METODOLOGIA DE LA INVESTIGACION - TRABAJO DE INVESTIGACION GRUPAL
Ragin Investigacion
-
Upload
luis-jimenez -
Category
Documents
-
view
231 -
download
0
Transcript of Ragin Investigacion
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
1/57
MASTERCLASS: QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Charles C. RaginDepartment of Sociology
and
Department of Political ScienceUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ 85718
http://www.fsqca.comhttp://www.compasss.org
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
2/57
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
3/57
Why the U-Shaped Pattern?
1. The nature of the discipline, including training, publishing, invisiblecolleges, and so on. Researchers tend to use methods they learn ingraduate school, where training typically is bifurcated.
2. The once common belief that qualitative work is only for themathematically impaired (elitism of quantitative researchers).
3. The underdevelopment of methods for medium-sized Ns.
4. The difficulty of knowing a large number of cases in an in-depthmanner.
5. The difficulty of keeping track of (N)(N-1)/2 paired comparisons.
6. The difficulty of considering 2k
logically possible combinations ofconditions (relevant to counterfactual analysis), where k is the number ofcausal conditions.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
4/57
THE CASE-ORIENTED/VARIABLE-ORIENTED DIMENSION
1 2
Single Case Method of Comparative Study QN Study of
Study Agreement of Case Configurations Covariation
Case-Oriented
Small-N
Qualitative
Intensive
With-in Case Analysis
Problem of Representation
Variable-Oriented
Large-N
Quantitative
Extensive
Cross-Case Analysis
Problem of Inference
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
5/57
Some Assumptions:
1. Social scientists seek generalizations. They are interested in constructingstatements about general patterns.
2. Cross-case analysis is central to the process of constructing generalizations.It is not a necessary ingredient, but is a very common way of arriving at generalstatements. (This assumptions begs the question: What is a case?)
3. The results of cross-case analysis can be very misleading. The spurious
correlation is the best known example of the limitations of cross-case analysis.
4. The best way to address the limitations of cross-case analysis is bycomplementing it with within-case analysis. If possible, it is good to balancecross-case and within-case analysis in social research. (This is a more precise
version of the common admonition to combine qualitative and quantitativeanalysis.)
5. Causal processes are best observed at the level of the single case, through in-depth research.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
6/57
SETS ARE CENTRAL TO SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE
Many, if not most, social scientific statements, especially empirical generalizations aboutcross-case patterns, involve set-theoretic relationships:
A. Religious fundamentalists are politically conservative. (Religious fundamentalists are asubset of politically conservative individuals.)
B. Professionals have advanced degrees. (Professionals are a subset of those withadvanced degrees.)
C. Democracy requires a state with at least medium capacity. (Democratic states are asubset of states with at least medium capacity.)
D. "Elite brokerage" is central to successful democratization. (Instances of successful
democratization are a subset of instances of elite brokerage.)E. "Coercive" nation-building was not an option for "late-forming" states. (States practicingcoercive nation-building are a subset of states that formed "early.")
Usually, but not always (e.g., D), the subset is mentioned first. Sometimes, it takes a little
deciphering to figure out the set-theoretic relationship, as in E.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
7/57
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
8/57
CONVENTIONAL VIEW OF SETS
Sets are binary, nominal-scale variables, the lowest and most primitive form ofsocial measurement.
The cross-tabulation of two sets is the simplest and most primitive form of
variable-oriented analysis.
This form of analysis is of limited value because: (1) the strength of theassociation between two binary variables is powerfully influenced by how theyare created (e.g., the choice of cut-off values), and (2) with binary variables
researchers can calculate only relatively simple measures of association.These coefficients may be useful descriptively, but they tell us little about thecontours of relationships.
In short, examining relations between binary variables might be consideredadequate as a descriptive starting point, but this approach is too crude to beconsidered realsocial science.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
9/57
Correlational Connections
Correlation is central to conventional quantitative social science. The core principle is
the idea of assessing the degree to which two series of values parallel each otheracross cases.
The simplest form is the 2x2 table cross-tabulating the presence/absence of a causeagainst presence/absence of an outcome:
Cause absent Cause present
Outcome present cases in this cell (#1)contribute to error
many cases should be inthis cell (#2)
Outcome absent many cases should bein this cell (#3)
cases in this cell (#4)contribute to error
Correlation is strong (and in the expected direction) when there are as many cases aspossible in cells #2 and #3 (both count in favor of the causal argument, equally) and as
few cases as possible in cells #1 and #4 (both count against the causal argument,equally).
