document) the complete programme of the "Political Methodology" section.

6th August 2007
QCA and Set-theoretic Methods: New Perspectives for Management and Strategy Research QCA and Set-Theoretic Methods
(Academy of Management Meetings)
Philadelphia Marriott, Philadelphia, USA

Organizer: Peer C. Fiss; U. of Southern California

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and set-theoretic methods are winning increasing attention across the social sciences. These methods show considerable promise for examining complex causal relations, an issue central to much of management and strategy research. This symposium brings together an international group of scholars currently working with QCA and set-theoretic methods in management, with the goal of exposing such methods to a broader audience. By combining conceptual papers with empirical applications of set-theoretic methods, this symposium demonstrates how such methods can help management and strategy researchers gain new and important insights into how causes combine to affect important outcomes such as organizational performance, the occurrence of workplace injuries, or differences in the concentration of ownership across countries.

What You Always Wanted to Know about Set-theoretic Methods...
Presenter: Peer C. Fiss; U. of Southern California

A Set-theoretic Analysis of Cross-cultural Differences in Compensation
Presenter: Thomas Greckhamer; Louisiana State University

Explaining the Cross-National Diversity of Corporate Ownership: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Presenter: Gregory Jackson; U. of London
Presenter: Ruth V. Aguilera; U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Configurations in Best Practice: A Longitudinal, Multi-method Approach
Presenter: Bruce Kogut; INSEAD
Presenter: John Paul MacDuffie; U. of Pennsylvania
Presenter: Frits Pil; U. of Pittsburgh
Presenter: Charles Ragin; U. of Arizona

Set-theoretic Methods and Pragmatic Analysis of Large-N Datasets
Presenter: Rodney Lacey; U. of California, Irvine / U. of California, Davis / London School of Business

4th August 2007
Professional Development Workshop: Qualitative Comparative Analysis
(Academy of Management Meetings)
Philadelphia Marriott, Philadelphia, USA

Presenters:
Peer C. Fiss; U. of Southern California;
Ruth V. Aguilera; U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign;
Thomas Greckhamer; Louisiana State University
Gregory Jackson; U. of London
Rodney Lacey; U. of California, Irvine / U. of California, Davis / London School of Business

Much of current management and strategy research-from contingency theory and configurational approaches to complementarities theory and the resource-based view-conceives of organizations as complex systems of interdependent factors. Yet, conventional statistical methods are frequently less adept at teasing apart these complex interdependencies.

For example, standard linear methods such as regression analysis treat variables as competing in explaining variation in the outcome, rather than focusing on the ways in which causes may combine to create outcomes. As a result, a growing number of organization researchers are turning to Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to examine situations where causality is complex and equifinal, i.e. where there is more than one path to an outcome. Such set-theoretic methods as developed in the work of Charles Ragin (1987; 2000) and others are increasingly used in political science and sociology, inviting their application to management research.

The promise of such methods is considerable. Set-theoretic methods explicitly conceptualize cases as combinations of attributes, that is, as configurations. The researcher then uses Boolean algebra-the algebra of sets and logics-to examine which combinations of attributes lead to the outcome in question. This allows for a sophisticated analysis of complex causal relations, particularly suitable for situations where causality is difficult to examine using standard statistical methods. In addition, such methods allow for the analysis of small-N datasets where conventional statistical approaches are not applicable.

This ½ day professional development workshop builds on last year's successful PDW by offering again a practical introduction to working with set-theoretic methods, and particularly with the fs/QCA software package. Feedback from symposium and session audiences indicates that there is a real demand for more exposure to the practical issues of doing set-theoretic analysis; scholars and PhD students are willing to apply these methods, but frequently lack the training required to do so. This workshop thus brings together a number of international scholars who have extensive experience working with set-theoretic approaches to provide such exposure. Through presentations, demonstrations, and discussions, the participants will learn how QCA can be successfully applied to a variety of management and strategy topics, offering new and important insights. The eventual goal is to offer this workshop on a permanent basis, particularly for PhD students hoping to acquire the skills necessary for QCA.