Correlation is completely symmetrical.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
10/57
Correlational Versus Explicit Connections
A correlational connection is a description of tendencies in the evidence:
Presidential form Parliamentary form
3rd
wave democracysurvived
8 11
3rd wave democracycollapsed
16 5
An explicit connection is a subset relation or near-subset relation:
Presidential form Parliamentary form
3rd wave democracysurvived
18 16
3
rd
wave democracycollapsed 6 0
In the second table all democracies with parliamentary systems survived, that is, they area subset of those that survived. The first table is stronger and more interesting from a
correlational viewpoint; the second is stronger and more interesting from the perspectiveof explicit connections.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
11/57
KINDS OF CONNECTIONS:
QCA VERSUS CONVENTIONAL QUANTITATIVE SOCIAL SCIENCE
Qualitative Comparative Analysis:
Set-Theoretic
Conventional Quantitative Social Science:
Correlational
Explicit
Asymmetric
Case-oriented
Substantively Verified
Tendencies
Symmetric
Model-oriented
Probabilistically Verified
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
12/57
NECESSITY AND SUFFICIENCY AS SUBSET RELATIONS
Anyone interested in demonstrating necessity and/or sufficiency must address set-theoretic relations. Necessity and sufficiency cannot be assessed using conventionalquantitative methods.
CAUSE IS NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT
Cause absent Cause present
Outcome present 1. no cases here 2. cases here
Outcome absent 3. not relevant 4. not relevant
CAUSE IS SUFFICIENT BUT NOT NECESSARY
Cause absent Cause present
Outcome present 1. not relevant 2. cases here
Outcome absent 3. not relevant 4. no cases here
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
13/57
SUFFICIENCY (WITHOUT NECESSITY)
I. Expressed as a simple truth table:
Cause | Outcome1 | 10 | 1
0 | 0
II. Expressed as an inequality:
(values of the cause) (value of the outcome)
III. Expressed as a research strategy: Find instances of the causal condition (i.e., selecton the independent variable) and assess their agreement on the outcome (i.e., make surethat the outcome does not vary substantially across instances of the cause). This strategy
is central to most forms of qualitative research.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
14/57
NECESSITY (WITHOUT SUFFICIENCY)
I. Expressed as a simple truth table:
Cause | Outcome1 | 1
1 | 00 | 0
II. Expressed as an inequality:
(values of the outcome) (value of the cause)
III. Expressed as a research strategy: Find instances of the outcome (i.e., select on thedependent variable) and assess their agreement on the causal condition (i.e., make surethat the cause does not vary substantially across instances of the outcome).
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
15/57
Adding Causal Variables in Variable-Oriented Research
If the effects of two variables are additive, then the highest average level orprobability of the outcome should occur when both causes are present, while thelowest should occur when both causes are absent. The main focus is onincreasing the strength of a correlational (tendential) connection, in a symmetric
manner.
Neither parliamentaryform nor multiparty
Only one of the twoattributes present
Both parliamentaryform and multiparty
3rd wavedemocracysurvived
5 8 8
3rd wave
democracycollapsed
10 7 3
The ideal second causal condition has a low correlation with the first, and astrong correlation with the dependent variable.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
16/57
ELABORATING EXPLICIT CONNECTIONS:
OUTCOME IS A SUBSET OF THE CAUSEWhen the goal is to establish that the outcome is a subset of a causal condition,the objective is to move cases from cell 1 to cell 2 (i.e., to drain cell 1 of casesand thereby establish an explicit connection). In effect, the causal argument
must be made more inclusive, which can be accomplished using logical or.Generally, this use of logical orentails moving up the ladder of abstraction to amore general conceptualization of the causal condition or construct.
For example, to survive as a third-wave democracy it might be necessary
to have EITHER a parliamentary form OR a multiparty system. At a moreabstract level, these two conditions could be seen as substitutable ways ofaccomplishing political inclusiveness, which in turn could be interpreted as anecessary condition for democratic survival.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
17/57
ILLUSTRATION OF USE OF LOGICAL ORTO IDENTIFYEXPLICIT CONNECTION
X Absent X Present bothabsent
X orZPresent
OutcomePresent
5 25 OutcomePresent
0 30
OutcomeAbsent
15 15
before
after
OutcomeAbsent
12 18
By identifying a substitutable causal condition (and moving to a more generalconceptualization), it is possible to identify an explicit connection--the outcome isnow a subset of the reconstituted cause. The second causal condition may bestrongly correlated with the first. The key concern is the impact on the first cell.
It is important to understand that there is a dialogue of ideas and evidence in this
procedure. The goal is not simply to find a causal condition that improves fit withthe outcome, but to use ideas to craft a more encompassing causal condition.
Logical oris central to the process of trying to empty cell 1 of cases. In someinstances, the encompassing causal condition may be interpreted as a necessary
condition.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
18/57
ELABORATING EXPLICIT CONNECTIONS:
THE CAUSE IS A SUBSET OF THE OUTCOME
When the goal is to establish that the cause is a subset of the outcome, thegoal is to move cases from cell 4 to cell 3 (i.e., to empty cell 4 of cases andthereby establish an explicit connection). In effect, the causal argument must
be made more restrictive, which is accomplished through the use of logicaland. Generally, this use of logical andalso entails moving toward a morenuanced conceptualization of the causal conditions.
For example, one recipe for survival as a 3rd
wave democracy might be to
combine a party system that permits representation of minorities (i.e., amultiparty system) with an institutional form that fosters coalition building andpolitical bargaining (i.e., the parliamentary form). The set of cases combiningthese two traits might constitute a subset of those that survive.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
19/57
The effort to empty cell 4 of cases is connected with greater theoretical nuance
and specificity regarding the nature of the causal mechanisms.
X Absent X Present X or Zabsent
X*ZPresent
OutcomePresent
16 14 OutcomePresent
18 12
OutcomeAbsent
24 6
before
afterOutcomeAbsent
30 0
Note that when seeking to empty cell 4 of cases, the goal is to refine one ofperhaps severalrecipes for the outcome.
Again the second causal condition may or may not be correlated with the first;the key concern is the impact on the fourth cell.
Note also that this research strategy is the opposite of the previous (using logicalor to derive a more encompassing superset).
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
20/57
CAUSAL COMPLEXITY
Another important benefit of set theoretic analysis is that it is much more compatible withthe analysis of causal complexity than conventional techniques. For example, aresearcher studies production sites in a strike-prone industry and considers four possiblecauses of strikes:
technology = the introduction of new technologywages = stagnant wages in times of high inflationovertime = reduction in overtime hourssourcing = outsourcing portions of production
Possible findings include:
(1) technology strikes(2) technology*wages strikes(3) technology + wages strikes
(4) technology*wages + overtime*sourcing
strikes
In (1) technology is necessary and sufficient; in (2) technology is necessary but notsufficient; in (3) technology is sufficient but not necessary; in (4) technology is neithernecessary nor sufficient. The fourth is the characteristic form of causal complexity: nosingle cause is either necessary or sufficient.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
21/57
ASSESSING CAUSAL COMPLEXITY
I. Logical equation: technology*wages + overtime*sourcing strikes
II. Formulated as a partial crosstabulation:
Causal combinationabsent
Causal combinationpresent
Strike present (1) Cell 1: 20 cases Cell 2: 23 cases
Strike absent (0) Cell 3: 18 cases Cell 4: 0 cases
III. Expressed as a Venn diagram:
StrikesReduction inovertimecombined withoutsourcing
The key to assessing the sufficiency of a combination of conditions, even if it is oneamong many combinations, is to select on instances of the combination and assess
whether these instances agree on the outcome.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
22/57
SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF QCA USING HYPOTHETICAL DATA
A. Truth Table:
C L H G U N of Cases
0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 1 0 3
0 0 1 0 0 6
0 0 1 1 1 2
0 1 0 0 1 3
0 1 0 1 1 4
0 1 1 0 0 3
0 1 1 1 1 5
1 0 0 0 0 7
1 0 0 1 0 8
1 0 1 0 0 1
1 0 1 1 1 7
1 1 0 0 1 3
1 1 0 1 1 2
1 1 1 0 0 7
1 1 1 1 1 6
C = Corporatist wage negotiations
L = At least five years of rule by Left or Center-Left parties
H = Ethnic-cultural homogeneity
G = At least ten years of sustained economic growth
U = Adoption of universal pension system
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
23/57
B. Table simplified through row-wise comparisons (positive outcomes only)
-10- (or L*h: Left rule combined with ethnic diversity)a
-1-1 (or L*G: Left rule combined with economic growth)--11 (or H*G: ethnic homogeneity combined with economic growth)
Dashes indicate that a condition has been eliminated (found to be irrelevant)
C. Finding Redundant Terms:
Terms to be Covered (Rows with Outcome = 1)
0100 1100 0101 1101 0011 1011 0111 1111
Simplified -10- x x x x
Terms (from B) -1-1 x x x x
--11 x x x x
D. Final Results (logically minimal):
U = L*h + H*G
Lower-case letters indicate condition must be absent.
Upper-case letters indicate that condition must be present.
Multiplication (*) indicates combined conditions (logical and).