The objectives of this workshop are thus threefold: first, to introduce participants to a cutting edge methodology that is increasingly winning attention in management research; second, to offer practical advice for those already working with QCA; and third, to develop an agenda and community of researchers doing qualitative comparative analysis across a variety topics in organizations and strategy research.

Contact Person: Peer C. FISS fiss@marshall.usc.edu

15-16 July 2006
International Conference on Comparative Social Sciences
Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan

The Organizing Committee of the International Conference on Comparative Social Sciences is pleased to announce this website as the official source of conference information. The conference is scheduled to take place in Tokyo, Japan, from July 15 to 16, 2006. We cordially invite you to join us in fruitful discussions of the field of comparative social sciences.

The Conference will be held at Sophia University, located at the center of Tokyo, Japan. We are proud to host the Conference at Sophia University, one of the most renowned academic institutions in Japan with its strong research orientations in comparative and international social sciences.

While comparative social sciences have long enjoyed a tradition of insightful work, in recent years, a set of methodological innovations, including qualitative comparative analysis and a fuzzy-set approach, has introduced new stimuli. At the same time, with an ever-diffusing phenomenon of globalization, cross-national comparative work increasingly faces the age-old problem of the unit of comparison. Future development of the comparative social sciences, which will continue to be among the most exciting and hotly debated academic sites, lies in a fruitful exchange between methodological innovations and new conceptualization of the phenomena under consideration.

In this conference, scholars, researchers and students gather from diverse comparative disciplines to discuss innovative methods and stimulating substantive work pieces. We believe such exchange should help us renew our interests in comparative research and guide us to further research activities that will in the future bring intellectual stimulation and innovation, as well as solutions to substantive problems.

Sociology, Political Science, History, and all other areas of social sciences are invited. Graduate students as well as experienced scholars and researchers are encouraged to apply. Papers discussed in the conference will include:

· Principles and Methods of Comparison

· Innovation/Application of Comparative Techniques and Procedures

· Substantive Comparative Studies across Space and/or Time

· Comparative Cases including Case Studies

We will seek an opportunity for publication, especially for the papers of promising quality presented in this conference.

More info on http://www.geocities.jp/comparativesciences/top.html

18-19 May 2006
"Methodology matters"
Workshop at the Dutch/Flemish Politicogenetmaal

CALL FOR PAPERS is now CLOSED.

Programme:
Anne Marije VAN ESSEN (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
"From 'Thick Case Description' towards 'Thick Variable Description'? The usefulness of a 'variable-oriented' approach in a small-N study about health care reform"
Frank HAGE (Universiteit Leiden)
"Fuzzy Sets and (Very) Small-N: Revisiting the conditions for communicative action"
Michael KAEDING (Universiteit Leiden)
"In good times and bad: legal transposition in the EU"
Bojana LOBE (Ljubljana University)
"Flexible mixed methods design with a feed-back loop"
Tim REESKENS (KULeuven)
"Globalization and national identity. A multilevel analysis on the 2003 ISSP data"
Irina STOICA (University of Bologna)
"Measuring risk perception through political interest"
Barbara VIS (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
"Prospect theory and welfare state research. Identifying problems and proposing solutions"
Marco GIUGNI and Sakura YAMASAKI (University of Geneva, UCLouvain)
"Comparing QCA and TSA methods"

Conference's overall programme can be downloaded HERE (pdf format).

18-19 Nov. 2005, Lausanne, Switzerland
Congrès commun Association Suisse de Science Politique (ASSP), Association Française de Science Politique (AFSP), Société Québécoise de Science Politique (SQSP), Association Belge de Science Politique - Communauté française (ABSP-CF)
Atelier: La comparaison aux échelons local, régional et supranational: quelles plus-values et limites théoriques et pratiques, quels défis méthodologiques?

Call for papers (Français/English), closed

Download full workshop description and details (PDF format).

Thématique de l’atelier:
Dans beaucoup de domaines de la science politique (politique comparée, politiques publiques, relations internationales, sociologie politique, études électorales, …) on procède depuis longtemps à des comparaisons le plus souvent inter-nationales, où l’échelon privilégié de la comparaison est donc celui des Etats, des pays, des nations.
Aujourd’hui, on assiste cependant de plus en plus au développement d’analyses comparatives à d’autres niveaux, surtout aux niveaux sub-national et supranational. L’échelon de la comparaison devient alors celui des entités sub-étatiques : provinces, régions, départements, arrondissements, districts, cantons, communes, municipalités, … mais aussi celui d’entités spatiales qui ne correspondent pas toujours à des découpages politiques ou administratifs tels les bassins économiques, régions transfrontalières, zones urbaines, etc., ou encore des ensembles beaucoup plus larges du type Union Européenne, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, etc.
Ces diverses formes de comparaison aux échelons sub-national et supranational, et leur confrontation avec les comparaisons inter-nationales plus classiques, soulèvent de nombreuses questions (liste non exhaustive) :
- dans quelle mesure ces comparaisons diffèrent-elles, en substance et/ou en termes de méthodologie, des comparaisons inter-nationales ?
- ces comparaisons apportent-elles des plus-values particulières par rapport aux comparaisons inter-nationales ?
- comment procéder à des comparaisons d’entités sub-nationales impliquant plusieurs pays (par ex. régions françaises, Länder allemands, provinces canadiennes, cantons suisses) ?
- quelles sont les limites et les difficultés spécifiques de ce type de comparaisons ?
- comment tenir compte, dans des comparaisons sub-nationales, des évolutions supranationales telle que la globalisation, européanisation, etc. ?
- dans le domaine spécifique des politiques publiques, quelle stratégie de comparaison adopter lorsqu’il s’agit de comparer plusieurs pays : sectorielle à l’échelon international ? Inter-nationale ? Sub-nationale ? … ou une combinaison de l’ensemble de ces stratégies ? Comment concevoir un protocole de recherche ? Au prix de quelle complexité méthodologique ?
- quelle que soit la stratégie et le niveau de comparaison adoptés, comment interpréter les résultats de la comparaison ? Que nous apprennent-ils sur les différentes entités (cas) analysées ? Certains types de comparaisons permettent-ils, mieux que d’autres, d’obtenir des conclusions davantage généralisables ?

Contact :
Prof. Benoît Rihoux – rihoux@spri.ucl.ac.be

22-23 Sept. 2005, University of Sussex, Brighton (UK)
ESRC & NCRM national Research Methods symposium on
"Small and Large-N Comparative Solutions"

Contact : p.a.taggart@sussex.ac.uk

Abstract : Comparative research has at its heart the ambition of generalisability and of having a breadth that is unavailable to case study approaches, but it is hampered by the practical difficulties of funding and facilitating widescale comparative projects. This tension is usually resolved either in favour of depth without breadth (through in-depth narrowly-oriented projects) or breadth without depth (through large, often quantitative, cross-national comparative projects seeking to garner basic data from multiple cases).

The work of King, Keohane and Verba (1994) has forced comparative researchers to recognise the costs of either of these strategies and therefore we need to think more creatively about meeting the challenge. This workshop is focused around the particular issues that this trade-off raises for comparative researchers.

The aim of the workshop is explore two potential (but very different) solutions to this problem. The two approaches identified and discussed in the seminars would be:
(1) The use of Boolean analysis and fuzzy set analysis. This is a technique that can be used to maintain empirical rigour through looking intensively at a small number of cases and through formal logical analysis can yield greater empirical purchase on the small data size through the use of fuzzy case logic (Ragin, 1987, 2000);
(2) The uses and challenges of multi-researcher multi-case multi-site analysis (MRMCMS). Using a large number of researchers from different intellectual contexts to come together to provide broad but in-depth comparative analysis of particular cases offers the hope of both in-depth and wide-reaching empirical research. But it also brings with it the challenges of (a) co-ordination and (b) synthesis.