Addition (+) indicates alternate combinations (logical or).
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
24/57
THE THREE PHASES OF RESEARCH USING QCA
1. Learn as much as you can about the cases. If possible, construct a narrativefor each case. Use case comparisons to refine and systematize yourunderstandings. This process culminates in the creation of a truth table, whichboth represents what youve learned and disciplines your representations of the
cases.
2. The Analytic Moment: Analyze the evidence using QCA. Actually, preliminaryresults usually send you back to phase 1.
3. Take the results back to the cases. The real test of the results is how usefulthey are. Do they help you understand the cases better? Do the different paths(causal combinations) make sense at the case level? Do the results place thecases in a new light, perhaps revealing something that would not have been
evident before the analysis (phase 2).
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
25/57
Territorially Based Linguistic Minorities in Western Europe
Austria: Slovenes West Germany: Danes
Magyars North FrisiansCroats
Ireland: GaelsBelgium: Flemings
Walloons Italy: FriuliansGermans Ladins
ValdotiansGreat Britain: Gaels (Scotland) South Tyroleans
Gaels (Isle of Man) SlovenesGaels (N. Ireland) SardsWelsh GreeksChannel Islanders Albanians
Occitans
Denmark: GermansFaroe Islanders Netherlands: West FrisiansGreenlanders
Norway: LappsFinland: Swedes (mainland)
Swedes (Aaland) Spain: CatalansLapps Basques
GaliciansFrance: Occitans
Corsicans Sweden: LappsAlsatians FinnsFlemingsBretons Switzerland: Jurassians
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
26/57
SUMMARY PRESENTATION OF PREDICTIONS OF THREE THEORIES OF
ETHNIC POLITICAL MOBILIZATION
___________________________________________________________________
Guiding Perspective
Characteristic Developmental Reactive Competitive___________________________________________________________________
Size of Subnation (S) (1)a
(1)a
1
Linguistic Base (L) 1
0
(1)a
Relative Wealth (W) (0)a
0
1
Economic Status (G) 0 ?b ?b___________________________________________________________________
aPredictions in parentheses are only weakly indicated by the theories.
bQuestion marks indicate that no clear prediction is made.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
27/57
DATA ON TERRITORIALLY BASED LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Minority S L W G E
Lapps, Finland 0 0 0 0 0
Finns, Sweden (Torne Valley) 0 0 0 0 0
Lapps, Sweden 0 0 0 0 0Lapps, Norway 0 0 0 0 0
Albanians, Italy 0 0 0 0 0
Greeks, Italy 0 0 0 0 0
North Frisians, Germany 0 0 0 1 1
Danes, Germany 0 0 0 1 1
Basques, France 0 0 0 1 1
Ladins, Italy 0 0 1 0 0
Magyars, Austria 0 1 0 0 0
Croats, Austria 0 1 0 0 0Slovenes, Austria 0 1 0 0 1
Greenlanders, Denmark 0 1 0 0 1
Aalanders, Finland 0 1 1 0 2
Slovenes, Italy 0 1 1 1 1
Valdotians, Italy 0 1 1 1 2
Sards, Italy 1 0 0 0 1
Galicians, Spain 1 0 0 0 1
West Frisians, Netherlands 1 0 0 1 1
Catalans, France 1 0 0 1 1Occitans, France 1 0 0 1 1
Welsh, Great Britain 1 0 0 1 2
Bretons, France 1 0 0 1 2
Corsicans, France 1 0 0 1 2
Friulians, Italy 1 0 1 1 1
Occitans, Italy 1 0 1 1 1
Basques, Spain 1 0 1 1 2
Catalans, Spain 1 0 1 1 2
Flemings, France 1 1 0 0 1Walloons, Belgium 1 1 0 1 2
Swedes, Finland 1 1 1 0 2
South Tyroleans, Italy 1 1 1 0 2
Alsatians, France 1 1 1 1 1
Germans, Belgium 1 1 1 1 2
Flemings, Belgium 1 1 1 1 2
S = Size of subnation
L = Linguistic ability
W = Relative wealth of subnationG = Growth vs. decline of subnational region
E = Degree of ethnic political mobilization
TRUTH TABLE REPRESENTATION OF DATA ON CAUSES OF ETHNIC POLITICAL
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
28/57
TRUTH TABLE REPRESENTATION OF DATA ON CAUSES OF ETHNIC POLITICALMOBILIZATION
S L W G E N
0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 1 0 3
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 1 1 ? 0
0 1 0 0 0 4
0 1 0 1 ? 0
0 1 1 0 1 10 1 1 1 1 2
1 0 0 0 0 2
1 0 0 1 1 6
1 0 1 0 ? 0
1 0 1 1 1 4
1 1 0 0 0 11 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 0 1 2
1 1 1 1 1 3
S = Size of subnation
L = Linguistic ability
W = Relative wealth of subnation
G = Growth vs. decline of subnational region
E = Degree of ethnic political mobilization
EQUATION: E = SG + LW
USING BOOLEAN ALGEBRA TO EVALUATE THEORIES
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
29/57
USING BOOLEAN ALGEBRA TO EVALUATE THEORIES
1. Intersection with the reactive ethnicity perspective
R = lwE = SG + LWR(E) = SlwG
Conforming cases (6): West Frisians (Netherlands), Catalans (France), Occitans (France), Bretons
(France), Corsicans (France), and Welsh (Great Britain)
2. Intersection with the ethnic competition perspective
C = SWE = SG + LW
C(E) = SW(G + L)
Conforming cases (9): Germans (Belgium), Flemings (Belgium), Swedes (Finland), Alsatians(France), Friulians (Italy), Occitans (Italy), South Tyroleans (Italy), Basques (Spain), Catalans (Spain)
3. Intersection with the developmental perspective
D = LgE = SG + LWD(E) = LWg
One case uniquely covered: Aalanders (Finland)
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
30/57
4. Cases not covered by any theoretical perspective
H = lw + SW + Lg
h = (L + W)(s + w)(l + G) (using De Morgans Law)= slW + sLG + sWG + LwG
h(E) = (slW + sLG + sWG + LwG)(SG + LW)= sLWG + SLwG
Cases covered by sLWG: Slovenes (Italy) and Valdotians (Italy)Case covered by SLwG: Walloons (Belgium)
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
31/57
FREQUENCIES AND CODES FOR VARIABLES USED IN BOOLEAN
ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGING GROUPS
Value Freq. Percent
Bureaucracy
0 29 54.71 24 45.3
Lower Strata Constituency0 28 52.81 25 47.2
Displacement as Primary Goal
0 37 69.81 16 30.2
Help From Outsiders0 35 66.01 18 34.0
Acceptance Achieved
0 28 52.81 25 47.2
New Advantages Won0 27 50.91 26 49.1
Values show coding in qualitative comparative analysis: 1 indicates presence; 0 indicates absence.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
32/57
Truth Table For Causes of New Advantages*
Number New No Newof Cases Adv. Adv.
BUR LOW DIS HLP ACP
0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2
0 0 0 0 1 2 2 00 0 0 1 0 2 2 0
0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0
0 0 1 0 0 4 0 4
0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2
0 0 1 1 1 1 0 10 1 0 0 0 2 0 2
0 1 0 0 1 0 remainder
0 1 0 1 0 0 remainder
0 1 0 1 1 2 2 0
0 1 1 0 0 5 0 5
0 1 1 0 1 0 remainder0 1 1 1 0 2 0 2
0 1 1 1 1 0 remainder
1 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
1 0 0 0 1 4 1 3
1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
1 0 0 1 1 1 1 01 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
1 0 1 0 1 0 remainder
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
33/57
1 0 1 0 1 0 remainder
1 0 1 1 0 0 remainder
1 0 1 1 1 0 remainder
1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1
1 1 0 0 1 7 6 11 1 0 1 0 0 remainder
1 1 0 1 1 5 5 0
1 1 1 0 0 0 remainder
1 1 1 0 1 0 remainder
1 1 1 1 0 0 remainder
1 1 1 1 1 0 remainder
* Column headings: BUR = bureaucratic organization; LOW = lower strata constituency; DIS =displacement as primary goal; HLP = help from outsiders; ACP = acceptance of the organization. 1indicates presence; 0 indicates absence. The output is coded as follows: U = uniform newadvantages; L = new advantages likely; P = new advantages possible. The dont care output codingis indicated with a dash.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
34/57
Sorted Truth Table Spreadsheet for Gamsons Data
BUR LOW DIS HLP ACP freq cumulfreq consistency
1 1 0 0 1 7 7 0.8571430 1 1 0 0 5 12 01 1 0 1 1 5 17 10 0 0 0 0 4 21 0.5
0 0 1 0 0 4 25 01 0 0 0 1 4 29 0.251 0 0 0 0 3 32 00 0 0 0 1 2 34 10 0 0 1 0 2 36 10 0 0 1 1 2 38 1
0 0 1 1 0 2 40 00 1 0 0 0 2 42 00 1 0 1 1 2 44 10 1 1 1 0 2 46 01 1 0 0 0 2 48 0.5
0 0 1 0 1 1 49 10 0 1 1 1 1 50 01 0 0 1 0 1 51 11 0 0 1 1 1 52 11 0 1 0 0 1 53 0
QCA RESULTS: GAMSON DATA
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
35/57
QCA RESULTS: GAMSON DATA
File: G:/578/05/Gamson/GAMSON.DAT
Model: ADV = BUR + LOW + DIS + HLP + ACP
Algorithm: Quine-McCluskey1 Matrix: 1
- Matrix: R
*** CRISP-SET SOLUTION ***
raw unique
coverage coverage consistency
---------- ---------- -----------dis*HLP+ 0.500000 0.153846 1.000000