8-10 Sept. 2005, Budapest, Hungary
ECPR 3rd General Conference
Section on "Methodological Innovations and Dilemmas in Political Research" (see section 20)

Deadline for paper proposals : Closed [1 March 2005]

F ull programme of the "methodology" section (10 panels 43 papers !), on the recently launched "ECPR Standing Group on Political Methodology" site : click on the "activities" icon

Panels related to QCA, MVQCA, Fuzzy Sets in particular are:

** "Innovations in (MV)QCA and Fuzzy Sets applications"
(Chair: Benoît Rihoux, Université catholique de Louvain, rihoux@spri.ucl.ac.be).
Abstract : Many methodological challenges still remain open for researchers using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), Multi-Value QCA (MVQCA) and Fuzzy Sets (FS). This panel welcomes contributions which develop some innovations in the use of these methods. Some key issues may be (selective list) : case selection; variable selection; treatment of contradictions; operationalization of variables (including dichotomization, for QCA); inclusion of the time dimension; combination with "process"-oriented methods; applications using micro-level data (e.g. interview data for individuals, etc.); etc.

** "Outliers: Concepts, Treatments, and Uses in Different Methodological Approaches
(Chair: Carsten Q. Schneider (Department of Political Science, Central European University, Budapest, schneiderc@ceu.hu)
Abstract : Recent assessments of the vices and virtues of large N quantitative vis-à-vis small N qualitative methodological approaches (e.g. King/Keohane/Verba 1994, Brady/Collier 2004) have paid relatively little attention to the concept of outliers, or, deviant cases. This is despite the fact that outliers are at the core of seemingly unrelated topics, such as selection bias, residual diagnostics and outlier correction procedures, typologies of (comparative) case studies, concept formation, and measurement. While progress has been made in developing refined techniques and/or vocabulary to come to grips with the outlier phenomenon within different methodological camp, what is missing is an inter-methodological approach to the topic of outliers.
This panel invites contributions that address questions such as: What are outliers in different methods? How should they be conceptualised and detected in methodological approaches such as QCA in which equifinality is assumed? What are their contribution to theory building, concept formation, and measurement? Discussions of specific statistical techniques, the same as overview articles are welcome. The overall aim of the panel is to assess whether there can be a unified approach to outliers across different methods or whether, instead, the concept and treatment of outliers represents one of the (few) irreducible differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches?

5-10 August 2005, Honolulu, Hawaii
Annual meeting of the Academy of Management
Symposium on "Set-theoretic Methods in Management and Strategy Research"

Program Session #: 450
Monday, Aug 8 2005 8:30AM - 10:20AM
Hawaii Convention Center, Room 313C

Organizer:
Peer C. Fiss; Queen's U., Canada;

Participants:
Ruth V Aguilera; U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign;
Thomas Greckhamer; Louisiana State U.;
Gregory Jackson; U. of London;
Bruce Kogut; INSEAD;
Rodney Lacey; U. of California, Irvine;
John Paul MacDuffie; U. of Pennsylvania;
Axel Marx; Hogeschool Antwerp;
Frits Pil; U. of Pittsburgh;
Charles Ragin; U. of Arizona;
Geert van Hootegem; Catholic U. of Leuven;

Set-theoretic Methods are winning increasing attention across the social sciences. However, while these methods show considerable promise for examining complex causal relations, so far all but a handful of studies have applied such methods to management and strategy research settings. This symposium brings together an international group of scholars currently working with set-theoretic methods in management, with the goal of exposing such methods to a broader audience. By combining conceptual papers with empirical applications of set-theoretic methods, this symposium demonstrates how such methods can help management and strategy researchers gain new and important insights into how causes combine to affect important outcomes such as organizational performance, the occurrence of workplace injuries, or differences in the concentration of ownership across countries.
Keywords: set-theoretic methods, complex causality, configurations

PAPERS:
Strategic Theorizing with Set-theoretic Methods and Large-N Datasets
Rodney Lacey; U. of California, Irvine;
Thomas Greckhamer; Louisiana State U.

Is There Convergence Towards High Performing Practices: A Logical Analysis of Organization Dynamics
Bruce Kogut; INSEAD;
John Paul MacDuffie; U. of Pennsylvania;
Frits Pil; U. of Pittsburgh;
Charles Ragin; U. of Arizona

Configurational Theories, Causal Mechanisms, and Comparative Case Analysis
Axel Marx; Hogeschool Antwerp;
Geert van Hootegem; Catholic U. of Leuven

Some Determinants of Cross-National Diversity in Corporate Ownership: A Fuzzy Sets Approach
Gregory Jackson; U. of London;
Ruth V Aguilera; U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Set-theoretic Methods: Current Issues and Prospects
Peer C. Fiss; Queen's U., Canada

25 May 2005, Fontainebleau, France
Counterfactual Cases and Comparative Analysis
Lecturer: Prof Charles RAGIN
Venue: INSEAD (Fontainebleau, France)

24 May 2005, Paris, France
L’évaluation des politiques publiques: entre enjeu politique et enjeu de méthode
Journée d'études (Sciences Po Paris, CEVIPOF, CSO, OSC, Association française de sciences politiques - Groupe «politique publique»)

Organisation: Pierre Lascoumes - Frédéric Varone

Matinée : 9.30 – 12.30h
Bilan de démarches d’évaluation des politiques publiques
Animation: Frédéric Varone, UCL

• Introduction : L'institutionnalisation de l'évaluation dans une perspective comparée européenne (Frédéric Varone, professeur à l’UCL)
• L'évaluation dans les pays anglo-saxons: une évaluation au profit des "patrons" et de la productivité dans la fonction publique, Sylvie Trosa (conseiller technique, Ministère de la santé, de la cohésion sociale et de l’emploi)
• La pratique de l’évaluation au Canada : la recherche de la qualité, (Steve Jacob, professeur adjoint, Université Laval)
Pause
• Les pratiques d’évaluation dans les organisations internationales, Florent Loiseau, (Assistant Evaluation Specialist, Unesco)
• Développement et bilan des pratiques d’évaluation au sein du Canton de Genève (Jean Daniel Delley (professeur université de Genève)
• Développement et bilan des pratiques d’évaluation au sein du Commissariat général au Plan (Claire Guignard Hamon, Inspection générale, Région Ile de France )

Après-midi : 14 – 18h
Les données, méthodes et démarches de l’évaluation :
Animation: Patrice Duran , professeur ENS-Cachan,

Construction et usages des bases de données et des indicateurs statistiques
• "Eléments de réflexion sur la construction, les usages et la portée des indicateurs statistiques : une expérience professionnelle dans une administration sociale comme la DREES", Sylvie Le Minez (Ministère des affaires sociales),
• La Statistique publique de la nationalité et des origines culturelles et géographiques à l'heure des politiques publiques de lutte contre les discriminations, Jean-Luc Richard, (Université Rennes 1 - CRAPE UMR CNRS)
• Discutants : Alain Chenu (OSC, Sciences-po,
Pause
Les approches pluri-disciplinaires de l’évaluation :
• L'Analyse Quali-Quantitative Comparée (AQQC-QCA) : promesses et plus-values pour l'évaluation, Benoît Rihoux, Professeur, UCL
• Discutants : A. Van Zanten (OSC), P. Le Galès (Cevipof), Ch. Musselin (CSO).