bur*ACP+ 0.269231 0.115385 0.875000
LOW*ACP 0.500000 0.230769 0.928571
solution coverage: 0.846154
solution consistency: 0.916667
*************************************************************************
File: G:/578/05/Gamson/GAMSON.DATModel: ADV = BUR + LOW + DIS + HLP + ACP
Algorithm: Quine-McCluskey
1 Matrix: 1
*** CRISP-SET SOLUTION ***
raw uniquecoverage coverage consistency
---------- ---------- -----------
bur*low*dis*HLP+ 0.153846 0.076923 1.000000
bur*low*dis*ACP+ 0.153846 0.076923 1.000000
BUR*LOW*dis*ACP+ 0.423077 0.230769 0.916667
LOW*dis*HLP*ACP 0.269231 0.076923 1.000000
solution coverage: 0.730769
solution consistency: 0.950000
Venn Diagram Showing Results of the Reanalysis of Gamsons Data:
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
36/57
No Simplifying Assumptions
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
37/57
PART II: FUZZY SETS
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
38/57
CRISP VERSUS FUZZY SETS
Crisp set Three-valuefuzzy set
Four-valuefuzzy set
Six-valuefuzzy set
"Continuous"fuzzy set
1 = fully in
0 = fully out
1 = fully in
.5 = neitherfully in norfully out
0 = fully out
1 = fully in
.75 = more inthan out
.25 = more outthan in
0 = fully out
1 = fully in
.8 = mostly butnot fully in
.6 = more orless in
.4 = more orless out
.2 = mostly butnot fully out
0 = fully out
1 = fully in
Degree ofmembership ismore "in" than"out": .5 < xi < 1
.5 = cross-over:neither in nor out
Degree ofmembership ismore "out" than"in": 0 < xi < .5
0 = fully out
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
39/57
FUZZY MEMBERSHIP IN THE SET OF "RICH COUNTRIES"
GNP/capita:
100 ----> 1,999
2,000 ----> 7,9998,000
8,001 ----> 17,99918,000 ----> 30,000
Membership (M):
M = 0
0 < M < .5M = .5
.5 < M < 1.0M = 1.0
Verbal Labels:
clearly not-rich
more or less not-richin between
more or less richclearly rich
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
40/57
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
41/57
FUZZY MEMBERSHIP IN THE SET OF "POOR COUNTRIES"
GNP/capita (US$):
100 ----> 499500 ----> 999
1,0001,001 ----> 4,9995,000 ----> 30,000
Membership (M):
M = 1.0.5 < M < .1
M = .50 < M < .5
M = 0
Verbal Labels:
clearly poormore or less poor
in betweenmore or less not-poor
clearly not-poor
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
42/57
Calibrating Degree of Membership in the Set of Developed Countries
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
43/57
Country Nationalincome
Qualitativecoding*
Predictedlog odds
Degree ofmembership
Switzerland 40110 4 4.41 0.99United States 34400 4 3.97 0.98Netherlands 25200 4 3.45 0.97Finland 24920 4 3.43 0.97Australia 20060 2 2.95 0.95Israel 17090 2 2.49 0.92Spain 15320 2 2.14 0.89
New Zealand 13680 2 1.76 0.85Cyprus 11720 0.5 1.22 0.77Greece 11290 0.5 1.09 0.75Portugal 10940 0.5 0.98 0.73Korea, Rep 9800 0.5 0.60 0.65Argentina 7470 -0.5 -0.29 0.43Hungary 4670 -0.5 -1.59 0.17Venezuela 4100 -0.5 -1.89 0.13
Estonia 4070 -0.5 -1.90 0.13Panama 3740 -2 -2.08 0.11Mauritius 3690 -2 -2.11 0.11Brazil 3590 -2 -2.16 0.10Turkey 2980 -2 -2.51 0.08Bolivia 1000 -4 -3.71 0.02Cote dIvoire 650 -4 -3.94 0.02Senegal 450 -4 -4.07 0.02
Burundi 110 -4 -4.30 0.01
*4.0 = in the target set; 2.0 = probably in the target set; 0.5 = more inthan out of the target set; -0.5 more out than in the target set; -2.0probably out of the target set; -4.0 = out of the target set.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
44/57
Mathematical Transformations of Qualitative Codings
1. Qualitativeinterpretation
2. Numerical value(estimated log of odds)
3. Odds ofmembership
4. Degree ofmembership
In 4.0 54.60 .98
Probably in 2.0 7.39 .88More in than out 0.5 1.65 .62
More out than in -0.5 .607 .38
Probably out -2.0 .135 .12
Out -4.0 .018 .02
DECONSTRUCTING THE CONVENTIONAL SCATTERPLOT
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
45/57
100 x
x
error x
O x
U x
T x
C 67 x
O x
M x
E x
x
Y x
x
33 x
x
x
x
x error
0 x
0 100
CAUSE (X)
In conventional quantitative analysis, points in the lower-right corner and theupper-left corner of this plot are "errors," just as cases in cells 1 and 4 of the
2X2 crisp-set crosstabulation are errors.
With fuzzy sets, cases in these regions of the plot have differentinterpretations: Cases in the lower-right corner violate the argument that thecause is a subset of the outcome; cases in the upper-left corner violate theargument that the outcome is a subset of the cause.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
46/57
THE CAUSE (X) IS A SUBSET OF THE OUTCOME (Y)
100 x x x x
x x xx xx
x x x xxx x
O x x x x x
U x x
T x x x
C 67 x xx x x x
O x xxx x
M x xx
E x xxxx x
x x x
Y x
x x x
33 xxx x
x x
x x
xxxx
x x
0 x
0 100
CAUSE (X)
This plot illustrates the characteristic upper-triangular plot indicating the fuzzysubset relation: X Y (cause is a subset of the outcome). This also can be
viewed as a plot supporting the contention that X is sufficient for Y.
Cases in the upper left region are not errors as they would be in a
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
47/57
Cases in the upper-left region are not errors, as they would be in aconventional quantitative analysis. Rather, these are cases with high
membership in the outcome due to the operation of other causes. After all, theargument here is that X is a subset of Y (i.e., X is one of perhaps several waysto generate or achieve Y). Therefore, cases of Y without X (i.e., highmembership in Y coupled with low membership in X) are to be expected.
In this plot, cases in the lower-right region would be serious errors becausethese would be instances of high membership in the cause coupled with lowmembership in the outcome. Such cases would undermine the argument thatthere is an explicit connection between X and Y such that X is a subset of Y.
THE OUTCOME (Y) IS A SUBSET OF THE CAUSE (X)
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
48/57
THE OUTCOME (Y) IS A SUBSET OF THE CAUSE (X)
100 x
xx
x x
O x x x
U x x
T xx xx
C 67 x
O x x x x
E x x x
x x x
Y x x x
xx x x x
x x x x x
33 x xxxx x x
xx x x
x x x x x x
x x x x
xxx x x x xx x x
0 x xxx x x x xxx x x
0 100
CAUSE (X)
This plot illustrates the characteristic lower-triangular plot indicating the fuzzysuperset relation: X Y (outcome is a subset of the cause). This also can be
viewed as a plot supporting the contention that X is necessary for Y.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
49/57
Cases in the lower-right region are not errors, as they would be in aconventional quantitative analysis. Rather, these are cases with lowmembership in the outcome, despite having high membership in the cause.This pattern indicates that Y is a subset of X: condition X must be present for Yto occur, but X is not capable of generating Y by itself. Other conditions may
be required as well. Therefore, cases of X without Y (i.e., high membership inX coupled with low membership in Y) are to be expected.
Cases in the upper-left region would be serious errors because these would be
instances of low membership in the cause coupled with high membership in theoutcome. In this plot, such cases would undermine the argument that there isan explicit connection between X and Y such that Y is a subset of X.
REFINING THE FUZZY SUBSET RELATION:
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
50/57
REFINING THE FUZZY SUBSET RELATION:1. CAUSE IS A SUBSET OF THE OUTCOME
When elaborating the subset relation X Y with fuzzy sets, the goal is to move
cases to the left side of the main diagonal of the scatterplot (i.e., above it).
When the argument is that the cause (X) is a subset of the outcome (Y), cases
below the diagonal are "errors" because these X scores exceed thecorresponding outcome (Y) scores.
As with crisp set analysis, logical andcan be used to move scores to the
correct side of the diagonal. With logical and, conditions are compounded,which in turn involves taking the minimum membership score of thecompounded sets as the membership of a case in the combinations.Mathematically, A*B must be less than or equal to A.