Inscriptions obligatoires auprès de : Pierre Lascoumes (pierre.lascoumes@sciences-po.fr ) et Frédéric Varone (varone@spri.ucl.ac.be )

29-30 April 2005, Liège, Belgium
Belgian Political Science Association (ABSP) 3rd Congress
Workshop on : APPROACHES AND METHODS IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Case-oriented, comparative and statistical methods : “one best way”…or mixing methods in political science ?
Coordination: Lieven De Winter, Patrick Dumont, Gisèle De Meur, Benoît Rihoux

The goal of the ABSP-CF working group is to encourage a methodological dialogue around the empirical study of political processes and phenomena, particularly in a comparative perspective. We strive to pursue this goal in an interdisciplinary way, by bringing together not only political scientists but also sociologists, economists, psychologists, historians, …
We also attempt to confront different methodological approaches and techniques. In the comparative analysis of political phenomena, both at the “macro” (e.g. states), “meso” (e.g. political parties) and “micro” (e.g. electoral behaviour) levels, methods are back on the agenda.

Detailed workshop programme & full-text papers
(in English and French)

25-28 September 2004, Erfurt (Germany)
ESF (European Science Foundation) Exploratory Workshop on "Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis. An interdisciplinary European endeavour for methodological advances and improved policy analysis/evaluation"

Contact persons/convenors :
Prof. Benoît Rihoux, UCL-CPC & COMPASSS (rihoux@spri.ucl.ac.be) and
Prof. Heike Grimm, University of Erfurt (heike.grimm@uni-erfurt.de ).

The official ESF page (basic information) for this workshop : http://www.esf.org/esf_article.php?language=0&activity=4&domain=5&article=408&page=1029

NB : this is a "closed" (invitation-only) workshop. Invited speakers can access more information on the password protected page: http://www.compasss.org/esf2004/esf2004.htm

Back to top

Chair: Benoît Rihoux

Papers [provisional list]:
- Badredine Arfi, "Aggregating Causality in Multiple-Level Theories: A Linguistic Fuzzy Logic Approach."
- Carsten Schneider and Claudius Wagemann, "The Fuzzy-Set/QCA Two-Step Approach to Middle-Range Theories."
- Benoit Rihoux and Charles Ragin, "On the Use, Misuse, and Good Use of QCA: State of the Art and Prospects."

Discussant: Andrew Bennett

The APSA 2004 meeting page : http://www.apsanet.org/mtgs/

Back to top

August 16-20, 2004 Amsterdam, The Netherlands

RC33 Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology
Recent Developments and Applications in Social Research Methodology

RC33 invites researchers to participate in this conference about recent developments and applications in social science research methodology. The topic may be on methodological problems in social sciences such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, economy, ecology, medicine, but may also engage other disciplines, for instance statistics, mathematics and logic.

In short:
Date: 17-20 August 2004
Location: The conference will take place in Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Language: The official conference language is English

For this conference we invite members of RC33 and other social science researchers to organize a session in their field of methodological expertise. A session should last approximately 90 minutes or 120 minutes, and have four to six papers. The session should be as international as possible and focus on recent trends and developments in quantitative and qualitative methods. Papers, which combine methods and empirical results, are very welcome.
Persons wishing to organize a session should email a proposal for an open call for papers in which is formulated:
* a title of the proposed session
* an abstract of approximately 200 words
* name(s) and affiliation(s) of possible author(s)
* key-words to the Executive Scientific Committee of the conference (email: rc33-conf@siswo.uva.nl).

For detailed information, also about registration please access the web-page http://www.siswo.uva.nl/rc33

The conference Abstract Book (PDF format) may be downloaded HERE.

Back to top

June 5th 2004: International Symposium in Honour of Paul Lazarsfeld, Brussels

Session on "Triangulation, Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods"

Within the framework of an International Symposium in Honour of Paul Lazarsfeld (4-5 June 2004 - see http://www.kuleuven.ac.be/dvz/lazsite/index.php )
Session 4: "Triangulation, Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods" (Chair : Dirk Jacobs)

Venue: Fondation Universitaire/Universitaire Stichting

Paper givers/speakers : Abbas Tashakkori, Benoît Rihoux, Hans Waege, Gerhard Kleining

Back to top

May 17th 2004: Séminaire-discussion sur l'AQQC/QCA et les Fuzzy Sets, Paris

[NB : French language]

Dans le cadre du Séminaire général du cycle Sociologie Politique/Politiques Publiques (Ecole doctorale de l'Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris), consacré cette année à "L'analyse comparée en science politique", se tiendra le lundi 17 mai 2004 (15h00-17h00) un séminaire spécifique sur les méthodes développées par Charles Ragin (particulièrement la QCA [AQQC - Analyse Quali-Quantitative Comparée] et les "Fuzzy sets" [ensembles flous]).