Thus, the elaboration of a subset relation through additional compoundedconditions lowers the X values and thus may move cases toward the left sideof the diagonal.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
51/57
FUZZY-SET DATA ON CLASS VOTING INTHE ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
Country Weak Classvoting (W)
Affluent(A)
IncomeInequality (I)
Manufacturing(M)
StrongUnions (U)
Australia 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6
Belgium 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.8
Denmark 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8
France 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.2
Germany 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.4
Ireland 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.6
Italy 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6
Netherlands 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4
Norway 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8
Sweden 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.0
United Kingdom 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6
United States 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
52/57
ILLUSTRATION OF LOGICAL AND(COMBINED CONDITIONS)
Country Affluent
(A)
Income
Inequality (I)
Manufacturing
(M)
Strong
Unions (U)
Affluent*
Income
Inequality
Affluent*
Income
Inequality*
Weak Unions
A a I i M m U u A*I A*I*u
Australia 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4
Belgium 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2Denmark 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.2
France 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.6
Germany 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6
Ireland 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2
Italy 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4
Netherlands 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4
Norway 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.2
Sweden 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0
Ukingdom 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4
Ustates 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8
REFINING THE FUZZY SUBSET RELATION:
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
53/57
REFINING THE FUZZY SUBSET RELATION:2. OUTCOME IS A SUBSET OF THE CAUSE
When elaborating the subset relation Y X with fuzzy sets, the goal is to move
cases toward the right side of the main diagonal of the scatterplot (i.e., belowit).
When the argument is that the outcome (Y) is a subset of the cause (X), casesabove the diagonal are "errors" because these X scores are less than thecorresponding outcome (Y) scores.
As with crisp set analysis, logical orcan be used to move scores to thecorrect side of the diagonal. With logical orconditions are substitutable,which in turn involves taking the maximum membership score of thesubstitutable sets. It follows mathematically that A + B A.
Thus, the elaboration of a superset relation through additional substitutableconditions raises the X values and thus moves cases toward the right side ofthe diagonal.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
54/57
ILLUSTRATION OF LOGICAL OR(SUBSTITUTABLE CAUSES)
Country Affluent (A) Income
Inequality (I)
Manufacturing
(M)
Strong Unions
(U)
Manufacturing +
Strong Unions
A a I i M m U u M+U
Australia 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6
Belgium 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.8
Denmark 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.8
France 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.2
Germany 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4
Ireland 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.8
Italy 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6
Netherlands 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.4
Norway 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.8Sweden 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.0
UKingdom 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.8
UStates 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4
FUZZY SETS AND CONFIGURATIONS
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
55/57
Country Income Inequality Manufacturing Strong Unions
I i M m U u i*m*u i*m*U i*M*u i*M*U I*m*u I*m*U I*M*u I*M*U
Australia 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4Belgium 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Denmark 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2
France 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2
Germany 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4
Ireland 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6
Italy 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2
Netherlands 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2
Norway 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4Sweden 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4
UKingdom 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6
UStates 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2
With three fuzzy sets, the vector space has eight corners. It is possible to calculate themembership of each case in each corner.
The corners can be viewed as ideal typic cases; the membership of a case is a corner isthe degree to which it conforms to the ideal type represented by the corner.
In crisp-set analysis, by contrast, membership in a corner is either 1 or 0 and a case canhave nonzero membership in only one corner.
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
56/57
The Fuzzy-Set Procedure
f f
-
7/30/2019 Ragin Investigacion
57/57
1. The researcher calibrates fuzzy membership scores for all relevant causal conditions and theoutcome. It is OK to mix crisp and fuzzy causal conditions.
2. fsQCA calculates the membership of each case in all the logically possible combinations ofmembership. In each calculation the minimum membership score is used.
3. fsQCA calculates the degree to which membership in each combination of conditions is a
consistent subset of membership in the outcome.
4. The results of these 2k analyses are recorded in a truth table. In effect, each row of the(crisp) truth table represents a corner of the multidimensional space defined by the causalconditions.
5. fsQCA also calculates the number of cases with greater than .5 membership in eachcombination of conditions. This information is used to assess patterns of limited diversity.
6. The researcher uses the information in the truth table (from #4 and #5) to code the outcomein the truth table. This involves decisions about frequency and consistency thresholds.
7. fsQCA analyzes the truth table. Usually, two solutions are derived, one with remainders setto false (0), the other with remainders set to dont care. These two solutions establish therange of plausible solutions (the complexity/parsimony continuum).