Pour nourrir la discussion, Benoît Rihoux (UCL-CPC & COMPASSS) fera un bref exposé, qui sera confronté au point de vue critique de Sophie Duchesne (CEVIPOF, Paris).

NB : ce séminaire est principalement ouvert aux doctorants de l'Ecole doctorale de l'Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, mais quelques places additionnelles sont disponibles (sur inscription préalable uniquement). Si vous êtes intéressé(e) [principe du "premier inscrit, premier servi"] : contacter Mlle Charlotte HALPERN, co-organisatrice du séminaire : charlotte_hal@yahoo.com

Back to top

18-21 Sept. 2003: ECPR General Conference, Marburg

Section on "Methodological Advances in Comparative Research : Concepts, Techniques, Applications"

Bernhard KITTEL, Professor, Graduate School of Social Sciences (GSSS), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Jonathon W. MOSES, Professor, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Benoît RIHOUX, Professor, Centre de Politique Comparée, Université catholique des Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

Section outline:

During the last few years, methodological issues have been back on the research agenda for comparativists in the social sciences, and notably in political science. New tools are being developed, particularly for “small N” comparative research. These tools attract an increasing number of researchers from various sub-fields of political science (policy studies, democracy studies, political parties & social movements, etc.). The aim of the section is to identify the “state-of-the-art” in this field, to discuss conceptual and methodological problems of the various approaches, and to identify avenues for research, both in terms of methodological developments and in terms of practical applications.

The need to take into account both the aim of accuracy and the aim of generalizability leads the empirical analysis in a cross-national comparative framework into an impasse. Choosing accuracy and focusing on historical detail and conjunctural causation often ends in the restriction to a single case study, thereby sacrificing the aim of generalizability. Choosing generality, however, restricts the extent to which events, complex interactions, and multiple causation can be taken into account. The section is intended to discuss possibilities to optimize both aims jointly in the same research endeavour.

Although the problems of quantitative and qualitative analysis in comparative research are well understood in the methodological discussion and a number of approaches have been proposed to improve empirical work, the prescriptions often suit only a small, well-defined number of research questions. The potential of more general applicability is often ambiguous.

The section is intended to discuss comparative methodology from both a conceptual and an applied perspective. The emphasis will be on discussing suitable solutions to actual problems in empirical work, by exploiting the strengths of existing quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques, and by developing new techniques. Participants are therefore requested to present a paper in which they discuss their substantive work in the field of comparative politics from a methodological perspective and explain the reasons for choosing particular strategies of analysis. In the proposed section we wish to go beyond the mere observation that different approaches lead to different conclusions. Instead, we want to encourage papers that attempt to push forward the combination and/or integration of elements from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives into a common framework.

The nine panels discuss currently important comparative research designs, ranging from N = 2 to N > 15-20, and should consist of 3-4 papers and a discussant critical of the approach presented in the panel.

Panels:

ECPR Website, Section 6, Details for the panels

Roundtable on "Controversies and Advances in Comparative Methodology" (information to be completed)

Chair:

Prof. Dirk BERG-SCHLOSSER, University of Marburg;

Participants:

Prof. Bruno CAUTRÈS, University of Grenoble
Prof. David COLLIER, University of California, Berkeley
Prof. Adam PRZEWORSKI, New York University
Prof. Charles RAGIN, University of Arizona

The complete information on Marburg 2003 can be reached here.

Back to top

16-17 Sept. 2003: COMPASSS launching conference

Last modified: 01-Jui-2008

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Go to top

Benoît RIHOUX, Centre de Politique Comparée